Assassination attempt against Donald Trump shows the U.S. is a failed state
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 14, 2024
Former U.S. President Donald Trump was attacked during a rally in Pennsylvania. A sniper shot at Trump, grazing him in the head and injuring other people attending the event. The American secret service quickly neutralized the shooter after the shots were fired, however witnesses on the streets said they reported to the police about the shooter’s position before the attack, with the agents apparently ignoring the reports.
Trump is fine, the injuries have not caused him any serious damage. More than that, Trump is politically stronger than ever. His image as a “survivor” and “martyr” gives him a great advantage in the electoral race with rival Joe Biden – who has been the target of criticism even by his supporters, due to his serious condition of mental weakness.
Some conspiracy theorists have spread fake news and fantastic narratives on the internet about Trump having orchestrated the attack just to improve his political image. Obviously, this type of speech makes no sense. From a rational point of view, there is no reason for Trump to organize an attempt on his own life just to obtain political gains in a dispute in which he already has every possible advantage. Trump is already recognized as the favorite in the elections, so there is no reason for him to take such a risk.
In the same sense, there is little data available to confirm that Biden and the Democrats are behind the maneuver. The mere fact that there is a political and electoral rivalry is not enough to accuse the side opposing Trump. However, despite this, it is necessary to emphasize that intelligence operations using snipers are a typical CIA tactic. Furthermore, another American security agency with reasons to eliminate Trump is the FBI, as the former president plans to approve a reform that will end part of this institution’s powers.
In the near future, more data will be revealed about the case, which will certainly facilitate the work of investigators and analysts, helping to get to the truth. For now, the main thing to do is not try to reach conclusions about who tried to kill Trump, but to analyze the case as a whole, considering the entire American political and social context in the midst of these elections.
In fact, what can be concluded for now is that the U.S. is already a failed state. The country that was once recognized as the land of democracy and freedom is now nothing more than a state with an unviable administration, full of social chaos, institutional instability, racial tensions and political polarization. The U.S. domestic situation is not so different from that of countries widely recognized as “failed states” in some regions of Africa or Central America. From the moment presidential candidates suffer assassination attempts – or begin to show signs of mental illness – it seems clear that the country is on the brink of an irreversible institutional crisis.
The American reality no longer seems possible to reverse. Intelligence officials have long reported the possibility of the U.S. falling into civil war – or at least serious social conflict – in the coming years. Racial and political tensions have worsened and generated increasing concerns about the near future. Regardless of who wins the elections, this scenario is unlikely to improve. Either president will only worsen the polarization, intensify the hatred of followers of one side against the other. There will be no peace among American citizens, but tensions progressively escalating towards civil war.
If the situation that currently affects the U.S. were occurring in any developing country, Western powers would already be proposing a series of interventionist measures in international organizations. As happens in several poor countries, it is also possible to think of an “international solution” for the U.S., through some intervention by the UN or the OAS. A failed state needs international support to overcome its domestic problems – and, in fact, the U.S. is currently nothing more than a mere failed state.
Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to rethink its own capacity as a sovereign state.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Mainstream media fails again
The botched assassination attempt of former US president Donald Trump has shone a light on the failing mainstream news media.
Maryanne Demasi, reports | July 14, 2024
If you’ve been off grid, former president Donald Trump narrowly escaped death at his rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday July 13, 2024, at approximately 6:15 p.m.
Trump’s speech was being live streamed, so video footage of the attempted assassination went viral across social media.
Several mainstream media outlets, however, delayed coverage or reported inaccurately on the events, frustrating the public and inflaming criticism of the legacy media.
When the first bullet clipped Trump’s right ear, narrowly missing his skull, he ducked down at the podium before secret service jumped to his aid.
Onlookers say Trump was calm. The podium microphones picked up his audio. “Get my shoes” he said to one of his secret service agents.
Trump then stood up and turned to his supporters with a bloodied face and fist in the air, mouthing the words “fight, fight, fight” before being rushed off the stage.
The crowd erupted.
Iconic moment: Trump acknowledges his supporters after the botched assassination attempt.
Regardless of your politics, the attempt on Trump’s life was morally bankrupt and an attack on democracy. Any sort of violence, political or otherwise, should be condemned.
Trump released a statement soon after the assassination attempt, confirming that he’d been shot, and that one bullet had “pierced” his right ear.
“I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin,” wrote Trump on his Truth Social platform.
The suspected gunman, who was positioned on a rooftop 150 yards away, managed to fire multiple shots at the stage where Trump was standing, before he was neutralised by a secret service sniper.
One person who attended the rally was killed and two other spectators were critically wounded.
Alleged shooter on a nearby rooftop shot dead moments after the failed assassination attempt.
No doubt there will be a lot of speculation about the incident over the coming days and weeks, but it was the coverage by mainstream media that left many fuming.
Left leaning news outlets began downplaying the seriousness of the situation.
USA Today and The Washington Post, for example, both reported that Trump was escorted off stage after hearing “loud noises” at the rally, as if it was something innocuous like balloons popping.
CNN published a headline claiming that Trump had to be rushed off stage after a “fall” as if to imply that he had tripped over.
Another CNN headline claimed that Trump’s speech was “interrupted by secret service” instead of describing it as an assassination attempt.
CNN even criticised Trump for his display of defiance on stage, attacking him for not urging calm.
“That’s not the message that we want to be sending right now,” remarked one CNN commentator.
In my own country, Australia’s free-to-air broadcaster Channel 10 was slammed for taking more than an hour to cover the attempted assassination.
Instead of immediately cutting their regular programming to cover the unfolding attack, Channel 10 continued to air cooking shows.
People jumped on social media to get the latest information, and express their frustration with how politicised and biased mainstream media had become.
One X user mocked CNN’s coverage. “‘Loud noises’ made Trump ‘fall’ which ‘interrupted’ the rally. Thank you mainstream media for never failing to fail.”
Another posted, “Trump gets shot at on live television and this is the headline the mainstream media goes with?! This is what the mainstream media has become – a propaganda machine. They don’t want you to believe what you see with your own eyes.”
A different X user wrote, “Mainstream media is the cancer of society.”
People were glued to X, one of the few social media platforms that provided immediate and transparent access to video, photographic and audio recordings of the attack.
As someone who worked in mainstream media for over a decade, this comes as no surprise as I’ve watched the industry slowly rot.
People are cancelling subscriptions to newspapers and cable providers in droves. Mass layoffs, job cuts and hiring freezes have all precipitated the substantial contraction of small and large media outlets and seen massive declines in ratings and audience engagement.
Last year, media companies slashed over 20,000 jobs in the sector, and the culling of journalists has continued into 2024. In January, the Los Angeles Times axed 20% of its newsroom and laid off its entire Washington DC bureau in an election year.
Many people have watched as journalism – once a frank and fearless pursuit for truth – has become a running commentary of consensus statements and government propaganda.
I think legacy media is slowly dying and the coverage of Trump’s assassination attempt has only emboldened my view.
Now, more than ever, independent journalists (like me) need to be funded because we are not constrained by politics, official narratives or advertising revenue.
The Rockefellers created 990 “Climate Change” institutions, foundations, and activist groups
Every time you hear a “climate change” scare story, that person was PAID. He is a Rockefeller stooge. He may not know it; but his profession has been entirely corrupted
This is the most public of their estates but Rockefeller houses, mansions, lodges, city palaces, beachfront estates, and dozens upon dozens of holiday houses litter America.
By Elizabeth Nickson | Welcome to Absurdistan | July 7, 2024
In the climate change arena, the Rockefellers call the shots. The whole thing was their idea, they took a silly but interesting theory and amped it up with hundreds and hundreds of million of dollars. They founded institutions and linked the survival of those institutions to promoting climate change and population reduction. They adopted one likely politician after another.
The Rockefellers have created 990 Climate Change activist organizations. They give them directions, financing, and launch them on the world. The Green Movement was started, financed, organized, and militarized by the Rockefellers. By the late 40’s the family was all in, on the same page. In the 50’s they began to stand up countless institutions, committees, university departments, university institutes, foundations, and policy shops gathered around this one idea, as below:
Let’s just pause here and recognize that the United States and Canada are 5% developed. If it were 50%, then maybe we would have reason to worry about the effects of trace gas that takes up .04% of the atmosphere, of which 3% is currently contributed to by humans. But were we to have that level of development, our science would have long ago solved the problem. Our sense of proportion, size and consequence has been twisted, propagandized via hundreds of billions of purposed dollars. And all of it is exaggerated science done by scientists compromised by Rockefeller money.
By 1998, the Rockefeller family had swept the table clean of any opposition to this one idea. Any scientist not on board with the agenda was imperiled. Any university department not working towards this one artificial goal, was in danger of being marginalized. Infiltration had begun into every media organization, every entertainment division of every major corporation. This, as stated below, would be a generational goal. For everyone. Or get off the bus.
The Rockefellers have created 990 Climate Change institutions, foundations, and activist groups. And they fund them.
What is evidentiary, what can be proved in a court of law, rather than opinion, however, is that the Fabians started the idea of this whole one-world, no nation state. It is clear too that after the First World War, the Fabians roped in the second generation of Rockefellers. It was a major catch. It meant they had America. And it was spiritual. It was meant to change mankind, to kill off Homo Sapiens and turn us to Homo Universalis.
The New Man would be not-Christian, quietist, and self-obsessed. The economy would trend towards zero-growth if not de-growth. There is a preponderance of data, many many publications that laid out their plans. They twisted education away from practical science, engineering and building things towards social movements, the humanities, the arts, and pleasure. And via Laurance Rockefeller’s money and organizational skill, they devised and invented the discipline of cybernetics from which the internet flows.
The first Rockefeller, as almost everyone knows, was John D., by all accounts a deeply unpleasant individual who, after his private army killed protestors, was advised to go into charity in a big way to rescue his reputation. Which he did, and managed to dodge the trustbusters and Teddy Roosevelt, and build his empire over the corpses of his competitors. And then, as advised, he began to buy the media. The Luce empire of Time-Life fell into step. From the 60’s on Time-Life stood astride the media world, attracting the best, the authority on every subject. I was trained there, and trained well, but all the writing was done back in New York, in the Time Life building in Rockefeller Center. It was massaged to fit the message. I wanted to write and left.
By the second generation, the family had found its purpose, the meaning for all the wealth, the path forward. John D., according to Sir Stephen Wilkinson, who has studied him all his life, believed to his core that God had favored him with so much wealth because he was good; his Baptist faith coupled with titanic wealth made him a modern priest. His family, his heirs, would be a Royal Priesthood leading mankind to a new paradise. How the family must have fallen upon the Fabians, with their starry titled members, Bertrand Russell, all the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Emmeline Pankhurst. How seductive socialism is to the intellectual class. It gives them the right, being so smart, to order humanity. To choose for the rest of us. Few of them could run a corner store.
The seduction of great wealth is pretty much irresistible. Everyone falls. The last time I was “in society” was at a wedding hosted by the Bostonian Cabots – so ancient they arrived in the New World in 1498. Famously, “The Lodges only talk to the Cabots and the Cabots only talk to God.” That’s how grand they are. Their wealth spread out that weekend was like entering heaven, everything so beautiful, so absolutely perfect in every detail. It was a lush sinking feeling, utterly seductive to the ego. Any Clinton, Gore, Obama, Kerry, Bush, any impoverished scientist, any ambitious university administrator, every fundraiser, every marginalized military man, would just fall over like an ambitious 20 year old faced with her first billionaire. Take me I’m yours.
The Cabots in full regalia
And that’s what happened. That’s how they did it, by inviting likely servants to their houses and hunting lodges, donating buildings, buying the land for the U.N., funding organizations, appealing to vanity and greed and above all, the human’s desperate need for significance. They created a super-class unmoored to reality and entirely 100% destructive of human life. It was systematic, a fierce, unstoppable, detailed two-hundred-year plan. Each generation would make their contribution.
It started with the felt need to reduce population and turn man into something other. To stress, environmentalism, neo-Malthusianism; the ‘saving of the planet’ was the motivator for each of the following actions. If you accepted Rockefeller funding, you toed the line. There were too many people, the carrying capacity of the earth was breeched, the planet was dying, we need a new form of human. These ideas all came out of the Fabian stable and metastasized through the culture like the most delicious poison. Every intellectual, all the universities started to promote this idea. It was heady, exciting. It celebrated Man, not some faceless distant Deity. Fabians hated Christianity and wanted, above everything, to replace it. But first, they had to command every institution of civil society.
The following is a partial list of the institutions by which the Rockefeller family built the modern world, in every aspect of the culture. It was masterful. Ancient Kings and Emperors would have marveled.
In 1920, John D. co-founded the League of Nations. He was the major donor. It failed because the U.S. refused to sign on. The family began to run for office, in order to manipulate levers of power behind the scenes. Today, there is pretty much always a Rockefeller in power at each level of government.
In 1921, they founded the Council of Foreign Relations, (CFR). David built and donated CFRs headquarters. CFR is closely allied to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, Chatham House, itself closely allied with the British Round Table and the Fabians. When people talk about the 13 Families theory, the Round Table and RIIA feature big-time.
In 1944, they co-founded the World Bank, its ideals and purpose devised by the Council of Foreign Relations’ War and Peace Studies Committee.
In 1945, they co-founded the United Nations, with the CFR and RIIA. David Rockefeller wrote the preamble to the U.N. Charter. John D. Jr bought the 17 acres for the U.N building. Nelson chose the architect, Philip Johnson, thereby introducing the International Style. The family funded the U.N. building.
In 1948, came their statement of purpose:
If the world government cause is to triumph it will need more than sympathetic endorsement by the majority. People must be made to feel that their own security, freedom, and prosperity, yes, their own survival, depend on the creation in our time, of a world rule of law. They must be made to believe that the establishment of a World Government is more urgent than the maintenance of a high domestic standard and as, if not more, practical than the pursuity of a deceptive security by full military preparedness. – Atomic physicist, Edwin Rabinowitch, a Rockefeller client/servant, 1948
In 1948, in league with Julian Huxley, Mr. Population, a leading member of the British Eugenics Society and the British Humanist Society, they formed the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, (IUCN). Stated goal: better distribution of the world’s population (which is behind the migrant crisis) and fertility control. The IUCN has systematically cleared tens of millions of traditional and indigenous peoples from their lands in Africa and the East.
In 1948, they founded the Conservation Foundation. In 1953, they funded it with $53 million, the equivalent of $650 million today.
In 1954, they founded, with Bernhard of the Netherlands (thought to be the apex child predator) the Bilderberg group.
In 1955, they cofounded the International Meterological Institute (IMI)
In 1959, the first publication of the Rockefeller Institute Press included a section on “Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere and Sea due to Fossil Fuel Combustion”.
Laurance Rockefeller was purposed with the spiritual arm of the operation. Starting in the late 40’s. Laurance founded fifty environmental organizations including the World Wildlife Federation, the World Resource Foundation, the IUCN, and UNESCO. Laurence is behind Esalen and Lindesfarne Association, and is responsible for coining the term “New Age”. He founded and funded the Fund for the Advancement of the Human Spirit, the Foundation for Conscious Evolution, the Conservation Foundation. He was a board member of the National Resources Defense Council, the National Geographic Society, Woods Hole Geographic Society, Resources for the Future, and the Sloan foundation. He was a board member of the Environmental Defence Fund and the WWF. He co-founded the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and served as its chairman from 1958-1979. Laurance Rockefeller founded Cybernetics as a discipline by funding its study.
This man created the New Age, the climate scare and the Sixth Great Extinction scare
He stood up and funded most of the New Age gurus followed today by tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. The New Age says “Stay out of the battleground, don’t worry about your neighbor, your family, your town, your country. Worry about your personal spiritual advancement, your tolerance and forgiveness. Work on yourself. Do your “shadow work”, you are everything, everything is a reflection of you.”
He funded the Disclosure Movement, which claims that aliens walk among us, and that their technology, liberated from the Naval Research Labs (another Rockefeller genesis) will save humanity. He was a ferocious, destructive nut.
Next, the family founded, financed and organized the European Commission, OPEC, and the UN Development Program.
In 1973, they founded the Trilateral Commission.
The plans for Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study had been drawn up by Tom Jones from the British Round Table, intended as an American version of All Souls at Oxford which is primarily an academic research institution with particular strengths in the humanities and social and theoretical sciences. The Rockefellers were closely involved via funding the Institute and funding all of its heads and especially, significant scientists, providing grants for their work.
Here the science of climate forecasting was developed using climate modelling during the 1950’s Initially it was thought that geo-engineering would be the principal method used, rather than reducing emissions. They were math freaks, one of whom made the following convenient prophecy.
The climate scare well entrained, the family turned their attention to art and architecture. The breaking of architectural tradition was deliberate. Modern architecture, the International Style was created in order to disrupt and make uneasy Homo Sapiens.
”The International Style suited the Rockefeller brothers’ internationalist aspirations like a glove. It also inspired radically new zoning laws and urban planning models, leading not only to a boxy skyline of rectangular high-rise slivers, but to extensive sprawl and automobile dependency— which also happened to be highly profitable for the oil and auto industries.” (Nordangard)
In New York alone, they commissioned the following buildings, all built to be intentionally unsettling, deliberately destructive. Modernism deliberately erased the the past. It was purposed to make the human walking by and through these buildings, a sense of himself as base, insignificant, submissive and subject.
Some of the Rockefeller-financed buildings:
Rockefeller University
The U.N. Headquarters
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Riverside Church
The Cloisters
Lincoln Center of the Performing Arts
Empire State Plaza in Albany
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
The World Trade Center
Kissinger, then a professor at Harvard, was one of the family’s most treasured assets. He believed “a new political architecture would be required, better able to offer long-term governance.” He became part of Nelson’s “portable brains trust”, the Rockefeller Brother’s fund, the Special Studies Project. The SSP worked from 1956-1961 to build that new political architecture:
They co-founded Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
They co-founded the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
They co-founded the Atomic Energy Commission, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Science Foundation while Nelson Rockefeller was in power.
This is only a partial list. Every single one of these institutions are neo-Malthusian, bent on fewer humans, and taking us off the land into giant pens, controlled, measured and monetized.
In 1989, illustrating the family’s reach abroad, the Hague Declaration (with 24 signatories) called for a new international institutional authority that could preserve the Earth’s atmosphere and fight global warming.
Thereafter, in that same year, 1989, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund under the leadership of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger founded the United Nations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). and funded it with near unlimited resources going forward.
In the appendices of Norgangard’s book, he lists all the institutions founded by the family. Skimming them, I found myself jumping out of my desk chair and shouting into the void. The dog vanished, the cat hid. It is infuriating – they used their power to corrupt every institution that would serve their end game. Here is one page.
The End Game
In 2012, the U.N. Climate Fund announced the establishment of the model for the cities of the future, outside Seoul, Korea called Songdo. Songdo is failing. No one wants to live there. Those who visit describe the place as soulless, with no people, no vivid life. Billions were spent creating it.
Nordangard describes:
“Traffic flow and citizen behaviour is monitored in real-time via five hundred surveillance cameras. Household waste is automatically transported via the pneumatic system under the city and converted into energy. All apartments have smart locks, with smart cards which can also be used for loaner bikes, parking, subway, and movie tickets. All apartments have smart meters (enabling residents to compare their energy consumption with that of their neighbors) and built-in cameras everywhere. Floor sensors detect pressure changes and automatically alert an alarm service of a suspected fall. Systems are tested where residents via the TV screen can receive language lessons or communicate with their physician as well as neighbors and relatives, and bracelets for locating children via GPS.7 In other words, a futuristic dream straight out of the World Future Society’s 1970s vision—or Orwell’s 1984. And this is South Korea. How successful, environmentally friendly, and inclusive Songdo really turned out to be has been questioned. It was built primarily for an affluent middle class expected to be able to afford the higher standard and the new technology. The electricity comes from coal-fired power plants and the buildings are completely glazed with windows that cannot be opened, which requires air conditioning all year round.8 Also, the pneumatic waste disposal system does not always work properly. As of March 2018 there was still no cultural life, no street vendors or old people, public transport, transport systems were empty and three-quarters of the homes were empty.
Evil has a human face, but despite the billions thrown at the people of the earth, fewer and fewer of us are falling for it. This latest Facebook-hysteria-the-sky-is-falling post from NASA’s Climate Change Center, received 5,600 reactions. 5,300, including mine were laughing emojis. And the top comment cited Torecelli, with one man’s work refuting every single flatulent government propaganda machine theory. Facebook, remember, is controlled speech and still, the people win.
Elizabeth Nickson was trained as a reporter at the London bureau of Time Magazine. She became European Bureau Chief of LIFE magazine in its last years of monthly publication, and during that time, acquired the rights to Nelson Mandela’s memoir before he was released from Robben Island. She went on to write for Harper’s Magazine, the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times Magazine, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and the National Post. Her first book The Monkey Puzzle Tree was an investigation of the CIA MKULTRA mind control program and was published by Bloomsbury and Knopf Canada. Her next book, Eco-Fascists, How Radical Environmentalists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage, was a look at how environmentalism, badly practiced, is destroying the rural economy and rural culture in the U.S. and all over the world. It was published by Adam Bellow at Harper Collins US. She is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy, fcpp.org. You can read in depth policy papers about various elements of the environmental junta here: https://independent.academia.edu/ElizabethNickson
You can buy Jacob Nordangard’s book here
AND JUST LIKE THAT, THE CLAIM VACCINES ARE THE WORLD’S BEST STUDIED PRODUCT DIES
The world’s leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and company have just capitulated…
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | July 10, 2024
Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.
They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied—neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at what they are clearly up to:
For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”
For decades, parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination program and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/.
After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.
The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.
That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-opt the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.
Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.
Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety, but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that, while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.
They also ignore the mountain of studies and data which already exist that clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38788092/.
Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.
So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time:
“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use.”
Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks after a vaccine has been authorized.”
“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow up durations, and population heterogeneity.”
Comment: Let me translate: the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see www.icandecide.org/no-placebo; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1673483027618623489.
“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”
Comment: No shit and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!
“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!
“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”
Comment: Again, no shit! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.
“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow — often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete — which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”
Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.
“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf.
“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions — how and in whom they occur — is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”
Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.
“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of U.S. federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”
Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.
“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”
Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.
If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel which could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exists on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.
(Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)
Plotkin and company should welcome studies which can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).
And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.
As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety.
That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?
JFK Jr. and the Jewish Curse on the Kennedys
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 12, 2024
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr. died 25 years ago, with his wife and his sister-in-law.
He was assassinated. I’ll summarize the evidence below.
He was assassinated because he was JFK’s son, and had political ambitions driven by a strong filial piety. He had to die for the same reason his uncle RFK had to die in 1968: no Kennedy should ever approach the White House again — unless, Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin suggests, he is also a Schlossberg. And JFK Jr. could have reached the White House in eight years (he would have been 48 in November 2008; his father became president at 43).
“The Kennedy family is a clan, a tribe, a sovereignty, and a dynasty,” once wrote Arthur Krock, who knew them well.[1] None of the Kennedys can be understood as mere individuals. And so, in a deeper sense, the reason JFK Jr. had to die is that he was the grandson of the founding patriarch, Joe Kennedy. The point was candidly made by John Podhoretz in an op-ed piece for the New York Post, published on the very day when JFK Jr.’s body was recovered from the ocean floor, together with the bodies of his wife and sister-in-law. In that most disgusting piece of fiction, Podhoretz imagines that the Devil is telling Joe in Hell: “every time you think your family is on its way back to glory, I just have to do something. Like I did this weekend, with your grandson John.” According to Podhoretz, speaking in the name of the Devil to Joe, JFK Jr. died in retribution for what his grandfather did to the Jews, “when you were America’s ambassador to England, saying all those nice things about Hitler, doing everything you could to prevent Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany. Thousands of Jews died because of you.”
Note that, logically, the Jewish god Yahweh, not the Devil, should want to punish Joe by killing his grandson. Unless, of course, Yahweh is the Devil. Podhoretz took no time to ponder this question; he could not wait one day to voice his delight, while all Americans were mourning the prince of Camelot.
John Podhoretz is the son of Norman Podhoretz (his colleagues at the Washington Times used to call him “John P. Normanson” because he had been introduced to them as “John Podhoretz, Norman’s son”). Norman will be remembered as the man who wanted so much to launch World War IV. The Podhoretz love world wars because world wars are always good for Israel. Which is also why they have an eternal hatred for Joe Kennedy, the man who almost succeeded in averting World War II. As I explained in “Joseph P. Kennedy, the Cursed Peacemaker,” Joe Kennedy was not a friend of Hitler, but a friend of peace, just like Neville Chamberlain. “I am pro-peace, I pray, hope, and work for peace,” he declared on his first return from London in December 1938.[2]
For trying to prevent the Jews from drawing America into the war, Joe Kennedy was deemed a holocaustic arch-anti-Semite. It is quite astonishing, actually, that his sons could do so well in American politics, despite their father’s reputation as a Hitler-appeaser. It is, in part, a tribute to Joe’s political shrewdness. Here is a funny story told by John Hughes-Wilson:
Joseph Kennedy solved the problem in 1956 by secretly asking a prominent media and entertainment business mogul called Joe Hooker to orchestrate a right-wing press campaign against his son, by accusing the then Senator Jack Kennedy of being a “Jewish puppet”, secretly in hock to Jewish interests and influences. Hooker and his neo-Fascist contacts duly smeared JFK in the Press. “Kikes for Kennedy” ran one headline. The American Nazi party denounced him as a “Jew lover”. The Jewish lobby was impressed and so, when the request for campaign funds duly appeared, Jewish political financiers decided to back Kennedy.[3]
I doubt if the trick impressed the group of financiers gathered by Abraham Feinberg after the 1960s primaries. “Jack,” they said to JFK, “everybody knows the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler. And everybody knows that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” They gave him $500,000 as campaign fund nonetheless, according to Seymour Hersh[4].
They thought they had bought Kennedy’s foreign policy, but they would soon feel cheated: as promised, Kennedy did name Mike Feldman as his advisor on the Middle East, but he treated him as the Israeli agent that he was, and went on befriending Nasser.
The Zionists thought Joe Kennedy’s background could provide them with some leverage on his son. Their preferred Democratic candidate had been Lyndon Johnson, who during the primaries had attacked John as being the son of a “Chamberlain umbrella man” who “thought Hitler was right” (the black umbrella had become a symbol of Chamberlain and the 1938 Munich Conference).[5] When LBJ lost to JFK, JFK was blackmailed, through Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop of the Washington Post, into picking Johnson as vice-president. No one knows for sure what the blackmail was about. Kennedy’s long-time secretary Evelyn Lincoln thought it was “about womanizing, and things in Joe Kennedy’s background.”[6] Since the sex life of politicians was not the type of things that the press reported back then — and the Washington Post was no exception — my guess is that it was more about “Joe Kennedy’s background”. Like Feinberg’s Jewish friends, Graham and Alsop must have reminded JFK of “the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler.”
President Kennedy became a huge problem for Israel, not only for wanting to deprive Israel of the holy nuke, but also for trying to end the Cold War: a rapprochement between Kennedy and Khrushchev, both supporting Nasser’s secular nationalism and pan-Arabism, was Ben-Gurion’s worst nightmare. The Soviet minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko recalled in his memoirs a revealing conversation he had with President Kennedy in the White House, October 3, 1963 — a conversation which, he writes, “left a deep impression in my mind.”
As I entered his study, I found him smiling and as usual in a good mood. He said, ‘Why don’t we go out on to the terrace and talk one to one without interpreters?’
Naturally I agreed, and we left the room.
He immediately began to talk about the internal situation in the USA: ‘The fact is, there are two groups of the American population which are not always pleased when relations between our two countries are eased. One group consists of people who are always opposed to improvement for ideological reasons. They are quite a stable contingent. The other group are people “of a particular nationality’” — he meant the Jewish lobby — who think that always and under all circumstances, the Kremlin will support the Arabs and be an enemy of Israel. This group has effective means for making improvement between our countries very difficult.’ He ended briefly: ‘That is the reality. But I think it is still possible to improve relations, and I want Moscow to know that.’
… At the end of our conversation, Kennedy said, ‘I just wanted you to know some of the difficulties the President of the United States has to face when dealing with questions of Soviet-US relations.’
… I don’t know why, but when I first heard the Tass report of Kennedy’s murder it was that talk on the White House terrace that came into my mind — what he had said about there being opponents to his policy.[7]
From Israel’s point of view, JFK was definitely an appeaser like his father. Israel had needed WWII, and Israel now needed WWIII (as neocon Norman Podhoretz insists on calling the Cold War). “What’s wrong with the Kennedys? Why do they always want to prevent or end the wars that Israel needs? A curse on their house!”
The Kennedy curse is a kabbalistic concept that has been thrown to the public in such books as The Sins of the Father (Ronald Kessler) and The Kennedy Curse (Edward Klein). The title of the first book, written in 1997, is a reference to Exodus 20:5: “I, Yahweh, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” The second book, published in 2004, includes in its introduction a story “told in mystical Jewish circles”, of a rabbi who was “fleeing the Nazis” “shortly before the outbreak of World War II, and “put a curse on Kennedy, damning him and all his male offspring to tragic fates.”[8] It easy to see what the “Kennedy curse” has in common with John Podhoretz’s op-ed: blame it on Satan, but know it’s about messing with the Jews.
Implicit in Klein’s story is that the curse entered into action with the death of Joe Kennedy Jr., the eldest of the brothers, who was killed in action on August 12, 1944, as a patrol bomber pilot. He would have been President Kennedy. The destiny passed to the second son.
The Kennedy Curse fell again on November 22, 1963. In my article “The Umbrella Man, the Sins of the Father, and the Kennedy Curse,” I highlighted the significance of the 39-year-old man named Louie Steven Witt who had decided to open a black umbrella at the precise spot and time of President Kennedy’s execution. In 1978, he explained to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he intended to “kind of do a little heckling” to JFK about his father’s support for Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. But the coincidence between the heckling and the killing was … well, pure coincidence, he said, and the HSCA asked him no more questions.
I had failed to pay attention to the fact that Witt was not alone in doing his “little heckling”. On the Zapruder film and on several photos, we can see, on his front right, a man saluting JFK. This “dark complected man,” as he is sometimes referred to by JFK researchers, has never been identified. This is odd, because he was obviously with Witt. Minutes after the shots that killed Kennedy, they were sitting beside each other. This suggests that their actions were a coordinated symbolic act. And this in turn suggests that the salute of Witt’s fellow was meant as a Nazi salute. The black umbrella by itself might not have been a clear enough message, so the nazi salute made the message much clearer.
Were they cognizant Zionist agents? I don’t think so. Their sitting together after seeing JFK’s head blown before their eyes suggests that they were stunned and wondering what the hell they had been doing. I suppose they had been sent to do their “little heckling” without being told that it would spice up the killing. Who would be so crazy as to put himself in that position knowingly, standing almost in the line of the Grassy Knoll sniper? Perhaps they had been convinced to do it for money, or as a wager, or as a service to Witt’s Jewish boss at the Rio Grande National Life insurance Co where he worked.
Whatever the case may be, if there was still any doubt that Israel was the prime mover in the assassination of John Kennedy (the evidence is in my book The Unspoken Kennedy Truth), Umbrella Man and Nazi-Salute Man are the ultimate signature. But to see this, you need some spiritual insight into Jewishness and Kennedyness.
Jewishness is the evil soul of the U.S., best embodied today by the neocons (of whom Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary for 35 years, is the founding father). Kennedyness was the good soul of America. Above anything else, the Kennedys stood for strong family values and service to country to the point of sacrifice. “Joseph P. Kennedy,” writes Laurence Leamer, “created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. . . . Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family.”[9] Joe also taught his children that they had to pay back to America what America had given them. The Kennedy family symbolized the America that Americans and the world loved.
This is why John F. Kennedy, Jr. was the “charismatic crown prince of America’s royal family,” as the New York Daily News wrote the day after his death.[10] He was Prince Hamlet haunted by the ghost of his murdered father, destined to avenge him and save the kingdom from the usurpers. The Kennedy tragedy is the most Shakespearian, the most paradigmatic, the most archetypal story in all American history. And America has not a worthy monument in their honor. So many Holocaust museums to honor the Jews’ dead, and not one chapel to pray for the Kennedys!
As a matter of fact, only Israel has a Kennedy memorial of any significance. It was explicitly designed to look like “the stump of a felled tree,” and it does. Do you get the idea? It symbolizes Israel’s plan for the Kennedy dynasty. You can trust Jews to choose their symbols carefully. And don’t imagine people can see any statue or even a single photo of Kennedy inside; it is as hollow as a dead stump. It is a memorial to erase the memory of Kennedy. It reminds me of the paradoxical command: “remember to erase Amalek’s memory” (Deuteronomy 25:19 and Exodus 17:14).
The Zionists’ hatred for the Kennedys runs deep, despite their histrionic “crocodile tears” after JFK’s death. When meeting the new president on May 30, 1961 in New York, Ben-Gurion could not help but see in him the son of a Hitler-appeaser. Abraham Feinberg (who arranged the meeting) recalls that “Ben-Gurion could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy].”[11] Ben-Gurion had no illusion about the fact that John was very much his father’s son. Had he not, in his 1956 Pulitzer-Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage, vindicated Senator Robert Taft for denouncing the Nuremberg Trials as a parody of justice, and the hanging of German officials as “a blot on the American record which we shall long regret”?[12] It certainly didn’t escape the Zionists that, on May 11, 1962, President Kennedy invited Charles Lindbergh and his wife at a grand reception at the White House, sitting them at the presidential table and hosting them overnight. Lindbergh had been the most prominent voice for the America First Committee in 1940, publicly accusing the Jews of pushing America into the war. Since then, he had been living in reclusion.
Moreover, Ben-Gurion believed that JFK was paving the way for a new Holocaust by preventing Israel from acquiring the indispensable nuclear deterrence against the Arabs. This is what Ben-Gurion meant when describing Nasser as a new Hitler and the Arabs as the new Nazis, in one of his last letters to Kennedy, May 12, 1963, in response to Kennedy’s demand for immediate inspections of Dimona: “Knowing them I am convinced that they are capable of following the Nazi example. … Mr. President, my people have a right to exist … and this existence is in danger.” Monika Wiesak has noted that, in that very letter, the father of the Jewish State made a cryptic digression about Jordanian King Hussein, writing: “there is always a danger that one single bullet might put an end to his life and regime.”[13]
Salvator Astucia has, I think, well captured the essence of the Kennedy problem for Israel:
The Israelis distrusted President Kennedy because of his father. It is widely known that Joseph Kennedy Sr. developed a strong loathing of Jews from his business dealings with them in finance, Hollywood, and politics. And the elder Kennedy had groomed four sons for the White House, but his oldest — Joe, Jr — had been killed in World War II. President Kennedy’s inauguration in January 1961 marked the beginning of a dynasty that would likely continue until 1985 (after the three surviving sons had each completed two terms). With this background information, it becomes clear that there was one primary motive for the assassination: to destroy the Kennedy Dynasty.[14]
Under a Kennedy presidency, there would be no Six-Day War, the Palestinian refugees would recover their land, AIPAC would be registered as a foreign agent, and the Holocaust would certainly not become a State cult enforced by ADL inquisition. And of course, Israel would never have become a nuclear State.
Destroying the Kennedy dynasty was probably a sacred oath taken by all B’nai B’rith top officials (Dallas was full of them). JFK Jr. was a marked man, if not from the moment he saluted his father’s coffin on his third birthday, at least from the moment it became clear that he had the ambition and the potential to reach the White House. Killing his political future was not enough, and probably not possible.
I wrote a long article in January 2019, titled “The Broken Presidential Destiny of JFK, Jr.”, reviewing the evidence that JFK Jr. was assassinated. I will now summarize it.
Evidence of assassination
It was Friday July 16, 1999, at 9:39 pm, when JFK Jr.’s voice was last heard by Martha’s Vineyard air traffic controller Buddy Wyatt, asking, in a calm voice, instruction for landing. (This was reported the next day by U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun in a live phone interview with anchor Susan Wornick of Boston WCVB-TV.)
About two minutes later, John’s plane suddenly plummeted into the ocean at the radar-recorded speed of 4,700 feet per minute. Victor Pribanic, an attorney from Pennsylvania who was fishing for striped bass that night and had noticed the aircraft flying toward the island, reported to the The Martha’s Vineyard Times (cited in the New York Daily News, July 21, 1999): “I heard an explosion over my right shoulder. It sounded like an explosion. There was no shock wave, but it was a large bang.”
Based on these facts, the only rational explanation is that the plane suffered a sudden structural damage by explosive, making it impossible to maintain in the air; blowing off a part of a wing or the tail would have been enough, and would have required only a very small device magnetically affixed to the plane.
These facts, however, were quickly removed from public awareness. Pribanic’s testimony never made it to the national news. And Kennedy’s 9:39 call to Martha’s Vineyard airport was quickly denied and erased from the narrative. Instead, on July 18, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) produced some “newly found” radar “evidence” which supposedly showed Kennedy’s flight exhibiting signs of difficulties and irregularities long before it disappeared from the radar.
The official narrative was a mix of two ingredients, bad weather and pilot recklessness, coated by a heavy layer of “the Kennedy curse”. Not a word of the possibility of foul play.
When the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation eleven months later, it issued a news release that attributed the plane crash to “the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night.” That is all the corporate news retained. However, a close reading of the full report reveals many unanswered questions and even contradictions with its conclusion. For example, the NTSB final report quotes Martha’s Vineyard air traffic controller Buddy Wyatt as stating that the visibility was good: “I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.”
Also, the sudden drop of altitude from 2,200 feet to 1,100 feet in 14 seconds, stated in the full report, is hard to reconcile with the news release statement. Disorientation implies that the pilot was not aware that he was flying straight into the ocean. But that is impossible, as the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge, Robert Pearce, had admitted as early as July 20, 1999: “They were aware they were going down. With that kind of descent rate, it is going to be noisier than hell in the cockpit.”
In contrast to what the news media kept hammering, the NTSB report reckoned that JFK Jr. had a flight experience of “about 310 hours, of which 55 hours were at night.” During the last fifteen months, he had made 35 flights between Fairfield airport, N.J., and Martha’s Vineyard, including five at night. Three certified flight instructors (CFI) quoted in the report describe John as an “excellent”, “methodical” and “very cautious” pilot.
No matter how we twist or downplay all other data, the very conditions of the plane’s sudden dive, which is an undisputed fact, should raise a strong suspicion of a major and sudden mechanical failure. As Anthony Hilder put it:
A finely-tuned, well-kept first-class airplane doesn’t just drop out of the sky and head straight down into the ocean unless it’s blown out of the sky or the pilot deliberately sends it into a dive to kill himself and his passengers.
Evidence of cover-up
Some testimonies used in support of the theory of JFK Jr.’s incompetence and recklessness are highly suspicious. A case in point is Kyle Bailey, “the last man to see Kennedy alive at the Fairfield airport,” who claimed to have had bad a premonition on seeing him take off: “I told my family, ‘I can’t believe he’s going up in this weather’,” he said on July 18. Bailey went on becoming an aviation analyst specialized in plane crashes, and regularly working for major network such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, and BBC. Bailey appeared in the documentary Curse on the Kennedys? and then in the ABC documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr., aired in January 2019, in which he repeated his story. Kyle Bailey is to JFK Jr.’s death what Mark Walsh is to 9/11.
The search for the plane and the bodies was entirely controlled by the military, although JFK Jr. had never been in the army. A 17-nautical mile no-fly zone and no-entry zone was established around the crash site. No civilians or media crew were allowed in this area. On July 20, 1999, as we read in the NTSB report, “the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery ship, USS Grasp.” Why was the Navy, rather than civilian rescue craft, tasked with the retrieval of JFK Jr.’s crashed airplane? More disturbing still, why did the Pentagon take exclusive control of news reporting from July 18?
There are issues also with the botched autopsies, as Joanna Weiss and Matthew Brelis of the Boston Globe wrote on July 23, 1999 in an article titled “JFK Autopsy Rushed.”
But the most suspicious thing of all is the way the bodies were disposed of: they were cremated, then their ashes were taken aboard a Navy destroyer, and scattered into the sea, near the place where they had met their death. “The burial for the 35th president’s son was reportedly carried out in keeping with his expressed wishes,” noted journalist Paula Maxwell. What? At age 39, JFK Jr. had expressed his will not to be buried with his father and mother at Arlington cemetery and instead to be cremated and his ashes spread above the ocean? Who can believe such a thing? The Boston Globe reported on July 22 , “Kennedy’s family requested a burial at sea, and the Pentagon granted that request.” But, the next day, the same newspaper expressed surprise:
The cremated remains of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife, and her sister were cast from a warship to the ocean currents in a manner not favored by the Catholic Church and in a ceremony that occurred only after the intercession of Pentagon brass. The Roman Catholic Church prefers the presence of a body at its funeral rites. And the Defense Department rarely accords the honor of burial at sea to civilians.
No other Kennedy had ever been cremated. The reasons given for cremating JFK Jr. body do not make any sense and are contradictory. The New York Times wrote:
“Kennedy family members, citing his wishes and hoping to avoid having a spectacle made of Mr. Kennedy’s final resting place, have decided to have his body cremated and his ashes scattered at sea in a Navy ceremony, a family adviser said.”
That is utterly unbelievable. The bodies must have been cremated and scattered for another reason: to prevent any possibility of ever finding traces of explosives in the bodies.
But the idea of wanting to deprive JFK Jr. of a final resting place that could possibly encourage a popular Kennedy cult has also a strong biblical and B’nai B’rith smell. Who, among “Kennedy family members”, could possibly have wanted this? It happens that, according to information found in RFK Jr.’s diary, published by the New York Post, Ann Freeman, Carolyn and Lauren Bessette’s mother, “began asking that her two daughters be buried near her home in Greenwich, Connecticut.” It was Edwin Schlossberg, Caroline Kennedy’s Jewish husband, who convinced her to have her two daughters cremated and their ashes spread in the ocean. “He bullied, bullied, bullied the shattered grieving mother,” writes RFK Jr.
The heir and the Avenger
JFK Jr. had grown up with a sense of destiny. According to biographer Christopher Andersen (The Good Son): “Jackie made sure that John was constantly exposed to the people who knew John [President Kennedy] best.” In her last letter to her son before dying to lymphoma in 1994, she wrote: “You, especially, have a place in history.” John told Lloyd Howard in 1997: “She expected me to follow in my father’s footsteps, and of course I will. But I don’t think the time is right just yet.” Just like his father before him, John Jr. first pursued a career in journalism: in 1995, he founded the magazine George, which engaged in controversial issues of deep politics. His longtime friend Robert Littell wrote, in The Men We Became: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy Jr. (St. Martin’s Press, 2004): “George was also an opportunity for John to build a platform from which he might possibly move into political life.” George was also a means for John to interact with political actors and thinkers.
Brought up in the worship of his father, John had taken a keen interest in “conspiracy theories” about his death at least since his late teens. His knowledge deepened in his thirties, and motivated him to publish in a special “conspiracy issue” of his magazine George, eight months before his death, a cover article by Oliver Stone, director of the groundbreaking film JFK, titled “Our Counterfeit History”.
At age 39, John had made up his mind to launch his political career by seeking an electoral mandate in New York State, and he was about to announce it publicly. According to his friend Billy Noonan (Forever Young: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy, Jr., Viking Press, 2006), he was about to enter the race for the New York Senate seat left vacant by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which Hillary Clinton also coveted (and ultimately got). John was a New Yorker, and Clinton would have stood no chance against him.
JFK Jr. had also voiced privately his ambition to ultimately reach for the presidency. Given his personality and his popularity, he had high chances to make it in less than 20 years. Pierre Salinger, one of the men Jackie had asked to educate John about his father, had become very close to him, and declared on French radio Europe 1, on July 19, 1999: “I felt that in the coming year John Junior would also become a politician. It’s my point of view. And with other people, we thought he was going to be a Democratic candidate for the next presidential election.” Others, such as John’s assistant at George, RoseMarie Terenzio, thought “he would’ve run for president … in 2008.”
In 1968, John Kennedy’s brother ran for President with the intention, not just to save the Kennedy legacy, but to reopen the investigation on his brother’s death (as David Talbot has demonstrated in his book Brothers). He was assassinated. In 1999, Robert Kennedy’s nephew was about to announce his entry into politics, with the clear intention to go all the way to the White House. There is no question that one of his goals in life was to expose the murderers of his father. His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem (2007), writes that as a teenager, “his heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it up.”
I rephrase my conclusion from my longer 2019 article:
So, was JFK Jr. himself assassinated? Here is man whose road to the presidency seemed traced. No other man of his age had better chances to reach the White House one day. And no other man in the world had more reasons to want the 1963 Kennedy assassination reinvestigated. He was already trying to educate the public through his magazine, at the risk of exposing his own beliefs, something no other Kennedy had ever done (even RFK had kept his doubt on the Warren report private, and his plan to reopen the case secret). And this man, his friend Billy Noonan believes, was just about to announce his candidacy for a New York Senate seat, which everyone would have understood as the first step toward the White House. Pierre Salinger and others even believe he would have run for president in 2000. What are the odds that he would die at this precise moment by accident? … If it was an accident, then the Devil caused it. Or was it Yahweh?
One more thing: JFK Jr. died two years before 9/11. Who knows what influence he would have had on the American public, either as a senator or as the editor of a magazine with a strong interest in conspiracies? He may very well have stood in the way of the War on Terror, the WWIV that Norman Podhoretz was calling for. You never know, with those Kennedy peacemakers!
Israel believes in preemptive assassinations, as demonstrated by Ronen Bergman in Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.
Israel killed JFK Jr.
A curse on Israel!
Notes
[1] Arthur Krock, Memoirs: Sixty Years on the Firing Line, Funk & Wagnalls, 1968, p. 328.
[2] Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance, Open Road, 1979, p.187.
[3] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK: an American coup d’état, John Blake, 2013, pp. 88-89.
[4] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991 , p. 96.
[5] Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol. IV: The Passage of Power, Alfred Knopf, 2012, p. 104. Also in Krock, Memoirs, op. cit., p. 362.
[6] Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, Little, Brown & CO, 1997, p. 129.
[7] Andrei Gromyko, Memoirs, Doubleday, 1989, pp. 181-182.
[8] Edward Klein, The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America’s First Family for 150 Years, Saint Martin’s Press, 2004.
[9] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle l. 262-267.
[10] Dave Saltonstall, Austin Fenner, Helen Kennedy and Greg B. Smith, “John F. Kennedy Jr. went missing after taking a flight with his wife and her sister in 1999,” New York Daily News, July 18, 1999, on nydailynews.com
[11] Hersh, The Samson Option, op. cit., p. 103.
[12] Robert Taft, October 6, 1946, quoted in John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, 1956, Harper Perennial, 2003 , p. 199.
[13] Monika Wiesak, America’s Last President, 2022, p. 214.
[14] Salvador Astucia, Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination, 2002, p. 5, on www.whale.to/b/astucia.pdf.
Supporting Israel Is Big Business in the United States
Government and elite institutions work together to protect and empower the Jewish state
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 12, 2024
In a recent article discussing how US Treasury Department tax breaks are exploited by groups that raise money in America in support of the Israeli so-called Defense Forces (IDF), I concluded that it does not require any particular brilliance on the part of even a casual observer to realize that both politically and economically Israel and Israelis are not treated like everyone else by governments at various levels in the United States, quite the contrary in many cases. Nevertheless, some key questions must be asked even at risk of being repetitive about Israel’s clearly privileged status. One must consider how is it possible that organizations that are committed to financially supporting war crimes and even genocide by a foreign nation are allowed to have tax breaks that enable them to collect more money which in turn helps them to corrupt the system that feeds them while also empowering those foreign militaries? How is it possible that the foreign army carrying out the war crimes is also allowed to benefit directly from the US laws that have created exemption from taxation? In short, is there no sense of responsibility and/or consequences on the part of American government when it comes to the behavior of the pariah apartheid Jewish state?
In the event, comments and insights from some readers both on my posting and privately in emails and on Facebook have convinced me that I have greatly understated the case. Those who argue, perhaps somewhat in jest, the Congress is the Knesset West and that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are in fact Israeli puppets are very close to being on the mark, making Israel and its all-powerful billionaire funded lobby indisputably in control of many key aspects of American government beyond the obviously targeted foreign policy. Combine that with control over the media and entertainment industries that shape the Israeli preferred narrative at all times, and you have a situation where when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says “jump” 95% of Congress and everyone in the White House begin hopping. We will no doubt see that in play when the monstrous Netanyahu arrives in Washington to address a joint session of Congress on July 24th. The performing monkeys who will appear on television leaping up and down while cheering Bibi will definitely be something to see, though one hopes that at the same time there will also be a million demonstrators surrounding Capitol Hill calling for the head of the world’s leading war criminal.
One thing that should be completely clear is that the United States gets absolutely nothing out of the relationship with Israel, which all flows in only one direction to the tune of what probably amounts to more than a billion dollars a month if all the extras and the inevitable fraud are taken into account. And that does not even include special donations like the $14 billion recently granted by Congress and President Joe Biden to fund Israel’s never-ending war of extermination against the Palestinians. In my recent piece, I took particular aim at 501(c)(3) non-profits set up in New York City and in Massachusetts which exist to provide funds to the Israeli army. Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF), based in New York but with twenty branches in the US, boasts on its website that it has provided tens of millions of dollars to the Israeli military. The money contributed is federal income tax exempt and most of the donors are able to write the contributions off on their own federal taxes as an inducement to give. Such non-profits are generally granted that special status through demonstrating that they are religious, charitable or educational. Sending money to the Israeli army satisfies none of those requirements.
Not only does Israel take advantage of a tax break on money coming from groups that are ostensibly US-based, one of my correspondents advised me that the corruption goes far deeper than that, consisting of the fact that 501(c)(3) organizations must be registered through what is referred to as a “domicile.” Most are in the United States but domiciles in Canada and Mexico are also accepted given the economic realities of the North American market. Only one other country has an acceptable domicile and that is, of course, and, inevitably, Israel. In other words, an allowable exemption and the related deductible contribution for US tax purposes, might uniquely consist of US taxpayer money that goes to a charity registered in Israel. As Israeli charities have no reporting requirements vis-à-vis the US Treasury and no mechanism exists to validate their function and activity, they only answer to the government of the state of Israel.
And of course the pandering to Israel includes much more in the way of manipulating the political process to provide benefits to the Jewish state. It has long been a cliché in Washington that any long bill like defense appropriations that passes through the Congress will inevitably have some goodies for Israel inserted in it. Recent and current legislation reflects the perceived need by Congressmen to show the flag, which would be the Star of David rather than the Stars and Stripes, given the Israeli engagement in the military extermination of Palestinians that has no sign of ending as it is entering into its tenth month. The United States is not only funding and arming the Israelis, it is also providing political cover by vetoing nearly every United Nations proposal that would have led to a cease fire accompanied by some kind of exchange of hostages and prisoners. Along the way, no excess by Israel is considered to be too outrageous to require an objection coming from Congress and/or the White House, including Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s proposal that he would relieve the overcrowding in the prisons with Palestinians who are being held without charges by taking them out and killing them, one pistol shot to the head each. Former defense minister Avigdor Liberman has gone one step farther, calling on his country to use its nuclear weapons to obliterate Iran, presumably with full US approval. Israel has also been charged with killing journalists, humanitarian workers, medical workers including doctors, and torturing and starving Palestinian prisoners, but hey, that all constitutes minor stuff when one is best friends with the “Chosen” in Israel.
And there is much more. The International Criminal Court ruling that Israel’s Prime Minister and Defense Minister should be on the receiving end of arrest warrants over war crimes and possible genocide in Gaza was responded to by US Congress with a letter threatening the jurors and their families if the court were to proceed. The US also cut off all funding and even cooperation with the United Nations’ UNWRA which, Israel has declared to be a terrorist organization, but which has been the major source of what food and medicine was actually getting through to Gaza in spite of Israeli efforts to block it. Congress also has moved to ignore any reports coming from the remaining Gazan authorities revealing the casualties resulting from the Israeli bombing and other killing, as if hiding the death toll will make it go away. The respected British medical journal The Lancet is now reporting that as many as 186,000 Gazans might be dead, mostly among the rubble of their homes, uncounted because the Gazan officials who would have performed that task are dead and whole families are wiped out so no one is reported missing. It is a far larger number than the ca. 37,000 that keeps appearing in the western media in an attempt to mitigate what Israel is up to.
And there is also the really petty stuff that surfaces regularly from the pro-Israel message control network. Three Columbia University senior officials have been removed from their positions because of comments and private emails they have written deriding the claims of “surging” antisemitism at colleges. Among the “evidence” was an intercepted message suggesting that a panelist could have used recent campus protests as a fundraising opportunity and another that appeared critical of a campus rabbi’s essay about antisemitism. The university will also launch a “vigorous” antisemitism and antidiscrimination training program.” Meanwhile a leading New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, headed by an Orthodox Jew, is setting up an index that will identify law students who have been demonstrating against Israel, creating a “do not hire” list of the names so they will not be offered employment after graduation. “The firm is scrutinizing students’ behavior with the help of a background check company, looking at their involvement with pro-Palestinian student groups, scouring social media and reviewing news reports and footage from protests. It is looking for explicit instances of antisemitism as well as statements and slogans it has deemed to be ‘triggering’ to Jews.” And then there is Donald Trump using the word “Palestinian” as a slur in his debate with Joe Biden and efforts by politicians like Governor Ron DeSantis to reject the arrival of any refugee Palestinians as immigrants to Florida as they are all “terrorists.” You know, little stuff like that and the efforts at criminalization of free speech if it comes to criticizing either Israeli or Jewish group behavior. You know, minor stuff. Pretty soon we Americans will all be terrorized into dancing to the same tune that Congress and the White House dance to. Then it will be too late.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
The War on Free Speech: Biden Adds Another Advocate for Censorship to the White House
By Jonathan Turley | July 10, 2024
I have previously written how President Joe Biden is the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. For his part, Biden has continued to double down on his anti-free speech policies with the appointment of figures who have long supported bans and other speech controls. The latest such appointment is Andy Volosky, who was made deputy director of platforms for the White House’s Office of Digital Strategy. Volosky has been outspoken in support of banning former president Donald Trump from social media platforms.
In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I lay out the chilling comparisons between the Adams and Biden Administrations in the crackdown of free speech. For Adams, that led to defeat in 1800 when Jefferson ran in part on restoring free speech. To my surprise, Trump and his fellow challengers in this election have not made free speech a central issue to force Biden to defend the massive censorship system supported by his Administration.
The public does not support censorship. This is a movement that originated in higher education and has been pushed by the political and media establishment, not the voters.
Volosky will now help direct digital strategies for the White House. He previously praised the banning of Trump, asking “What took them so long?” in a 2021 blog post.
In Volosky’s blog post, titled “A New, and Hopefully Welcome, Standard,” he warned that “Twitter still allows the accounts of various world leaders, governments, and spokespeople, who use Twitter for what one can only describe as propaganda as cover for autocracy, to continue to use their platform.”
He praised how Democrats have “long advocated for regulating the [social media] platforms” and emphasized how active social media users like himself and others can “keep the platforms honest.”
He added that:
“we can play a role in keeping the platforms honest and improving the positive role of social in people’s lives… It’s past time for the platforms to take content moderation and user safety seriously; as social media professionals, we should be ready and eager to make that happen, and we hope that [banning Trump] can be a small step in getting that ball rolling.”
Again, with the White House doubling down on censorship, Trump and others need to force him to defend his overwhelmingly anti-free speech record. The 2024 election can give voters the same choice that they faced in 1800. Democracy is not on the ballot, but free speech is.
‘Dangerous, Anticompetitive Behavior’: Big Brands Colluding to Control Online Speech
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | July 12, 2024
A congressional investigation uncovered allegations that some of the world’s largest brands and advertising agencies are colluding to control online speech through coordinated boycotts and content demonetization schemes.
A 39-page interim staff report, released Wednesday by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, claims that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) — an initiative of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) — is using its market power to silence disfavored voices in possible violation of antitrust laws.
“Through GARM, large corporations, advertising agencies, and industry associations participated in boycotts and other coordinated action to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members,” the report states.
The committee’s investigation, which focused on GARM’s activities since its creation in 2019, examined its influence over major social media platforms, news outlets and content creators.
The report suggests that GARM’s actions may have far-reaching implications for online discourse and consumer choice in media.
‘Sounds a lot like a cartel to me’
GARM was established in 2019 by the WFA, which represents over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and more than 60 national advertiser associations globally.
According to this week’s congressional report, GARM’s influence stems from the collective power of its members. “WFA members represent roughly 90% of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion dollars annually,” the document states.
The alliance includes major players in the advertising industry:
- Every major advertising agency holding company.
- GroupM, the world’s largest media buying agency, on its Steer Team.
- Four large corporations — Unilever, Mars, Diageo, and Procter & Gamble — that together spend billions annually on advertising.
GARM’s Steer Team, which acts as a board of directors, is closely involved in day-to-day operations. The initiative reports to the WFA Executive Committee, which includes representatives from major corporations such as AB InBev, L’Oréal, Nestlé and IBM.
Robert Rakowitz, GARM’s initiative lead and co-founder, plays a central role in the organization’s activities. The report cites internal emails in which Rakowitz expressed views on free speech, describing an “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” as problematic.
GARM claims to focus on “content monetization” rather than “content moderation.” However, the report argues that these areas are “inextricably linked,” suggesting that GARM’s work effectively influences what content appears online.
In Wednesday’s congressional hearing on GARM, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), while questioning the CEO of GroupM and GARM board member Christian Juhl, said that GARM “sounds a lot like a cartel to me.”
Alleged antitrust violations and examples
The congressional report alleges that GARM’s activities may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade. The committee report cites several examples of GARM’s alleged coordinated actions:
1. Twitter boycott after Elon Musk acquisition. Following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now known as X) in October 2022, GARM allegedly orchestrated a boycott of the platform. According to the report, GARM recommended its members “stop … all paid advertisement” on Twitter in response to the takeover.
Internal documents show that GARM held “extensive debriefing and discussion around [Musk’s] takeover of Twitter,” providing opportunities for the boycott to be organized. The report claims that GARM later boasted about “taking on Elon Musk” and noted that Twitter was “80% below revenue forecasts” as a result.
2. Pressure on Spotify over Joe Rogan podcast. In early 2022, GARM and its Steer Team allegedly pressured Spotify over content on Rogan’s podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience.” The report states that GARM members urged action against Spotify due to alleged misinformation on Rogan’s show, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines after Rogan said that young, healthy people didn’t need them.
Rogan later featured Dr. Robert Malone on his podcast, which prompted GroupM to reach out to Spotify after musician Neil Young removed his content from the platform in protest over vaccine-skeptical material.
Internal emails cited in the report show Rakowitz coordinating with member companies to formulate responses to Spotify. In one instance, he wrote that he “can’t publicly advise all clients to do X — that gets us into hot water by way of anticompetitive and collusive behaviors.”
3. Efforts to demonetize certain news outlets. The report alleges that GARM and its members discussed strategies to block certain news outlets, including Fox News, The Daily Wire and Breitbart News.
An internal email from a GARM Steer Team member describes monitoring these outlets closely. The email states that as much as he “hated their ideology and bulls**t,” his company “couldn’t really justify blocking them for misguided opinion[s]” but that it “watched them very carefully and it didn’t take long for them to cross the line.”
The congressional committee argued that these coordinated actions if proven, could constitute illegal restraints of trade that harm consumers by limiting their choices and access to diverse viewpoints online.
GARM’s influence on political content and elections
Through their content moderation efforts, GARM and its members attempted to influence political discourse and election outcomes — including pushing for coordinated action around the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to the report.
In an October 2020 email, Rakowitz suggested telling Facebook it was “at a crossroads for the platform and fence sitting on content curation and moderation” and that it should apply its COVID-19 content moderation policies to election-related content.
The report cites an instance of GARM members pressuring Facebook to label a then-President Donald Trump campaign advertisement as misinformation. When Facebook refused, citing its policy of not fact-checking political candidates’ ads, Rakowitz allegedly described the decision as “honestly reprehensible” in an internal email.
The report also claims that GARM members expressed concerns about Musk’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter. After Musk released internal Twitter documents about the platform’s suppression of the story, a GARM member reportedly described Musk’s actions as an “overtly partisan take.”
Misinformation definition and application. In 2022, GARM added a definition of misinformation to its framework, describing it as “verifiably false or willfully misleading content that is directly connected to user or societal harm.”
The report suggests this broad definition could be weaponized against disfavored political views.
Committee members said Wednesday that these actions demonstrate GARM’s potential to influence political discourse and election outcomes by controlling which content receives advertising revenue and visibility on major platforms.
GARM’s partnerships with ad-tech companies and AI integration
The congressional report delves into GARM’s relationships with advertising technology companies and plans to integrate its framework into artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning tools.
According to the report, GARM partnered with several “ad-tech partners” that offer solutions to help brands understand where their advertisements appear and what content surrounds them.
The report alleges that membership in GARM was conditioned on these partners agreeing “to make commensurate changes to business operations in pursuit of GARM’s goals.”
According to the congressional committee, this arrangement allowed GARM’s biases to be “baked directly into the solutions, allowing brands to seamlessly integrate GARM’s censorship.”
AI and machine learning integration
GARM’s plans for the future involve pushing its framework into AI solutions, according to the report. The committee said it was concerned that GARM’s partners are developing AI tools that will integrate GARM’s standards seamlessly across social media platforms.
“Such an automated censorship effort could result in the demonetization of any views or voices that GARM’s advertising cartel dislikes, potentially without any human involvement at all,” the report states.
Specific examples cited in the report include:
1. Zefr, a GARM ad-tech partner, which claims its “proprietary discriminative AI is powered by years of training data on platforms, and goes beyond keyword and text-based analyses, combining AI and ground truth data from global fact checking organizations that is mapped to the industry standards” set by GARM.
2. YouTube’s incorporation of Zefr-powered solutions to prevent advertisements from appearing next to content that violates GARM’s standards.
The combination of GARM’s framework with AI-powered content moderation tools could lead to opaque and potentially biased decisions about which content receives advertising revenue, ultimately limiting consumer choice and diverse viewpoints online, according to the report.
Connections to government agencies and censorship efforts
The congressional report alleges connections between GARM’s partners and government agencies involved in content moderation efforts. Specifically, it points to collaboration between GARM ad-tech partner Channel Factory and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
According to the report, Channel Factory worked with CISA to develop a “common lexicon” for discussing misinformation.
An email cited in the report shows Channel Factory’s global chief strategy officer sharing this lexicon with GARM’s initiative lead, stating, “The industry will need a common lexicon and detailed definitions in order to make progress … attached is the lexicon we developed with CISA/DHS … which may provide” a useful starting point.
This type of collaboration could lead to government influence over private-sector content moderation practices, the committee report stated.
The report noted that Channel Factory is also a member of YouTube’s Measurement Program, suggesting that these connections could have far-reaching implications for online content moderation.
Former U.S. Department of State official Mike Benz in a video posted on X Wednesday, alleged that U.S. government-linked efforts to control online content with groups like GARM go back at least to 2017.
GARM engages in ‘dangerous, anticompetitive behavior’
The House Judiciary Committee concluded that GARM’s actions may violate antitrust laws and threaten free speech and consumer choice online.
According to the report, GARM’s members’ collective power allows them to achieve through coordination what they could not accomplish individually.
The report states:
“If collusion among powerful corporations capable of collectively demonetizing, and in effect eliminating, certain views and voices is allowed to continue, the ability of countless American consumers to choose what to read and listen to, or even have their speech or writing reach other Americans, will be destroyed.”
The committee emphasized that antitrust laws still apply even if GARM claims to have good intentions. It states that federal antitrust laws “do not diminish because GARM or its members claim to have good intentions.”
The committee said it will continue its oversight of GARM and evaluate the adequacy of existing antitrust laws. It suggested that legislative reforms may be necessary to address what it describes as “dangerous, anticompetitive behavior.”
Watch the House Judiciary Committee’s July 10 hearing:
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Possible consequences and prospects of Vladimir Putin’s visit to DPRK
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 12.07.2024
The consequences of the visit of the Russian leader to North Korea and the documents signed there are so significant that they can propel the trend of global turbulence. How have Seoul, Beijing and Washington reacted to such a rapprochement between Moscow and Pyongyang and what will be Moscow’s response to the steps taken by Seoul and its allies?
Seoul’s response
Until a certain point, Seoul was ‘the friendliest of the unfriendly countries’ – the Russian president recently noted in a positive way. As Vladimir Putin said on June 5, 2024, within the framework of the International Economic Forum in St Petersburg, “Russia highly appreciates the refusal of ROK to directly supply lethal weapons to Ukraine”.
However, such a demonstrative rapprochement between Pyongyang and Moscow cannot be ignored by Seoul, especially since the content of the Treaty (which contains a military component along the lines of the Soviet-North Korean treaty of 1961) has turned out to match the worst expectations of South Korean analysts.
Even before the visit, South Korean diplomats hinted to the author that Seoul would definitely respond to such a level of cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, at least for domestic political and reputation reasons. This response would most likely entail boosting Seoul-NATO cooperation to a similar level. The United States, along with its allies and systemic right-wing politicians, are putting pressure on President Yoon Suk Yeol to take a more anti-Russian stance, especially on the Ukrainian track; Seoul is constantly being convinced that since Pyongyang has been ‘proven’ to be aiding Russia, South Korea has the right to provide similar support to Ukraine, despite all possible risks of retaliatory measures and a significant cooling of relations with Moscow.
In a statement on June 20, 2024, former Ambassador to Russia and current National Security Adviser to the President Chang Ho-jin noted: “Four ships, five organisations and eight individuals from third countries, as well as Russian and North Korean organisations involved in the supply of weapons and oil transshipment between Russia and North Korea, are on the list of independent sanctions… We have also included 243 new items to the list of sanctioned goods exported to Russia, bringing the total number to 1,402 items…We plan on reconsidering the issue of military support for Ukraine, as the government has so far maintained the position that it will not supply lethal weapons to this country”.
Chang’s statement, on the other hand, could not but evoke a threatening reply from Moscow. Vladimir Putin almost immediately declared that the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine would be a “very big mistake” and that Moscow would in this case make “the appropriate decisions, which the current leadership of South Korea will most likely not appreciate”. However, the Russian president expressed hope that such a thing would not happen.
There was also a natural exchange of reprimands. On June 21, 2024, First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of ROK Kim Hong Kyung summoned Russian Ambassador Georgy Zinoviev to convey Seoul’s official position on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between Russia and DPRK from June 19. The vice minister called on Russia to “immediately cease military cooperation with North Korea and comply with UN Security Council resolutions”. He made it clear that ROK, along with the international community, will “resolutely resist any actions that threaten its security”.
Zinoviev said that cooperation between Russia and DPRK is not directed against third countries, complies with the principles and norms of international law and is aimed at strengthening peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. Russia is ready to continue to make political and diplomatic efforts to form an architecture of long-term peace and stability based on the principle of indivisible security”, the ambassador stressed.
Meanwhile Seoul slowly began to backtrack. On June 23, 2024, in a speech on the KBS channels, Chang Ho-jin made it clear that the question of whether South Korea will supply lethal weapons to Ukraine will depend on Russia; if it starts sending high-precision modern weapons to North Korea, then nothing will stop South Korea from helping Ukraine. Among the options under consideration are 155 mm artillery shells and air defence systems.
In essence, the parties formally voiced to each other the long-known, informal red lines: South Korea is not to be engaged in direct supplies of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine and Russia is not to be engaged in the development of the North Korean military potential. It is important for Seoul to prevent the supply of dangerous modern weapons and technologies to the North, and North Korean shells (which are allegedly provided to the Special Military Operation) are a nuisance, but not yet a disaster.
It is worth remembering that, despite his high position, Chang still does not have the right to speak on behalf of the state unlike the president, the prime minister and the foreign minister. If such statements were to come from them as well, then it would indeed be a cause for concern. For now, though, one should wait and see, considering how, on the eve of his visit to the United States, Yoon Suk Yeol stated that the Republic of Korea could start supplying weapons to Ukraine if the Russian Armed Forces were to commit an atrocity.
Thus, the point of no return in relations between Moscow and Seoul has not yet been passed, but we are close. The author hopes for the best, as Moscow and Seoul understand that when crossing the ‘red’ line, Russia will also have to take action in response and South Korea may lose its status as ‘the friendliest of the unfriendly’.
China’s position
The reaction to the visit by the Chinese media and government agencies was between neutral and positive; they did [not] provide any statements of judgement and simply noted that this was an important and serious event. The Chinese Foreign Ministry called the DPRK’s desire to develop relations with Russia normal, and the Global Times noted that this cooperation could perhaps even make the United States afraid.
Western media actively wrote that China was not happy with the rapprochement between Russia and the DPRK that Putin’s visit to North Korea and Vietnam was actually anti-Chinese in nature and that having a parallel 2+2 dialogue shows China’s desire to be friends with Seoul, showing its tough stance to Pyongyang.
This is not exactly true. Firstly, coordination between Moscow and Beijing on the Korean issue has always been and is very close. A look at the joint statements on the Korean issue made during Putin’s visit to China is enough to prove this. This means that the essence of Moscow and Pyongyang’s agreements with Beijing was probably discussed in advance.
Secondly, on June 18 negotiations did indeed take place in Seoul. They were attended by senior officials from the foreign and defence ministries of ROK and China in a 2+2 format.
Before the start of the talks, the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, Lim Soo-suk, believed that “issues of cooperation between Russia and North Korea will be discussed, since dialogue is taking place simultaneously with the scheduled visit of the Russian president to North Korea”. Professor of the Hankuk University of Foreign Affairs Kang Jung-young said that “having this dialogue is in itself is a clear signal to North Korea that China will not support Pyongyang’s attempts to create a trilateral bloc with Beijing and Moscow”.
The Korean approach to the 2+2 format is as follows: representatives of Seoul expressed deep concern to their Chinese colleagues about the visit of the Russian president to DPRK and the deepening of ties between Moscow and Pyongyang amid rising tensions on the Korean peninsula. They stressed that the Russian leader’s visit to North Korea should not undermine peace and stability in the region or lead to the strengthening of military cooperation between the two countries. Additionally, ROK called on China to play a constructive role in ensuring peace, stability and security on the Korean peninsula, emphasising that the deepening of Russian-North Korean military cooperation and its consequences run in contradiction to Beijing’s interests. In turn, China confirmed its unchanged position on the Korean peninsula, expressing its readiness to take an active part in solving the problems of the region.
A ‘bloc’ as a limiting factor
Almost immediately after the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement between the Russian Federation and North Korea, the Russian president noted that there were no fundamentally new points in it and that the document was similar to the 1961 treaty, including Article 4 on ‘automatic military intervention’. According to Putin, the provisions of the new Agreement stipulate that military assistance is provided only in case of aggression, and therefore ROK has nothing to worry about, since there are no known plans of the South to attack the North. The Russian president also expressed the opinion that the Agreement would to some extent limit the threat of the crisis on the Korean peninsula entering a ‘hot phase’.
The author supposes that the cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang within the framework of a possible military bloc reduces the likelihood of conflict on the Korean peninsula rather than increases it. The fact that the opposing sides are two serious military blocs reduces the likelihood of an escalation of the conflict, as it could too easily escalate to become nuclear, and neither Moscow nor Pyongyang are suicidal.
One more detail: on the one hand, article 4 of the Agreement is harsher than article 5 of the NATO treaty. On the other, it clearly indicates that a state of war is required for comprehensive assistance, and if we recall the 1961 treaty, then it is worth paying attention to the events of 1968 when Moscow clarified to Pyongyang in which situations military assistance would be cancelled.
We should likely expect a confrontation similar to the Cold War. There will be an arms race, muscles will be flexed, loud statements and minor incidents will take place, but the parties are well aware of the red lines and do not intend to cross them. Being prepared for war, including the development of preemptive strike plans as a way of self-defence in a critical situation, is not the same as the desire to initiate a conflict.
The fate of UNSC sanctions
The demonstrative liquidation of UN Security Council sanctions, which was expected in the West, has still not taken place. Both Putin’s article and the additional decree emphasise cooperation in the fields of education, healthcare and science and maintain that the unjust sanctions should be lifted.
For now, though, Moscow says it will comply with the sanctions it previously voted for.
It is likely that the lifting of sanctions may occur following the next round of escalation because regardless of whether there were actually arms deals or not, the West will still blame Moscow and Pyongyang for colluding and take retaliatory measures.
The appearance of a North Korean labour force in Russia is a sign that a de jure or de facto decision to ignore a part of the sanctions has been made. Price, quality, safety and keeping a low profile are the strengths of North Korean builders, and talks of their employment have been going on for a long time.
Summa summarum, there is a lot of uncertainty in the future and the situation is similar to that described in the book ‘The Guns of August’ by Barbara Tuchman: nobody wanted war, so war was inevitable. However, it cannot be said that the visit of the President of the Russian Federation to the DPRK has significantly aggravated the situation.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading Research Fellow at the Korean Studies Center of the Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The Ways of the Jewish Slave Traders
NOI RESEARCH GROUP • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 8, 2024
“As Mr. Yakub continued to preach for converts, he told his people that he would make the others work for them. (This promise came to pass.) Naturally, there are always some people around who would like to have others do their work. Those are the ones who fell for Mr. Yakub’s teaching, 100 per cent.” — The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, chapter 55 of Message to the Blackman in America titled “The Making of Devil”
“Three blessings a Jewish man is obligated to pray daily: ‘(Blessed art Thou,) Who did not make me a gentile; Who did not make me a woman; and Who did not make me a slave.’” — Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 43b–44a[*]
The story of the Jewish American experience that most Jews want to believe, and want the world to believe, is one of almost endless historical victimhood. They insist that they fled anti-Semitic oppression in Europe, landing safely on Ellis Island long after the Civil War’s end in 1865, and certainly some did. By their hard work, strong religious bonds, and reverence for communal education they succeeded against all odds, becoming, as Isaiah exhorts,[1] “a light unto the world.” As their story goes, they altogether eluded the ugly business of plantation slavery—but had they been here, they assure us, Jews would have been leading the abolitionists. After all, their own alleged enslavement to Pharaoh would have made them—of all the groups of Caucasian people—more sympathetic toward Black suffering.
To a trusting, Bible-believing people this Jewish self-portrait sounds plausible and is consistent with a Christian doctrine that sanctifies God’s Chosen People, the so-called Children of Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6–11). But the people who today call themselves Jews have now collided with their own Jewish scholars and historians who have presented an entirely different and far more troubling story about American Jewish history and the central role of Jews in the greatest crime in world history—the Black African Holocaust.
For the most part, Americans—white and Black—are entirely unaware that when the trans-Atlantic slave trade began in the 1500s, it was focused on shipping enslaved Africans to the sugar plantations of South America and the Caribbean islands centuries before expanding to the cotton fields of the American South in the mid-1700s. In the entire history of slavery in the western hemisphere as many as 9 out of 10 stolen Africans were shipped to those tropical climes—not to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina. The map below illustrates by the thickness of the arrows the relative proportions of Africans shipped to the New World, and, as shown, relatively few made it into what was to become the United States.
And all during this unprecedented racial tragedy Jews claim they were preoccupied in Europe, nowhere near the scene of the crime. Dr. Robert Swierenga very directly challenges that oft-repeated Jewish alibi (emphasis ours):
“At the birth of the United States in 1787 the Jews of the slave islands [Caribbean] outnumbered those in North America by five times and may have equaled those in England. Surinam had fourteen hundred Jews and Curaçao fifteen hundred—both nearly one half of the total white population. By contrast, the entire United States in 1790 numbered less than fifteen hundred Jews.”[2]
Seeking Religious Liberty?
But doesn’t this early Jewish presence in the “slave islands” conflict drastically with the prevailing image of the Jews as freedom-loving religious refugees? This is the perfect time to have an adult conversation about the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Jewish role in it, and we must start by putting to bed the infantile notion endemic in this Jewish American fairy tale that Europeans sailed across the ocean “seeking religious liberty.” Every school child learns about the brave and pious Pilgrims who sailed to Plymouth on the Mayflower in 1620 “seeking religious liberty” from the tyrannical king of England. But the reality is that the “Pilgrims” were under contract with a private business named the Company of Merchant Adventurers, which expected them to acquire lumber, beaver and otter furs, and any other riches to be found or stolen. Thus, the “Pilgrims”—who referred to themselves as “separatists,” not as “pilgrims”—worked under contract to a private enterprise whose investors cared nothing about religion. More than a century before those Separatists, a Spaniard named Christopher Columbus was privately financed for his infamous voyage of discovery in 1492, by a wealthy Jew named Luis de Santangel. According to Simon Wiesenthal, in his book Sails of Hope (p. 168), “But for this man, Columbus’s expedition would never have taken place.” A practiced slave dealer, Columbus captured 600 of the aboriginal people he encountered to auction off back in Spain. And so it is with the Jewish newcomers who were seeking profits in sugar, cotton, tobacco, and other riches of the New World. Jewish scholar Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi describes them:
“[T]hese Jews engaged in an almost untrammeled range of economic activity, bore arms in the militias, owned land and ran plantations, and were represented in local councils. They had arrived at the closest point to full legal equality possible for Jews prior to the emergence of the modern nation-state.”[3]
They were seeking not “religious freedom” but the freedom to trade on an international scale. In fact, when they were first barred from acquiring Black slaves in the colonies they entered, the Jews considered it an act of “anti-Semitism.” The riches they sought could not be extracted without free and forced African labor. And as Jewish merchants followed their Yakubian directive—making others work for them—this is where the Black–Jewish relationship in the West truly begins.
In fact, there are scant references to the Jewish faith, Judaism, in any of the extant records of these early Jewish settlers. Nothing about Moses, Aaron, The Ten Commandments; no mention of the Ark of the Covenant; and nothing about being any “Light unto the Worlds.” If there were no profit in it, there was no “Jew” in it—and there was plenty of profit in Black slavery.[4]
Surinam, located in northeastern South America, holds the distinction of having the oldest Jewish community in the Americas, Jews having formed a synagogue in 1665. British Jewish historian Dr. Cecil Roth tracks them in his History of the Marranos: “The Jews of [Surinam] were also foremost in the suppression of the successive negro revolts, from 1690 to 1722: these as a matter of fact were largely directed against them, as being the greatest slave-holders of the region.
And here is where—unbelievably—we find the first inkling of the Jewish religion. The very first published Jewish prayer in their New World paradise, was a prayer titled “Old Hebrew Prayer in Time of Revolt of the Negroes,” in which the rabbi asked their God to give them strength “to conquer and destroy beneath their feet all cruel and rebellious Africans, our enemies who are planning evil against us…. Amen.”[5]
Roth continues: “These disturbances, together with the inroads of the climate, led ultimately to the abandonment of the settlement, of which nothing but the ruin now remains.” Dr. Roth hits on a theme here that may be difficult for most to comprehend. Not only were Jews present in the Americas long before the actual founding of the United States, but they were “the greatest slave-holders” in one of the major destinations of enslaved Africans. Further, these same “liberty-seeking” Jews actually went to war against the Africans that had escaped from Jewish plantations! Scholar Steven Sallie:
“There is little dispute, however, that Jews were quite often in charge of raiding adventures and the severe punishing of the maroons [escaped slaves]. In response to the cruelty of some Jews, maroons quite often attacked selected Jewish plantations. These Jewish-African conflicts were numerous, well organized, and persisted into the 1800s. Given their names, the leaders of the maroons tended to be Muslims.”[6]
One must also note that the decorated scholars quoted above spoke of “Jews” as a collective, neither making any qualification about the term that would limit responsibility or culpability to “some” or “a party among” or “a portion of” the Jewish community. This is particularly important given the magnitude of the crime they are describing—Black slavery.
Two major Jewish historical associations concur with, and elaborate on, this generally unknown aspect of the Jewish role in Black slavery. The American Jewish Historical Society (AJHS) is the oldest and most prominent, having its founding in 1892. Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael was its longtime editor of its publications when he wrote in 1983 that in the Caribbean and South America,
“Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies…”
“FREQUENTLY DOMINATED” and “played a major role” are the terms Rabbi Raphael used almost a decade before the Nation of Islam published its never-refuted book on Jews and the slave trade, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 1. Drs. Swierenga, Sallie, Raphael, and Roth are all addressing a startling duality in the 500-year Black–Jewish relationship—that the Jewish self-image of a biblical people yearning for freedom directly contradicts the actual fact that the Jewish people were attracted to, and often dominated the economies in, the very places where existed the most brutal forms of chattel slavery.
The American Jewish Archives (AJA) was founded in 1947 by the “Dean of American Jewish scholars,” Rabbi Jacob Rader Marcus,[7] and is the repository of “ten million pages of documentation” on Jewish history in the Americas. Turns out, the AJA has a lot to say about these early “oppressed” Jews who migrated from Europe and somehow found unprecedented prosperity in the “slave islands.” In several articles the AJA casually makes several references to the interdependent relationship between the most brutal forms of slavery and the Jewish pilgrims: “[I]ndividual Jews can be found on almost every island of the Caribbean prior to the abandonment of slavery in the mid-nineteenth century,”[8] thus firmly linking slavery to the Jews’ very presence.
In the plantation colony of Surinam the AJA points out that Jews “fared well, thanks to the abundance of slaves and plantations…”[9] Rabbi Dr. Raphael adds that
“Slave trading was a major feature of Jewish economic life in Surinam, which was a major stopping-off point in the triangular trade. Both North American and Caribbean Jews played a key role in this commerce: records of a slave sale in 1707 reveal that the ten largest Jewish purchasers spent more than 25 percent of the total funds exchanged.”[10]
A more recent analysis of Surinam’s Jews by Dr. Aviva Ben-Ur only solidifies this linkage and adds to the horrors:
“The liberty Jews enjoyed…was inextricably intertwined with violent coercion….African slaves were routinely tortured on the village’s roadsides or along the fence enclosing the synagogue square.”[11]
The AJA hits on a theme that is repeated over and over again: “the abolition of the slave trade in 1819 and the formal emancipation of slaves in 1863 made plantations unprofitable and so decimated Jewish trade that [the Jews] all but disappeared.” Recognize the import of that statement: the freeing of the Black slaves “DECIMATED” and “DISAPPEARED” the Jewish community.
Jews had a presence on the island of Barbados in about 1628 and historian Stephen Fortune wrote that “the reputed prosperity of the Jews contrasted with the inexcusable and disgraceful plight of the slaves.”[12] Jews flocked to this hell on earth, and here again the AJA sounds the uniquely Jewish refrain: “Unfortunately, economic depression resulting from the earthquake and the emancipation of slaves led to the emigration of many of the island’s Jews.”[13] They pose the freeing of African slaves as a disaster equal to that of an earthquake—causing the “unfortunate” Jews to permanently flee.
The Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) reports that the island of Curaçao was called the “Mother of the Caribbean Jewish communities,” yet Jewish scholars describe the island as a distribution center for the slave trade[14]— “a large slave depot.”[15] The AJA affirms that “The slave trade helped Curaçao to prosper, and her Jewish community grew rapidly,” even building a synagogue “for the convenience of the plantation owners who lived outside of the city.”[16] In fact, Jews owned 80 percent of Curaçao’s plantations, and Jewish slave traders were responsible for distributing the slaves from Curaçao to the Spanish American ports throughout the Caribbean and South America.[17] In 1765, the Jesurun family owned a record number of 366 Black people; the closest Gentile had 240 slaves. In one documented case in 1701, the Jewish Senior brothers arranged the shipment of 664 Africans; 205 perished en route to Curaçao.[18] And historian of the island Johan Hartog confirms a familiar Jewish theme—that the Jewish community suffered a “steep decline” the same year that the slave trade was curtailed.[19]
When Jews settled in Haiti, the Encyclopedia Judaica admitted,[20] they “specialized in agricultural plantations [but] with the slave revolts at the end of the 18th century, Jews gradually abandoned Haiti for other Caribbean islands or for the United States (New Orleans, Charleston).” Here again Jews are not sticking around for Black freedom; nor were they part of the process of achieving it. As soon as emancipation becomes a reality, Jews abandon Haiti for slavier environs.
Jamaica also had a robust Jewish colony, writes the AJA (p. 151): “The growth of the sugar industry enlarged the Jewish immigration and a number of Jews became plantation owners.”[21] The EJ boasted that “Jews with agricultural plantations controlled the sugar and vanilla industries, and …were the leaders in foreign trade and shipping.”[22] In its section on “Sugar”—the product most responsible for the enslavement of millions of Africans—the EJ puts Jews at the epicenter:
“The Jews of Brazil were not important as proprietors of [sugar] mills but rather as financial agents, brokers, and export merchants. When Brazil came again under Portuguese rule in the second half of the 17th century, many Jews emigrated to Surinam, Barbados, Curaçao, and Jamaica, where they acquired large sugarcane plantations and became the leading entrepreneurs in the sugar trade.”[23]
And then it reveals the other, now predictable, Jewish reality: “The abolition of slavery in the British dominions (1833) lowered the economy and scattered the Jews.” Note here the AJA writes that freedom for enslaved Blacks “scattered” the Jews.
Many of those Jews “scattered” to the North American mainland, says the AJA: “The end of slavery in the Caribbean saw Jews from the islands arriving almost daily…” Many ended up in the colony of Georgia, described as “suffering from the trustees’ idealistic insistence on no slaves or liquor…”[24] As the AJA frames it, “no slaves” meant Jewish “suffering.” In fact, the refusal of the leaders of Georgia to permit Black slavery triggered a Jewish exodus from the colony! By 1740 only three Jewish families were left. They bounced, according to Rabbi Marcus, because “Negro slavery was prohibited, the liquor traffic was forbidden.”[25] Jew Abraham De Lyon said he left for “the want of Negroes…whereas his white servants cost him more than he was able to afford.”[26]
From their own archival documents the most lettered Jewish scholars have painted an alarming portrait of the earliest of their founding fathers. In every case examined, Jewish “liberty” and prosperity were entirely dependent on Black slavery, and once Black “liberty” was achieved the Jewish world imploded and the Jews fled. The Encyclopedia Judaica summarizes nicely:
“A general decline of the Spanish-Portuguese communities in the Caribbean set in during the 19th century. Growing competition in agricultural products, the abandonment of the plantations by the Afro-American laborers due to the abolition of slavery, assimilation, and emigration were the main causes of this decline.”[27]
The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad wrote that after being bound in Europe for 1,000 years, “they were loose (free) to travel over the earth and deceive the people.” Further, “They have been here now over 400 years. Their worst and most unpardonable sins were the bringing of the so-called Negroes here to do their labor.”[28]
Jewish scholars have thus affirmed that no one better fits Mr. Muhammad’s description of the traveling deceiver and “unpardonable” slave-making sinner than the Jew.
NOTES
[*] See also Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered (2008), p. 375.
[1] Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 60:3.
[2] Robert Swierenga, The Forerunners: Dutch Jewry in the North American Diaspora (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1994), p. 36.
[3] Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, “Between Amsterdam and New Amsterdam: The Place of Curaçao and the Caribbean in Early Modern Jewish History,” American Jewish History, vol. 72, no. 2 (December 1982), p. 190.
[4] Yda Schreuder, Amsterdam’s Sephardic Merchants and the Atlantic Sugar Trade in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), p. 70. Also, Steven S. Sallie, “The Role of the Semitic Peoples in the Expansion of the World Economy Via the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: A Literature Extraction and an Interpretation,” Journal of Third World Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (Fall 1994), p. 173.
[5] “Miscellaneous Items Relating to Jews of North America,” Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, vol. 27 (1920), pp. 223–24.
[6] Sallie, “The Role of the Semitic Peoples,” p. 173.
[7] https://www.americanjewisharchives.org/about/jacob-rader-marcus/
[8] Malcolm H. Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” American Jewish Archives, vol. 44, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1992), p. 142.
[9] Allan Metz, “Those of the Hebrew Nation…The Sephardic Experience in Colonial Latin America,” American Jewish Archives, vol. 44, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1992), p. 226.
[10] Marc Lee Raphael, Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, 1983), p. 24.
[11] Jewish Autonomy in a Slave Society (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), p. 76.
[12] Stephen Alexander Fortune, Merchants and Jews: The Struggle for the British West Indian Caribbean, 1650-1750 (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1984), p. 109.
[13] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 143.
[14] Lavy Becker, “A Report on Curacao,” Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, December 5, 1969.
[15] Daniel M. Swetschinski, “Conflict and Opportunity in ‘Europe’s Other Sea’: The Adventure of Caribbean Jewish Settlement,” American Jewish History, vol. 72, no. 2 (December 1982), p. 236.
[16] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 147; Emma Fidanque Levy, “The Fidanques: Symbols of the Continuity of the Sephardic Tradition in America,” American Jewish Archives, vol. 44, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1992), pp. 184–85.
[17] Marc Lee Raphael, Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, 1983), p. 24.
[18] Isaac S. and Susan A. Emmanuel, History of the Jews of the Netherland Antilles (Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1973), p. 77.
[19] Johan Hartog, Curaçao From Colonial Dependence to Autonomy (Aruba, Netherland Antilles, 1968), p. 276.
[20] Second Edition, Volume 4, p. 473.
[21] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 151.
[22] Second Edition, Volume 4, p. 474.
[23] See also James C. Boyajian, “New Christians and Jews in the Sugar Trade, 1550–1750: Two Centuries of Development of the Atlantic Economy,” in The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West, 1450-1800, eds. Paolo Bernardini and Norman Fiering (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001), p. 476.
[24] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 164.
[25] Jacob Rader Marcus, Memoirs of American Jews 1775-1865, vol. 2 (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1974), p. 288.
[26] Edward D. Coleman, “Jewish Merchants in the Colonial Slave Trade,” Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, vol. 34 (1938), p. 285.
[27] Second Edition, Volume 4, p. 470.
[28] Message to the Blackman in America, pp. 104, 267; “Is There a Mystery God?” Pittsburgh Courier, Aug. 18, 1956.
Republished from Nation of Islam Research Group
Featured Video
Language is a Weapon
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Aaron Siri’s Book: Vaccines, Amen
By Maryanne DemasiMaryanne Demasi | Brownstone Institute | June 15, 2026
For decades, vaccines have been treated as the sacred cow of modern medicine. I was taught that they were the holy grail. To question them was heresy. To raise concerns about safety was to risk professional exile.
Aaron Siri makes it clear in Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines that the story we’ve been told about vaccine science rests far more on belief than proof.
“No child should be sacrificed on the altar of the religion of vaccines,” Siri writes, as he turns his focus to America’s overcrowded childhood immunisation schedule.
I assumed little in this book would surprise me. I’ve spent years reporting on drug safety, regulatory capture, and the corruption of science. But Siri showed me how wrong I was.
Siri is not a doctor or a scientist. He is an attorney, and this, he says, is his advantage. In court, rhetoric won’t save you. Evidence does. As he puts it, he doesn’t get to say “trust me” the way many doctors do. “I need to prove claims with real data.”
And he does. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli government plans to fund extremist occupier group in occupied West Bank with $1.89M: Report
- Press TV reporter wounded in Israeli drone strike on southern Lebanon
- Time for Trump to Tell Benjamin Netanyahu to Go Away!
- Israeli officials: ‘Security zones’ to remain in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza
- Israel Fails to Sabotage Islamabad Accord… At Least for Now
- Araghchi: US Responsible for Implementing MoU with Iran
- US must cut military, intelligence assistance to Israel to protect Iran deal: Ex-Trump official
- The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find
- Iran deputy FM says MoU with US finalized, to be signed in Geneva on Friday
- With one strike, Netanyahu tries to kill two peace deals
- If Americans Knew
- They Weren’t Convicted of Terrorism, But These Palestine Activists Got Sentenced as Terrorists Anyway
- “Ceasefire” is not in Israel’s vocabulary – Daily Update
- Did Trump just threaten a nuclear attack on Iran? Another merger for Israel-Firster David Ellison –Daily Update
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
Aletho News 