Aletho News


A Damned Murder Inc: Kennedy’s Battle Against the Leviathan

By Cynthia Chung | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 2, 2021

As discussed in part two of this series, the war in Vietnam did not start on its official date, November 1st, 1955, but rather 1945 when American clandestine operations were launched in Vietnam to “prepare the ground”.

  1. Fletcher Prouty, who served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy and was a former Col. in the U.S. Air Force, goes over in his book “The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy,” how the CIA was used to instigate psy-ops and paramilitary (terrorist) activities in Vietnam to create the pretext required for an open declaration of war and for the entry of the U.S. military into a twenty-year-long meat grinder.

This was a strategy reserved not just for Vietnam, but had become the general U.S. foreign policy in all regions that were considered threats to the Cold War Grand Strategy, as seen under the directorship of the Dulles brothers (See Part 1 and Part 2 of this series).

Any country that was observed to hold views that were not aligned with U.S. foreign policy could not simply be invaded in most scenarios, but rather, the ground would need to be prepared to create the justification for a direct military invasion.

This is one of the roles of the CIA which abides by the motto “fake it till you make it.

Don’t have an actual ‘enemy’ to fight and justify your meddling into another country’s affairs? Not a problem. Just split your paramilitary team into “good guys” and “bad guys” and have them pretend fight. Go village to village repeating this action-drama and you will see how quickly the word will spread that there are “dangerous extremists” in the area that exist in “great numbers.”

Prouty described this paramilitary activity, which is called “Fun and Games,” and how this tactic was also used in the Philippines, resulting in the election of Ramon Magsaysay who was declared a hero against a non-existing enemy. In fact, the Filipino elite units that were trained by the CIA during this period were then brought into Vietnam to enact the very same tactic.

Prouty writes:

“I have been to such training programs at U.S. military bases where identical tactics are taught to Americans as well as foreigners. It is all the same… these are the same tactics that were exploited by CIA superagent Edward G. Lansdale [the man in charge of the CIA Saigon Military Mission] and his men in the Philippines and Indochina.

This is an example of the intelligence service’s ‘Fun and Games.’ Actually, it is as old as history; but lately it has been refined, out of necessity, into a major tool of clandestine warfare.

Lest anyone think that this is an isolated case, be assured that it was not. Such ‘mock battles’ and ‘mock attacks on native villages’ were staged countless times in Indochina for the benefit of, or the operation of, visiting dignitaries, such as John McCone when he first visited Vietnam as the Kennedy appointed director of central intelligence [after Kennedy fired Allen Dulles].”

What Prouty is stating here, is that the mock battles that occurred for these dignitaries were CIA trained agents “play-acting” as the Vietcong… to make it appear that the Vietcong were not only numerous but extremely hostile.

If even dignitaries can be fooled by such things unfolding before their own eyes, is it really a wonder that a western audience watching or reading about these affairs going on in the world through its mainstream media interpreter could possibly differentiate between “reality” vs a “staged reality”?

Not only were the lines between military and paramilitary operations becoming blurred, but as Prouty states in his book, the highest ranking officers who were operating and overseeing the Vietnam situation were all CIA operatives, not only within the U.S. military but including the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge.

Prouty writes:

U.S. Ambassador Lodge – had since 1945 been one of the most important agents of the OSS and later the CIA in the Far East. His orders came from that agency.

Prouty goes further to state in his book that Lodge was brought into the role as Ambassador on August 26th, 1963 specifically to remove Ngo Dinh Diem President of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), who was seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict at that point.

Ngo Dinh Diem was killed two months after Lodge’s arrival in Vietnam, on November 1st, 1963. Twenty one days later John F. Kennedy who was in the process of pulling out American troops from Vietnam, was assassinated. The Vietnam War continued for 12 years more, with the Americans having nothing to show for it. And in 1976, the city of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, was renamed Ho Chi Minh city.

A “Legacy of Ashes”

The militarization of government began to return power to the corporate elite, as captains of industry and finance moved into key government posts. The Eisenhower presidency would see Washington taken over by business executives, Wall Street lawyers, and investment bankers—and by a closely aligned warrior caste that had emerged into public prominence during World War II.

Eisenhower wished to establish U.S. supremacy while avoiding another large-scale shooting war as well as the imperial burdens that had bankrupted Great Britain (to which the U.S. now did its bidding under NSC-75). By leveraging the U.S. military’s near monopoly on nuclear firepower, the president hoped to make war an unthinkable proposition for all American adversaries.

The problem with Eisenhower’s strategy was that by keeping Washington in a constant state of high alert, he empowered the most militant voices in his administration. Eisenhower had made the grave error of choosing Foster Dulles as one of his close if not closest advisers, and thus whether he liked it or not, Allen Dulles – I doubt Eisenhower ever had a free moment from the poisoned honey that was constantly being dripped into his ear.

The line between CIA and military became increasingly blurred, as military officers were assigned to intelligence agency missions, and then sent back to their military posts as “ardent disciples of Allen Dulles,” in the words of Prouty, who served as a liaison officer between the Pentagon and the CIA between 1955 and 1963.

Approaching the end of his presidency, in May 1960, President Eisenhower had planned to culminate a “Crusade for Peace” with the ultimate summit conference with USSR Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Paris. It was Eisenhower’s clear attempt to finally push forward an initiative that was his own and which did not receive its “blessing” by Foster. If Eisenhower were to succeed in this, it would move to dissolve the Cold War Grand Strategy and remove the justification for a military industrial complex.

In preparation for the summit, the White House had directed all overflight activity over communist territory to cease until further notice. Yet on May 1st, 1960, a high flying U-2 spy plane flown by Francis Gary Powers left Pakistan on a straight-line overflight of the Soviet Union en route to Bodo, Norway, contrary to the Eisenhower orders.

The U-2 crash landed in Sverdlovsk, Russia. Amongst the possessions found in the plane, were of all things, identification of Powers being a CIA agent, something highly suspect for an intelligence officer to be carrying during a supposed covert mission.

The incident was enough to cancel the peace summit, and the “Crusade for Peace” was bludgeoned in its cradle.

Rumours abounded quickly thereafter that it was the Soviets who shot down the plane, however, it was Allen Dulles himself, who gave testimony before a closed-door session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U-2 spy plane had not been shot down but had descended because of “engine trouble.” (1) This important statement by Dulles was largely ignored by the press.

Later, Eisenhower confirmed in his memoirs that the spy plane had not been shot down by the Soviets and had indeed lost engine power and crash-landed in Russia.

Prouty suspected that the “engine failure” may have been induced by a pre-planned shortage of auxiliary hydrogen fuel and that Powers’ identification items were likely planted in his parachute pack. With only a certain amount of fuel and a straight line trajectory, it would have been easy to calculate exactly where Powers would be forced to make a landing.

Prouty suspected that the CIA had intentionally provoked the incident in order to ruin the peace conference and ensure the continued reign of Dulles dogmatism.

Interestingly, the man who was in charge of the Cuban exile program, Richard Bissell (deputy director of plans for the CIA), was the same man who ran the U-2 program and who, according to Prouty ostensibly sent the Powers flight over the Soviet Union on May 1st, 1960.

Richard Bissell, who was most certainly acting upon the orders of Dulles, was among the three (Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA and Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA) who were fired by Kennedy as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, or more aptly put for their act of treason.

On Jan. 5th, 1961, during a meeting of the National Security Council, a frustrated and worn down President Eisenhower, put on public record just weeks before Kennedy was to assume office, that the CIA under Dulles, had robbed him of his place in history as a peacemaker and left nothing but “a legacy of ashes for his successor.”

All Eisenhower had left of his own was his farewell address, which he made on Jan. 17th, 1961, where he famously warned the American people of what had been festering during his eight-year presidential term:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex… The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

A Phoenix Rising

Eisenhower may have left a legacy of ashes for his predecessor, but out of those ashes would emerge a force that would come to directly challenge the rule of the “power elite”. (2)

In April 1954, Kennedy stood up on the Senate floor to challenge the Eisenhower administration’s support for the doomed French imperial war in Vietnam, foreseeing that this would not be a short-lived war. (3)

In July 1957, Kennedy once more took a strong stand against French colonialism, this time France’s bloody war against Algeria’s independence movement, which again found the Eisenhower administration on the wrong side of history. Rising on the Senate floor, two days before America’s own Independence Day, Kennedy declared:

“The most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile – it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent. The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism – and today that means Soviet imperialism and, whether we like it or not, and though they are not to be equated, Western imperialism. Thus, the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free. On this test more than any other, this nation shall be critically judged by the uncommitted millions in Asia and Africa, and anxiously watched by the still hopeful lovers of freedom behind the Iron Curtain. If we fail to meet the challenge of either Soviet or Western imperialism, then no amount of foreign aid, no aggrandizement of armaments, no new pacts or doctrines or high-level conferences can prevent further setbacks to our course and to our security.” (4)

In September 1960, the annual United Nations General Assembly was being held in New York. Castro and a fifty member delegation were among the attendees and had made a splash in the headlines when he decided to stay at the Hotel Theresa in Harlem after the midtown Shelburne Hotel demanded a $20,000 security deposit. He made an even bigger splash in the headlines when he made a speech at this hotel, discussing the issue of equality in the United States while in Harlem, one of the poorest boroughs in the country.

Kennedy would visit this very same hotel a short while later, and also made a speech:

“Behind the fact of Castro coming to this hotel, [and] Khrushchev… there is another great traveler in the world, and that is the travel of a world revolution, a world in turmoil… We should be glad [that Castro and Khrushchev] came to the United States. We should not fear the twentieth century, for the worldwide revolution which we see all around us is part of the original American Revolution.” (5)

What did Kennedy mean by this? The American Revolution was fought for freedom, freedom from the rule of monarchy and imperialism in favour of national sovereignty. What Kennedy was stating, was that this was the very oppression that the rest of the world wished to shake the yoke off, and that the United States had an opportunity to be a leader in the cause for the independence of all nations.

On June 30th, 1960, marking the independence of the Republic of Congo from the colonial rule of Belgium, Patrice Lumumba, the first Congolese Prime Minister gave a speech that has become famous for its outspoken criticism of colonialism. Lumumba spoke of his people’s struggle against “the humiliating bondage that was forced upon us… [years that were] filled with tears, fire and blood,” and concluded vowing “We shall show the world what the black man can do when working in liberty, and we shall make the Congo the pride of Africa.”

Shortly after, Lumumba also made clear, “We want no part of the Cold War… We want Africa to remain African with a policy of neutralism.” (6)

As a result, Lumumba was labeled a communist for his refusal to be a Cold War satellite for the western sphere. Rather, Lumumba was part of the Pan-African movement that was led by Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah (who later Kennedy would also work with), which sought national sovereignty and an end to colonialism in Africa.

Lumumba “would remain a grave danger,” Dulles said at an NSC meeting on September 21, 1960, “as long as he was not yet disposed of.” (7) Three days later, Dulles made it clear that he wanted Lumumba permanently removed, cabling the CIA’s Leopoldville station, “We wish give [sic] every possible support in eliminating Lumumba from any possibility resuming governmental position.” (8)

Lumumba was assassinated on Jan. 17th, 1961, just three days before Kennedy’s inauguration, during the fog of the transition period between presidents, when the CIA is most free to tie its loose ends, confident that they will not be reprimanded by a new administration that wants to avoid scandal on its first days in office.

Kennedy, who clearly meant to put a stop to the Murder Inc. that Dulles had created and was running, would declare to the world in his inaugural address on Jan. 20th, 1961, “The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.”

And so Kennedy’s battle with the Leviathan had begun.

La Resistance

Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, Kennedy was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.

The Bay of Pigs set-up would occur three months later. Prouty compares the Bay of Pigs incident to that of the Crusade for Peace, both events were orchestrated by the CIA to ruin the U.S. president’s ability to form a peaceful dialogue with Khrushchev and decrease Cold War tensions. Both presidents’ took onus for the events respectively, despite the responsibility resting with the CIA. However, Eisenhower and Kennedy understood, if they did not take onus, it would be a public declaration that they did not have any control over their government agencies and military.

Further, the Bay of Pigs operation was in fact meant to fail. It was meant to stir up a public outcry for a direct military invasion of Cuba. On public record is a meeting (or more aptly described as an intervention) with CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell, Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and Navy Chief Admiral Burke basically trying to strong arm President Kennedy into approving a direct military attack on Cuba. Admiral Burke had already taken the liberty of positioning two battalions of Marines on Navy destroyers off the coast of Cuba “anticipating that U.S. forces might be ordered into Cuba to salvage a botched invasion.” (9) (This incident is what inspired the Frankenheimer movie “Seven Days in May.”)

Kennedy stood his ground.

“They were sure I’d give in to them,” Kennedy later told Special Assistant to the President Dave Powers. “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well they had me figured all wrong.” (10)

Incredibly, not only did the young president stand his ground against the Washington war hawks just three months into his presidential term, but he also launched the Cuba Study Group which found the CIA to be responsible for the fiasco, leading to the humiliating forced resignation of Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell and Charles Cabell. (For more on this refer to my report.)

Unfortunately, it would not be that easy to dethrone Dulles, who continued to act as head of the CIA, and key members of the intelligence community such as Helms and Angleton regularly bypassed McCone and briefed Dulles directly. (11) But Kennedy was also serious about seeing it all the way through, and vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

* * *

There is another rather significant incident that had occurred just days after the Bay of Pigs, and which has largely been overshadowed by the Cuban fiasco.

From April 21-26th, 1961, the Algiers putsch or Generals’ putsch, was a failed coup d’état intended to force President de Gaulle (1959-1969) not to abandon the colonial French Algeria. The organisers of the putsch were opposed to the secret negotiations that French Prime Minister Michel Debré had started with the anti-colonial National Liberation Front (FLN).

On January 26th, 1961, just three months before the attempted coup d’état, Dulles sent a report to Kennedy on the French situation that seemed to be hinting that de Gaulle would no longer be around, “A pre-revolutionary atmosphere reigns in France… The Army and the Air Force are staunchly opposed to de Gaulle…At least 80 percent of the officers are violently against him. They haven’t forgotten that in 1958, he had given his word of honor that he would never abandon Algeria. He is now reneging on his promise, and they hate him for that. de Gaulle surely won’t last if he tries to let go of Algeria. Everything will probably be over for him by the end of the year—he will be either deposed or assassinated.” (12)

The attempted coup was led by Maurice Challe, whom de Gaulle had reason to conclude was working with the support of U.S. intelligence, and Élysée officials began spreading this word to the press, which reported the CIA as a “reactionary state-within-a-state” that operated outside of Kennedy’s control. (13)

Shortly before Challe’s resignation from the French military, he had served as NATO commander in chief and had developed close relations with a number of high-ranking U.S. officers stationed in the military alliance’s Fontainebleau headquarters. (14)

In August 1962 the OAS (Secret Army Organization) made an assassination attempt against de Gaulle, believing he had betrayed France by giving up Algeria to Algerian nationalists. This would be the most notorious assassination attempt on de Gaulle (who would remarkably survive over thirty assassination attempts while President of France) when a dozen OAS snipers opened fire on the president’s car, which managed to escape the ambush despite all four tires being shot out.

After the failed coup d’état, de Gaulle launched a purge of his security forces and ousted General Paul Grossin, the chief of SDECE (the French secret service). Grossin was closely aligned with the CIA, and had told Frank Wisner over lunch that the return of de Gaulle to power was equivalent to the Communists taking over in Paris. (15)

In 1967, after a five-year enquête by the French Intelligence Bureau, it released its findings concerning the 1962 assassination attempt on de Gaulle. The report found that the 1962 assassination plot could be traced back to the NATO Brussels headquarters, and the remnants of the old Nazi intelligence apparatus. The report also found that Permindex had transferred $200,000 into an OAS bank account to finance the project.

As a result of the de Gaulle exposé, Permindex was forced to shut down its public operations in Western Europe and relocated its headquarters from Bern, Switzerland to Johannesburg, South Africa, it also had/has a base in Montreal, Canada where its founder Maj. Gen. Louis M. Bloomfield (former OSS) proudly had his name amongst its board members until the damning de Gaulle report. The relevance of this to Kennedy will be discussed shortly.

As a result of the SDECE’s ongoing investigation, de Gaulle made a vehement denunciation of the Anglo-American violation of the Atlantic Charter, followed by France’s withdrawal from the NATO military command in 1966. France would not return to NATO until April 2009 at the Strasbourg-Kehl Summit.

In addition to all of this, on Jan. 14th, 1963, de Gaulle declared at a press conference that he had vetoed British entry into the Common Market. This would be the first move towards France and West Germany’s formation of the European Monetary System, which excluded Great Britain, likely due to its imperialist tendencies and its infamous sin City of London.

Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson telegrammed West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer directly, appealing to him to try to persuade de Gaulle to back track on the veto, stating “if anyone can affect Gen. de Gaulle’s decision, you are surely that person.”

Little did Acheson know that Adenauer was just days away from singing the Franco-German Treaty of Jan 22nd, 1963 (also known as the ÉlyséeTreaty), which had enormous implications. Franco-German relations, which had long been dominated by centuries of rivalry, had now agreed that their fates were aligned. (This close relationship was continued to a climactic point in the late 1970s, with the formation of the EMS, and France and West Germany’s willingness in 1977 to work with OPEC countries trading oil for nuclear technology, which was sabotaged by the U.S.-Britain alliance. For more on this refer to my paper.)

The Élysée Treaty was a clear denunciation of the Anglo-American forceful overseeing that had overtaken Western Europe since the end of WWII.

On June 28th, 1961, Kennedy wrote NSAM #55. This document changed the responsibility of defense during the Cold War from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would have (if seen through) drastically changed the course of the war in Vietnam. It would also have effectively removed the CIA from Cold War operations and limited the CIA to its sole lawful responsibility, the coordination of intelligence.

The same year that de Gaulle and Adenauer were forming a pact to exclude Britain from the Commons Market, Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 on June 4, 1963, effectively bypassing the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on controlling U.S. currency for the first time since the private central bank was created in 1913. This executive order authorized the U.S. Treasury to issue silver backed notes and “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury”.

By Oct 11th, 1963, NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy (16), was released and outlined a policy decision “to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963” and further stated that “It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965.” The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY ’65.

With the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, likely ordained by the CIA, on Nov. 2nd, 1963 and Kennedy just a few weeks later on Nov. 22nd, 1963, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 on Nov. 26th, 1963 to begin the reversal of Kennedy’s policy under #263. And on March 17th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.

The Vietnam War would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy’s death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans, and 30 years if you count American covert action in Vietnam.

The Last Days of Kennedy

By Germany supporting de Gaulle’s exposure of the international assassination ring, his adamant opposition to western imperialism and the role of NATO, and with a young Kennedy building his own resistance against the Federal Reserve and the imperialist war of Vietnam, it was clear that the power elite were in big trouble.

There is a lot of spurious effort to try to ridicule anyone who challenges the Warren Commission’s official report as nothing but fringe conspiracy theory. And that we should not find it highly suspect that Allen Dulles, of all people, was a member of this commission. The reader should keep in mind that much of this frothing opposition stems from the very agency that perpetrated crime after crime on the American people, as well as abroad. When has the CIA ever admitted guilt, unless caught red-handed? Even after the Church committee hearings, when the CIA was found guilty of planning out foreign assassinations, they claimed that they had failed in every single plot or that someone had beaten them to the punch.

The American people need to realise that the CIA is not a respectable agency; we are not dealing with honorable men. It is a rogue force that believes that the ends justify the means, that they are the hands of the king so to speak, above government and above law. Those at the top such as Allen Dulles were just as adamant as Churchill about protecting the interests of the power elite, or as Churchill termed it, the “High Cabal.”

Interestingly, on Dec. 22nd, 1963, just one month after Kennedy’s assassination, Harry Truman published a scathing critique of the CIA in The Washington Post, even going so far as to state “There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position [as a] free and open society, and I feel that we need to correct it.” (17)

The timing of this is everything.

As Prouty has stated, anyone with a little bit of free time during an afternoon could discover for themselves that the Warren Commission was an embarrassingly incompetent hodge-podge, that conducted itself as if it were a done deal that Oswald killed Kennedy and was disinterested in hearing anything contrary to that narrative.

Not only did the record of Oswald’s interrogation at the Dallas Police Department go up in smoke, likely because he was making the inconvenient claim that he was a “patsy,” but his nitrate test which proved that he never shot a rifle the day of Nov. 22nd, 1963, was kept secret for 10 months and was only revealed in the final report, (18) which inexplicably did not change the report’s conclusion that Oswald shot Kennedy.

During Garrison’s trial on the Kennedy assassination (1967-1969) he subpoenaed the Zapruder film that had been locked up in some vault owned by Life magazine (whose founder Henry Luce was known to work closely with the CIA (19)). This was the first time in more than five years that the Zapruder film was made public. It turns out the FBI’s copy that was sent to the Warren Commission had two critical frames reversed to create a false impression that the rifle shot was from  behind.

When Garrison got a hold of the original film it was discovered that the head shot had actually come from the front. In fact, what the whole film showed was that the President had been shot from multiple angles meaning there was more than one gunman.

This was not the only piece of evidence to be tampered with, and includes Kennedy’s autopsy reports.

There is also the matter of the original autopsy papers being destroyed by the chief autopsy physician, James Humes, to which he even testified to during the Warren Commission, apparently nobody bothered to ask why…

In addition, Jim Garrison, New Orleans District Attorney at the time who was charging Clay Shaw as a member of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, besides uncovering his ties to David Ferrie who was found dead in his apartment days before he was scheduled to testify, also made a case that the New Orleans International Trade Mart (to which Clay Shaw was director), the U.S. subsidiary of Permindex, was linked to Kennedy’s murder.

Garrison did a remarkable job with the odds he was up against, and for the number of witnesses that turned up dead before the trial…

This Permindex link would not look so damning if we did not have the French intelligence SDECE report, but we do. And recall, in that report Permindex was caught transferring $200,000 directly to the bankroll of the OAS which attempted the 1962 assassination on de Gaulle.

Thus, Permindex’s implication in an international assassination ring is not up for debate. In addition, the CIA was found heavily involved in these assassination attempts against de Gaulle, thus we should not simply dismiss the possibility that Permindex was indeed a CIA front for an international hit crew.

In fact, among the strange and murderous characters who converged on Dallas in Nov. 1963 was a notorious French OAS commando named Jean Souetre, who was connected to the plots against President de Gaulle. Souetre was arrested in Dallas after the Kennedy assassination and expelled to Mexico. (20)

Col. Clay Shaw was an OSS officer during WWII, which provides a direct link to his knowing Allen Dulles, and thus we come around full circle.

After returning from Kennedy’s Nov. 24th funeral in Washington, de Gaulle and his information minister Alain Peyrefitte had a candid discussion that was recorded in Peyrefitte’s memoire “C’était de Gaulle,” the great General was quoted saying:

““What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me… His story is the same as mine. … It looks like a cowboy story, but it’s only an OAS [Secret Army Organization] story. The security forces were in cahoots with the extremists.

…Security forces are all the same when they do this kind of dirty work. As soon as they succeed in wiping out the false assassin, they declare the justice system no longer need be concerned, that no further public action was needed now that the guilty perpetrator was dead. Better to assassinate an innocent man than to let a civil war break out. Better an injustice than disorder.

America is in danger of upheavals. But you’ll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence. They will close ranks. They’ll do everything to stifle any scandal. They will throw Noah’s cloak over these shameful deeds. In order to not lose face in front of the whole world. In order to not risk unleashing riots in the United States. In order to preserve the union and to avoid a new civil war. In order to not ask themselves questions. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t allow themselves to find out.”

April 3, 2021 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Military Fraud in JFK’s Brain Examinations

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 1, 2021

Ever since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it has been a favorite pastime of the mainstream press to speculate on the disappearance of Kennedy’s brain after the autopsy that was conducted by the U.S. national-security establishment. Such speculation, however, enables the mainstream press to avoid confronting the real issue regarding JFK’s brain: the fact that the two brain examinations carried out as part of the autopsy involved lies, deception, and fraud on the part of the autopsy physicians.

Why would military physicians who conducted the autopsy engage in lies, deception, and fraud? After all, the autopsy was conducted just a few hours after the assassination. Why would it have been necessary to engage in lies, deception, and fraud so soon after the assassination?

There can be only one answer, one that the mainstream press and the Washington, D.C., establishment have been loath to acknowledge for the past 50-plus years: The lies, deception, and fraud were a part of the cover-up of a highly sophisticated violent domestic regime-change operation that the national-security establishment carried out against Kennedy.

The autopsy physicians claimed that there was only one brain examination. That was the official story they put out in 1963. It remained the official story for some 30 years because of the shroud of secrecy that the military placed over the autopsy proceedings.

People who participated in the autopsy, for example, were forced to sign secrecy oaths promising never to reveal what they had seen in what they were told was a highly classified operation. They were told that if they ever talked, they would meet with severe punitive measures.


In 1991, Oliver Stone came out with his movie JFK, which posited that that Kennedy had been killed as part of a highly sophisticated domestic regime change operation at the hands of the national-security establishment, no different from the ones that the CIA carried out both before and after the assassination, such as Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in the 1960s, Congo in 1961, and Chile in 1973.

The movie pointed out that the national-security establishment had shrouded the assassination in national-security state secrecy, notwithstanding its official story that a lone nut had assassinated the president. Public reaction to the secrecy pressured Congress to enact the JFK Records Act, which mandated an end to the official secrecy. The Assassination Records Review Board was called into existence to enforce the law.

Among other things, the ARRB discovered that there had been two separate brain exams, contrary to what had been the official story for 30 years. The first brain exam was attended by two of the three autopsy physicians, James Humes and J. Thornton Boswell, and the official photographer for the autopsy, James Stringer. It was not attended by the third autopsy physician, Pierre Finck.

Stringer testified that at that initial brain exam, the brain was sectioned, which meant that it was sliced like a loaf of bread. That is standard procedure in an autopsy in which there is a gun shot to the head, as there was in Kennedy’s assassination.

The second brain examination was attended by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Stinger did not attend that second brain examination, which Finck confirmed in his testimony. Stringer also said that the photographs of the brain that were taken at the second brain exam, which are the official photographs that were placed in the record, were not the ones he took at the first brain exam, which have disappeared.

Thus, that’s how the ARRB determined that there were two separate brain exams that had been falsely, deceptively, and fraudulently conflated into one brain exam for 30 years. Stringer’s testimony established that he was at the first one. Finck’s testimony established that he was at the second one.

At the second brain exam, the brain that was examined was a fully intact brain, albeit damaged. Why is that significant? Because it is impossible to reconstitute a sectioned (i.e., sliced up) brain into a full brain. It just cannot be done.

That leaves but one alternative: The brain at the second brain exam could not have been Kennedy’s. It had to be someone else’s brain. There is just no other possibility.

Of course, it would not have been difficult for the autopsy physicians to have secured another brain. Bethesda Naval Medical Center, where the autopsy was being carried out, was a teaching hospital for medical personnel. It is common that body organs are available at such facilities.

There is something else to consider. Two FBI agents who attended the autopsy, Francis O’Neil and James Siebert, told the ARRB that the official autopsy photographs showing the brain to be largely intact, albeit damaged, are inconsistent with the greatly damaged brain that they witnessed at the autopsy.

Military fraud and the mainstream media

The Washington Post and the Associated Press both punished stories about the ARRB’s findings regarding the two brain exams. There are here and here. You would think that there would be a nationwide spate of editorials and op-eds condemning what had happened, that there would be calls for Justice Department indictments, and that there would be calls for congressional investigations. You would think that there would be investigative reporters doing their best to get to the bottom of all this.

From what I know, there was none of that. The shroud of secrecy that the military had placed over the autopsy had succeeded. By the time that the ARRB uncovered the fraud regarding the two brain exams some 30 years later, the mainstream press was largely indifferent to what had happened. Either that, or they were simply too afraid to confront the Pentagon and the CIA over the matter. Or maybe they were concerned about being labeled “conspiracy theorists” if they pursued the matter.

What about the ARRB? Did it follow up on its discovery about the two brain exams with an aggressive investigation? Nope. And there was a simple reason for that. Someone had slipped a provision into the JFK Records Act that absolutely prohibited the ARRB from investigating anything it uncovered. It was a provision that was strictly enforced by the ARRB board of trustees on the ARRB staff. If any staff members was caught violating it, he would be immediately fired.

Does that make any sense? Here you have a law mandating the release of records that have been kept secret for 30 years. But if the ARRB finds anything incriminating in those records, it is prohibited from investigating it. What better way to advance a cover-up than that? And yet, from what I know, there were never any editorials or op-eds in the mainstream press condemning that highly unusual feature of the law.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, especially in my two books  The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2, there is no way to come up with an innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. The only possible explanation for this type of patently criminal conduct is cover-up — a cover-up of the national-security establishment’s assassination of President Kennedy, on grounds of protecting the nation’s “national security” from a president whose foreign policy was supposedly leading America to defeat at the hands of the communists.

March 1, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

JFK, Allen Dulles, and Indonesia

By Edward Curtin | February 2, 2021

A Review: JFK vs. Allen Dulles by Greg Poulgrain

Before I digress slightly, let me state from the outset that the book by Greg Poulgrain that I am about to review is extraordinary by any measure. The story he tells is one you will read nowhere else, especially in the way he links the assassination of President Kennedy to former CIA Director Allen Dulles and the engineering by the latter of one of the 20th century’s most terrible mass murders. It will make your hair stand on end and should be read by anyone who cares about historical truth.

About twelve years ago I taught a graduate school course to Massachusetts State Troopers and police officers from various cities and towns. As part of the course material, I had created a segment on the history of the United States’ foreign policy, with particular emphasis on Indonesia.

No one in this class knew anything about Indonesia, not even where it was. These were intelligent, ambitious adults, eager to learn, all with college degrees. This was in the midst of the “war on terror” – i.e. war on Muslim countries – and the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Almost all the class had voted for Obama and were aware they he had spent some part of his youth in this unknown country somewhere far away.

I mention this as a preface to this review of JFK vs. Dulles, because its subtitle is Battleground Indonesia, and my suspicion is that those students’ lack of knowledge about the intertwined history of Indonesia and the U.S. is as scanty today among the general public as it was for my students a dozen years ago.

This makes Greg Poulgrain’s remarkable book – JFK vs. Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia – even more important since it is a powerful antidote to such ignorance, and a reminder for those who have fallen, purposefully or not, into a state of historical amnesia that has erased the fact that the U.S. has committed systematic crimes that have resulted in the deaths of more than a million Indonesians and many more millions throughout the world over innumerable decades.

Such crimes against humanity have been hidden behind what the English playwright Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Prize address called “a tapestry of lies.” Of such massive crimes, he said:

But you wouldn’t know it.
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.

And when one examines the true history of such atrocities, again and again one comes up against familiar names of the guilty who have never been prosecuted.  Criminals in high places whose crimes around the world from Vietnam to Chile to Cuba to Nicaragua to Argentina to Iraq to Libya to Syria, etc. have been – and continue to be – integral to American foreign policy as it serves the interests of its wealthy owners and their media mouthpieces.

In his brilliant new book on U.S./Indonesian history, Dr. Greg Poulgrain unweaves this tapestry of lies and sheds new light on the liars’ sordid deeds. He is an Australian expert on Indonesia whose work stretches back forty years, is a professor at University of the Sunshine Coast in Brisbane and has written four highly-researched book about Indonesia.

In JFK vs. Dulles, he exposes the intrigue behind the ruthless regime-change strategy in Indonesia of the longest-serving CIA director, Allen Dulles, and how it clashed with the policy of President John F. Kennedy, leading to JFK’s assassination, Indonesian regime change, and massive slaughter.

Poulgrain begins with this question:

Would Allen Dulles have resorted to assassinating the President of the United States to ensure that his ‘Indonesian strategy’ rather than Kennedy’s was achieved?

To which he answers: Yes.

But let me not get ahead of myself, for the long, intricate tale he tells is one a reviewer can only summarize, so filled is it with voluminous details. So I will touch on a few salient points and encourage people to buy and read this important book.

Indonesia’s Strategic Importance

The strategic and economic importance of Indonesia cannot be exaggerated.  It is the world’s 4th most populous country (275+ million), is located in a vital shipping lane adjacent to the South China Sea, has the world’s largest Muslim population, has vast mineral and oil deposits, and is home in West Papua to Grasberg, the world’s largest gold mine and the second largest copper mine, primarily owned by Freeport McMoRan of Phoenix, Arizona, whose past board members have included Henry Kissinger, John Hay Whitney, and Godfrey Rockefeller.

Long a battleground in the Cold War, Indonesia remains vitally important in the New Cold War and the pivot to Asia launched by the Obama administration against China and Russia, the same antagonists Allen Dulles strove to defeat through guile and violence while he engineered coups at home and abroad. It is fundamentally important in the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific strategy for what it euphemistically calls a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” While not front-page news in the U.S., these facts make Indonesia of great importance today and add to the gravity of Poulgrain’s historical account.


Two days before President John Kennedy was publicly executed by the US national security state led by the CIA on November 22, 1963, he had accepted an invitation from Indonesian President Sukarno to visit that country the following spring. The aim of the visit was to end the conflict (Konfrontasi) between Indonesia and Malaysia and to continue Kennedy’s efforts to support post-colonial Indonesia with economic and developmental aid, not military. It was part of his larger strategy of ending conflict throughout Southeast Asia and assisting the growth of democracy in newly liberated post-colonial countries worldwide.

He had forecast his position in a dramatic speech in 1957 when, as a Massachusetts Senator, he told the Senate that he supported the Algerian liberation movement and opposed colonial imperialism worldwide.  The speech caused an international uproar and Kennedy was harshly attacked by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even liberals such as Adlai Stevenson. But he was praised throughout the third world.

Poulgrain writes:

Kennedy was aiming for a seismic shift of Cold War alignment in Southeast Asia by bringing Indonesia ‘on side.’ As Bradley Simpson stated (in 2008), ‘One would never know from reading the voluminous recent literature on the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and Southeast Asia, for example, that until the mid-1960s most officials [in the US] still considered Indonesia of far greater importance than Vietnam or Laos.

Of course JFK never went to Indonesia in 1964, and his peaceful strategy to bring Indonesia to America’s side and to ease tensions in the Cold War was never realized, thanks to Allen Dulles. And Kennedy’s proposed withdrawal from Vietnam, which was premised on success in Indonesia, was quickly reversed by Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s murder on November 22, 1963. Soon both countries would experience mass slaughter engineered by Kennedy’s opponents in the CIA and Pentagon. Millions would die.

While the Indonesian mass slaughter of mainly poor rice farmers (members of the Communist Party – PKI) instigated by Allen Dulles began in October 1965, ten years later, starting in December 1975, the American installed Indonesian dictator Suharto, after meeting with Henry Kissinger and President Ford and receiving their approval, would slaughter hundreds of thousands East-Timorese with American-supplied weapons in a repeat of the slaughter of more than a million Indonesians in 1965 when the CIA engineered the coup d’état that toppled President Sukarno. The American installed dictator Suharto would rule for thirty years of terror. The CIA considers this operation one of its finest accomplishments. It became known as “the Jakarta Method,” a model for future violent coups throughout Latin America and the world.

And in-between these U.S. engineered mass atrocities, came the bloody coup in Chile on September 11, 1973 and the ongoing colossal U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Dulles’s Secret

What JFK didn’t know was that his plans for a peaceful resolution of the Indonesia situation and an easing of the Cold War were threatening a covert long-standing conspiracy engineered by Allen Dulles to effect regime change in Indonesia through bloody means and to exacerbate the Cold War by concealing from Kennedy the truth that there was a Sino-Soviet split. Another primary goal behind this plan was to gain unimpeded access to the vast load of natural resources that Dulles had kept secret from Kennedy, who thought Indonesia was lacking in natural resources. But Dulles knew that if Kennedy, who was very popular in Indonesia, visited Sukarno, it would deal a death blow to his plan to oust Sukarno, install a CIA replacement (Suharto), exterminate alleged communists, and secure the archipelago for Rockefeller controlled oil and mining interests, for whom he had fronted  since the 1920s.

Reading Poulgrain’s masterful analysis, one can clearly see how much of modern history is a struggle for control of the underworld where lies the fuel that runs the megamachine – oil, minerals, gold, copper, etc.  Manifest ideological conflicts, while garnering headlines, often bury the secret of this subterranean devil’s game.

The Discovery of Gold

His murder mystery/detective story begins with a discovery that is then kept secret for many decades. He writes:

In the alpine region of Netherlands New Guinea (so named under Dutch colonial rule – today, West Papua) in 1936, three Dutchmen discovered a mountainous outcrop of ore with high copper content and very high concentrations of gold. When later analyzed in the Netherlands, the gold (in gram/ton) proved to be twice that of Witwatersrand in South Africa, then the world’s richest gold mine, but this information was not made public.

The geologist among the trio, Jean Jacques Dozy, worked for the Netherlands New Guinea Petroleum Company (NNGPM), ostensibly a Dutch-controlled company based in The Hague, but whose controlling interest actually lay in the hands of the Rockefeller family, as did the mining company, Freeport Sulphur (now Freeport McMoRan, one of whose Directors from 1988-95 was Henry Kissinger, Dulles’ and the Rockefeller’s close associate) that began mining operations there in 1966.

It was Allen Dulles, Paris-based lawyer in the employ of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, who in 1935 arranged the controlling interest in NNGPN for the Rockefellers. And it was Dulles, among a select few others, who, because of various intervening events, including WW II, that made its exploitation impossible, kept the secret of the gold mine for almost three decades, even from President Kennedy, who had worked to return the island to Indonesian control. JFK “remained uninformed of the El Dorado, and once the remaining political hurdles were overcome, Freeport would have unimpeded access.” Those “political hurdles” – i.e. regime change – would take a while to effect.

The Need to Assassinate President Kennedy

But first JFK would have to be eliminated, for he had brokered Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua/West Irian for Sukarno from the Dutch who had ties to Freeport Sulphur. Freeport was aghast at the potential loss of “El Dorado,” especially since they had recently had their world’s most advanced nickel refinery expropriated by Fidel Castro, who had named Che Guevara its new manager. Freeport’s losses in Cuba made access to Indonesia even more important. Cuba and Indonesia thus were joined in the deadly game of chess between Dulles and Kennedy, and someone would have to lose.

While much has been written about Cuba, Kennedy, and Dulles, the Indonesian side of the story has been slighted. Poulgrain remedies this with an exhaustive and deeply researched exploration of these matters. He details the deviousness of the covert operations Dulles ran in Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s. He makes it clear that Kennedy was shocked by Dulles’s actions, yet never fully grasped the treacherous genius of it all, for Dulles was always “working two or three stages ahead of the present.” Having armed and promoted a rebellion against Sukarno’s central government in 1958, Dulles made sure it would fail (shades of the Bay of Pigs to come) since a perceived failure served his long-term strategy. To this very day, this faux 1958 Rebellion is depicted as a CIA failure by the media. Yet from Dulles standpoint, it was a successful failure that served his long-term goals.

“This holds true,” Poulgrain has previously written, “only if the stated goal of the CIA was the same as the actual goal. Even more than five decades later, media analysis of the goal of The Outer Island rebels is still portrayed as a secession, as covert US support for ‘rebels in the Outer Islands that wished to secede from the central government in Jakarta’. The actual goal of Allen Dulles had more to do with achieving a centralized army command in such a way as to appear that the CIA backing for the rebels failed.”

Dulles’ the Devil

Dulles betrayed the rebels he armed and encouraged, just as he betrayed friend and foe alike during his long career. The rebellion that he instigated and planned to fail was the first stage of a larger intelligence strategy that would come to fruition in 1965-6 with the ouster of Sukarno (after multiple unsuccessful assassination attempts) and the institution of a reign of terror that followed. It was also when – 1966 – Freeport McMoRan began their massive mining in West Papua at Grasberg at an elevation of 14,000 feet in the Alpine region. Dulles was nothing if not patient; he had been at this game since WW I.  Even after Kennedy fired him following the Bay of Pigs, his plans were executed, just as those who got in his way were. Poulgrain makes a powerful case that Dulles was the mastermind of the murders of JFK, U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold (working with Kennedy for a peaceful solution in Indonesia and other places), and Congolese President Patrice Lumumba, the first president of a newly liberated Congo.

His focus is on why they needed to be assassinated (similar in this regard to James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable), though with the exception of Kennedy (since the how is well-known and obvious), he also presents compelling evidence as to the how. Hammarskjold, in many ways Kennedy’s spiritual brother, was a particularly powerful obstacle to Dulles’s plans for Indonesia and colonial countries throughout the Third World. Like JFK, he was committed to independence for indigenous and colonial peoples everywhere and was trying to implement his Swedish-style ‘third way,’ proposing a form of ‘muscular pacifism’.

Poulgrain argues correctly that if the UN Secretary General succeeded in bringing even half these colonial countries to independence, he would have transformed the UN into a significant world power and created a body of nations so large as to be a counter-weight to those embroiled in the Cold War.

He draws on documents from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Chairman Archbishop Desmond Tutu to show the connection between South Africa’s “Operation Celeste” and Dulles’s involvement in Hammarskjold’s murder in September 1961. While it was reported at the time as an accidental plane crash, he quotes former President Harry Truman saying, “Dag Hammarskjold was on the point of getting something done when they killed him. Notice that I said, ‘When they killed him’.” Hammarskjold, like Kennedy, was intent on returning colonized countries to their indigenous inhabitants and making sure Papua was for Papuans, not Freeport McMoRan and imperial forces.

And Dulles sold his overt Indonesian strategy as being necessary to thwart a communist takeover in Indonesia. Cold War rhetoric, like “the war on terrorism” today, served as his cover. In this he had the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his side; they considered Kennedy soft on communism, in Indonesia and Cuba and everywhere else. Dulles’s covert agenda was to serve the interests of his power elite patrons.

While contextually different from David Talbot’s portrayal of Dulles in The Devil’s Chessboard, Poulgrain’s portrait of Dulles within the frame of Indonesian history is equally condemnatory and nightmarish. Both describe an evil genius ready to do anything to advance his agenda.

Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt

Poulgrain adds significantly to our understanding of JFK’s assassination and its aftermath by presenting new information about George de Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler in Dallas. Dulles had a long association with the de Mohrenschildt family, going back to 1920-21 when in Constantinople he negotiated with Baron Sergius Alexander von Mohrenschildt on behalf of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. The Baron’s brother and business partner was George’s father. Dulles’s law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, was Standard Oil’s primary law firm. These negotiations on behalf of elite capitalist interests, in the shadow of the Russian Revolution, became the template for Dulles’s career: economic exploitation was inseparable from military concerns, the former concealed behind the anti-communist rhetoric of the latter. An anti-red thread ran through Dulles’s career, except when the red was the blood of all those whom he considered expendable. And the numbers are legion. Their blood didn’t matter.

Standard Oil is the link that joins Dulles [who controlled the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of JFK] and de Mohrenschildt. This connection was kept from the Warren Commission despite Dulles’ prominent role and the importance of the testimony of de Mohrenschildt. Poulgrain argues convincingly that de Mohrenschildt worked in “oil intelligence” before his CIA involvement, and that oil intelligence was not only Dulles’s work when he first met George’s father, Sergius, in Baku, but that that “oil intelligence” is a redundancy. The CIA, after all, is a creation of Wall Street and their interests have always been joined. The Agency was not formed to provide intelligence to US Presidents; that was a convenient myth used to cover its real purpose which was to serve the interests of investment bankers and the power elite, or those I call The Umbrella People who control the U.S.

While working in 1941 for Humble Oil (Prescott Bush was a major shareholder, Dulles was his lawyer, and Standard Oil had secretly bought Humble Oil sixteen years before), de Mohrenschildt was caught up in a scandal that involved Vichy (pro-Nazi) French intelligence in selling oil to Germany. This was similar to the Dulles’s brothers and Standard Oil’s notorious business dealings with Germany.

It was an intricate web of the high cabal with Allen Dulles at the center.

In the midst of the scandal, de Mohrenschildt, suspected of being a Vichy French intelligence agent, “disappeared” for a while. He later told the Warren Commission that he decided to take up oil drilling, without mentioning the name of Humble Oil that employed him again, this time as a roustabout.

“Just when George needed to ‘disappear’, Humble Oil was providing an oil exploration team to be subcontracted to NNGPM – the company Allen Dulles had set up five years earlier to work in Netherlands New Guinea.” Poulgrain makes a powerful circumstantial evidence case (certain documents are still unavailable) that de Mohrenschildt, in order to avoid appearing in court, went incommunicado in Netherlands New Guinea in mid-1941 where he made a record oil discovery and received a $10,000 bonus from Humble Oil.

“Avoiding adverse publicity about his role in selling oil to Vichy France was the main priority; for George, a brief drilling adventure in remote Netherlands New Guinea would have been a timely and strategic exit.” And who best to help him in this escape than Allen Dulles – indirectly, of course; for Dulles’s modus operandi was to maintain his “distance” from his contacts, often over many decades.

In other words, Dulles and de Mohrenschildt were intimately involved for a long time prior to JFK’s assassination. Poulgrain rightly claims that “the entire focus of the Kennedy investigation would have shifted had the [Warren] Commission become aware of the 40-year link between Allen Dulles and de Mohrenschildt.” Their relationship involved oil, spying, Indonesia, Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers, Cuba, Haiti, etc. It was an international web of intrigue that involved a cast of characters stranger than fiction, a high cabal of the usual and unusual operatives.

Two unusual ones are worth mentioning: Michael Fomenko and Michael Rockefeller. The eccentric Fomenko – aka “Tarzan” – is the Russian-Australian nephew of de Mohrenschildt’s wife, Jean Fomenko. His arrest and deportation from Netherlands New Guinea in 1959, where he had travelled from Australia in a canoe, and his subsequent life, are fascinating and sad. It’s the stuff of a bizarre film. It seems he was one of those victims who had to be silenced because he knew a secret about George’s 1941 oil discovery that was not his to share. “In April 1964, at the same time George de Mohrenschildt was facing the Warren Commission – a time when any publicity regarding Sele 40 [George’s record oil discovery] could have changed history – it was decided that electro-convulsive therapy would be used on Michael Fomenko.” He was then imprisoned at the Ipswich Special Mental Hospital.

Equally interesting is the media myth surrounding the disappearance of Michael Rockefeller, Nelson’s son and heir to the Standard Oil fortune, who was allegedly eaten by cannibals in New Guinea in 1961. His tale became front-page news, “a media event closed off to any other explanation and the political implications of his disappearance became an ongoing tragedy for the Papuan people.” To this very day, the West Papuan people, whose land was described by Standard Oil official Richard Archbold in 1938 as “Shangri-la,” are fighting for their independence.

The Sino-Soviet Split

While the gold in West Papua was very important to Allen Dulles, his larger goal was to keep the Cold War blazing by concealing the dispute between China and the Soviet Union from Kennedy while instigating the mass slaughter of “communists” that would lead to regime change in Indonesia, with Major-General Suharto, his ally, replacing President Sukarno. In this he was successful. Poulgrain says:

Not only did Dulles fail to brief Kennedy on the Sino-Soviet dispute early in the presidency, but he also remained silent about the rivalry between Moscow and Beijing to wield influence over the PKI or win its support. In geographical terms, Beijing regarded Indonesia as its own backyard, and winning the support of the PKI would give Beijing an advantage in the Sino-Soviet dispute. The numerical growth of the PKI was seen by Moscow and Beijing for its obvious political potential. Dulles was also focused on the PKI, but his peculiar skill in political intelligence turned what seemed inevitable on its head. The size of the party [the Indonesian Communist Party was the largest outside the Sino-Soviet bloc] became a factor he used to his advantage when formulating his wedge strategy – the greater the rivalry between Moscow and Beijing over the PKI, the more intense would be the recrimination once the PKI was eliminated.

The slaughter of more than a million poor farmers was a trifle to Dulles.

The September 30, 1965 Movement

In the early hours of October 1, 1965, a fake coup d’état was staged by the CIA’s man, Major-General Suharto. It was announced that seven generals had been arrested and would be taken to President Sukarno “to explain the rumor that they were planning a military coup on October 5.” Suharto declared himself the head of the army. Someone was said to have killed the generals. In the afternoon, a radio announcement was made calling for the Sukarno government to be dismissed. This became Suharto’s basis for blaming it on the communists and the so-called September 30 Movement, and he gave the order to kill the PKI leaders. This started the massive bloodshed that would follow.

With one hand, Suharto crushed the Movement, accusing the PKI of being the ultimate instigator of an attempt to oust Sukarno, and with the other hand he feigned to protect the “father of the Indonesian revolution,” while actually stripping Sukarno of every vestige of political support.

When the generals’ bodies were recovered a few days after Oct 1, Suharto falsely claimed the PKI women had tortured and sexually mutilated them as part of some primitive sexual orgy. This heinous perversion of power was the start of the Suharto era. In total control of the media, he manipulated popular wrath to call for revenge.

If this confuses you, it should, because the twisted nature of this fabricated coup was actually part of a real coup in slow motion aimed at ousting Sukarno and replacing him with the CIA’s man Suharto. This occurred in early 1967 after the mass slaughter of communists. It was a regime change cheered on by the American mass media as a triumph over communist aggression.

New Evidence of U.S. Direct Involvement in the Slaughter

Poulgrain has spent forty years interviewing participants and researching this horrendous history. His detailed research is quite amazing. And it does take concentration to follow it all, as with the machinations of Dulles, Suharto, et al.

Some things, however, are straightforward. For example, he documents how, during the height of the slaughter, two Americans – one man and one woman – were in Klaten (PKI headquarters in central Java) supervising the Indonesian army as they killed the PKI. These two would travel back and forth by helicopter from a ship of the U.S. 7th Fleet that was off the coast of Java. The plan was that the more communists killed, the greater would be the dispute between Moscow and Beijing, since they would accuse each other for the tragedy, which is exactly what they did. This was the wedge that was mentioned in the Rockefeller Brothers Panel Report from the late 1950s in which Dulles and Henry Kissinger both participated.

The hatred drummed up against these poor members of the Communist Party was extraordinary in its depravity. In addition to Suharto’s lies about communist women mutilating the generals’ bodies, a massive campaign of hatred was directed against these landless peasants who made up the bulk of the PKI. False Cold War radio broadcasts from Singapore stirred up hostility toward them, declaring them atheists, etc.  Wealthy Muslim landowners – the 1 per cent – made outrageous charges to assist the army’s slaughter. Poulgrain tells us:

Muhammadiyah preachers were broadcasting from mosques that all who joined the communist party must be killed, saying they are the ‘lowest order of infidel, the shedding of whose blood is comparable to killing a chicken.’

For those Americans especially, who think this history of long ago and far away does not touch them, its compelling analysis of how and why Allen Dulles and his military allies would want JFK dead since he was a threat to national security as they defined it in their paranoid anti-communist ideology might be an added impetus to read this very important book. Indonesia may be far away geographically, but it’s a small world. Dulles and Kennedy had irreconcilable differences, and when Dulles was once asked in a radio interview what he would do to someone who threatened national security, he matter-of-factually said, “I’d kill him.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed.

I would be remiss if I didn’t say that the introduction to JFK vs. Dulles by Oliver Stone and the afterward by James DiEugenio are outstanding. They add excellent context and clarity to a really great and important book.

February 27, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 3 Comments

Woolsey’s Silly Conspiracy Theory

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | February 25, 2021

 R. James Woolsey, who served as CIA director from 1993 to 1995 under President Clinton, has just come out with a new book about the Kennedy assassination that is straight out of a 1964 time warp. Co-authored by the late Ion Mihai Pacepa, a two-star general of the secret police in communist Romani who later defected to the United States, the book, entitled Operation Dragon, posits an old 1964 conspiracy theory that some people in the U.S. national-security establishment were peddling back in 1964 — that the communists conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald to kill JFK.

In the process, Woolsey does what the mainstream press has done for 60 years — he simply ignores the mountain of circumstantial evidence that assassination researchers have uncovered since the 1960s that inexorably points the finger of guilt at the U.S. national-security establishment, which was conducting all sorts of Cold War national-security regime-change operations in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and beyond.

That was perhaps the biggest benefit of the shroud of national-security state secrecy that was imposed on the Kennedy assassination. The malefactors knew that if they could just keep a secrecy cap on the assassination and its aftermath, there was a good chance that their assassination and cover-up could succeed.

There is no better evidence of this phenomenon than the autopsy that the U.S. national-security establishment performed on the body of President Kennedy just a few hours after his death.

What does Woolsey say about the autopsy? He says nothing. He doesn’t mention it at all, just as the mainstream press never mentions it. Total, absolute silence. Instead, Woolsey keeps his mind firmly embedded in an old 1964 assassination conspiracy theory — that those evil communists conspired to kill President Kennedy because they hated him so much.

Why is the JFK autopsy so important? Because it provides a key to understanding the who of the assassination. The U.S. national-security establishment knew that. That’s why military officials encased the autopsy in strict national-security state secrecy from the very beginning.

As Woolsey knows, there is one irrefutable fact in the Kennedy assassination: the autopsy on Kennedy’s body was carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment. That is, not by the Soviets. Not by Nikita Khrushchev. Not by the communists. Not by Fidel Castro. Not by the Mafia. Not by the Mossad. It was conducted solely by the U.S. national-security establishment.

A shroud of national-security state secrecy was immediately over the autopsy, which was conducted just a few hours after the assassination. Participants were told never to reveal what they had seen. They were forced to sign secret written secrecy oaths. They were threatened with severe action if they ever talked.

The secrecy worked for years and even decades. But assassination researchers, seeing mysteries and anomalies arise in the circumstances surrounding the autopsy, kept pressing, Finally, in the 1990s — thirty years after the assassination — the Assassination Records Review Board partially broken through the dam of autopsy secrecy.

The result? As I detail in my two books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and as Douglas Horne, who served on the ARRB, details in his five-volume work Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly establishes a fraudulent autopsy conducted by the U.S. national-security establishment.

Why would the national-security establishment conduct a fraudulent autopsy? There can be only one reason — cover-up. What other purpose would a fraudulent autopsy serve?

The natural question arises: Who would the Pentagon and the CIA be covering up for? Certainly not for the communists or the Soviets. As Woolsey documents so well, the Pentagon and the CIA hated the communists and the Soviets. As Woolsey himself would readily acknowledge, there is no reasonable possibility at all that the Pentagon and the CIA would have wanted to cover up an assassination of a U.S. president by the Reds, who, the Pentagon and the CIA steadfastly maintained throughout the Cold War, were coming to get us as part of a supposed international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Moscow.

Keep in mind, after all, that the plan to conduct a fraudulent autopsy would have had to originate prior to the assassination itself, especially since it was launched immediately on the death of President Kennedy. That was when a team of Secret Service agents, brandishing guns and implicitly threatening the use of deadly force on Parkland Hospital medical personnel, forced their way out of Parkland with Kennedy’s body. Saying that they were operating on orders, they refused to permit the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dr. Earl Rose, to conduct the autopsy, as Texas law required. They took the body to Dallas Love Field, where new President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it. Johnson then took the body and placed it in the hands of the military in Maryland.

How could they have launched their autopsy scheme without knowing who had conducted the assassination? That’s how we know they did it. The fraudulent autopsy had to have been built into the assassination plan itself.

Of course the national-security establishment’s fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body is the last thing that James Woolsey is  going to discuss in his new book on the Kennedy assassination. He’s still stuck back in 1964, when some in the U.S. national-security establishment were peddling the false conspiracy theory blaming the Kennedy assassination on the Reds.

February 25, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Understanding the Kennedy Assassination

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | February 23, 2021

There are simple but profound ways to view the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and to understand the who and why of the assassination.

1. The U.S. national-security establishment conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. This is one of the irrefutable facts of the assassination. It is one of the facts with which everyone agrees.

That is, the Mafia did not conduct the autopsy. Neither did Fidel Castro, the Soviets, or other communists. The same for  the Israeli Mossad. Only the U.S. national-security establishment conducted the autopsy.

2. Texas law required the autopsy to be conducted by the Dallas County medical examiner, a civilian. Operating on orders, however, a team of Secret Service agents, brandishing guns and implicitly threatening to use deadly force against the Dallas County medical examiner, forced their way out of Parkland Hospital with Kennedy’s body. The team took the body to Dallas Love Field where new President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it.

3. Johnson delivered Kennedy’s body into the hands of the U.S. military at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland rather than a civilian medical examiner. There was no ostensible reason for doing this, given that the United States isn’t supposed to be a military nation and given that Kennedy wasn’t killed on the battlefield by the enemy in war.

4. The participants to the military autopsy were told that the autopsy was a highly classified operation. They were sworn to secrecy and threatened with severe punitive action, including court martial and criminal prosecution, if they ever revealed what they had seen. They were required to sign written secrecy oaths.

5. For 30 years, the military’s shroud of secrecy over the autopsy succeeded in preventing people from learning about important aspects of the autopsy. Finally, in the 1990s the dam of secrecy was partially broken through the efforts of the Assassination Records Review Board.

6. The evidence uncovered by the ARRB established the fraudulent nature of the autopsy, as detailed in my two books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and in much greater detail in Douglas Horne’s five-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review BoardHorne served on ARRB staff.

For example, the ARRB took the sworn testimony of U.S. Navy petty officer Saundra Spencer, who worked in the military’s photography lab in Washington, D.C. On the weekend of the assassination, she was asked to develop the photographs of JFK’s autopsy. She was led to to believe that her development of the photographs was classified. She kept her secret for some 30 years.

The ARRB asked Spencer to examine the official photographs in the JFK records. She closely examined them. She then testified that those were not the autopsy photographs she developed. The ones she developed showed a massive exit-sized wound in the back of President Kennedy’s head, which matched what Dallas treating physicians and other eyewitnesses had stated immediately after the assassination. The official photographs in the record show the back of Kennedy’s head to be intact. That means there were two different, contradictory separate sets of photographs in the Kennedy autopsy, which implies fraud.

Another example: the ARRB discovered that there were two separate brain examinations that the military autopsy physicians were falsely conflating as one brain examination. At the first brain exam, the brain was sectioned or sliced like a loaf of bread, which is standard autopsy procedure in gun shots to the head. At the second brain exam, there is an intact, albeit damaged, brain.

There is no way that a sectioned brain can reconstitute itself into a fully intact brain. That means that the second brain exam had to have entailed a brain that was different from the brain at the first brain exam, which, again, implies fraud.

Another example: A Marine sergeant named Roger Boyajian told the ARRB that his team secretly carried the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue about an hour-and-a-half prior to the official introduction of the body Into the morgue — once again, evidence of fraud.

7. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. None. And no member of the mainstream press or the U.S. national-security establishment or anyone else has even offered an innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy.

8. A fraudulent autopsy had to have been part of the cover-up of the crime itself. It is obviously something that had to have been planned in advance, for it is impossible to imagine that the U.S. national security establishment, immediately after the president was declared dead, would  have suddenly, without any justification, conceived the notion of a fraudulent autopsy.

9. The national-security establishment would never have conducted a fraudulent autopsy in order to cover up an assassination of a U.S. president by the communists, the Mafia, the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, or the Mossad. There is only one logical possibility: the national-security establishment’s fraudulent autopsy, shrouded in official secrecy, was designed to cover up its assassination of the president.

10. From the start of his administration, President Kennedy was at war with the national-security establishment over the future direction of America. The war began with differences over U.S., foreign policy toward Third World nations, proceeded into the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Berlin crisis, the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Cold War.

In his June 10, 1963, Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down and declared an end to the Cold War and, implicitly, an end to the ever-growing budgets, power, and influence of the national-security establishment. Owing to what was considered JFK’s extremely dangerous conduct that supposedly threatened a U.S. defeat in the Cold War and a takeover of the United States by the communists, Kennedy was deemed to be a grave threat to national security.

The war ended with Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, in a regime-change operation that was no different in principle from those that preceded it and followed it (e.g., Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Cuba 1960s, Congo 1961, and Chile 1973).

Join us for our conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination,” beginning on Wednesday evening, March 3, and continuing regularly thereafter through April. Admission: Free.

February 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

What Happened to JFK and a Foreign Policy of Peace?

By Rick Sterling | Global Research | January 27, 2021

Sixty years ago, John F Kennedy (JFK) was inaugurated as president of the USA. In less than three years, before he was assassinated in November 1963, he initiated major changes in foreign policy.

These foreign policy changes are documented in books such as “JFK and the Unspeakable” (2008) and “Betting on the Africans” (2012). One of the foremost scholars on JFK, James Di Eugenio, has an excellent new article of the Kennedy foreign policy at Covert Action: “Deconstructing JFK: A Coup d’Etat over Foreign Policy?”. Despite this literature, many people in the West do not realize the extent to which JFK was an exception. This article will briefly review some of the actions he took while alive, and what happened after he was gone.

While JFK was a staunch advocate for capitalism and the “free world”, in competition with the Soviet Union and communism, he promoted acceptance of non-aligned countries and supported nationalist movements in Africa, the Middle East and Third World generally.  In the summer before he was killed, he reached out to the Soviet Union and proposed sweeping changes to promote peace and prevent war.

The previous Eisenhower administration was hostile to post WW2 nationalist movements in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In 1953 the CIA supervised the overthrow of Iran’s elected government. They supported the Saudi monarch and undermined the popular Egyptian Nasser. In contrast, Kennedy was sympathetic to the “winds of change” in Africa and beyond. He criticized France’s repression of the Algerian independence movement and was sympathetic to Patrice Lumumba leading the Congo’s independence from Belgium. Kennedy worked with UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold to preserve Congo’s independence and try to restore Lumumba to power. The CIA managed to have Patrice Lumumba executed three days before Kennedy’s inauguration.

Under Kennedy, the United States started voting against the European colonial powers in Africa. Kennedy provided tangible aid to Nasser in Egypt. After Kennedy’s death, the US policy returned to support for European powers and CIA intervention. The US supported NATO ally Portugal in its wars in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea Bissau. The US supported secessionist and tribal forces in the Congo, Angola, Somalia, and many other countries with hugely damaging results. The US supported apartheid South Africa until the end. The US supported the sectarian Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser.

This was also a critical time for Israel Palestine. JFK was more objective and balanced that most US politicians. Just 22 years old in 1939, Kennedy visited Palestine and wrote his observations / analysis in a 4 page letter to his father. He is thoughtful and recognizes the Palestinian perspective. He speaks of the “unfortunately arrogant, uncompromising attitude” of some Jewish leaders. In May 2019, more documents were released from the National Security Archives. They show that JFK, as president, was intent on stopping Israel from surreptitiously building a nuclear weapon. In a letter to the new Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol, Kennedy gives a diplomatic ultimatum that US support of Israel will be “seriously jeopardized” if Israel did not comply with inspection visits to the Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. After JFK’s death, the Johnson administration was submissive to Israel and pro-Israel supporters. Johnson showed the ultimate political subservience by preventing the rescue and hiding Israeli treachery regarding the USS Liberty. The Israeli attack killed 34 and injured 172 US sailors. Would Israel have had the arrogance and chutzpah to do this if Kennedy had been in the White House? Unlikely.

The invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs took place just three months after Kennedy took office. The CIA and generals expected Kennedy to provide US air support for the anti-Castro attackers. Kennedy said no and resolved to get rid of the long-standing CIA Director who had managed the operation. Allen Dulles and two Deputy Directors were forced to resign by the end of the year. The Pentagon, CIA and anti-Castro Cubans were furious at JFK. When the Soviet Union sent nuclear capable missiles to Cuba, the hawks demanded that the US attack. Kennedy opposed this and ended up negotiating an agreement whereby the US removed its nuclear missiles in Turkey as Soviet nuclear missiles were removed from Cuba.

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country with vast natural resources and strategic location. President Sukarno led the country to independence and was a leader in the global Non-Aligned Movement seeking a middle ground between the poles of the USA and Soviet Union. The Eisenhower/Dulles administration tried to overthrow Sukarno. In contrast, JFK changed the policy from hostility to friendship. Sukarno invited JFK to visit the country and the invitation was accepted. Following JFK’s assassination, the policy returned to hostility and just two years later, in 1965, the US engineered a coup leading to the murder of about half a million Indonesian citizens suspected of being communist.

JFK visited Vietnam in 1951 as the French colonial powers were trying to assert their control. He saw the situation as 400,000 French soldiers were losing to the Vietnamese nationalist movement. Thus, when he became president, he was skeptical of the prospects. President Kennedy authorized an increase of US military advisers but never sent combat troops. As the situation deteriorated, JFK finally decided the policy was wrong. In October 1963 Kennedy issued National Security Action Memorandum 263 directing US withdrawal to begin in December and be completed by the end of 1965. After JFK’s death, President Johnson reversed course and began sending massive numbers of US soldiers to Vietnam. Twelve years later, after 58,000 American and about two million Vietnamese deaths, the US military departed Vietnam.

The Soviet Union was the largest communist country and primary challenger to the US and capitalist system. The Cold War included mutual recriminations and a huge amount of military spending as both sides designed and produced ever more hydrogen bombs, air and sea delivery systems. During the Cuba crisis, Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khruschev both realized how dangerous the situation was. Nuclear war could have accidentally or intentionally begun. In June1963, JFK delivered the commencement address at American University. It was probably his most important speech yet is little known. JFK called for a dramatic change in US posture, from confrontation to mutual acceptance. He called for re-examination of US attitudes toward peace, the Soviet Union, the Cold War and peace and freedom within the USA itself. He called for a special communication line between Washington and Moscow to allow direct communications between the two leaders. And then Kennedy declared that the US would end nuclear testing as a first step toward general and complete disarmament.

In the last months before his death, JFK opened secret communications with Soviet Premier Khruschev and used a journalist to communicate directly with Fidel Castro. JFK proposed face-to-face talks aimed at reconciliation with Cuba.

Kennedy’s initiatives toward reconciliation and peace were opposed by the CIA and militarist elements in the government. As reported in the NY Times, Kennedy privately told one of his highest officials he “wanted to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”. Before that could happen, JFK was assassinated, and his policy changes reversed.

From Moscow to Cairo to Jakarta, Kennedy’s death was met with shock and mourning. Leaders in those countries sensed what the assassination meant.

The day after JFK’s funeral, President Johnson supplanted Kennedy’s planned withdrawal from Viet Nam with National Security Action Memorandum 273. This resulted in 12 years of aggression and bloodshed in southeast Asia. Coups were carried out in the Dominican Republic and Indonesia. US resumed support for South African apartheid and Portuguese colonial wars. Assassination attempts on Fidel Castro escalated while military coups took place in numerous Latin American countries. In the Middle East, the US solidified support for Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The author of “JFK and the Unspeakable”, Jim Douglas, writes “President Kennedy’s courageous turn from global war to a strategy of peace provides the why of his assassination. Because he turned toward peace with our enemies, the Communists, he found himself at odds with his own national security state.”


Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the SF Bay Area. He can be reached at

January 30, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 2 Comments

George Will’s Obtuseness on the JFK Assassination

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | January 5, 2021

In a small section of his most recent column, Washington Post conservative columnist George Will demonstrates the deference to authority that has come to characterize the mainstream media with respect to the JFK assassination. Will writes:

For many years, some people insisted that a vast conspiracy, not a lone gunman, masterminded the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy near the grassy knoll in Dallas’s Dealey Plaza. To these people, the complete absence of evidence proved the conspiracy’s sophistication. They were demented. 

Now, it stands to reason that mainstream journalists at the time of the Kennedy assassination would make that type of statement. That was a time when almost everyone placed undaunted faith in the U.S. national-security establishment and any official narrative it issued. This was especially true for conservative columnists, almost all of whom bought into the extreme anti-communist animus that was used to justify the Cold War and the conversion of the U.S. government to a national-security state. Of course, there was also Operation Mockingbird to consider. That was the CIA’s successful secret operation to acquire assets within the U.S. mainstream press who could be relied upon to publish articles reflecting the views and narratives of the national-security establishment.

Thus, when a mainstream journalist in 1963 or even 1964, immediately after the issuance of the Warren Report, made a statement similar to that made by Will, it was somewhat understandable. At that time, while there were people who suspected that something was amiss in the assassination, most of the evidence pointing to a U.S. national-security regime-change operation was hidden from view because of the shroud of national-security secrecy that was immediately placed over the assassination.

But that was 1963. Today things are entirely different, Over the decades, the national-security state secrecy surrounding the assassination has been pierced, which has brought forth a large body of incriminating evidence pointing to a joint Pentagon-CIA operation to protect “national security” from a president whose policies, they believed, were leading to a communist victory in the Cold War and, ultimately, a communist takeover of the United States.

This is what mainstream journalists like Will just don’t get. Owing to the large amount of evidence that has surfaced pointing toward a domestic regime-change operation, it is no longer sufficient for a mainstream journalist to mouth the standard mantras about the Kennedy assassination that were being mouthed in 1963 or to label people “conspiracy theorists.” Now, it is incumbent on mainstream journalists who wish to maintain the official narrative to confront and deal with the actual evidence that has surfaced since then, especially after the JFK Records Act in 1993, which was enacted in the wake of Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. That law forced the Pentagon, the CIA, and other federal agencies to disclose many, but certainly not all, of their long-secret records relating to the assassination,

Let me give you an example. In the late 1960s, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison brought a criminal prosecution against a man named Clay Shaw. In the trial, Garrison alleged that the JFK assassination was a highly sophisticated domestic regime-change operation carried out by the Pentagon and the CIA, no different in principle from those carried out both before and after the Kennedy assassination — e.g., Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Congo 1961, Cuba 1960s, Chile 1973.

The mainstream press criticized and derided Garrison. Their mindset was one of complete deference to the authority of the national-security establishment and its official theory that a lone nut had killed the president.

In the process, the mainstream press failed to note some extremely important aspects of the Shaw trial, especially those relating to the testimony of one of the military pathologists, Lt. Col. Pierre Finck, who had helped carried out the official autopsy on President Kennedy’s body.

Finck testified that he received a call at 8 p.m. on the night of the assassination from one of the other two pathologists for the autopsy, Commander James Humes, asking Finck to come over and help with the autopsy, In that 8 p.m. telephone call, Humes told Finck that they already had x-rays of the president’s head.

A big problem arises though: The president’s body was being carried into the Bethesda morgue at precisely 8 p.m. by a military color guard.

Do you see the problem? How could Humes already have x-rays of the president’s head if the president’s body had not yet been brought into the morgue?

To my knowledge, that testimony didn’t bother any mainstream journalist at the time. They were all so deferential to the national-security establishment that that problem didn’t seem to get their attention. But wouldn’t you think that any self-respecting investigative journalist would say, “I need to get to the bottom of this”?

How about you, George? How do you explain this problem? I would love to hear your explanation.

Another interesting aspect of Finck’s testimony was when he was asked by the prosecutor why the pathologists had failed to “dissect” Kennedy’s neck wound, which would ordinarily have been standard autopsy procedure. At first, Finck repeatedly refused to answer the question. When the judge finally required Finck to answer, he said that he had been ordered by someone in authority to refrain from doing so. Finck then maintained that he couldn’t remember the identity of the person in authority who issued that order to him.

Now, wouldn’t you think that any self-respecting investigative journalist would say, “I need to get to the bottom of this”? After all, the three autopsy pathologists were supposed to be in charge of the autopsy, Finck’s testimony established that there was obviously a secret super-force that had ultimate control over the autopsy and the autopsy physicians.

How about you, George? Aren’t you at least a bit curious as to who composed that force and how, when, and why it came into existence?

After the House Select Committee on Assassinations hearings in the 1970s, a group of enlisted men who were released from vows of secrecy that the military had forced then to sign immediately after the autopsy, began telling a remarkable story. They said that they had secretly carried the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue in a cheap, military-style shipping casket rather than the expensive, ornate casket into which the president’s body had been placed in Dallas, They maintained that they secretly brought the body into the morgue at 6:35 p.m., almost 1 1/2 hours before the official entry time of 8 p.m.

What’s up with that? How about it, George? You can’t say claim that witness statements don’t constitute evidence, can you? What’s your explanation for this phenomenon? I would love to hear it.

In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board secured a written report from a Marine sergeant named Roger Boyajian, which was prepared soon after the November 22, 1963, weekend. In the report, Boyajian stated that his team did in fact carry the president’s body into the morgue at 6:35 p.m.

How about it, George? You can’t really maintain that Boyajian’s statement and his written report don’t constitute evidence, can you? How do you deal with that? What’s your explanation for it? I would love to hear what you have to say about it.

The ARRB also secured the testimony of Saundra Spencer, who worked in the military’s photography lab in Washington, D.C. She told the ARRB a remarkable story. She said that on the weekend of the assassination, she was asked to develop the official autopsy photographs of Kennedy’s body, on a top-secret basis. She had kept her secret for some 30 years. When shown the official photographs of the autopsy in the records today, she said that those weren’t the photographs she developed. The ones she developed showed a massive sized exit wound in the back of Kennedy’s head, which would connote a shot having been fired from the front. The official autopsy photographs show the back of the president’s head to be intact.

How about it, George? How about giving us your take on Spencer’s testimony? You can’t really say that sworn testimony doesn’t constitute evidence, can you? I would love to hear your explanation for Spencer’s sworn testimony.

Spencer’s testimony, of course, matched the statements of the Dallas treating physicians immediately after the assassination, in which they described a massive exit-sized in the back of Kennedy’s head.

How about it, George? How do you deal with the steadfast statements from Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, and the other treating physicians immediately after the assassination?

The ARRB discovered that there were two separate examinations of President Kennedy’s brain. At the first examination, the brain was “sectioned” or cut up like a loaf of bread, which is standard procedure in gun shot wounds to the head. At the second brain exam, the brain was damaged but intact — i.e, not sectioned. There is no way that a sectioned brain can reconstitute itself, which means that the brain at the second exam could not possibly have been Kennedy’s,

How about it, George? How do you deal with that one? I would love to know.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist in Rancho Mirage, California, has spent nine complete days closely examining the x-rays in the JFK autopsy. He has concluded that they are forgeries.

How about it, George? How do you deal with Mantik’s detailed analysis? You can read it here. I would love to know.

Why is all this autopsy evidence important? Because there is no way to come up with an innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. But George, if you can do so, please let us know what that explanation is. I don’t think you can. Certainly no one else has. And one thing is for sure: It was the national-security establishment that was solely responsible for carrying out the fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body just a few hours after the assassination.

In fact, George, maybe you wouldn’t mind providing your theory as to why the military, rather than the civilian authorities in Dallas, were even charged with carrying out the autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. After all, while conservatives love national-security states, the United States isn’t a military nation, like the Soviet Union was, or at least it’s not supposed to be.

See also:

The Mainstream Media’s Deference to Authority in the JFK Assassination” by Jacob G. Hornberger

The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger

JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne

Regime Change: The JFK Assassination by Jacob Hornberger

The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger

CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by Jefferson Morley

Morley v. CIA:  My Unfinished JFK Investigation by Jefferson Morley

The National Security State and JFK,” a FFF conference featuring Oliver Stone and ten other speakers

Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence,” a five-part video by Douglas P. Horne

January 5, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 7 Comments

The Mainstream Press Has Failed America

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | December 1, 2020

While President Trump continues to maintain that the presidential election was marred by massive fraud, the mainstream press continues to maintain that Trump’s charges are “false” and “baseless” and that his allegations are damaging trust in America’s democratic electoral system.

Actually, however, it’s the other way around: It’s the mainstream press, owing to its extreme deferential attitude toward the Washington, D.C., establishment, that has severely damaged trust in America’s democratic system.

Of course, this isn’t the first election in which the losing side has charged that he has been cheated out of his victory. In virtually every election cycle, there is at least one political candidate that charges that he lost because of fraud committed by the other side.

But let’s face it: Sometimes there is fraud. As I have pointed out before (see here and here and here), there is now no doubt that Lyndon Johnson employed fraud to win the 1948 U.S. Senate race in Texas against popular Governor Coke Stevenson. Johnson told a South Texas crony who controlled some South Texas counties to keep his poll results open in case Johnson needed extra votes to win. When the vote-counting was over, Johnson did need a few more votes to win. He called his crony, a man named George Parr, and Parr ordered a local election judge to produce 200 additional votes for LBJ, which then gave Johnson the win. Many years later, the election judge confirmed that he had done this. The 200 signatures on the voter list were all in the same ink, and the names of the 200 voters were in alphabetical order. If Johnson had lost the election, he never would have become vice-president or president, which truly made him a truly illegitimate president in U.S, history, one who ended up sending tens of thousands of American men to their deaths in a senseless war thousands of miles away in Southeast Asia.

The problem with the mainstream press in the Trump-Biden race is the speed by which it concluded that the 2020 presidential election was not marred by fraud. It reached its conclusion before the election was even over.

Now, it’s very possible that Trump’s assertions are, in fact, false and baseless, but how could the mainstream press know that before or immediately after the election without even the semblance of any press investigation into the allegations?

Perhaps the mainstream press believed that the stealing of an election through fraud is simply inconceivable. But how can it be inconceivable when it is undisputed that LBJ won his Senate race through fraud? If it happened once, doesn’t that negate the idea of inconceivability?

It certainly can’t be that the press immediately conducted an investigation and found no evidence of fraud in the Trump-Biden race because the mainstream press reached its conclusions immediately and never conducted any independent investigation.

And that’s the core of the problem — the mainstream press’s deference to the Washington, D.C., establishment by automatically embracing its official position that the election was honest and above board.

In a free society, the citizenry necessarily depend on an independent press to keep government honest. The citizenry simply lack the resources and time to investigate official misconduct. Thus, they necessarily depend on a vibrant, dynamic independent press to do this job for them.

That’s where the mainstream press has failed America and has severely damaged America’s democratic system. It has essentially become a loyal lapdog of the Washington, D.C., establishment, never daring to challenge it, question, or investigate it at a fundamental level.

That’s why people don’t trust the mainstream press. That’s one big reason why mainstream papers have lost massive numbers of subscribers ever since the Internet came into existence. People know that when it comes to confronting political power with truth, they are going to find it on the Internet rather than in the mainstream press.

In the meantime, the mainstream press cannot figure out why people don’t blindly accept its pronouncements. They cannot figure out why people have been leaving them in droves and going to the Internet for answers. They cannot figure out why people don’t trust them or believe what they say.

Now, I’m not saying that the mainstream press should go out and investigate every charge of fraud that every loser of a political race makes. What I am saying is that when there are extreme anomalies in votes, as there have been in the Trump-Biden race, it is incumbent on an independent press to severely scrutinize them. Extreme anomalies, of course, don’t equate to fraud but they do equate — or should equate — to the need for extremely careful scrutiny to ensure that there is no fraud.

An independent press is in the best position to perform such an investigation. If America were characterized by such a press, it would actually strengthen, not weaken, America’s democratic system because then people would be more assured that elections were not marred by fraud. When you instead have a passive and deferential press that automatically defers to the D.C. establishment, immediately concludes that the election is on the up and up despite extreme anomalies, and just pokes fun of the losing candidate for asserting fraud, that tends to make people suspicious, distrustful, and cynical.

Of course, the passive and deferential nature of the mainstream press has been going on for much longer than the 2020 presidential race. One of the best examples is the Kennedy assassination. From the time Kennedy was declared dead, the mainstream press has always automatically accepted the official version of events of the national-security establishment, never daring to conduct independent investigations into whether that version was false and baseless.

In the 1970s, after the House Select Committee on Assassinations met to reinvestigate the assassination, several enlisted men came forward with a remarkable story. They said that they had secretly carried the president’s body into the morgue almost 1 1/2 hours before the body was officially reintroduced into the morgue. They said that they had been sworn to secrecy on the weekend of the assassination and had been forced to sign secrecy oaths. Their superiors threatened them with extreme punitive action if they ever disclosed what they had seen or done.

Now, wouldn’t you think that that was something that the mainstream press would find worth investigating? Were these enlisted men lying? Were they just making up a story? Why would they do that? Why would the national-security establishment be sneaking the president’s body into the morgue? Why was the military in charge of the autopsy?

Wouldn’t just one mainstream investigative reporter want to investigate such things? Well, if he did, he would be fired by every mainstream paper in the land, owing to the passivity and deferential attitude that the mainstream press have had about the Kennedy assassination since the beginning.

In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board discovered the existence of a Marine Sergeant named Roger Boyajian, who told the ARRB that it was his team that secretly carried the president’s body into the morgue at 6:35 p.m., almost 1 1/2 hours before the official entry time of 8 p.m. Boyajian even produced a copy of his official report that he had submitted to the military immediately after the assassination weekend in November 1963, a report that the military had kept secret. His statement and his report confirmed what those enlisted men has said back in the 1970s.

Did the mainstream press then conduct an investigation? Not on your life. It was still considered verboten for any mainstream news media outlet to investigate any aspect of the Kennedy assassination.

When Congress enacted the law that established the ARRB, someone slipped a provision into the law that prohibited the ARRB from investigating any aspect of the Kennedy assassination. It was a prohibition that was strictly enforced by the ARRB board of trustees. Now, wouldn’t you think that some enterprising, independent-minded mainstream investigative reporter would want to find out why anyone would want to keep the ARRB from investigating things it discovered while securing the release of long secret records of the national-security establishment? Nope. It just didn’t happen.

The ARRB also discovered the existence of a woman named Saundra Spencer. She was a chief petty officer in charge of the Navy’’s lab at its photography center in Washington, D.C. She had a top secret security clearance and worked closely with the White House on both classified and unclassified photographs.

Spencer told the ARRB a remarkable story. She said that on the weekend of the assassination, she had been asked to develop, on a top-secret basis, the photographs of President Kennedy’s autopsy, which had been conducted by the U.S. national-security establishment on the night of the assassination. Spencer had kept her secret for more than 30 years.

Spencer was shown the official autopsy photographs in the record. After closely examining them, she said: No, those are not the autopsy photographs I developed. The ones I developed showed a massive exit-sized wound in the back of the president’s head. The photographs in the official record show the back of the president’s head to be fully intact.

Now, wouldn’t you think that that would be enough to get the mainstream press to send an investigative reporter out to get to the bottom of this, especially given that Spencer’s testimony about the massive exit-sized wound in the back of Kennedy’s head matched the statements of the treating physicians at Parkland Hospital, along with the treating nurses, two FBI agents, a Secret Service agent, and others? Wouldn’t you think that fraudulent autopsy photographs would be enough to generate such an investigation?

Nope. The position of every mainstream paper in the country has always been: “Stay away from the Kennedy assassination. That’s what the national-security establishment wants and that’s the way it’s going to be.”

The ARRB made another remarkable discovery. It discovered that there were two separate brain examinations in the Kennedy autopsy. At the first one, the president’s brain was “sectioned,” which meant cutting it like a loaf of bread to study the trajectory of the bullet that hit the president in the head. At the second brain exam, the brain was fully intact.

There is one big problem: Once a brain is sectioned, it cannot reconstitute itself. That means that the second brain exam had to have involved a brain that wasn’t the same brain at the first exam.

Wouldn’t you think that the mainstream press would find this worth investigating? Nope. And it’s not like they weren’t aware of the two brain exams. The Washington Post and the Associated Press both carried stories on the ARRB’s discovery (see here and here). Unfortunately, as astounding as it is, the discovery of a fraudulent brain exam was not enough to induce the mainstream press to follow up with aggressive investigations to get to the bottom of this.

Many years ago, the American people discovered the existence of Operation Mockingbird, a secret illegal operation of the CIA to convert journalists in the mainstream press into CIA assets and operatives. Mainstream journalists who were asked to serve loved it and considered it a great honor to secretly serve the national-security establishment.

Today, the CIA need not bother because the entire mainstream press has willingly made itself a de facto asset of the national-security state. The American people have been left without an independent mainstream press whose mission is to keep the government honest and instead rely on people on the Internet to perform that service. In the process, the mainstream press has done a tremendous disservice to the American people and to America’s democratic processes by abdicating its responsibility to be a watchdog, not a lapdog, to the Washington, D.C., establishment.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education.

December 1, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 3 Comments

Expert Witness to the Kennedy assassination – Killed

More at:

November 23, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 1 Comment

President Trump, Release the JFK Files

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | November 12, 2020

With President Trump’s critics decrying his lack of respect for America’s democratic system by his refusal to concede to Joe Biden, now would be a good time to remind such critics of one dark-side aspect of America’s much-vaunted democratic system—the national-security’s state’s violent regime-change operation in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Oh, yes, I know the standard response of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA and its ardent supporters in the Washington, D.C., establishment and the mainstream press. They immediately cry “Conspiracy theory!” whenever anyone points to that particular regime-change operation.

Mind you, they don’t cry “Conspiracy theory!” when one brings up other anti-democratic regime-change operations on both sides of the Kennedy one — Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Congo 1961, and Chile 1973. It’s only with the Kennedy regime-change operation that they cry “Conspiracy theory!”

From the beginning, the official story has been that a lone-nut communist ex-U.S. Marine, with no apparent motive, assassinated the president. Nothing to see here, folks, time to move on — U.S, officials said. Just a plain old ordinary murder case.

Really? Then why was the entire episode shrouded in national-security secrecy from the very moment that Kennedy was declared dead at Parkland Hospital? If it was just a matter of a random lone-nut, communist ex-U.S.Marine killing a president, what the heck does “national security” have to do with it? Why all the secrecy?

Indeed, why the need for a Secret Service team to force its way out of Parkland Hospital with the president’s body to prevent an autopsy from being conducted by Dallas County medical examiner? That Secret Service team, which said it was operating under orders, knew that Texas law required the autopsy to be conducted by the medical examiner.

Why deliver the president’s body into the hands of the military for the autopsy? The mainstream press has always held that that was normal. Really? I thought this was a democratic government, not a military one.

What about those enlisted men who came forward in the late 1970s telling how they had sneaked the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 p.m., almost an hour and a half before the official entry time of 8 p.m.? Why had they all been sworn to secrecy just after the conclusion of the autopsy?

What about Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian, who was discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s? Why did the military keep him secret for 30 years? He told the ARRB that he was in charge of the team that carried in the president’s body at 6:35 p.m. in a cheap, military-style shipping casket rather than the expensive, ornate casket into which it had been placed in Dallas. He even handed the ARRB a copy of his official report to the military that he wrote at the time of the event. That military had never disclosed that report to the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the ARRB, or anyone else. They kept it secret the whole time. Why?

What about Saundra Spencer, the Navy petty officer in charge of the White House lab at the Naval Photographic Center in Washington. She told the ARRB in the 1990s that she had developed the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy’s body. She also had been sworn to secrecy. Given that she was participating in a top-secret, classified operation, she had kept her secret for some 30 years. She told the ARRB in the 1990s that the official photographs of the Kennedy autopsy are not the ones she photographed, which suggested two separate sets of autopsy photographs, one genuine and one deceptive.

What about Col. Pierre Finck’s testimony in the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans in the late 1970s? He was one of the three autopsy physicians? He said that Admiral James Humes, who was another of the autopsy physicians, telephoned him at 8 p.m. on the night of the assassination to seek his help with the autopsy. He said that Humes told him that they already had x-rays of the president’s head. But 8 p.m. was also the official introduction of the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue. How could they already have x-rays of the president’s head, unless what those enlisted men said about the early secret introduction of the body into the morgue at 6:35 p.m.?

Finck also testified that the reason he didn’t “dissect” the president’s neck wound was that someone in authority ordered him not to. Who was that person? Finck said he couldn’t remember his identity. To this day, we don’t know who that person was, but clearly there was a powerful, darker, deep-state force in charge of autopsy operations at the Bethesda morgue that evening.

The time has come for America to accept its national-security state regime-change legacy, including anti-anti-democratic regime changes, not only in overseas countries like Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Cuba, Chile, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but also right here in the United States.

It’s time to release all of the official assassination records of the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, and all other federal agencies. The national-security rationale for continued secrecy is ludicrous and baseless. The only reason for continued secrecy is that the national-security establishment knows that the records will fill in more pieces to its November 22, 1963, regime-change operation.

In the 1990s, the JFK Records Collection Act gave federal agencies another 25 years to release their assassination-related records, based on the ridiculous claim of “national security.” That period of time expired early in Trump’s administration. After promising to release the files, Trump surrendered to the CIA’s demands for more secrecy, extending the time for secrecy until October 2021.

But we all know what’s going to happen in 2021. The CIA is going to tell President (sic) Biden that national security requires more years of secrecy and Biden is going to defer to the CIA.

Time’s up. Amidst all the hoopla over whether Trump is behaving disrespectfully of America’s democratic system, how about ordering the release of the estimated 15,000 records of the CIA and the federal agencies that are still being kept secret from the American people? After all, it’s pretty hard to reconcile regime-change and cover up with America’s much-vaunted democratic system, isn’t it?

President Trump — Do the right thing. Order the National Archives to release those long-secret assassination records to the American people now. Who cares if the CIA, the Pentagon, and other federal agencies get upset?

November 12, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

Fifteen Years Before Kennedy, Zionists Murdered Forrestal

By Laurent Guyénot • Unz Review • January 27, 2020

Israel as serial murderer

In the 1990s, a couple of bestsellers brought to the knowledge of a large public the fact that JFK’s assassination in 1963 solved an intense crisis over Israel’s secret nuclear program. In one of his last letters to Kennedy, quoted by Seymour Hersh in The Samson Option (1991), Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion complained: “Mr. President, my people have the right to exist […] and this existence is in danger.”[1] The nuclear option was judged vital for Israel, and JFK opposed it. A Haaretz review of Avner Cohen’s book Israel and the Bomb (1998) puts it this way:

“The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the US administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program. Cohen demonstrates at length the pressures applied by Kennedy on Ben-Gurion. […] The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option.”[2]

Also openly discussed by Israeli historians today are the close connections between Ben-Gurion’s network in the U.S. and what Tel-Aviv professor Robert Rockaway calls “Gangsters for Zion”, including the infamous “Murder, Incorporated”, run by Bugsy Siegel and then by Mickey Cohen, Jack Ruby’s mentor.

That Israel had the motive and the means of killing JFK does not prove that Israel did it. But I am quite certain that today, most smart Israelis assume and half-approve that Ben-Gurion ordered the elimination of JFK in order to replace him by Lyndon Johnson, whose love for Israel is also now widely celebrated, to the point that some speculate he might have been a secret Jew.

In Ben-Gurion’s mind, making Israel a nuclear state was a matter of life and death, and obliterating any obstacle was an absolute necessity. In Netanyahu’s mind today, preventing Iran—or any other enemy of Israel—from becoming a nuclear state is of the same order of necessity, and would surely justify eliminating another U.S. president in order to replace him by a more supportive Vice President. Most dedicated Zionists understand that. Andrew Adler, owner and editor in chief of The Atlanta Jewish Times, assumes that the idea “has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circle,” and, in his column of January 13, 2012, called on the Israeli Prime Minister to,

“give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current Vice-President to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish State obliterate its enemies. […] Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.”[3]

Eliminating unsubmissive foreign leaders is part of Israel’s struggle for existence. Besides, it is entirely biblical: foreign kings are supposed to “lick the dust at [Israelis’] feet” (Isaiah 49:23), or perish, with their names “blotted out under heaven” (Deuteronomy 7:24).

On November 6, 1944, members of the Stern Gang, led by future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, assassinated Lord Moyne, the British resident minister in the Middle East, for his anti-Zionist positions. The bodies of his murderers, executed in Egypt, were later exchanged for twenty Arab prisoners and buried at the “Monument of Heroes” in Jerusalem. On September 17, 1948, the same terrorist group murdered in Jerusalem Count Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat appointed as United Nations mediator in Palestine. He had just submitted his report A/648, which described “large-scale Zionist plundering and destruction of villages,” and called for the “return of the Arab refugees rooted in this land for centuries.” His assassin, Nathan Friedman-Yellin, was arrested, convicted, and then amnestied; in 1960 he was elected to the Knesset.[4]

In 1946, three months after members of the Irgun, led by future Prime Minister Menachem Begin, killed ninety-one people in the headquarter of the British Mandate’s administration (King David Hotel), the same terrorist group attempted to murder British Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, according to British Intelligence documents declassified in 2006.

These killings and more are documented by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman in Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations (Random House, 2018). Bergman writes:

“At the end of 1947, a report to the British high commissioner tallied the casualties of the previous two years: 176 British Mandate personnel and civilians killed. / ‘Only these actions, these executions, caused the British to leave,’ David Shomron said, decades after he shot Tom Wilkin dead on a Jerusalem street. ‘If [Avraham] Stern had not begun the war, the State of Israel would not have come into being.’”[5]

James Forrestal’s strange death

Absent from Israel’s body count in Bergman’s book is former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, assassinated eight months after Count Bernadotte. Forrestal had been Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Navy from April 1944. With consolidation of the armed services under Truman in 1947, he became the first Secretary of Defense. He opposed the United Nations’ vote to partition Palestine, and protested vigorously against U.S. recognition of Israel on May 15, 1948, on the ground that U.S. interests in the Middle East would be seriously jeopardized by American sponsorship of a Jewish state. For this, Forrestal received “an outpouring of slander and calumny that must surely be judged one of the most shameful intervals in American journalism,” in the words of Robert Lovett, then Under Secretary of State. Truman replaced Forrestal on March 28, 1949—shortly after his reelection—by the man who had been his main fundraiser, Louis Johnson. According to the received story, Forrestal, who was psychologically exhausted, fell into depression immediately. On April 2, 1949, he was interned against his will in the military hospital of the Navy in Bethesda, Maryland, a Washington, DC, suburb, where he was forcibly confined for seven weeks. He fell to his death from the 16th floor at 1:50 in the morning of May 22, 1949, landing on the roof of the third floor. He had a dressing-gown sash tied around his neck.

Bethesda Navy Hospital, where Forrestal met his death

National authorities and mainstream media immediately labeled his death a suicide, without any known criminal investigation. A review board was appointed on May 23, headed by Admiral Morton Willcutts, to conduct hearings of members of the hospital staff with the sole purpose of exonerating everyone of responsibility in Forrestal’s assumed suicide. The board completed its work in one week, and published a short press release four months later. But the full report, containing the transcripts of all hearings and crucial exhibits, were kept secret for 55 years, until David Martin obtained it through a Freedom of Information Act request in April 2004 (it is now available on the Princeton University Library website in pdf form, or here in HTML rendition by the anonymous Mark Hunter, who makes useful comments).

In his book and in his web articles complementing it, David Martin makes a compelling case that Forrestal was murdered, and that his murder was ordered by the Zionists, most probably with the knowledge and approval of Truman, who was then completely hostage to the Zionists. The motive? Forrestal was planning to write a book and to launch a national magazine: he had the money and the connections for it, and he had three thousand pages of personal diary to back his revelations on the corruption of American leadership and the sell-out of American foreign policy to communism under Roosevelt, and to Zionism under Truman.

I will here summarize the evidence accumulated by David Martin, and highlight the significance of this case for our understanding of Israel’s takeover of the heart, soul, and body of the United States. Unless specified otherwise, all information is from Martin’s book or articles.

From James Forrestal to John Kennedy

My own interest for this heartbreaking story stems from my interest for the Kennedy assassinations. (read my article Did Israel Kill the Kennedys?). I found the connection and similarities between the two stories highly illuminating. Everyone knows that Kennedy was assassinated, yet most Americans are still unaware of the evidence incriminating Israel. In the case of Forrestal, it is the opposite: few people suspect a murder, but once the evidence for murder has been presented, it points directly to Israel as the culprit. For this reason, Forrestal’s assassination by the Zionists becomes a precedent that makes JFK’s assassination by the same collective entity more plausible. If Israel can kill a former U.S. Defense Secretary on American soil in 1949 and get away with it with government and media complicity, then why not a sitting President fifteen years later? If the truth on Forrestal had been known by 1963, it is unlikely that Israel could have killed two Kennedys with impunity.

Forrestal was of Irish Catholic origin like the Kennedys, and was close to JFK’s father. Both James Forrestal and Joseph Kennedy are examples of American patriots of Irish stock who were alarmed by Jewish influence over American foreign policy. The entry for 27 December 1945 in Forrestal’s edited diary, says:

“Played golf with Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. […] Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.”

One major difference between the two men is that Joe Kennedy had resigned from government after Roosevelt’s entry into the war, and had kept a low profile on Israel. Moreover, unlike Forrestal, he was the head of a wealthy clan and had his own men in the press. He was a politician, whereas Forrestal was an uncompromising man. These differences explain why Forrestal was assassinated, whereas Joe had his son elected president. Yet in the end, the Kennedys suffered the Talmudic curse over three generations.

When James Forrestal, hostile to Stalin’s ambitions on Eastern Europe and to Truman’s decision to nuke Japan, was kept away from the official delegation to the Potsdam Conference in the summer 1945, he flew there privately and took with him the then 28-year-old John Kennedy, for a tour of post-war Germany. Later on, John integrated James Forrestal’s son Michael Forrestal as a member of his National Security Council. In May 1963 he made a symbolic public gesture by visiting the grave of James Forrestal on Memorial Day.

JFK visits Forrestal’s grave at Arlington cemetery

James Forrestal’s and John Kennedy’s assassinations bear one sinister thing in common: Bethesda Naval Hospital. As most readers recall, this is where Kennedy’s autopsy was tampered with after his body had been whisked away at gunpoint from Dallas Parkland Hospital, most probably by Secret Service agents on Lyndon Johnson’s order. In 1963, Lyndon Johnson could count on high-level complicity within the Navy.

It happens that Johnson, whom Billy Sole Estes claims ordered nine murders in the course of his political career,[6] makes a special appearance, although brief and poorly documented, in the story of Forrestal’s assassination. LBJ was then a newly elected congressman, on the payroll of Abraham Feinberg, former president of Americans for Haganah Incorporated and financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.[7] According to the testimony of Forrestal’s assistant Marx Leva (more on him later), Johnson paid an unwanted visit to Forrestal at Bethesda Hospital. David Martin asks:

“Could LBJ have been playing something of a foot-soldier role for the orchestrators of Forrestal’s demise? Might he have been there to size up the overall situation, and at the same time contribute to ‘making his bones,’ as it were, by participating in such an important operation?” (Martin p. 20)

The official narrative

It bears repeating that no investigation was conducted into the death of James Forrestal, either by the FBI or the NCIS (Navy Criminal Investigative Service). The very day of his death, the mainstream press announced his suicide as a matter of fact. The New York Times stated in its late May 22 edition that Forrestal “jumped thirteen stories to his death,” and added the next morning:

“There were indications that Mr. Forrestal might also have tried to hang himself. The sash of his dressing-gown was still knotted and wrapped tightly around his neck when he was found, but hospital officials would not speculate as to its possible purpose.”

Later biographers did speculate that he may have tried to hang himself but failed to tie the sash securely to the radiator beneath the window. In The Man Who Kept the Secrets, Pulitzer Price winner Thomas Powers says that Forrestal died trying to hang himself “from his hospital window, but slipped and fell sixteen stories to his death.”

Forrestal left no suicide note, but the New York Times (May 23) informs its readers that:

“A book of poetry beside his bed was opened to a passage from the Greek tragedian, Sophocles, telling of the comfort of death. […] Mr. Forrestal had copied most of the Sophocles poem from the book on hospital memo paper, but he had apparently been interrupted in his efforts. His copying stopped after he had written ‘night’ of the word ‘nightingale’ in the twenty-sixth line of the poem.”

On May 24, the New York Times gave the final word to the psychiatrist in charge, who made suicide sound predictable:

“Captain George M. Raines, the Navy psychiatrist who had been treating Mr. Forrestal, said that the former Secretary ended his life in a sudden fit of despondency. He said this was ‘extremely common’ to the patient’s severe type of mental illness.”

That’s it. Never did the mainstream media hint at the possibility of foul play. The conclusion that Forrestal’s death is an obvious suicide caused by his “mental illness” was taken at face value by the authors of Forrestal’s two main biographies:

  • Arnold Rogow, James Forrestal, A Study of Personality, Politics, and Policy (MacMillan Company, 1963);
  • Townsend Hoopes and Douglass Brinkley, Driven Patriot, the Life and Times of James Forrestal (Alfred A. Knopf, 2003).

Rogow, whose book has been called a “psychological autopsy,” insists on linking Forrestal’s alleged mental illness to his alleged anti-Semitism, with the implication that anti-Semitism is a form of paranoia that may lead to suicide. Rogow is an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, on which he wrote the article for The International Encyclopedia of Social Science. He is also the author The Jew in a Gentile World: An Anthology of Writings about Jews by Non-Jews.

Hoopes and Brinkley borrow heavily from Rogow, but add valuable information based on their own interviews. They give an interesting interpretation of the morbid poem allegedly copied by Forrestal from Mark Van Dorren’s Anthology of World Poetry, titled “The Chorus from Ajax.” Taking their clue from Zionist apologist John Loftus, author of The Belarus Secret (Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), they speculate that, when reaching the word “nightingale” in the poem, Forrestal might have been overwhelmed by a sudden rush of guilt for having authorized a CIA operation with the code name of “Nightingale,” that infiltrated into the Soviet Union Ukrainian spies who had been formerly Nazi collaborators and probably killers of Jews. The word “nightingale,” Hoopes and Brinkley surmise, must have triggered Forrestal’s urge to take the poet’s admonition literally and end his life on the spot.

Was Forrestal mentally ill?

David Martin has uncovered grave inconsistencies and outright lies in the official story. First, it appears that Forrestal’s nervous breakdown has been wildly exaggerated, if not totally invented. As the story goes, Forrestal’s mental health had started deteriorating before Truman replaced him, and collapsed on March 29, just after a brief ceremony in his honor at Capitol Hill. The main source for this story is an Oral history interview of Marx Leva, Forrestal’s special assistant at that time, recorded for the Truman library in 1969. Leva says that, on that day, he found Forrestal in his Pentagon office, “almost in a coma.” He had him driven home and later met him there with Forrestal’s friend Ferdinand Eberstadt, and the two men decided that Forrestal’s state required that he urgently take some vacation. So Leva made immediate arrangement for a Marine plane to fly him to the estate of Robert Lovett in Hobe Sound, Florida that very night. “And on the way out Forrestal said three times, the only thing he said, [Eberstadt] tried to speak to him and he would say, ‘You’re a loyal fellow, Marx.’ ‘You’re a loyal fellow, Marx,’ three times.” Since Leva is Jewish, the implication is that Forrestal was obsessed by the disloyalty he attributed to many Jewish officials. For Leva, “he apparently was beyond being neurotic, I mean it was apparently paranoid”.

David Martin shows in this article (adding a new perspective to his book) that Marx Leva is lying. Forrestal’s vacation had in fact been planned in advance, and his wife was already waiting for him there. This is proven by a Jacksonville Daily Journal article dated March 28 about the ceremony when Truman pinned the Distinguished Service Medal on Forrestal’s chest that very day. The article concludes: “Forrestal is flying tomorrow to Hobe Sound, Fla., for a long rest.” This video clip of Forrestal shows him perfectly healthy and composed on March 28.

News reports and biographies insist that, during his four-day stay at Hobe Sound, Forrestal showed signs of paranoia. One rumor, made up by Daniel Yergin and repeated by Thomas Powers in The Man Who Kept the Secrets, has him running through the streets yelling, “The Russians are coming.” There is no credible source for this claim. Under Secretary of State (and future Defense Secretary) Robert Lovett, who was at Hobe Sound with Forrestal, did say in 1974 that Forrestal appeared to him as “not of sound mind,” because “he was obsessed with the idea that his phone calls were being bugged,” and complained that “they’re really after me.” I find rather strange, though, that Lovett feigns to ignore who Forrestal meant by “they”. There is nothing irrational in Forrestal’s belief that “his telephones were being bugged, [and that] his house was being watched”, as he had earlier complained to Truman’s appointments secretary, Matthew J. Connelly (who said so in a 1968 interview by the Truman Library).

There is also a rumor that Forrestal attempted suicide at Hobe Sound. It is contradicted by the Willcutts report, where Dr. George Raines, the psychiatrist in charge of Forrestal at Bethesda, is recorded stating: “So far as I know he never made a single real attempt at suicide except that one that was successful.” All of Forrestal’s doctors interviewed are unanimous that he had never attempted suicide before his fatal fall.

That is not to say that Forrestal was not psychologically strained in 1949. As Secretary of Defense, he had been subjected not only to slander and calumny by the press, but also to anonymous death threats. Robert Lovett, who shared Forrestal’s views on Israel, testified that he himself received night phone calls with death threats, and that Forrestal was more exposed than him to this kind of treatment. Having lost all protection from the government after March 28, Forrestal had reasons to fear for his life. On May 23, 1949, The Washington Post concluded an article headlined “Delusions of Persecution, Acute Anxiety, Depression Marked Forrestal’s Illness,” with the somewhat paradoxical statement:

“His fear of reprisals from pro-Zionists was said to stem from attacks by some columnists on what they said was his opposition to partition of Palestine under a UN mandate. In his last year as Defense Secretary, he received great numbers of abusive and threatening letters.”

John Loftus and Mark Aarons, the arch-Zionist authors of The Secret War against the Jews, identify Forrestal as “the principal villain, the man who nearly succeeded in preventing Israel’s birth.” They reveal that “The Zionists had tried unsuccessfully to blackmail Forrestal with tape recordings of his own deals with the Nazis” (before the war, Forrestal had been a partner of Clarence Dillon, the Jewish founder of the banking firm Dillon, Read, and Co.), but they believe that Zionist harassment at least succeeded in making him insane: “His paranoia convinced him that his every word was bugged. To his many critics, it seemed that James Forrestal’s anti-Jewish obsession had finally conquered him.”[8]

How convenient to claim that anti-Semitism may lead to suicide. When the Zionist mafia wishes you dead, fearing for your life is not a sign of mental illness, but rather of sound judgment.

We need not doubt Raines’ words to the Willcutts Review Board that, when he first saw Forrestal at Bethesda Hospital, “he was obviously exhausted physically” and showed “high blood pressure.” But here, we also have to take into account that Forrestal had been literally abducted from his vacation center at Hobe Sound. We should not be surprised when Rogow, and Hoopes and Brinkley after him, tell us that, even though he had been sedated, Forrestal “was in a state of extreme agitation during the flight from Florida,” and that:

“Forrestal’s agitation increased during the trip in a private car from the airfield to the hospital. He made several attempts to leave the car while it was in motion, and had to be forcibly restrained. Arriving at Bethesda, he declared that he did not expect to leave the hospital alive.”

As Martin mentions, there is also the very real possibility that Forrestal had been drugged at Hobe Sound, in order to make him appear insane and justify his internment.

Forrestal’s behavior at Bethesda shows nothing abnormal for a man locked up in the psychiatric division of a military hospital, on the 16th floor, for reasons he feared were not strictly medical. It has been reported by medical personnel that Forrestal often seemed restless, walking back and forth in his room late at night. Why wouldn’t he? Forrestal was even denied visits by those dearest to him. His brother Henry had tried several times to visit him, but had been rebuffed by Dr. Raines. The hospital authorities relented only after Henry threatened legal action. Forrestal was also denied the visit of his friend the Catholic priest, Monsignor Maurice Sheehy. Sheehy wrote in The Catholic Digest, January 1951, that, “The day he was admitted to the hospital, Forrestal told Dr. Raines he wish to see me,” but that Dr. Raines told him “that Jim was so confused I should wait some days before seeing him.” Raines turned away Father Sheehy on six occasions.

Despite being kept in virtual imprisonment and under forced medication, Forrestal endured remarkably well. From the hearings conducted by the Willcutts Review Boards, it appears that he was doing fine, in the days preceding his death. Willcutts himself expressed surprise at learning about his death, because he had dinner with him one day earlier (Friday the 20th), and thought he was “getting along splendidly.”

Evidence of cover-up and the fake suicide note

As mentioned earlier, the Willcutts Review Board’s mission was to exonerate every single individual of negligence. Even the brief conclusions released four months after it concluded its hearings, admits so, as reported in the New York Times October 12, 1949:

“Francis P. Matthews, Secretary of the Navy, made public today the report of an investigating board absolving all individuals of blame in the death of James Forrestal last May 22.”

Strangely enough, as Martin discovered, the report states that Forrestal’s fall was the cause of his death, but avoids any statement about the cause of the fall itself.

There is an obvious lack of interest from the Willcutts Board regarding all elements that point to murder rather than to suicide. The nurse who first entered Forrestal’s room after his death testified that there was broken glass on his bed. But the room must have been laundered before the crime scene photographs were taken, because they show the bed with nothing but a bare mattress, while another picture shows broken glass on the carpet at the foot of his bed (photos available on Mark Hunter’s site). The Willcutts Board had no interest in finding the origin of the broken glass, nor the reason it was removed from the bed.

They also failed to ask the personnel or themselves any relevant questions about the gown sash tied around Forrestal’s neck. Hoopes and Brinkley later speculated that Forrestal tied the sash to a radiator beneath the window, but that his knot “gave way.” That is contradicted by hospitalman William Eliades, who found the body of Forrestal with the sash (cord) around his neck, and declared to the Willcutts Review Board: “I looked to see whether he had tried to hang himself and whether a piece of cord had broken off. It was still in one piece except it was tied around his neck.”

But the most compelling proof that Forrestal’s death has been disguised as a suicide is the poem allegedly copied by Forrestal. Among the exhibits obtained by Martin alongside the Willcutts report is a copy of the memo sheet with the transcription of the poem (here). A comparison with any handwritten note by Forrestal makes it plain that it was not copied by Forrestal (both can be found on Mark Hunter’s webpage).

A sample of Forrestal’s handwriting and the note supposedly found in his room

As Martin comments, “One hardly needs an expert to tell him that the person who transcribed the poem is not the same person who wrote the various letters there.” Martin also notes that, from this single page, it is doubtful that the writer, whoever he was, even reached the word “nightingale”, which appears 11 verses below in the poem.

Interestingly, no one is identified in the official report as the discoverer of this handwritten note. It didn’t occur to the members of the Review Board to mention how it came into their possession, and to question about it the person who gave it to them.

In an effort to make the note a convincing proof of suicide, Rogow claims, and Hoopes and Brinkley repeat, that Apprentice Robert Wayne Harrison, Jr., the corpsman on duty to keep watch on Forrestal, checked into his room at 1:45 and saw him copying the poem. But by doing so, they both contradict Harrison’s declaration to the Willcutts Board. He said that, when he checked on him at 1:45, Forrestal was “in his bed, apparently sleeping.” Then he went to fill in the medical chart. Minutes later, a nurse heard the sound of Forrestal’s body striking the third floor roof. Harrison heard nothing but then became aware that Forrestal was missing at 1:50.

Robert Wayne Harrison, Jr. would certainly have been a prime suspect if any criminal investigation had taken place. He was new to the job, and unknown to Forrestal until that fatal night. He had started his guard at midnight, replacing Edward Prise whose shift had started at 4 pm. Prise was well-known and apparently appreciated by Forrestal; he had been assigned to keep watch on Forrestal from the third day of Forrestal’s arrival at Bethesda. Strangely, his name is not mentioned in any contemporary news report, and it is misspelled “Price” in the report and in all biographies, although he clearly signed “Prise” in the medical chart included among the exhibits with the Willcutts report.

David Martin mentions that he received an e-mail from Prise’s daughter saying:

“We grew up hearing whispers between our parents in reference to this matter but were not allowed to ask for detail. Even up until a year prior to my father’s death in 1991 he had called me and was in fear that he was going to be questioned again about the issue.” (Martin p. 9)

We need not insist on the fact that witnesses are easily intimidated in a military environment, as was Bethesda Hospital. The pressure transpires in the transcripts of the Willcutts interviews: every nurse, corpsman or doctor said what they were expected to say, and understood their obligation never to speak otherwise. An interesting insight into this can be gained from David Martin’s interview of John Spalding, James Forrestal’s Navy Driver, then 27 years-old. When informed of the death of Forrestal by his superior, Spalding was handed a sheet of paper to sign, saying “I could never talk about anything that happened between him and me.”

Was it the communists or the Zionists?

Before David Martin, one author, writing under the pen-name Cornell Simpson, had claimed that Forrestal had been murdered. His book, The Death of James Forrestal, was published in 1966, although he claims to have written it in the mid-1950s. Simpson’s book contains much valuable and credible information. He had for example interviewed James Forrestal’s brother Henry, who was positively certain that his brother had been murdered. Henry Forrestal found the timing of the death very suspicious because he was coming to take his brother out of the hospital a few hours later that very same day. According to Simpson, another person who didn’t believe in Forrestal’s suicide was Father Maurice Sheehy. When he hurried to the hospital several hours after Forrestal’s death, he was approached discreetly by an officer who whispered to him, “Father, you know Mr. Forrestal didn’t kill himself, don’t you?”

Simpson blames the communists for Forrestal’s murder. The claim is not preposterous. Forrestal was definitely anti-communist. He had been alarmed by what he saw as communist infiltration in the Roosevelt administration (the Venona decrypts, giving evidence of 329 Soviet agents inside the U.S. government during World War II, would prove him right). After Roosevelt’s death, he was influential in the transformation of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union, from accommodation to “containment.” Senator Joseph McCarthy, another Irish Catholic, testifies in his book The Fight for America that it was Forrestal who directly inspired his exposés of communist influence and subversion in the federal government:

“Before meeting Jim Forrestal I thought we were losing to international Communism because of incompetence and stupidity on the part of our planners. I mentioned that to Forrestal. I shall forever remember his answer. He said, ‘McCarthy, consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.’ This phrase stuck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.”

After Forrestal met his violent end, McCarthy moved up to the front line. He himself died on May 2, 1957, at the age of forty-eight, in Bethesda Hospital. Hospital officials listed the cause of death as “acute hepatic failure,” and the death certificate reads “hepatitis, acute, cause unknown.” The doctors declared that the inflammation of the liver was of a “noninfectious type”. Acute hepatitis can be caused either by infection or by poisoning, yet no autopsy was performed. Simpson comments (as quoted at length in Martin’s article James Forrestal and Joe McCarthy):

“Like Jim Forrestal, Joe McCarthy walked into the Bethesda Naval Hospital as its most controversial patient and as the one man in America most hated by the Communists. And, like Forrestal, he left in a hearse, as a man whose valiant fight against Communism was ended forever.”

M. Stanton Evans, who built on his father Medford Evans’ earlier work for his commendable Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies (2009), hints at the possibility that McCarthy was murdered, but does not explore the issue.

In 1953, Robert Kennedy worked as an assistant counsel to the Senate committee chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy

The problem with Cornell Simpson’s theory is that Forrestal’s worst enemies were not the communists, but the Zionists. Although Forrestal’s anti-communism later attracted criticism from left-wing historians, it was not, then, a matter of public condemnation. Forrestal’s anti-communism was shared by most of his contemporaries, especially within the military. As long as you did not mention the high percentage of Jews among communists, being anti-communist did not make you the target of the mainstream media. The same, obviously, cannot be said of anti-Zionism. Neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times can be said to have been pro-communist at any time, but both turned strongly pro-Zionist around 1946. Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the NY Times’ director of publication since 1938, had actually denounced in 1946 the “coercive methods of the Zionists” influencing his editorial line, but eventually gave in and, since 1948, the NY Times has produced singularly unbalanced coverage of Palestine.[9]

It was his opposition to Zionism, not to communism, that attracted death threats to Forrestal. In his diary entry for February 3, 1948, Forrestal writes that he had lunch with Bernard Baruch and mentioned to him his effort at stopping the process of recognition:

“He took the line of advising me not to be active in this particular matter and that I was already identified, to a degree that was not in my own interests, with opposition to the United Nations policy on Palestine.”

Martin comments (p. 86):

“Baruch clearly did not know his man when he attempted to influence him by appealing to Forrestal’s own self-interest. He might have known more than he was telling, though, when he hinted at the danger that Forrestal faced for the courageous position he had taken.”

Jewish gangsters were traditionally anti-communists, but the Zionists could count on them to give a hand whenever needed. From 1945, Ben-Gurion’s Jewish Agency had close links to the Yiddish mafia, also known as the Mishpucka (Hebrew for “the Family”), who contributed greatly to the clandestine arms-purchasing-and-smuggling network that armed the Haganah. Leonard Slater writes in The Pledge that Teddy Kollek, who later became the longtime mayor of Jerusalem, ran the day-to-day operations and was told explicitly by Jewish gangsters from Brooklyn, “If you want anyone killed, just draw up a list and we’ll take care of it.” Yehuda Arazi, a close aide to Ben-Gurion sent by him to the U.S. to purchase heavy armaments, approached Meyer Lansky and met with members of “Murder, Incorporated.” Another Haganah emissary, Reuvin Dafni, who would become Israeli consul in Los Angeles and New York, met with Benjamin Siegelbaum, known as Bugsy Siegel. Some of those “gangsters for Zion”, writes Robert Rockaway, “did so out of ethnic loyalties,” or “saw themselves as defenders of the Jews, almost biblical-like fighters. It was part of their self-image.” Some also helped “because it was a way […] to gain acceptance in the Jewish community.”[10] Mickey Cohen, the successor of Bugsy Siegel, explains in his memoirs that from 1947, “I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war.”[11] He was in close contact with Menachem Begin, and met with him when Begin came touring the U.S. in December 1948, a few months before Forrestal was confined to the Bethesda hospital.[12] Had Begin wanted Forrestal dead, he had only to ask.

I think it is quite self-evident that Forrestal had more to fear from the Zionists than from the communists. And so it is strange that Cornell Simpson totally ignores the Zionists as possible culprits. Neither Israel nor Zionism appears in his index. David Martin, who nevertheless recognizes the merit of Simpson’s investigation, finds the explanation for his blackout on Zionism in the fact that his book was published by Western Islands Publishers, the in-house publishing company of the John Birch Society, a Zionist front.

Three years before the Birch Society published Simpson’s book, Rogow had published the first biography of Forrestal, defending the official line about his death, and linking his supposed mental illness directly to his supposed anti-Semitism. It is very unlikely that Rogow’s book eased the suspicions of the skeptics about Forrestal’s suicide. On the contrary, Rogow’s obvious bias as a writer mainly concerned with anti-Semitism must have led many to consider his book as just another layer in the cover-up. Martin therefore speculates that the writing and publishing of Simpson’s book by the Birch Society was a way to give voice to the skepticism over Forrestal’s death, while directing that skepticism away from the most likely suspects. Blaming the communists was the easiest way to deflect suspicions from the Zionists.

It was all the easier that, from the 1930s up to the time of Forrestal’s death, the communists and the Zionists were the same people in many instances, as David Martin points out. Although communism and Zionism may seem incompatible from an ideological viewpoint, it is a matter of record that some of the Jews who acted as communist agents under Roosevelt, turned ardent Zionists under Truman. A case in point is David Niles (Neyhus), one of the few of FDR’s top advisors kept by Truman: he was identified in the Venona decrypts as a communist agent, but then played a key role as a Zionist gatekeeper under Truman. Edwin Wright, in The Great Zionist Cover-Up, names him as “the protocol officer in the White House, [who] saw to it that the State Department influence was negated while the Zionist view was presented.” David Niles’ brother Elliot, a high official of B’nai B’rith, was a Lieutenant Colonel who passed information to the Haganah while working in the Pentagon.

Did the order come from the White House?

Martin considers David Niles “the most likely coordinator of the Forrestal assassination.” He had the motives and the means. He was actually capable of passing orders on behalf of Truman, as he did when orchestrating the campaign of intimidation and corruption that obtained a two-third majority in favor of the Partition Plan at the U.N. General Assembly.[13]

There are reasons to believe that the order to eliminate Forrestal came directly from the White House. According to Truman’s appointments secretary, Matthew J. Connelly, it was Truman himself who suggested arranging for Forrestal a vacation at Hobe Sound. As for the decision to abduct him from there and intern him in Bethesda, Martin makes the following remark:

“Considering the fact that Forrestal, having been officially replaced as Defense Secretary by Johnson on March 28, was a private citizen at this point, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Forrestal’s extra-legal transportation to Florida on a military airplane and confinement and treatment in the Naval Hospital at Bethesda was not done without approval at the highest level.” (Martin p. 29)

Hoopes and Brinkley state explicitly that the decision to take Forrestal to Bethesda came from Truman, and that Forrestal’s wife was convinced by a telephone conversation with Truman.

The decision to put Forrestal on the 16th floor, which seems hardly appropriate for a patient reputed suicidal, also came from the White House. Hoopes and Brinkley quote Dr. Robert P. Nenno, a young assistant to Dr. Raines from 1952 to 1959, who believed that Raines had received instruction to put Forrestal there, and added, “I have always guessed that the order came from the White House.”

Hoopes and Brinkley justify Dr. Raines’ turning Sheehy away on six occasions by the fear that Forrestal might divulge sensitive information during confession. Such concerns obviously came from higher up. It apparently didn’t come from Navy Secretary John L. Sullivan because, as Hoopes and Brinkley tell us, when Sheehy and Henry Forrestal took their complaint to him on May 18, he expressed surprise and had the decision overruled. According to Simpson: “the priest later commented that he received the distinct impression that Dr. Raines was acting under orders.”

There is, of course, no evidence that throwing Forrestal out of the window was also ordered by the White House, but given Truman’s complete control by the Zionists, and by David Niles in particular, it is not unlikely.

Why kill him after he had been dismissed from power?

But, one may ask, why would Truman or anyone need to kill Forrestal? Once out of the Pentagon, he had no more influence on government policy.

The answer is easy. Far from being suicidal, Forrestal was a man with a plan. According to Hoopes and Brinkley,

“he had told powerful Wall Street friends […] that he was interested in starting a newspaper or a magazine modeled after The Economist of Great Britain, and they had demonstrated a willingness to help him raise the start-up funds.”

He also planned to write a book. With no more ties to the government or to the army, he was free to speak his mind on many issues. As a war hero and a very popular figure, he was sure to have a great impact. And he had plenty of embarrassing things to reveal about what he had seen during his nine years in the government.

Time cover, October 29, 1945

As Navy Secretary, he had been the central person for Pacific operations during World War II. He had inside knowledge of Roosevelt’s scheme to provoke the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. According to his diary entry for April 18, 1945, he had even told Truman, that,

“I had got Admiral Hewitt back to pursue the investigation into the Pearl Harbor disaster. […] I felt I had an obligation to Congress to continue the investigation because I was not completely satisfied with the report my own Court had made.”

Forrestal was also very bitter about the way the war ended in the Pacific. Knowing the desperate situation of the Japanese, he had worked behind the scene to achieve a negotiated surrender from the Japanese. He was opposed to the demand of “unconditional surrender”, which he knew was unacceptable to the Japanese military leadership. Simpson writes, as quoted by David Martin here:

“As secretary of the navy, Forrestal had originated a plan to end the war with Japan five and a half months before V-J Day finally dawned. He had mapped this plan on the basis of massive intelligence information obtained on and prior to March 1, 1945, to the effect that the Japanese were already desperately anxious to surrender and the fact that the Japanese emperor had even asked the pope to act as peace mediator. If Roosevelt had acted on Forrestal’s plan, the war would have ground to a halt in a few days. A-bombs would never have incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thousands of Americans would not have died in the unnecessary battle of Okinawa and later bloody encounters, and the Russians would not have had a chance to muscle into the Pacific war for the last six of its 1,347 days, thus giving Washington the pretext for handing them the key to the conquest of all Asia.”

Forrestal had also much to say about the way the Zionists obtained the Partition Plan at the General Assembly of the United Nations, or about the way Truman was blackmailed and bought into supporting the recognition of Israel. He had written in his diary, February 3, 1948, about his meeting with Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., a strong advocate of the Jewish State:

“I thought the methods that had been used by people outside of the Executive branch of the government to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely onto scandal.”

Forrestal had a pretty good memory. But, in addition, he had accumulated thousands of pages of diary during his public service. According to Simpson,

“During Forrestal’s brief stay at Hobe Sound, his personal diaries, consisting of fifteen loose-leaf binders totaling three thousand pages, were hastily removed from his former office in the Pentagon and locked up in the White House where they remained for a year. […] all during the seven weeks prior to Forrestal’s death, his diaries were out of his hands and in the White House, where someone could have had ample time to study them.”

The White House later claimed that Forrestal had sent word that he wanted President Truman to take custody of these diaries, but that is very unlikely.

A small part of Forrestal’s diaries was ultimately published in a heavily censored form by Walter Millis, FDR apologist and New York Herald Tribune journalist. Simpson estimates that more than 80 percent was left out. Millis frankly admitted that he had deleted unfavorable “references to persons, by name [and] comment reflecting on the honesty or loyalty of an individual.” Millis also said that he deleted everything on the Pearl Harbor investigations. One can only guess how much censorship Millis exerted on Forrestal’s view about American support for Israel.

David Martin’s conclusion makes perfect sense:

“Forrestal’s writing and publishing plans provide the answer to the question, ‘Why would anyone bother to murder him when he had already been driven from office and disgraced by the taint of mental illness?’”

“The compelling reasons for Forrestal to want to continue living were also compelling reasons for his powerful enemies to see to it that he did not.”

“He comes across, in short, not as a prime candidate for suicide, but for assassination.” (Martin, pp. 52, 53, 87)

A parallel with Lord Northcliffe

In his blurb for Martin’s book, James Fetzer puts it this way:

“Dave Martin has established that James Forrestal was targeted for assassination by Zionist zealots who were convinced that his future influence as an editor and publisher represented an unacceptable risk.”

In this article, Martin expands on this idea by comparing Forrestal to Lord Northcliffe (Alfred Harmsworth), an influential newspaper editor whose tragic story is told by Douglas Reed in The Controversy of Zion (pp. 205-208), based on The Official History of The Times (1952). In the 1920s just like today, factual reporting from the press was the greatest obstacle to the Zionist ambitions. Lord Northcliffe owned journals and periodicals, including the two most widely read daily newspapers, and he was the majority proprietor of the most influential newspaper in the world at that time, The Times of London. He took a definite stand against the Zionist plan, and wrote, after a visit to Palestine in 1922: “In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it.” Northcliffe commissioned a series of articles attacking Balfour’s attitude towards Zionism. His editor, Wickham Steed, refused, and, when Northcliffe asked him to resign, took a series of actions to have Northcliffe declared mentally ill. Although he appeared perfectly normal to most people he met, on June 18, 1922, Northcliffe was declared unfit for the position of editor of The Times on the authority of an unknown “French nerve specialist,” removed from all control of his newspapers, and put under constraint. On July 24, 1922 the Council of the League of Nations met in London, secure from any possibility of loud public protest by Lord Northcliffe, to bestow on Britain a “mandate” to remain in Palestine and to install the Zionists there. On August 14, 1922, Northcliffe died at the age of fifty-seven, officially of “ulcerative endocarditis.” The public was, of course, kept in total ignorance of the way this highly respected public figure was taken off the scene. Douglas Reed, who was then working as a clerk in the office of The Times, and learned the full story much later, remembers that:

“Lord Northcliffe was convinced that his life was in danger and several times said this; specifically, he said he had been poisoned. If this is in itself madness, then he was mad, but in that case many victims of poisoning have died of madness, not of what was fed to them. If by any chance it was true, he was not mad. […] His belief certainly charged him with suspicion of those around him, but if by chance he had reason for it, then again it was not madness.”

Reed sees Northcliffe’s elimination as a turning point:

“After Lord Northcliffe died the possibility of editorials in The Times ‘attacking Balfour’s attitude towards Zionism’ faded. From that time the submission of the press […] grew ever more apparent and in time reached the condition which prevails today, when faithful reporting and impartial comment on this question has long been in suspense.”

The parallel with Forrestal is indeed striking, as David Martin remarks:

“Forrestal’s first love was journalism. In his youth he had worked as a reporter for three newspapers in his native upstate New York, and he had been the editor of the student newspaper at Princeton. As former president of the investment banking firm of Dillon, Read, & Co. he was a rich, powerful and well-connected man. He had plans to run his own news magazine. In short, he could have become an American Lord Northcliffe with the ability to have a great deal of influence on public opinion in the country.”


[1] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, p. 141.

[2] Haaretz, February 5, 1999, quoted in Michael Collins Piper, False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, pp. 54–55.

[3] Joe Sterling, “Jewish paper’s column catches Secret Service’s eye,” CNN, January 22, 2012.

[4] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 90.

[5] Ronen Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, Random House, 2018, p. 20.

[6] William Reymond and Billie Sol Estes, JFK Le Dernier Témoin, Flammarion, 2003.

[7] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 250.

[8] John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People, St. Martin’s Griffin, 2017 , p. 212-213.

[9] Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, pp. 95, 143.

[10] Robert Rockaway, “Gangsters for Zion. Yom Ha’atzmaut: How Jewish mobsters helped Israel gain its independence”, April 19, 2018, on

[11] Mickey Cohen, In My Own Words, Prentice-Hall, 1975, pp. 91–92.

[12] Gary Wean, There’s a Fish in the Courthouse, Casitas, 1987, quoted by Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed., 2005, pp. 290–297.

[13] Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 50.

January 27, 2020 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 3 Comments

The Umbrella Man, the Sins of the Father, and the Kennedy Curse

By Laurent Guyénot • Unz Review • November 22, 2019

I first heard of the so-called “Umbrella Man” from a commenter to my article “Did Israel Kill the Kennedys?” (thanks again). It is one of the most puzzling pieces in the JFK assassination file. An intriguing introduction to it is this short interview of Josiah Thompson filmed by Errol Morris for the New York Times, on the 48th anniversary of his death:

Or view on Vimeo.

This film is interesting because, besides presenting the facts accurately, it illustrates the kind of “cognitive dissonance” they can produce, leading reasonable people to believe an implausible but harmless and comforting explanation, rather than a more logical but deeply disturbing one. In that case, it seems that normally programmed brains will reject vigorously, as unspeakable and therefore unthinkable on the conscious level, the notion that John Kennedy’s assassination can possibly have anything to do with his father’s appeasement policy in 1938, despite the fact that that notion has been deeply ingrained in our subconscious mind through the twin Jewish mythemes of “The Sins of the Father” and “The Kennedy Curse”, as illustrated by those two books:

The “sins of the father” is a not-so-subtle reference to Exodus 20:5:

“I, Yahweh, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

Chief among Joe Kennedy’s sins was, of course, that “he was a documented anti-Semite and an appeaser of Adolf Hitler” (publisher’s presentation of Kessler’s book).

The “Kennedy Curse” is a quasi kabalistic attempt to explain how the Kennedys were “on a fatal collision course with reality” because they “made the fatal mistake of thinking of themselves as divine.” By implication, their assassinations are to be blamed on their “self-defeating behavior” (publisher’s presentation of Klein’s book).

Taken together, those twin hasbara refrains evoke a notion of divine punishment. JFK and RFK were punished for the sins of their Jew-hating, Nazi-loving father. Mind you, it was Yahweh who took vengeance, not Israel!

The Umbrella Man fits so perfectly in this mythic narrative! The problem is that myths are not supposed to incarnate themselves so patently in physical reality. The implications are here too disturbing: for no reasonable man can believe that Yahweh supernaturally inspired Louie Steven Witt his “bad joke” (as he called it when interviewed by the special House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978). Then who inspired it?

Such a question is off-limit for Josiah Thompson’s mind. So he simply decided not to see anything “sinister” in the weird fact that he relates. He not only takes Witt’s explanation at face value (“this is just wacky enough, it has to be true!” in other words, credo quia absurdum), but assumes that the strange behavior of the Umbrella Man and JFK’s assassination are unrelated, and happened precisely at the same time and at the same spot by pure quantum physics coincidence.

By setting his mind on that explanation, Thompson obviously feels relieved not to have to get into “conspiracy theories”, because “everybody else got into the conspiracy theories,” and he is above the crowd. I find it hard to explain that this is the same Josiah Thompson who published in 1967 a book titled Six Seconds in Dallas: a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the President, for which he studied the Zapruder film and interviewed eyewitnesses in order to come up with a plausible line of fire, and the conclusion of a conspiracy and government cover-up. What happened to Josiah in between?

Russ Baker has posted on his website WhoWhatWhy a couple of articles in reaction to Thompson’s NYT interview: here and here. Contrary to Thompson, he finds Witt’s explanation literally unbelievable, and opts for the theory of the “signal man”: the Umbrella Man was “signaling the shooters, perhaps that JFK had been hit, perhaps that he still seemed to be alive, perhaps to keep shooting.” That theory, adopted by film director Oliver Stone for his 1991 movie JFK, is of course far more credible than the theory of the fléchette-shooting umbrella that Thompson chose to mention to his own satisfaction. But I must say I find it not entirely convincing. I cannot conceive that professional snipers would need such a conspicuous accomplice, standing almost in their line of fire (in the case of those shooting from the Grassy Knoll).

I also find no reason to doubt, as Baker does, that Witt was the real Umbrella Man. Witt was identified by neighbors and local newsmen before he came forward to the HSCA, and the photos of him on Dealey Plaza seem to match.

Baker borrows from John Simkin of Spartacus Educational the opinion that the umbrella was never the symbol of Chamberlain anyway, and so that Witt’s explanation makes no sense. Baker is wrong on that point, apparently. The umbrella was so much the iconic trademark of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that cartoonist David Low of the London Evening Standard, not only systematically drew him with his umbrella, but even drew him as an umbrella!

Chamberlain, who became a reviled symbol of appeasement (his biography bears the significant title, More Than Munich: The Forgotten Legacy of Neville Chamberlain) was the archetypal Umbrella Man.

According to Edward Miller,

“Umbrella protests first began in England after Chamberlain arrived home from the [Munich] conference carrying his trademark accessory. Wherever Chamberlain traveled, the opposition party in Britain protested his appeasement at Munich by displaying umbrellas.”[1]

Louie Steven Witt declares in his testimony to the HSCA that he had heard that “some members of the Kennedy family” had once been offended in an airport by people brandishing umbrellas. I haven’t found any confirmation that Joseph Kennedy or any other Kennedy had been heckled by open umbrellas as a “silent protest” against their objectionable lack of love for the Jews, but I find it plausible that “the umbrella was a sore spot to the Kennedys,” as Witt put it in his HSCA testimony. So John Kennedy being heckled with Chamberlain’s umbrella at the same time as being assassinated under Ben-Gurion’s order does strike me as both plausible and significant, as a sort of cryptic signature by the Zionist-Irgun mafia.

In my view, summarized here, John Kennedy was assassinated by Israel for three major reasons:

Dimona: President Kennedy, who had made nuclear disarmament his grand mission on the international level, and was on the way to achieve it with Khrushchev (as shown by James Douglass in JFK and the Unspeakable), was determined to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb. According to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s interpretation, it was to plunge into the Israeli deep state and supervise Kennedy’s assassination that Ben-Gurion resigned in July 1963 before receiving Kennedy’s ultimatum letter demanding inspections of Dimona.

American Zionist Council: John Kennedy and his Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright (whom Kennedy had been prevented to name as Secretary of State) aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a “foreign agent” subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would have rendered its lobbying division, the AIPAC, near powerless. On October 11, 1963, the AZC received a formal demand from RFK’s office to register within 72 hours (details here).

Nasser: Kennedy unequivocally supported Arab nationalism in 1957 as a senator,[2] reversed Eisenhower’s foreign polity in a pro-Nasser way (as documented by Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012), and committed the U.S. to support U.N. Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. That was a major threat to Zionist interests, who had bet on making Nasser an enemy of the United States.

To these reasons for assassinating Kennedy, we must add the opposite reasons for putting Johnson instead in the Oval Office, for Johnson buried both the Dimona and the AZC proceedings, and cut U.S. support for Nasser’s in order to boost support to Israel. In 1967, he would commit high treason against his own country by allowing and covering-up Israel’s failed false-flag attack on the USS Liberty. No wonder Israel loved Johnson as much as they hated Kennedy.

In the Zionists’ view, JFK’s anti-Israel policies (discreet or secret) were part of a more general “Kennedy problem” that went back to his father’s attempt to prevent WWII by supporting Chamberlain’s appeasement with Hitler rather than Churchill’s appeasement with Stalin. According to German documents declassified in 1949, the German Ambassador in London, Herbert von Dirksen, after meeting U.S. ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy in 1938, wrote that he “understood our Jewish policy completely,” and was “Germany’s best friend” in London.[3] When Roosevelt entered the war, Joseph Kennedy resigned, and later complained privately that, “the Jews have won the war.”[4] According to biographer David Nasaw, Joseph was not an anti-Semite in the racial sense, but rather someone who believed in a Jewish conspiracy to push the United States into an unnecessary war with Germany (Nasaw insists he was mistaken, because “Jewish influence on American foreign influence was negligible, its influence on the State Department nonexistent”).[5]

Zionists had reasons to fear that Joseph Kennedy did “inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his son John’s” (as printed in September 1960 by the Herut, Menachem Begin’s political party).[6] In 1940, John had published a book titled Why England Slept, adapted from his Harvard thesis which was, as the title alluded, a response to Churchill’s 1938 book While England Slept, and a veiled support for his father’s pro-appeasement views. In his Pulitzer prize-winning book Profiles in Courage (1956), Kennedy had declared his admiration for Senator Robert Taft, who by calling the Nuremberg trials a shameful parody of justice had sacrificed his political career, including his chances for the presidency, rather than build it on hypocrisy. Although Zionists probably didn’t know it until recently, in 1945, JFK had written the following in his diary, as quoted here by Abigail Abrams:

“You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”[7]

Joseph Jr., Joseph Sr., and John Kennedy in 1938

The Kennedys were a family of strong traditions and strong convictions. They had to be destroyed, politically as had Charles Lindbergh (1902-1974), and if necessary physically, before they extirpate America from Zionists’ clutches.

Dallas was an Israeli coup, ordered from Tel Aviv with Johnson’s support, and supervised by the local B’nai B’rith under the cover of the Dallas Citizens Council, who was sponsoring Kennedy’s visit, and of whom Abraham Zapruder himself was a member (watch his satisfaction when interviewed two hours after JFK’s assassination in the History Channel documentary JFK – 3 Shots That Changed America , at 43:34).

When trying to make sense of Dallas’ Umbrella Man, we are faced with a dilemma: should we believe Witt’s explanation of his strange behavior (as does Josiah Thompson), or should we consider him an accomplice to the assassination (as does Russ Baker)? Only in the framework of the Israeli theory pioneered by Michael Collins Piper is it possible to surmount the dilemma.

Let’s recap what we know for certain. Fact number 1: on the sunny day of November 22, 1963, one man was standing on the President’s motorcade route with an open umbrella, at the precise moment and place when JFK was shot. To assume that the Umbrella Man’s strange behavior and JFK’s assassination are unrelated is unreasonable. The coincidence is just too improbable.

Fact number 2: In 1978, Louie Steven Witt claimed in front of the HSCA that he was the Umbrella Man and explained that he wanted to heckle JFK about his father’s policy of appeasement of Hitler in 1938.

Although Thompson and Baker disagree about everything else, they agree that there can be no connection between John Kennedy’s assassination and Joseph Kennedy’s appeasement policy. That is where they are both wrong.

Was Louie Steven Witt a Zionist agent, a sayan? Not necessarily. Operations like the JFK assassination are planned on a strict need-to-know basis: no one knows more than he needs to know. Witt declared to the HSCA that he belonged to no organization whatsoever. He summarized his motivation for his “bad joke” in these words:

“In a coffee break conversation someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.”

What would be interesting to know is: who inspired Witt during his coffee break? Did the coffee break take place in the office of Witt’s Jewish boss, director of the Rio Grande National Life insurance Co. in Dallas? Did Witt have insurmountable debts, like Jacob Rubenstein, aka Jack Ruby? Russ Baker mentions that the company wrote a lot of insurance for the military and was located in the same building that housed the local office of the highly negligent Secret Service.

Mr Witt, would you kindly come forward again and answer a few questions?


[1] Edward H. Miller, “Umbrella Man”, November 22, 2013, on The Historical Society, on

[2] “Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, ‘The New Dimensions of American Foreign Policy’,” University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 1, 1957”; Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 554.

[3] Edward Renehan Jr., “Joseph Kennedy and the Jews”, History News Network; Kellen Perry, – “The Dark Side Of Joe Kennedy Sr.”, April 17, 2017.

[4] Quoted in Herbert Druks, John F. Kennedy and Israel, Praeger Security International, 2005, p. 10

[5] David Nasaw, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy, Penguin, 2015, p. 509.

[6] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 252.

[7] Abigail Abrams, “Auction of Rare Diary Highlights What John F. Kennedy Really Thought About Hitler,” Time, March 23, 2017, on

Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State , Progressive Press, 2014, and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018. (or $30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556).

November 22, 2019 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments