JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Col. Quisp » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:54 pm

I got a copy of this book from the library recently...so, yes, it is in some libraries! thank goodnesss for libraries...another word for "freedom"
User avatar
Col. Quisp
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby crikkett » Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:22 pm

sunny wrote:http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black369c.mp3

...And fortunately that part of the assassination did not work. Had it did work, we would have had a nuclear war. And that is the reason why Kennedy was assassinated, because stood against it. He didn’t want to win a nuclear war, he wanted to stop it. And that’s an all together different objective from his Joint Chiefs and the Central Intelligence Agency...

This passage itself is unspeakable. I'm guessing it's a rush transcript.
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby whipstitch » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:39 pm

sunny wrote:If you haven't read it get it at once.

Started reading it last night and it's truely excellent. Thanks for the head's up. I think I'll donate it to our public library when I'm done reading it.
User avatar
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:09 pm

Oliver Stone: JFK and the Unspeakable
Oliver Stone
Award-winning filmmaker
Posted: July 23, 2009 05:05 PM

The murder of President Kennedy was a seminal event for me and for millions of Americans. It changed the course of history. It was a crushing blow to our country and to millions of people around the world. It put an abrupt end to a period of a misunderstood idealism, akin to the spirit of 1989 when the Soviet bloc to began to thaw and 2008, when our new American President was fairly elected.

Today, more than 45 years later, profound doubts persist about how President Kennedy was killed and why. My film JFK was a metaphor for all those doubts, suspicions and unanswered questions. Now an extraordinary new book offers the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance. That book is [James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. It is a book that deserves the attention of all Americans; it is one of those rare books that, by helping us understand our history, has the power to change it.

The subtitle sums up Douglass's purpose: Why He Died and Why it Matters. In his beautifully written and exhaustively researched treatment, Douglass lays out the "motive" for Kennedy's assassination. Simply, he traces a process of steady conversion by Kennedy from his origins as a traditional Cold Warrior to his determination to pull the world back from the edge of destruction.

Many of these steps are well known, such as Kennedy's disillusionment with the CIA after the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion, and his refusal to follow the reckless recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis. (This in itself was truly JFK's shining moment in the sun. It is likely that any other president from LBJ on would have followed the path to a general nuclear war.) Then there was the Test Ban Treaty and JFK's remarkable American University Speech where he spoke with empathy and compassion about the Soviet people, recognizing our common humanity, the fact that we all "inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."

But many of his steps remain unfamiliar: Kennedy's back-channel dialogue with Khrushchev and their shared pursuit of common ground; his secret opening to dialogue with Fidel Castro (ongoing the very week of his assassination); and his determination to pull out of Vietnam after his probable re-election in 1964.

All of these steps caused him to be regarded as a virtual traitor by elements of the military-intelligence community. These were the forces that planned and carried out his assassination. Kennedy himself said, in 1962, after he read Seven Days in May, which is about a military coup in the United States, that if he had another Bay of Pigs, the same thing could happen to him. Well, he did have another "Bay of Pigs"; ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-st ... 43924.html

Covert History: Huffington Post: Oliver Stone plugs JFK and the Unspeakable

Looks like Stone is following this up with a documentary:

Oliver Stone To Produce Documentary Series
NEW YORK — Showtime says filmmaker Oliver Stone is producing a 10-part documentary series on what he calls the secret history of America.

The series will focus on events of the past 60 years that went underreported when they took place, but crucially shaped the nation's history.

Showtime says newly discovered information on the Kennedy administration, the Vietnam War and America's role in the world since the fall of communism will be explored.

Stone, the Academy Award-winning director of "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July," will serve as executive producer and narrator for the series. It's set to debut next year on Showtime.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 62774.html
User avatar
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby RocketMan » Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:21 pm

Well it looks like Mr. Stone has directed his parapolitical interests to something else than his feature films. Great news... Also looking forward to his Chavez documentary. His next feature will be Wall Street 2 - Money Never Sleeps. Awful title, but we'll see.

I predict Mr. Stone's stuff will be something completely different than what, say, History Channel and Discovery Channel produce. :happyclap:
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby whipstitch » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:16 pm

Electric Politics has an hour long interview with JFK and the Unspeakable author James W. Douglass.
User avatar
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby erosoplier » Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:36 pm

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

Review of James Douglass' Book

by Prof. Edward Curtin

Despite a treasure-trove of new information having emerged over the last forty-six years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. There are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission. Both groups agree, however, that whatever the truth, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred almost a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008). It is clearly one of the best books ever written on the Kennedy assassination and deserves a vast readership. It is bound to roil the waters of complacency that have submerged the truth of this key event in modern American history.

It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today. So far, at least, Obama’s behavior has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by “unspeakable” (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace. He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – “the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it” - not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot.

Why and by whom? These are the key questions. If it can be shown that Kennedy did, in fact, turn emphatically away from war as a solution to political conflict; did, in fact, as he was being urged by his military and intelligence advisers to up the ante and use violence, rejected such advice and turned toward peaceful solutions, then, a motive for his elimination is established. If, furthermore, it can be clearly shown that Oswald was a dupe in a deadly game and that forces within the military/intelligence apparatus were involved with him from start to finish, then the crime is solved, not by fingering an individual who may have given the order for the murder or pulled the trigger, but by showing that the coordination of the assassination had to involve U.S. intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA . Douglass does both, providing highly detailed and intricately linked evidence based on his own research and a vast array of the best scholarship.

We are then faced with the contemporary relevance, and since we know that every president since JFK has refused to confront the growth of the national security state and its call for violence, one can logically assume a message was sent and heeded. In this regard, it is not incidental that former twenty-seven year CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, in a recent interview, warned of the “two CIAs,” one the analytic arm providing straight scoop to presidents, the other the covert action arm which operates according to its own rules. “Let me leave you with this thought,” he told his interviewer, “and that is that I think Panetta (current CIA Director), and to a degree Obama, are afraid – I never thought I’d hear myself saying this – I think they are afraid of the CIA.” He then recommended Douglass’ book, “It’s very well-researched and his conclusion is very alarming.” [i]

Let’s look at the history marshaled by Douglass to support his thesis.

First, Kennedy, who took office in January 1961 as somewhat of a Cold Warrior, was quickly set up by the CIA to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. Kennedy refused to go along and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy. But it was all a sham.

Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end - never told the President. [ii] The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway. Why? So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

This treachery set the stage for events to come. For his part, sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (as in a bad joke, later to be named to the Warren Commission) and his assistant General Charles Cabell (whose brother Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed) and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not the sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.

The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1961, despite the Joint Chief’s demand to put troops into Laos, Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”

Also in 1961, he refused to concede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”

He refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Afterwards he told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”

Then in June 1963 he gave an incredible speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”

A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.

In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]

All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, “I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.” Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals.

These clear refusals to go to war and his decision to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course. As Douglass and others have pointed out, every move Kennedy made was anti-war. This, Douglass argues, was because JFK, a war hero, had been deeply affected by the horror of war and was severely shaken by how close the world had come to destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. Throughout his life he had been touched by death and had come to appreciate the fragility of life. Once in the Presidency, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peace maker. He came to see the generals who advised him as devoid of the tragic sense of life and as hell-bent on war. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’etat against him. On the night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.” And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned it.

But who killed him?

Douglass presents a formidable amount of evidence, some old and some new, against the CIA and covert action agencies within the national security state, and does so in such a logical and persuasive way that any fair-minded reader cannot help but be taken aback; stunned, really. And he links this evidence directly to JFK’s actions on behalf of peace.

He knows, however, that to truly convince he must break a “conspiracy of silence that would envelop our government, our media, our academic institutions, and virtually our entire society from November 22, 1963, to the present.” This “unspeakable,” this hypnotic “collective denial of the obvious,” is sustained by a mass-media whose repeated message is that the truth about such significant events is beyond our grasp, that we will have to drink the waters of uncertainty forever. As for those who don’t, they are relegated to the status of conspiracy nuts.

Fear and uncertainty block a true appraisal of the assassination - that plus the thought that it no longer matters.

It matters. For we know that no president since JFK has dared to buck the military-intelligence-industrial complex. We know a Pax Americana has spread its tentacles across the globe with U.S. military in over 130 countries on 750 plus bases. We know that the amount of blood and money spent on wars and war preparations has risen astronomically.

There is a great deal we know and even more that we don’t want to know, or at the very least, investigate.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters. As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?” After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife - during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union - he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department. He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba. Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide. Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Bureau, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.

During this time up until the assassination Oswald engaged in all sorts of contradictory activities, one day portraying himself as pro-Castro, the next day as anti-Castro, many of these theatrical performances being directed from Bannister’s office. It was as though Oswald, on the orders of his puppet masters, was enacting multiple and antithetical roles in order to confound anyone intent on deciphering the purposes behind his actions and to set him up as a future “assassin.” Douglass persuasively argues that Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”

When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did , but for which he was paid. Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the picture on cue. Douglass illuminatingly traces in their intelligence connections. Ruth later was the Warren Commission’s chief witness. She had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September 1963 Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to her house in Dallas to live with her. Thirty years after the assassination a document was declassified showing Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell helicopter and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance. Her mother was related to the Forbes family of Boston and her lifelong friend, Mary Bancroft, worked as a WW II spy with Allen Dulles and was his mistress. Afterwards, Dulles questioned the Paines in front of the Warren Commission, studiously avoiding any revealing questions. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently got Oswald a job in the Texas Book Depository where he began work on October 16, 1963.

From late September until November 22, various Oswalds are later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Dallas to Mexico City. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theatre, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back. As Douglas says, “There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.” Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico…their ( CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. It was apparent that a very intricate and deadly game was being played out at high levels in the shadows.

We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass adds layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so. Oswald, the mafia, anti-Castro Cubans could not have withdrawn most of the security that day. The Sheriff Bill Decker withdrew all police protection. The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been the day before in Houston; took agents off the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire. They approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18 ) where the car came, almost to a halt, a clear security violation. The House Select Committee on Assasinations concluded this, not some conspiracy nut.

Who could have squelched the testimony of all the doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story? Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 – a story little known but extraordinary in its implications – is riveting.) The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up - clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book.

He says it best: “The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy’s murder and immediate cover-up.”

Speaking to his friends Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell about those who planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK said, “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”

Let’s hope for another president like that, but one that meets a different end.


[i] http://consortiumnews.com/print’2009/091309a.html

[ii] Vernon Loeb, “Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack,” Washington Post, April 29, 2000

[iii] See James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, October/November 2003

Edward Curtin teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
User avatar
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 23 » Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:56 pm

Besides the militarists, let's not forget that he was also Public Enemy No. 1 to the bankers as well.

Thanks to his signing of Executive Order 11110, which significantly impacted the Fed, five months before he was assassinated.

The Order, since his assassination, has never been executed. He was the first, last and only President who was interested in executing it.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 82_28 » Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:28 am

SO CRAZY! I know (used to know this guy's son). We would drink together at bars around the time I moved up here. Around 10 years ago. He told me of his dad's book. I thought at the time it would be some kooky thing. I read parts of the unfinished manuscript way back in the day in fact. James Douglass, from what his son told me is an ordained minister as well.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Truth4Youth » Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

23 wrote:Besides the militarists, let's not forget that he was also Public Enemy No. 1 to the bankers as well.

Thanks to his signing of Executive Order 11110, which significantly impacted the Fed, five months before he was assassinated.

The Order, since his assassination, has never been executed. He was the first, last and only President who was interested in executing it.

FWIW, a prominent John Bircher wrote a piece dismissing this theory in 2000:

The JFK Myth: Was He Assassinated Because He Opposed the Fed? by G. Edward Griffin

A John Bircher defending the bankers? I think that in itself is extraordinary enough to be questioning the JFK Vs. the Fed theory.

Not saying it isn't true. Just offering a contrary view.
User avatar
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:27 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 23 » Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:08 am

Truth4Youth wrote:
23 wrote:Besides the militarists, let's not forget that he was also Public Enemy No. 1 to the bankers as well.

Thanks to his signing of Executive Order 11110, which significantly impacted the Fed, five months before he was assassinated.

The Order, since his assassination, has never been executed. He was the first, last and only President who was interested in executing it.

FWIW, a prominent John Bircher wrote a piece dismissing this theory in 2000:

The JFK Myth: Was He Assassinated Because He Opposed the Fed? by G. Edward Griffin

A John Bircher defending the bankers? I think that in itself is extraordinary enough to be questioning the JFK Vs. the Fed theory.

Not saying it isn't true. Just offering a contrary view.

Thanks for this.

It's been years since I read anything on this issue. You've given me reading material for my for cup of java in the AM.

Thanks again.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Metalious » Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:51 pm

Truth4Youth wrote:
A John Bircher defending the bankers? I think that in itself is extraordinary enough to be questioning the JFK Vs. the Fed theory.

Not saying it isn't true. Just offering a contrary view.

Let's be accurate. Griffin wasn't "defending the bankers" per se. He was merely debunking the EO# 11110 myth, along with a bogus account of a speech by JFK at Columbia U.

A lot of people have successfully debunked the EO# 11110 silliness. What no one has done is successfully eliminated banking interests' involvement in the Kennedy assassination.

To the extent that we can say that there was an organized banking cartel in 1963, and we can, that cartel controlled the CIA more so than any other group - i.e. the oil cartel etc..

Allen Dulles, I would remind, was a banker and a member of Quigley's Roundtable groups. C. Douglas Dillon, the secretary of treasury, and the person in charge of the Secret Service, was also a banker, with strong and deep ties to the OSS, CIA and the intelligence community in general.
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Uncle $cam » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:58 pm

"The question aint who killed JFK, but where are they now?" ~Jello Biafra
Suffering raises up those souls that are truly great; it is only small souls that are made mean-spirited by it.
- Alexandra David-Neel
User avatar
Uncle $cam
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby thesmokingpants » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:29 am

I will admit I am just beginning to read up on JFK starting with this book and I guess Probe magazines book next. So I know extremely little here. But I have been reading Ganzer's book on Gladio and can't help but see an interesting narrative in Gladio. An international structure put in place to manage shifts to the left throughout europe run by CIA and MI6. JFK fits that profile, of a leader who needed to be managed and shift the country back to a state of fear and hating Moscow with the capture of the lone gunmen communist. He was looking for a road to peace with Moscow and infuriated the anti communist elements who had a whole international apparatus in place made of anti communist mercs and special forces trained in kidnapping and assassination. Gladio in europe utilized the mafia and neo nazi groups (OKC?).
so what were the US's gladio like structures that operated in north america and south america?
is that a good way of looking at most of the events like OKC, 911 as more modern day expressions of something like gladio? there could be many hidden strctures within gladio that could also be manipulated by a vast array of other powerful interests.
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:38 am


The Mossad Role in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy
by Michael Collins Piper

    "A nation that is afraid to debate its issues in a public forum, is a nation that is afraid of its people." - JFK

French intelligence officer Herve Lemarr once wrote that:

    "President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and false mirrors, and when the curtain fell the actors, and even the scenery, disappeared. But the magicians were not illusionists but professionals, artists in their way."

Since November 22, 1963 many have spent vast amounts of time researching the assassination, putting forth a wide variety of theories.

Most of the research has been devoted to what one more perceptive critic described as "a consuming preoccupation [with] the microanalytic searching for facts of how the assassination was accomplished," while at the same time, he points out "there has been almost no systematic thinking on why President Kennedy was killed."

So while people have focused on how many assassins were involved, and how many shots they fired at JFK and where the shots came from and where the bullets hit, the real question of who was ultimately responsible for the assassination—not who fired the bullets, but who sponsored the assassins who fired those bullets—has been ignored.

Thus, to find out who is responsible for JFK’s murder, we have to find out WHY he was murdered—what motivated those who orchestrated his assassination.

Consider the wide-ranging array of suspects that have been put forth:

• Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone;
• The Soviet KGB;
• Fidel Castro;
• Anti-Castro Cubans;
• The "Mafia";
• Rogue CIA operatives and anti-Castro Cubans in collaboration with elements of "the Mafia";
• J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI;
• Lyndon Baines Johnson;
• Former Nazi intelligence officers;
•†The Texas Oil Barons; and
• The Military-Industrial Complex.

Ten years ago, in 1992, a new suspect was added to the list. Former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) made the little-noticed but intriguing comment in the March 1992 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that "it is interesting but not surprising to note that in all the words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories."

What Findley did not know was at that very time I was in the process of preparing a volume contending that the Mossad role alongside the CIA in the JFK assassination, was, in fact, the big secret—the "missing link"—that explained the entirety of the JFK conspiracy.

The Mossad role is what I have also called "the secret picture on the other side of the jigsaw puzzle" of the JFK assassination conspiracy. My book summarizing this theory is entitled Final Judgment.

What I find quite remarkable is that while many Israelis today believe that Israeli intelligence played a part in the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, many of Israel’s friends in America have reacted quite hysterically to my contention that the Mossad played a role in the assassination of America’s president.

In addition, although there are many who believe that the CIA had a hand in the JFK assassination, quite a few of those same people are fearful of mentioning the likelihood of a Mossad role. Yet, as journalist Andrew Cockburn has pointed out:

"There has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, basically by which Israeli intelligence did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence. You can’t understand what’s been going on with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand this secret arrangement."

Cockburn’s words are a rough overview of the thesis that I have presented in Final Judgment.

Although Final Judgment has never been in any major bookstore since it was first published nearly a decade ago, some 30,000 copies are in circulation—more copies than more widely-publicized books on the topic. It is truly an "underground best-seller." It is now in its 760-page fifth edition, documented with 1,114 footnotes. And on November 9, Dar El Ilm Lilmalayin, the oldest and largest privately-owned publishing house in the Middle East released the first-ever Arabic-language edition.

In many respects, Final Judgment is more than a book about the JFK assassination. It also reveals the hidden global power politics of the last half of the 20th century.

Final Judgment documents that in 1963 JFK was embroiled in a bitter secret conflict with Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion over Israel’s drive to build the atomic bomb; that Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust, saying that because of JFK’s policies, Israel’s "existence [was] in danger." Then upon JFK’s assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began an immediate 180-degree turnaround.

Israeli historian Avner Cohen’s new book, Israel and the Bomb, confirms the conflict between JFK and Israel so powerfully that, Israel’s Ha’aretz, declared Cohen’s revelations would "necessitate the rewriting of Israel’s entire history."

In any case, Cohen pointed out, "the transition from Kennedy to [Lyndon] Johnson . . . benefited the Israeli nuclear program."

Ethan Bronner, in the New York Times, called Israel’s drive to build a nuclear bomb "a fiercely hidden subject."

This explains why JFK researchers never considered an Israeli connection until Final Judgment supplied the missing pieces, assembling "the secret picture on the other side of the jigsaw puzzle."

While all of this presents a strong motive for Israel to strike against JFK, Final Judgment also documents what Israeli journalist Barry Chamish says is "a pretty cogent case" for Mossad collaboration with the CIA in the assassination conspiracy.

The fact is that when New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted trade executive Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled upon the Mossad link.

Although (after his acquittal) Shaw was revealed to have been a CIA asset, in 1963 Shaw served on the board of a Rome-based company, Permindex, which was actually a front for a Mossad-sponsored arms procurement operation.

A primary shareholder in Permindex, the Banque De Credit Internationale of Geneva, was not only the fiefdom of Tibor Rosenbaum, a high-level Mossad official, but also the chief money laundry for Meyer Lansky, "chairman" of the crime syndicate and long-time Israeli loyalist.

Chief executive of Permindex was Louis Bloomfield of Montreal, a top figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family, intimate Lansky associates and leading patrons of Israel.

Permindex was clearly the Israeli link to the JFK assassination, so much so that Jim Garrison himself later circulated the manuscript for a never-published novel in which he fingered the Mossad as prime mover behind the conspiracy although Garrison never otherwise mentioned a Mossad connection publicly.

You may ask why Hollywood’s so-called "radical film-maker" Oliver Stone, whose film JFK was a virtual tribute to Garrison never mentioned any of this.

I would contend that Stone failed to mention these details in JFK because the film was financed by Arnon Milchan, an Israeli arms dealer linked to smuggling of materiel to Israel’s nuclear program—the very point of contention between JFK and Israel.

Milchan’s role in the production of JFK is no secret, by the way. He is listed in the credits as "executive producer," which, in Hollywood parlance, means that he was the "money man," so to speak, behind the film.

The Permindex link investigated by Mr. Garrison in New Orleans also explains the "French connection" to the assassination featured in the widely-seen documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, but which failed to tell the entire story told in Final Judgment. For example:

That the aforementioned Permindex operation (involving Clay Shaw and other CIA assets often publicly connected to the JFK assassination) was also involved in assassination attempts against French President Charles DeGaulle by the French "Secret Army Organization" (the OAS) which itself had close ties to the Mossad.

Like the OAS, the Israelis hated DeGaulle not only because he gave independence to Algeria, a major new Arab state, but also because DeGaulle, who had assisted Israel’s nuclear development program, had withdrawn support, objecting (as did JFK) to Israel’s drive for an atomic arsenal.

In the course of my writing of the book, a former French intelligence officer—Pierre Neuville, the son of the former French consul general in Jerusalem—revealed to me that he had learned that the Mossad contracted out one of JFK’s assassins—probably a Corsican hitman—through a French intelligence official disloyal to DeGaulle and who hated JFK for supporting Algerian independence.

JFK was also planning a strike against Red China’s nuclear bomb program—a plan scuttled by Lyndon Johnson within a month of JFK’s assassination.

During this same period, in fact, Israel and Red China were involved in joint secret nuclear bomb research with a key player in the Permindex web, Shaul Eisenberg, serving as the Mossad’s liaison with China.

Final Judgment was first to point out that James Angleton, the CIA liaison to the Mossad, was a devoted partisan of Israel who not only orchestrated the scenario linking accused assassin Lee Oswald to the Soviet KGB but who later circulated disinformation to confuse investigations into the assassination.

This is a brief overview of some of the more salient points made in Final Judgment—points that have otherwise been largely ignored in the massive amount of material that has been published on the topic of the assassination.

The response to my thesis has been predictable. Israeli diplomat Uri Palti, based at the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles, has described my thesis as "nonsense."

Pro-Zionist columnist George F. Will, in a column in Newsweek on Sept. 1, 1997, has referred to the thesis as being "vicious intellectual licentiousness."

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (the ADL) one of the foremost elements of the Israeli lobby, has repeatedly attacked me in a most malicious fashion. Most notably, the ADL called me a "Holocaust denier"—although my book mentions nothing about the Holocaust—this so as to distract attention from the very powerful thesis that my book does present.

However, one article about the controversy surrounding my thesis and one educator who has endorsed it, appearing in the Los Angeles Times on November 25, 1996 made the assertion that the thesis was "novel indeed" and that it managed "to weave together some of the key threads in a tapestry that many say is unique."

However, as we all know too well, the reason why the theory presented in Final Judgment is "controversial" is simply because it dares to say something less than flattering about a foreign nation—Israel.

The truth is that the single tie that binds all of the most commonly-believed theories about the JFK assassination is the little-known Mossad connection.

Israel, however, is the central player whose role has been consistently ignored.

The first big question is whether Israel’s Mossad would actually consider assassinating an American president perceived hostile to Israel?

According to ex-Mossad man Victor Ostrovsky, the Israeli spy agency hatched a plan to kill President George Bush in 1991.

There is also evidence that the Jewish underground in Palestine in 1947 sent poisoned letters to President Harry Truman because he was dragging his feet as far as supporting the drive for a Jewish state was concerned. This information comes from Truman’s daughter, Margaret Truman, writing in a biography of her father.

The point is this: if Israel did indeed consider assassinating Bush in 1991 and Truman in 1947, why should we not also consider the possibility that the Mossad was indeed involved in a plot against John F. Kennedy in 1963?

And in this context it should now be noted that researchers in the JFK controversy have repeatedly pointed out the false leads that continue to appear.

Most believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, was indeed what he claimed to be—the patsy—and that false clues had been laid by the real conspirators to make it appear as though Oswald was an agent of Fidel Castro or the Soviets or both.

A key chapter in Final Judgment points out that Israel has what I call "a bad habit"—that is, the use of what are known as "false flags" in pointing the finger of guilt elsewhere in the course of committing assassinations and acts of terrorism.

That chapter is a virtual catalogue of this little-known phenomenon, which is perhaps best exemplifed by Israel’s notorious Lavon Affair of the 1950s in which Israel staged bombings on American and British installations in Egypt for the purpose of blaming them on Islamic fundamentalist groups and destabilizing the regime of President Nasser.

Although the American media today promotes the idea that somehow John F. Kennedy was a dedicated friend of Israel, nothing could be further from the truth.

There was a long history of bitter enmity between John F. Kennedy and his powerful father, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy and organized crime boss Meyer Lansky, stemming in part from the senior Kennedy’s deals with the underworld. This, however, did not stop the Kennedy family from cutting deals with the crime syndicate when it came to winning elections.

The Kennedy family’s own suspected anti-Semitism didn’t do anything to improve JFK’s relations with Israel and its American lobby either. As a U.S. Senator, Kennedy’s intervention in the issue of Algerian independence from France also drew sharp criticism from the Israeli lobby as well.

Yet, when John F. Kennedy sought the presidency, he was willing to cut deals with the Israeli lobby—for a price.

By the end of his presidency, however, Kennedy had reneged on his deals, not only with Israel’s Godfather, Meyer Lansky, and his henchmen in organized crime, but also with the Israeli lobby.

What about the so-called "Mafia" or organized crime connections to the assassination? In fact, those connections also point toward the Mossad.

If it had not been for international crime boss Meyer Lansky there might not be a state of Israel today. This is something that Israel would rather be forgotten.

The evidence firmly indicates that Israel was established as a state, in major part, through the political, financial and moral support of Meyer Lansky and his associates and henchmen in Organized Crime. Lansky’s interests and Israel’s interests were almost incestuous.

As I’ve already noted, Lansky’s chief European money laundering bank was an operation directed by one of Israel’s founding fathers, Tibor Rosenbaum, a high-ranking, longtime Mossad officer.

Lansky’s intimate (and quite secret) ties with American intelligence (including both the CIA and the FBI) made the Russian-born Jewish mobster the "untouchable" leader of the global organized crime syndicate.

Meyer Lansky’s Louisiana front man, Carlos Marcello, has become a favorite target for JFK assassination researchers who like to claim that "The Mafia--that is, Italian-American crime figures--Killed JFK."

Marcello was only one cog in the Lansky Syndicate. Marcello also had ties to Israel’s allies in the CIA.

Two other top Italian-AMerican crime figures—Johnny Rosselli and Santo Trafficante, Jr. have often linked to the JFK assassination.

Although both Rosselli and Trafficante were major players in the criminal underworld, both were, in fact—like Carlos Marcello—subordinates of Meyer Lansky.

Rosselli and Trafficante were Lansky’s point men in Lansky’s dealings with Israel’s allies in the CIA in assassination plots against Fidel Castro.

In truth, the Jewish presence in organized crime in America is a little-known phenomenon that the "Mafia"-obsessed media has kept under wraps.

What about Jack Ruby, the Jewish nightclub operator, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the president’s accused assassin?

Ruby’s connections to the criminal underworld are well-documented. However, what is ignored is Ruby’s integral link to the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate—not "the Mafia"— and to Israel’s allies in the CIA.

In Final Judgment I have documented additional connections between Jack Ruby and the state of Israel and its arms-smuggling and financial conduits in the United States.

FBI documents, long suppressed, reveal that Ruby himself traveled to Israel in 1955 and that while in San Francisco that year, Ruby told a friend, "After I leave here I’m going to Florida to buy a load of contraband to send to Israel."

In addition, note that Lawrence Meyers, Ruby’s long-time friend with whom he met the night before the JFK assassination, was a salesman for Ero Manufacturing, a firm linked to a corporation investigated for illegal arms shipments to Israel.

In addition, we also now know that Jack Ruby was on the payroll of the Lansky Crime Syndicate-connected Bronfman family (now headed by Edgar Bronfman, leader of the World Jewish Congress).

Considering the Bronfman family's intimate ties to the Mossad-sponsored Permindex entity that played a central role in the JFK assassination conspiracy, the Ruby connection to the Bronfman family does point toward yet another Israeli connection to the JFK conspiracy.

The genesis of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination was JFK’s growing conflict with Israel over Israel’s drive to build the nuclear bomb.

While the history books have told us of John F. Kennedy’s epic struggles with Fidel Castro and with the Soviets in the Bay of Pigs debacle and the Cuban Missile Crisis only in recent years have we begun to learn of Kennedy’s secret war with Israel.

By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.

As far as writing specifically about what I have called "JFK's secret war with Israel," I primarily relied on three sources:

1) The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy by Pulitizer Prize-winning veteran New York Times journalist Seymour Hersh.

2) Dangerous Liasion: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship by husband-and-wife team, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, both respected liberal journalists; and

3) Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel by Stephen Green, who has been associated with the very "mainstream" Council on Foreign Relations and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Hersh and Green, by the way, are Jewish. All three books were published by respected "mainstream" publishing houses.

No honest JFK assassination researcher can claim to be fully versed in the dynamics of conspiracy until he or she has read these volumes, all of which make it very clear that JFK and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion were at serious loggerheads, to the point that Ben-Gurion believed that JFK’s policy was a threat to Israel’s very survival--and said so.

Upon JFK’s assassination, American policy toward the Middle East did an amazing 180 degree turn-about--the most immediate result of the American president’s murder.

This is a cold, hard, indisputable fact not subject to debate. The evidence is all too clear.

In Final Judgment I pointed out, citing Hersh, that the Israeli press and the world press "told the world that Ben-Gurion's sudden resignation was a result of his dissatisfaction with domestic political scandals and turmoil that were rocking Israel."

However, Hersh went on to say, quite significantly, that there was "no way for the Israeli public" to know that there was "yet another factor" behind the resignation: specifically, in Hersh's words, Ben-Gurion's "increasingly bitter impasse with Kennedy over a nuclear-armed Israel."

The final showdown with JFK over the nuclear bomb was clearly, the "primary reason" behind Ben-Gurion's resignation.

The drive to build a nuclear bomb was not only a major aim of Israel's defense policy (its very foundation) and also a particular special interest of Ben-Gurion.

The fact is that Seymour Hersh's revelations about JFK and Ben-Gurion have been easily eclipsed by a more recent volume on the same subject—this one written by an Israeli scholar, Avner Cohen.

When Cohen released his 1999 book Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press), the book created quite a sensation in Israel to the point that journalist Tom Segev writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, declared that "Cohen's book will necessitate the rewriting of Israel's entire history."

In the opening pages of his book, Cohen writes at length about Ben-Gurion's special interest in the construction of an Israeli nuclear bomb and the reasoning behind it.

Cohen has written, in part:

Ben-Gurion was consumed by fears for Israel’s security . . .

In his correspondence with President John F. Kennedy in 1963, he wrote:

"Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, both in Israel and wherever that may live, and this existence is in danger." . . .

Israeli military planners have always considered a scenario in which a united Arab military coalition launched a war against Israel with the aim of liberating Palestine and destroying the Jewish state. This was referred to in the early 1950s as mikre hkol, or the "everything scenario."

This kind of planning was unique to Israel, as few nations have military contingency plans aimed at preventing apocalypse.

Ben-Gurion had no qualms about Israel’s need for weapons of mass destruction . . . Ben Gurion saw Arab hostility toward Israel as deep and long-lasting . . . Ben-Gurion’s pessimism . . . influenced Israel’s foreign and defense policy for years. Ben-Gurion’s world view and his decisive governing style shaped his critical role in initiating Israel’s nuclear program.

On 27 June 1963, eleven days after he announced his resignation, Ben-Gurion delivered a farewell address to the employees of the Armaments Development Authority in which . . . he provided the justification for the nuclear project:

"I do not know of any other nation whose neighbors declare that they wish to terminate it, and not only declare, but prepare for it by all means available to them. We must have no illusions that what is declared every day in Cairo, Damascus, Iraq are just words.

This is the thought that guides the Arab leaders . . . I am confident . . . that science is able to provide us with the weapon that will secure the peace, and deter our enemies."

To summarize:

The "nuclear option" was not only at the very core of Ben-Gurion's personal worldview, but the very foundation of Israel's national security policy.

The Israelis were essentially willing, if necessary, to "blow up the world"—including themselves—if they had to do so in order to defeat their Arab foes.

This is what Seymour Hersh notes Israeli nuclear planners considered "the Samson Option"—that, as Samson of the Bible, after being captured by the Philistines, brought down Dagon's Temple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies.

As Hersh put it, on page 137 in his book, "For Israel's nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying 'Never again," (in reference to preventing another Holocaust).

All of the evidence, taken together in the big picture, clearly demonstrates that it was indeed "The Samson Option" that was indeed the primary cause of Ben-Gurion's resignation.

The bottom line is that—in 1963—the issue of JFK's conflict with Ben-Gurion was a secret to both the Israeli public and the American public and remained so for more than 20 years at least and still remains so, despite the release of Hersh's book, followed by Final Judgment and then the book by Avner Cohen.

Avner Cohen's very powerful book essentially confirmed everything that Hersh had written but went even further.

Cohen describes how the conflict between JFK and Ben-Gurion was reaching its pinnacle in 1963 and how, on June 16 of that year, JFK sent a letter to the Israeli leader that Cohen says on page 134 of his book was "the toughest and most explicit message" yet. Cohen adds:

The purpose of the letter was to solidify the terms of the American visits [to Israel’s nuclear plant at Dimona] in a way that would accord with these minimum conditions on which the intelligence community insisted.

To force Ben-Gurion to accept the conditions, Kennedy exerted the most useful leverage available to an American president in dealing with Israel: a threat that an unsatisfactory solution would jeopardize the U.S. government’s commitment to, and support of, Israel . . . The showdown Ben-Gurion was trying to avoid now appeared imminent.

Ben-Gurion never read the letter. It was cabled to [U.S. Ambassador to Israel Walworth Barbour] on Saturday, 15 June, with instructions to deliver it by hand to Ben-Gurion the next day, but on that Sunday, Ben-Gurion announced his resignation.

Cohen says that Ben-Gurion never provided an explanation for his decision, except in reference to "personal reasons." To his cabinet colleagues Ben-Gurion said that he "must" resign and that "no state problem or event caused it."

Cohen adds on page 136 that Ben-Gurion had "concluded that he could not tell the truth about Dimona to American leaders, not even in private."

And this is saying a lot, considering the effort by critics of Final Judgment to say that Israel and the United States are such "close allies" that the Israelis would never ever think of doing something nasty to an American president—even one who was adamantly determined to stop Israel from establishing a nuclear defense system that the nation's leaders considered critical to the nation's survival.

I should add that French President DeGaulle's reversal on the issue of what was clearly critical French support for Israel's nuclear ambitions is quite significant indeed, particularly in light of what is documented in Final Judgment.

Without going into all of the details here (which can easily be found in Final Judgment in very much detail), the fact is that Permindex, the Mossad-sponsored money laundering and arms procurement operation that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison unearthed during his JFK assassination inquiry had also been connected to assassination attempts on Charles DeGaulle prior to the assassination of President Kennedy.

It is no coincidence that Permindex should be connected to assassination conspiracies aimed against two foreign leaders who happened to be united in their opposition to Israel's nuclear ambitions.

In addition, as Final Judgment also documents, based on a variety of "responsible" sources, the Israelis had yet another reason to oppose DeGaulle:

The French president had granted independence to the French colony of Arab Algeria, an action that inflamed not only Israel, but certain elements in DeGaulle's own military and intelligence services and brought them into alliance with Israel against DeGaulle.

Those interested in the specifics of this matter may refer to Final Judgment, but suffice it to say, there is much more to the French connection.

In any case, what happened between JFK and the new Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, who succeeded Ben-Gurion upon the latter's resignation is significant.

Immediately upon Eshkol's succession, JFK wrote a letter to the new prime minister that was evidently even more fierce than JFK's previous communications with Ben-Gurion. Avner Cohen writes:

Not since Eisenhower’s message to Ben-Gurion in the midst of the Suez crisis in November 1956 had an American president been so blunt with an Israeli prime minister.

Kennedy told Eshkol that the U.S. commitment and support of Israel "could be seriously jeopardized" if Israel did not let the United States obtain "reliable information" about its efforts in the nuclear field.

Kennedy presented detailed technical instructions on how his requirements should be executed.

Kennedy’s demands were unprecedented. They amounted, in effect, to an ultimatum.

Cohen notes on page 159 that: "From [Eshkol’s] perspective, Kennedy’s demands seemed diplomatically inappropriate; they were inconsistent with national sovereignty. There was no legal basis or political precedent for such demands," Cohen says "Kennedy’s letter precipitated a near-crisis situation in the prime minister’s office."

So Kennedy was as equally upsetting to the new prime minister as he had been to David Ben-Gurion!

Kennedy's pressure on Israel did not end with the resignation of Ben-Gurion. Instead, it clearly intensified.

Cohen then describes a "November secret meeting" held in Washington, D.C (November 13-14) between the Israelis and the Americans and says that Israel "had a broader agenda . . . than the United States was willing to discuss."

Yet, Cohen notes the nuclear issue was so sensitive that during face-to-face secret meetings between United States and Israeli officials when they were discussing other issues, the subject of Israel's nuclear bomb was not discussed.

The issue was that inflammatory. It was left for future discussion. But JFK was assassinated eight days later, and the dynamics of the U.S.-Israeli relationship changed dramatically as a consequence.

The Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, published a review of Cohen's book on February 5, 1999, calling it "a bombshell of a book." The Ha'aretz review, by Reuven Pedatzur, is quite interesting. It reads in part:

The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program.

Cohen demonstrates at length the pressures applied by Kennedy on Ben-Gurion. He brings the fascinating exchange of letters between the two, in which Kennedy makes it quite clear to the Israeli prime minister that he will under no circumstances agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state.

The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option.

I couldn't put it better myself. If this were a court case, I could rightly say, at this juncture, "The defense rests."

According to historian Stephen Green: "Perhaps the most significant development of 1963 for the Israeli nuclear weapons program, however, occurred on November 22 on a plane flying from Dallas to Washington, D.C., Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Green writes: "In the early years of the Johnson administration the Israeli nuclear weapons program was referred to in Washington as ‘the delicate topic.’ Lyndon Johnson’s White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964."

Thus it was that the critical point of dispute between John F. Kennedy and the Mossad-dominated government of Israel was no longer an issue. The new American president—so long a partisan of Israel—allowed the nuclear development to continue. This was just the beginning.

There is an aside to all of this that should be noted: Final Judgment documents a Peking connection to the JFK assassination conspiracy, relating directly to Israel’s secret nuclear allliance with China.

Not only U.S. policy toward Israel reversed upon JFK’s assassination. Although it’s virtually forgotten, John F. Kennedy was planning a military assault on Red China’s nuclear weapons development facilities in the months prior to his assassination. However, one month after JFK’s death, Lyndon Johnson canceled the project and allowed China to proceed with the assembly of its nuclear arsenal.

The big secret is that at the time of JFK’s assassination, Israel’s Mossad and Red China’s intelligence service were working behind the scenes on joint nuclear weapons development.

The evidence suggests that "the China card" played a critical (secret) factor in Israel’s participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy. This is documented in detail in Final Judgment.

I would be remiss in not addressing the question of CIA involvement alongside the Mossad in the JFK assassination.

By 1963 John F. Kennedy was not only at war with Israel and the Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate, but he was also at war with their close ally in the international intelligence underworld—the CIA.

Final Judgment shows that Israel’s chief contact at the CIA, the Soviet-hating James Jesus Angleton, ultimately played a pivotal role in the JFK assassination conspiracy cover-up.

In light of the Angleton connection, I should note how the worldwide media has given great play to the release of a new book that purported to "prove" that it was the Soviet KGB that concocted the story that the CIA was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The book purported to be the inside history of the KGB’s secret intelligence operations in the U.S. and Europe The Sword and the Shield by Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge—described as "one of the world’s leading authorities on intelligence history,".

The book was said to be based on extensive notes and transcriptions (secretly compiled over a 12 year period) of vast numbers of files from the KGB archives. The notes themselves were supposedly smuggled out of KGB headquarters by former KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin who retired from the KGB in 1984 and who then defected to Britain in 1992 after the CIA had rejected Mitrokhin.

One major problem with the Andrew book is that while it is quite thoroughly footnoted, with hundreds of references to a wide-ranging amount of material, it is not always clear (actually, more often than not) whether Andrew is purporting to cite the Mitrokhin archives as his source or whether the information he is presenting is Andrew’s own interpretation, based on the material of others.

In that sense, then, while the book is quite skilfully written in such a way that it appears to present the information presented as having come from the KGB’s supposedly purloined file, that is not always necessarily the case.

It appears Andrew’s book is presenting the Mitrokhin archives as some sort of effort to counter new official histories of the KGB that are being released by the KGB’s post-Soviet era successor, the SVR.

For example, Andrew lashes out at Lolly Zamoysky, the SVR’s literary editor of the new multi-volume official history, as having been "well known" in the KGB "for his belief in a global Masonic-Zionist plot."

Thus, Andrew’s book is effectively an attempt to counter allegations of high-level Zionist intrigue that has been documented by the official post-KGB Russian intelligence services.

In that regard, it is quite remarkable to note that in the entirety of this extensively documented and indexed 700-page volume, there is only one indexed reference to Israel and not a single indexed reference to the Mossad, this despite the widely-known fact that the Mossad played a central role alongside the CIA in its operations in Western Europe throughout the period that Andrew has purported to describe.

Likewise, in the same vein, there are only two indexed references to the CIA’s longtime counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton, even though Angleton, who is best remembered for his strident anti-Soviet stance, having spent decades looking for a "KGB mole" in the upper echelons of the CIA and for KGB moles in allied Western intelligence agencies—was also a devoted Israeli loyalist who jealously guarded his role as the CIA’s liaison to the Mossad.

Perhaps the most glaring evidence of outright fraud, per se, in the Andrew production is the flimsy and quite transparent attempt to absolve the CIA of any involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and, at the same time, make it appear as though so-called "theories" linking the CIA to the crime were exclusively disinformation put forth by the KGB.

In fact, when the news of Andrew’s book was first announced in the major media, most reports focused—sometimes exclusively—on the purported revelation that it was actually the KGB that was behind the theory that the CIA was involved in the president’s murder. Most people who read news accounts of the release of the book would probably have gleaned little more than that.

Andrew’s book claimed that KGB data purloined by Mitrokhin revealed that a letter—supposedly written prior to the assassination by JFK’s accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, and addressed to a "Mr. Hunt" (presumably the CIA’s E. Howard Hunt)—was actually a KGB forgery. According to Andrew, the letter was fabricated in the mid-1970s after Hunt’s name came to widespread public attention over his involvement in the Watergate scandal and then sent out to independent researchers who were looking into the JFK assassination.

As part of this effort to vindicate the CIA, hinging on the story of the purported KGB forgery, Andrew spends a great deal of energy spinning a literary web around the charge that pioneer JFK assassination investigator Mark Lane was either a witting or unwitting tool of the KGB in his writing of Rush to Judgment, Lane’s ground-breaking critique of the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President Kennedy.

Andrew connects Lane to the theory that "the CIA killed JFK" but fails to advise his readers that never once in Rush to Judgment did Lane ever allege that the CIA was involved in the president’s assassination.

And Lane’s book never once, in any way, shape or form, referred to the apparently forged "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter so widely heralded in the press coverage of Andrew’s book..

While Lane’s thesis about CIA involvement was outlined in his much later-written 1993 book, Plausible Denial, based in part on the information that came out during Lane’s defense in 1985 of The Spotlight newspaper against a libel suit filed by E. Howard Hunt, the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter played no part in the scenario outlined in Plausible Denial either.

In addition, in Plausible Denial, Lane develops solid evidence demonstrating that the CIA itself fabricated a scenario linking Oswald to a KGB officer in Mexico.

Since this CIA operation actually took place more than a month before President Kennedy was killed, this evidence—standing alone—demonstrates behind question that the CIA was involved not just in the post-assassination cover-up, but in the planning of the crime itself and in the framing of the patsy. Needless to say, Andrew addresses none of this.

In fact, the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter was indeed most likely a forgery but the question remains as to "who" concocted the forgery, Christopher Andrew’s claims notwithstanding.

Andrew, of course, contends that the KGB was responsible, but in Final Judgment I very clearly suggest that the letter was a forgery and that the evidence actually points to high-ranking CIA official James J. Angleton as having been the likely perpetrator.

All of this perhaps explains why Andrew is so determined to suppress the facts by targeting Mark Lane who singularly did so much to bring out the truth about the CIA’s complicity.

Andrew actually makes the flat-out allegation that Lane received funding from the KGB at the time he was writing Rush to Judgment, thereby leaving readers to conclude that Lane’s own work was essentially part of a KGB disinformation effort.

Yet, at the same time, buried in the massive footnote section of the book, Andrew himself acknowledges that when Lane supposedly received a paltry $1500 from the KGB’s New York office that "there is no evidence that Lane did realize the source of the funding" although, in the text of the book itself, Andrew contends that the KGB "suspected that he might have guessed where it came from."

In fact, Lane never once received any substantial contribution of this size from anyone at any time in relation to his work on the JFK assassination.

In addition, Andrew claims that while in Europe Lane made an attempt to visit Moscow to discuss his JFK findings. Again, not true. During that trip Lane actually took an outspoken stand against Soviet censorship and human rights violations during a visit to Bulgaria, where he had been invited to speak at an international conference of attorneys. Lane so offended his hosts by his anti-Soviet remarks that they advised him that his best option was to get out of the country immediately—hardly advice reserved for someone favored by the KGB.

What is most telling about the obvious disinformation campaign against Lane by Andrew is the very fact that not a single one of Lane’s books (on the JFK assassination or any other subject) was ever translated and published under Soviet sponsorship.

Yet Christopher Andrew has made patently false allegations about Lane’s supposed "KGB connection." The allegations are a deliberate attempt to sully Lane’s reputation and an attempt to refute evidence of CIA complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As such, it is not unfair to note that Andrew’s own teaching and lecturing has, in fact, been subsidized in part by the CIA, a fact that Andrew’s biography on his book’s dust jacket fails to note, but which is mentioned in glowing terms in promotional materials that have been distributed by his publisher. The motivations of Andrew (and his ties to the intelligence community) must certainly raise eyebrows considering just the items that we’ve considered here.

The CIA, of course, had its own problems with JFK. Just six weeks before John F. Kennedy was shot, a top administration official warned that a CIA-orchestrated coup in America was a fearful possibility. The CIA—like its allies in Israel—had good reason (in its own perception) to want to see JFK removed from the White House and replaced with Lyndon B. Johnson.

JFK's battle with the CIA over the Bay of Pigs debacle was just the beginning. JFK was—by the last days of his presidency—not only fighting the CIA's efforts to involve the United States ever more deeply in CIA but he was also moving toward dismantling the CIA entirely. The CIA's very existence was in danger.

This, of course, has brought focus to the CIA as a likely suspect in the JFK assassination and it was a course of investigation followed by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the late 1960s, for which he received much abuse by the major media in America.

In fact, as I have pointed out earlier, Garrison had unwittingly stumbled on the Mossad connection while investigating CIA figures Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister and others whom Garrison had linked to the JFK assassination.

There are other often-mentioned CIA connections to the assassination that also point toward the Mossad although Final Judgment has been the only volume to explore those Mossad connections.

Note for example that a former mistress of Fidel Castro, CIA asset Marita Lorenz, testified that longtime CIA operative Frank Sturgis, famous as an anti-Castro activist, told her after the assssination that he had been involved in the JFK assassination.

Based on his own extensive study of the JFK assassination Cuba's former chief of counterintelligence, General Fabian Escalante Escalante, told journalist Claudia Furiati that Cuban intelligence had determined that, in fact, "Sturgis was in charge of communications—receiving and transmitting information on the movement at Dealey Plaza and the motorcade to the shooters and others."

If Sturgis was involved in the actual mechanics of the assassination, the historical evidence suggests that Sturgis could have been functioning as a knowing Mossad tool in the conspiracy.

The truth is that going back some fifteen years prior to the JFK assassination, Sturgis had worked for the Mossad.

Sturgis was a "Hagannah mercenary during the first (1948) Israeli-Arab war," and Sturgis also had a girlfriend in Europe in the 1950s who worked for Israeli intelligence and with whom he worked. Sturgis himself said that he assisted his girlfriend as a courier in Europe in a number of her endeavors on behalf of the Mossad.

It was also well known among anti-Castro Cuban exiles that Sturgis had also worked for the Mossad and had done so for a long period of time.

In addition, during the heyday of the CIA's anti-Castro operations in Miami in which Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt were key figures, some 12 to 16 Mossad agents worked out of Miami under the command of Mossad Deputy Director Yehuda S. Sipper, their influence reaching throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

Citing a 1976 CIA memo, Professor John Newman who has investigated CIA knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald's activities, says that Sturgis founded the International Anti-Communist Brigade and that "the backers of Sturgis’ group have never been fully established."

Information outlined by a number of sources suggests that Sturgis’ group could have been an off-shoot of the Mossad's Miami-based operations, intertwined with Sturgis' own CIA-sponsored intrigue in the same sphere of influence.

In fact, a unit of Sturgis’ Brigade was CIA contract agent Gerry Patrick Hemming’s so-called "Interpen" that operated outside New Orleans and Sturgis was connected with those Interpen operations.

Those activities around New Orleans are known to have involved two of the key players surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the JFK assassination: CIA contract agents Guy Banister and David Ferrie.

In fact, there is an Israeli connection to Interpen. According to Hemming himself, Interpen’s "most important contact in the United States" was New York financier, Theodore Racoosin, whom Hemming described as "one of the key founders of the state of Israel."

After having read Final Judgment, Hemming frankly told the author that although he personally has seen no evidence that convinces him the Mossad participated directly in the JFK assassination, he did say that "I have known since the late 1960s that the Mossad was aware of the JFK murder even before it happened, and they later did a full investigation on the matter and have since retained all such files." [Emphasis added.]

In any case, we not only find CIA asset Clay Shaw of New Orleans tied to the Mossad through his association with the Permindex operation (as were Banister and Ferrie), but we also find two other CIA-connected players in the anti-Castro operations out of New Orleans (Sturgis and Hemming) were in the Mossad's sphere of influence. And Lee Harvey Oswald is tied to all of the key players involved.

In any event, there is no question that, based on the facts about Sturgis that we now do know that at least one person who has reportedly confessed to actual involvement in the JFK assassination—Frank Sturgis—did have multiple longtime links to the Mossad for many years prior to (and after) the time of the JFK assassination.

The influence of Israel and its lobby over the American media would have made it difficult for anyone who even suspected that Israel had a hand in the JFK assassination to get the word out. The media promoted the conclusions of the Warren Commission and savaged its critics. And when the media did place the blame it was on Fidel Castro and then, later, on "the Mafia."

In addition, the CIA played a major part in shaping media coverage of the JFK assassination—not to mention other major events of recent history.

Through a project initiated on April 1, 1967, the [Central Intelligence] Agency directed its "propaganda assets" in the field to take actions to discredit critics of the Warren Commission Report on the Kennedy assassination through books reviews and feature articles, not only attacking their conclusions but suggesting that they were subversively motivated.

What about the Warren Commission that investigated—most would say "covered up" the truth about the assassination?

Please note of the 22 Warren Commission staff attorneys, fully nine of them were Jewish. Another was married to a Jewish woman. Additionally, several others had known, intimate connections to the Israeli lobby in America.

One of the commission’s most active members—Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.)—was the protege of Max Fisher, a millionaire businessman with close ties to both the Mossad and the Lansky Crime Syndicate. Another, John McCloy, was connected to the Bronfman family, sponsors of the aforementioned Permindex entity, and to the international Jewish Warburg banking empire.

Of course, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and a host of other "responsible" newspapers have NOT reviewed Final Judgment, although I have sent them copies.

Yet, in this regard I cannot help but note that when on November 22, 1964 The Washington Post drafted someone to write what turned out to be a favorable review of The Warren Commission Report, accompanied by negative reviews of several books critical of the report, the Post chose Eugene Rostow, then dean of the Yale Law School. Here's what the prestigious Dean Rostow wrote of the Warren Report: Bear with me. This is "too much": Rostow wrote:

The Report is a masterly and convincing state paper. It has the high polish of legal writing at its best, carefully composed, terse, restrained and meticulous. [It has] a detached and judicious tone . . .

But here's the catch . . .

What neither The Washington Post nor Rostow revealed was that it was Rostow himself who was the first person to suggest to President Johnson that such a commission as the Warren Commission be established!

And by the way, just for the record, if the Mossad did have a hand in the JFK assassination, you can be certain Rostow would have never written about it. Here's why:

Rostow has been a board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which has been described as being "run by individuals closely identified with Israeli interests and may be regarded as a virtual lobbying organization for the state of Israel."

Of course, the murder in 1968 of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, younger brother of the slain president, was vital to the continuing cover-up of the truth about the JFK assassination.

If RFK had made it to the White House he would finally have had the power to bring his brother’s killers to justice.

The slaying of Robert F. Kennedy links not only Israel and its allies in the CIA but also SAVAK, the secret police of the Shah of Iran. SAVAK was a joint creation of the CIA and the Mossad, along with British intelligence, and cooperated closely with those agencies on many fronts—including the RFK assassination. This is explored in the pages of Final Judgment.

The connection between the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate affair that toppled Richard Nixon has been the basis for an incredible amount of misinformation and disinformation since the fall of President Nixon in 1974.

There is indeed a Watergate Connection to the JFK assassination but it’s one that even the most intrepid JFK assassination researchers have somehow seemed to miss.

The true Dallas-Watergate Connection is the long-hidden role of Israel’s CIA man, James Jesus Angleton—the prime CIA mover not only behind the JFK assassination but also the forced resignation of Richard M. Nixon. This is also explored in Final Judgment.

I was frankly astounded myself at the amount of material that emerged which did support my thesis. At the same time, though, there is absolutely no "evidence" of any kind to REFUTE my thesis. Only opinion, as in, "Oh, Israel would never do anything like that!"

Although I did keep thinking until almost the very end of the writing process that I would perhaps find some fact that would contradict my thesis, I never found any such information.

Instead, in the ten years that have passed since I was working on the first draft of the book, I have found a wealth of new information that solidifies and expands upon what had already been published.

The very strength of my book, according to many readers who are familiar with other data on the JFK assassination, is that it shows how all of the more familiar theories about the assassination are connected—and that connection is indeed the Israeli connection.

To this day, eight years after the release of the book:

• No one has been able to rebut the thesis, misquoted any of my sources or quoted any of my sources out of context.

• No one has been able to demonstrate where any of the key points in my thesis are refuted by other information.

• No one has has cited any specific errors (relevant to the thesis) that would contradict my thesis.

In the book I have pointed out the minor errors that have appeared in previous editions and challenged my readers: "Show Me Where I’m Wrong." But none have done so.

Considering the energetic and very public efforts of theJewish ADL to defame this book, one would think that the ADL would assemble a crack team of researchers to tear the book apart. And bear in mind that if the book were that insignificant, the ADL would not pay Final Judgment the attention that they do.

But the ADL refuses to debate me. People should ask "why?"


A reader of Final Judgment met famed CBS Newsman Mr. Cronkite at Martha's Vineyard. He apprised Cronkite of the theory put forth in Final Judgment, and Cronkite listened carefully.

Looking out to sea, Cronkite remarked quite succinctly: "I can’t think of any group—with the exception of Israeli intelligence—that would have been able to keep the JFK assassination conspiracy under wraps for so long."

This is our final judgment: Israel’s Mossad was a primary (and critical) behind the scenes player in the conspiracy that ended the life of John F. Kennedy. Through its own vast resources and through its international contacts in the intelligence community and in organized crime, Israel had the means, it had the opportunity, and it had the motive to play a major frontline role in the crime of the century—and it did.

The evidence demonstrates that there is a very strong foundation for my thesis.

It is a scenario that does make sense, much to the dismay of my critics.

I believe this scenario comes closer than anything yet written in summarizing the entirety of the JFK assassination conspiracy.

Final Judgment takes a new look at a very big jigsaw puzzle that displays a remarkably complex and somewhat murky picture.

On the immensely confusing picture on the front of the puzzle are all of the various groups and individuals implicated in the JFK assassination conspiracy.

However, when you turn the puzzle over, you find one complete picture—and that’s a big and very clear picture of the Israeli flag.

All the other flags on the front of the puzzle are, in intelligence jargon, "false flags," and Final Judgment proves just that.

Final Judgment encapsulates a thesis that they can't discredit. The genie is out of the bottle and neither Final Judgment nor its thesis are about to go away.

The above is the prepared text of a presentation by Michael Collins Piper discussing his 760-page book, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, which charges that Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, collaborated alongside the CIA in the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Michael Collins Piper may be reached c/o AMERICAN FREE PRESS, 1433 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003; or at (202) 544-5977 or via e-mail at: piperm@lycos.com

Israeli State Terrorism Exposed - An Amazing Book, September 5, 2000
Reviewer: David L. Rubinstein from Tel Aviv , Israel
A landmark book for modern American history that should be on the bookshelf of every serious historian as well as every single concerned American. Let me give my reasons.

This book is an extraordinary feat of investigative journalism. The information and facts that Piper uncovers are used in an extremely powerful way to reveal a whole sequence of Israeli/Jewish actions culminating in the assassination of JFK (who was an implacable opponent of the Israeli nuclear weapons program of the early 1960's and 1950's ).

The depth and thoroughness of Piper's investigative journalism literally takes one's breath away. At the same time the book is very easy to follow and understand as Piper methodically builds up his damning case against showing the depth of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination.

Once I started reading this book I could literally not stop until I had finished. I thoroughly recommend this book as a way to expand one's mind beyond the confines of the modern day media which has severely suppressed this book making it almost a taboo for mainstream booksellers to stock it. This is shown by the fact that it takes Amazon.com 4 to 6 weeks to obtain a copy.

As an Israeli/American peace activist I welcome this book . This book is especially topical today as the search for peace in the Middle East continues. As Israelis as well international Jews who care about our country I believe it right and proper to engage in an informed and vigorous debate about the undoubted wrong-doings of our government in an open and informed way. This is the only way in which the worst excesses of Zionism can be curbed. This book provides us all with just such an opportunity.

Review by Mark Braver from Chicago, Illinois

There seems to be a lot of misperception of what Final Judgment does and does not say about the JFK assassination. The book does not say that "the Jews killed JFK." That's horse manure.

What the book does say is that:

When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad.

What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA.

The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons.

In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening--and fully documented--detail. For example, did you know:

• That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival?

• That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel?

• That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky?

• That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination?

Why didn't Oliver Stone, in his famous movie "JFK" not mention any of this? It turns out the chief financial backer of Stone's film was longtime Mossad figure, Arnon Milchan, Israel's biggest arms dealer.

The very fact that the Israeli lobby has gone through such great lengths to try to smear Michael Collins Piper and to try to discredit Final Judgment gives the book great credibility. If the book was really so silly or so unconvincing, it doesn't seem likely that groups such as the Anti-Defamation League would go out of their way to try to suppress the book as they have. The fact is that Piper demonstrates that Israel did indeed have a very strong motive to want to get JFK out of the way and that numerous people who have been linked in other writings to the JFK conspiracy were (as Piper documents) also in the sphere of influence of Israel's Mossad. Not only Clay Shaw in New Orleans, but also James Angleton at the CIA, who was Israel's strongest advocate at the CIA and also the CIA's liaison to the Mossad. The Israeli connection is indeed "the missing link in the JFK assassination conspiracy."

The "Reader from Chicago" who wrote the review of Final Judgment posted here is really off the beam and I suspect he (or she) is deliberately distorting what Piper's book does say in order to try to discourage people from reading it.

The fact is that Piper's book documents (quite clearly, in my estimation) not only the means, opportunity and the motive for Israeli Mossad involvement in the assassination (working in conjunction with the CIA), but it is also quite fascinating and very interesting read. "Boring" is the last word I'd use to describe the book, and it is certainly not "poorly written."

What's more, the book is not--I repeat--not "anti-Semitic" and the book has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Holocaust.

In fact, anybody familiar with any of the standard writings on the JFK assassination will recognize the names of some of the key players in the scenario Piper documents: Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister and James J. Angleton of the CIA--and none of them were Jewish. So where this reviewer gets off saying that Piper finds "a Jew under every rock" is beyond me.

I have read literally hundreds of books and magazine articles and other material on the JFK assassination and not in a single one of them--with the exception of Final Judgment--did I ever learn that President John F. Kennedy was trying to stop Israel from building the nuclear bomb and that this literally touched off a "secret war" behind the scenes between JFK and Israel's prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who resigned (among other reasons) in disgust over JFK's policies with Israel. In fact, Israeli historian Avner Cohen in his book, Israel and the Bomb, documents this quite thoroughly.

And in Final Judgment Piper also outlines some interesting Israeli connections by people who have been linked to the JFK assassination and cover-up, including Clay Shaw of New Orleans. Even Israeli journalist Barry Chamish has written in an Internet review of Final Judgment that he finds Piper's Israeli connection (via Shaw and Permindex) quite convincing.

There was a controversy in the Chicago area following an attempt by the Anti-Defamation League (an Israeli lobby organization) and people associated with the ADL to prevent Final Judgment from being placed in the Schaumburg Township District Library.

"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests