JFK assassination and the coverup enabled by big money

A good telling of the story.

The author is also one who mentions the Rothschilds here and there.  I'm warming to that angle, among other things they are not only dedicated Zionists they were there at the start of the project...the Balfour Letter was addressed to Lord Rothschild, and it was an agreement written somewhat to satisfy him (if not exactly as he would have it, since it needed to be negotiated, with the most devout Jews in government opposing it entirely).  The Zionist project was understood by then to ultimately involve vast military expenditure...hence more money for banks and arms dealers.

However I don't think they are unique.

It also continues to show you can't trust big media, including public media.

The antiwar media is generally the most trustworthy.  Like most in my sidebar, including my favorite ConsortiumNews.  I don't recall Parry or any of the other columnists ever singling out the Rothschilds.

Certainly LBJ was part of it, and he was not the first militarist US President but he was possibly the first Zionist US president.Many cite his determined coverup of the USS Liberty (and not to mention not backing it up, etc). However that may not be the best example.

Zionists claim LBJ worked against them, however there's a detailed record that suggests otherwise.

One of the key issues was that JFK was determined to terminate the Israeli construction of nuclear weapons.  Johnson coming to power quickly ended that.

Curiously in my own life, a half-Irish-American best friend of mine left for the bay area in 1963, and my new friend, whom I met upon returning from a month in hospital for pneumonia (which curiously struck the night after I had my first bad TV crush...on seeing Sharon Tate on her first appearance show on the Beverly Hillbillies), and my new friend (and many later best friends for decades) was Jewish, and by other coincidences, a fan of Sharon Tate later from seeing her vampire movie, and then later who started exiting my life immediately after her murder.

The switchover in my best friends occurred a few weeks BEFORE the assassination.  It may be just coincidence, but it concurs with my guess that something was already afoot in intelligence circles, and it involved Jews (Zionists) and Israel.  And the murder of Sharon Tate was a government involved conspiracy too, except perhaps involving Republican Zionist militarists in the deep state replacing the previous Democratic ones.

The Tate murder was the night of long knives in USA, the beginning of the end of the dominance of liberal culture.  It sealed the fate of LSD which had only recently been made illegal but was still considered hip.  Kids and their parents I knew were using it.  Not uncoincidentally both Tate and Manson were users of LSD, but otherwise on different ideological sides, with Manson being the strong anti-government conservative, Tate being the Robert Kennedy supporting liberal.  I'm sure the murder was a psyop involving the deep state and especially J Edgar Hoover, and possibly also helped to cover up details of the RFK murder that Tate may have had, that also disappeared that night.

The "Fake News" is in the eye of the sucker

I detest how Russiagate (the pinnacle of American Exceptionalist Fake News) has turned into the war on skeptics-of-Russiagate and their so-called "Fake News."

Because of the way the "Fake News" term is misused, to smear any questioning of the official propaganda, I hate to use the term.  (I also hate terms such as "Conspiracy Theories" and "Anti-Semitism" as they often seem to me to be often applied to the wrong side.)

After a great post by Phil Weiss comments claiming, sort of hopefully, that Hasbara is dead, commenter Tuyzentfloot really spells out what the war on "Fake News" is all about.

This is a clarification of an earlier comment in which Tuyzentfloot critiqued Weiss's optimism noting that Hasbara isn't dead, it's morphed into the war on Fake News.  To which I might add the war on anti-Zionism, smearing it as anti-Semitism.

Tuyzentfloot says:

Fake news is a pretext to implement a range of censoring mechanisms which will try to minimize the online footprint of undesirable content and a whole range of organisations of variable legitimacy get to decide about that. 

He gives a long list of targets which include anyone who is not nice enough about Israel, "conspiracy theorists" (defined as any display of mistrust in the powers that be), and "fake news" (defined as anything contradicting the mainstream narrative propagated by the corporate military establishment and its owned press).

Tesla vs Happy Workers

I have a reservation on a Tesla Model 3, and I was happy to be supporting a visionary all EV maker who is not just making EV's as a greenwashing loss leader.

However, by many reports, it is not going well.  There has been a big crunch to ramp up production speed and lower production cost.

All this and a non-unionized workforce.

I'm thinking that quality of life for the workers is as important to me as buying an EV.  I don't want to be buying into future tyranny for workers.

If I buy a Chevy Bolt, I believe it is assembled by UAW workers in Michigan.  The drivetrain comes from LG in South Korea which if not unionized (I don't know) is at least not a high stakes sweatshop.

Here's a somewhat dated article on what appeared to be GM's limited plans for the Bolt.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The signature of Intelligent Life

It is often said that Oxygen in a planet's atmosphere is the signature of life.  Otherwise, it reacts quickly, gets replaced with compounds.

Likewise, I believe Dark Matter and Dark energy are the signature of Intelligent Life.  More Intelligent than us (humanity).

All this energy may come from dying stars.  Perhaps in a billion years, if we manage to survive the next 200, we might figure out how to do that also.  Such energy could be stored for perhaps astronomical timeframes.  Perhaps they figured that out too.

Then certainly they'd also want to keep it hidden to all the primitives.  So they'd also know how to make it "dark", invisible to us.

That's the key, the need to make something invisible to us...that's the signature of More Intelligent Life.

But it may be around our galaxy too.  What does that suggest???

Oh, I always say, they're here too.  Perhaps all around us, but equally invisible, for the same reason.

Now, of course, we shouldn't take this as some kind of assurance.  They may be under no obligation to save us from ourselves.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if they already have, and keep doing, but there may be limits to their desire or ability to do so.

Trump and Kim accord Is A Good Thing

And we need to see more of that kind of mutual agreement!

(Sadly it hasn't been present elsewhere, most of all with Syria, then Yemen, then Afghanistan, and so on, or simmering wars, and the dangerous threatened war with Iran--who wants to be our friend.  And our punitive disagreeablenesses, such as with Russia and Cuba, which does nothing useful.  Which is why we should pay attention to those things also.)

But in and of itself it is a good thing and should be heralded!  Those Democrats who criticize on trumped up National Security grounds, are traitors to the all who oppose needless war, which is most of humanity.

Our handling of NK has been abonimable, from the start.  They wanted and deserved independence, we were creating a zone of allies in the far east, because we could do so, by force and bluster.

So, we bombed all their cities flat, then their dams, then their hospitals.  Such as Lemay bragged about how we had bombed them.

And we've been treacherous to every agreement since.  Agreements made by one President are immediately abrogated by the the next, leaving the North Koreans in the cold and starving.

But like all our supposed "enemies" they want to be our friend!  The would rather be part of global trade, rather then the ultimate outsider.

The military excercises on North Korea's border was a needless and expensive provocation.

We are safer without them, and welcoming North Korea as a full partner in the international community.

Anything less is warmongering, serving the US Deep state and military/media/cia/fbi industrial complex.

Friends of mine have given up with the Democratic Party altogether.  I separate that from voting for the lesser evil, when I have to, and supporting the moderately good ones.

But I'm tired of Russiagate, fighting in Syria, supporting the war in Lebanon, shielding the Israelis from international censure, still waging the cold war in Cuba and much of Latin Americal, threatening Iran, threatening to heat the planet to catastropy.

All the things the Democratic Party has been quite involved with, even St Obama approving drilling on a massive scale where none had existed before.  And St Jerry Brown approving more fracking permits than all governors before him.  And so on.

This doesn't mean I've given up some considerable concern and reason.  I will continue to vote and persuade others to vote for the lesser evil, when I have to.

But the Democratic Party is as corrupt as the Blairite wing of the Labour Party that's been trying to take over from Corbyn.

Both serve Israel, and Great Wealth, first.

Debunking the Hasbara of the Medic

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/nyt-carries-idf-attack-on-murdered-gaza-medic-reveals-its-a-smear-in-20th-paragraph/

I'd been thinking of other Hasbara rhetoric.  Imagining the assignment in some class, sometime in the future.  Debunk this or that Hasbara claim.

Such as the famous, "Israel has a right to exist."

Chomsky famously debunks this claim, and points out that the very notion of a states right to exist, began with Israeli rhetoric.  No other state had ever made the claim, nor had it entered written discussion.

Of course states don't have an unconditional right to exist.  Nazi Germany, the Third Reich, certainly didn't.  Any state depends on good will toward those within and without.  Any group or state that doesn't act in good will, doesn't "deserve" to exist, but to be replaced which one which does act in good will and is democratic, not that could ever be imposed, or has.

And no group of people deserves to take the land of another, to forcibly eject an undersired population for some internal reason.

In this and many other ways, Israel is not a democracy.  Nor is the US, of course.  They are vassal states of each other.

It's the same old game played over 57 previous times in history.  The ruling empire controls Palestine, it has mostly been called, now effectively Israel.  Jerusalem--named after a Cananite god--has changed hands 57 times.

In between the hundreds of years of Greek control, and the hundreds of years of Roman control were a scant 80 years of "Jewish" sovereignty, "the Hashemite Kingdom," which was really a coalition of Jews, Gallileans, Samaritans, and other Cananite groups.

The "Jews" (the rich elites, especially in Jerusalem, the ancient city) were the ones forced out by the Romans after the bar Kochba revolt,, but most of the others in the holy land remained.  And so their descendants have as much or more claim to sovereignty to the Holy Land territories, even assuming "the Jews" were a group of true descendents rather than religious title that people can claim by going through "conversion" which many people do, often to get married to a Jew, and that the Jews had some reason for a unique claim over many others on any such assumed claim, such as ancestry to descendant from the region.  And of course that sovereignty were determined by a religious nation's "God"'s,, rather than the brutal conflict that caused Jerusalem to change hand 57 times, and so on.

It gets difficult, the deeper into the Hasbara you get.

The Photos Please

Israelis claim they needed to shoot unarmed protestors, including children, clearly identified journalists, and paramedics, because ... Hamas had organized this to storm the fence and attack Israel.

However, I have not seen any photos indicating anything like this.  I have seen photos of teargas and shots into masses of people hundreds of yards from the fence.  In one case, marchers were simply marching along the fence itself (as I think good if not best of all) smoothly and with no shots (yet?).

But none such as the Times of Israel and UN Watch "report."  Even their photos, if they have any, are hardly damning and just as I describe.

To even have any feeling that shooting would remotely be permissible, it would seem to me that a person need be either actually crossing the fence (or other true boundary), not just being close to it, or  sending dangerous projectiles.  (I have seen no such photos.)

Even then, shooting shouldn't be shooting to kill.  Shooting to kill is commonly understood as only being permissible when the defender's life is threatened.

Even if protestors were to cross through the fence, the first thing would be that they would fall into 100 foot ditch Israel dug around the fence in previous operations.  From there, if they had not already died from the fall, they could be easily shot by snipers who are perched above the ditch on the opposite side.

[And there's some question in my mind where this ditch is actually dug.  I strongly suspect the ditch is still on "Gaza's" side and territory commonly-understood-as-Israeli only begins on the other side, perhaps where the snipers are, or even further, far further back.  I remember reading something about how this was being done at the time, in 2014 I believe.]

Not to say even then shooting is justified.  It could be justified only if the defenders felt they would otherwise be overwhelmed and in bodily danger.  But just how quickly could the protestor-attackers be climbing the other side of the 100 foot ditch?  There have not even been stories about this being attempted specifically.  It would not be easy and require a few tricks.

In principle, and assuming they even had the right to detain Palestinians, Israelis could detain, and return protestors attempting to escape during the March of Protest.  There are no stories of this.

It is even arguable Israelis have the right to detain Gazans leaving from Gaza at all if their destination is the West Bank.  In fact I believe Israel detaining those in Gaza and the West Bank, preventing them from leaving or entering, is a crime under current law and UN resolutions as well as UNSC resolutions.

Meanwhile it is certainly not true that Israel has the legal right to detain Gazans coming and going from Gaza through the ocean.  It is illegal, immoral, and unconsionable.  As actually are the other forms of detention, dispossessing, wounding, and killing.

But they claim this is "War."  Hamas is "at War with Israel" and this justifies, to Israelis, endless forms of repression against civilians as well.  This is, of course, a War Crime.

The creation of Israel itself, the Nabka dispossession of 750,000 indigenous Palestinians, the continuing ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and repression, and the wildly unasymmetrical responses to any resistance, armed, or even journalistic...this is beyond merely being a war crime.

My friends feel that Palestinians are stupid when they use violence, even stone throwing, to express their great loss.

I feel it would be hard for anyone, under such circumstances, to bear such loss non-violently.  I am not going to judge.

But further, for me the Palestinian cause is clearly in the right.  Zionist Israel attacked and replaced their country.  They have a right to resist violently, even harming "civilians" of this invading force.

This is just my opinion, but I feel it is consonant with existing rules of war, all that's necessary is to recognize Zionist Israelis as an attacking force.

Israel has turned this around to claim that the Palestinian resistance to their aggression and illegal annexation and dispossession and killing is "terrorism," when clearly the State they defend is terrorist in its founding and in its present and for the forseeable future.

The best thing, of course, would be for the Zionist Israelis to wake up.  They had a chance...they could have groomed a Palestine...strictly within the recognized borders, done everything possible to make it work rather than otherwise.  I am sure they are smart enough to have done it, it's a matter of orientations.  But that opportunity has ceased.

Now there is no alternative to ending the Ethnic State, whose very definition is racist.  Every defense of Israel is fundamentally racist, according to legendary scholar Steven Salaita.  What is needed is a state of equality of all of it's citizens, including those who have been expelled by force.  He deftly deconstructs many of the pro Israel arguments.

Salaita points out that Likud and the other major Israeli parties have been responsible for far more deaths than Hamas, the party the Gazans selected to represent them.

Now, it is true, the great scholar and historian Norman Finkelstein, scrupulous about proving Israeli deceits and crimes in the widest possible picture of what has happened, nevertheless insists we must only consider "reasonable" solutions.  This very point is discussed by the also distinguished historian Salaita, who strongly disagrees, and this point is discussed further in the comments.

I side with those we must start with the heart, with justice, and work from there.

One view of justice in the imposition of a settler colony would be to say that all the colonists must leave and pay reparations.

Virtually every view of justice would be that the Palestinians and their descendants have the right to return, and all Palestinians be regarded as citizens with equal rights in all Israel/Palestine (heretofore to be called TheHolyLands).

The UN Partition Plan hardly qualifies as justice.  Both the native Palestinians and all the Arab majority nations refused to vote, calling it an unauthorized theft of a country.

But certainly even that, still a grave injustice, would be preferable to the present situation.  And while it would not be full justice in any accounting I consider honest...it would actually be internationally legal, having passed various tests.  This is the solution those like Finkelstein and Chomsky would comment, I believe, close to the UN Plan (except, the 67 borders are far more generous to Israel than the Mandate).

Israel to return to pre-67 borders.
All Palestinians to have full right of return to the new Palestinian State.
The Palestinians have unconditional sovereignty, regardless of politics.
Passage to be granted between Gaza and the fully restored West Bank (in the UN plan, they had bridging territory).
All of Jerusalem to an international city, or minimally East Jerusalem to be Palestinian.

But if the UN plan was theft, as Arabs complained at the time, the 67 borders are far worse.

Anyway, if Israel did these things...and refrained from attacking Palestine disproportionately...it would be fully legal and acceptable.

As long as it doesn't, or can't, the only alternative is the superior anyway solution, the full right of return of Palestinians to their homes anywhere in Israel/Palestine, and full and equal rights.

That is as morally correct as it gets, other the complete exit of Zionists from Palestine.

I believe the moral principles here are obvious.  No amount of suffering caused by Germans, Russians, and others to Jews, grants them the right to steal the country of Palestinians.

The most morally important thing to do is allow the Palestinians to return to their homeland.  Whether the Zionists remain or leave afterwards is far less important to the moral aspect of it.  But along with the return, they must have rights no less than any others.

This has nothing to do what what one thinks about Jews.  I think, before the rise of Zionism especially, Jews were among the best people and still are, and are most of my favorite authors and reporters as well.  Their culture produces very intelligent and often very clear thinking people, who have always been leaders in many fields (including Anti-Zionism).

The conflation of Zionism and "Anti-Semitism" (Anti-Jewishness) is a Zionist trap, not a Jewish one.

Many Jews opposed the creation of Israel before it was created, and still do now.  They demonstrate against it, disavow it, regularly.  The fairest interpretation of the Torah forbids the creation of a Jewish State, in the view of many Rabbis.  The Zionists were not very religious, and cared more about material things, as well explained by Rabbi Shapiro.

Western Societies strongly back Zionist not merely because of pressure from Jews, but because it fits the geopolitical agenda of the dominant northern powers in subduing the resourch-rich southern region.  Not unlike the kind of considerations involved in the return of Jews to Palestine by the emperor Cyrus.  He wanted to conquer Egypt, which his son did.

The risks involved here this time are obvious.