Russia Tops World Literacy Ranking – US, EU Leaders and Media Call Foul – Rob Slane
Russia Insider Daily Headlines
The recent news that Russia has topped the Progress in International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS), has sent shockwaves through the civilised world, with analysts believing that this is yet more evidence of a mendacious scheme by the Kremlin to destroy our values and way of life.
Bill Gates: Captain Capitalism for the Liberal World Order
New Eastern Outlook / Фил Батлер
What role do the technocrats play in the U.S. enfranchised “Liberal World Order” we’ve read so much about? We all know well, by now, the immensely powerful foes of independent thinking in the world. Here’s a short take on Bill Gates, one of the most iconic liberal oligarchs pitted against Putin, free speech, and the people of the world.
“One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.” – Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
In a paper on Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” I once presented the role of charity in leadership qualities to be expected from men like Bill Gates. According to the famous Italian philosopher, a prince need not even appear charitable except where the “appearance” of charity is require in order that he appear religious. And where Gates and other western oligarchs are concerned, agnosticism must be replaced by some goodly quality – which says nothing about tax write-offs. Gates must have studied Machiavelli in pre-law at Harvard, for like his fellow technocrat billionaires he applies all the well-rounded machinations. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation being a kind of synagogue for agnostics who need to feign religiosity and a passive believe in the almighty. Since Melinda is Catholic, and since Gates has said he things a belief in God “makes sense” – the busy world has been set up nicely for quasi-philanthropy. But this report is not about agnostic new billionaires, for almost all of them believe in green and not much else.
Most people think that it was Bill Gates’ high IQ that catapulted him to fame and fortune back in the 70s. But the reality is revealing as a prototypical template the “world order” set in place decades ago. In order to understand (or believe) how Gates and these other technocrat oligarchs came to the forefront, we need to look at origins. In Gates’ case, his work on Altair BASIC, an early interpreter for the Altair 8800 systems developed by Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems (MITS). There’s no space here for describing Gates’ minute movements in developing what would become the biggest technology business of all, the home PC, but his leaving Harvard and heading to Albuquerque corresponded nicely with the NSA’s ardent need to tap into the home PC via a program of communications intelligence (COMINT), and later on via the acquiescence of the Department of Defense (DoD) deferring responsibility for signals intelligence (SIGINT) to NSA. At the point Gates entered the game, the DoD and the intelligence community in the United States desperately needed a key “agent” in this explosive home computer arena. What could work better than “installing” the key human cog in a spying machine we now refer to as the “deep state” under American government? Bill Gates would have been the equivalent of a number one draft pick for the NFL if super spying networks played football.
Bill Gates and buddy Paul Allen were inserted into the fastest growing and more important technological maelstrom in history, and the rest is “history”, as they say. It wasn’t long before they founded Microsoft, and the company that started it all, MITS faded into the landscape along with co-founder Ed Roberts, who left for Georgia in 1977 to farm and then later become a small town doctor? It’s interesting to note here that Roberts had once attended the Cryptographic Equipment Maintenance School at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, where he was made an instructor owing to his genius. Roberts ended up being commissioned an officer in the U.S. Air Force, and was assigned to the Laser Division of the Weapons Laboratory at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I mention this for those unfamiliar with how the military works, as Roberts’ security clearances for the work he did would have been above “Top Secret”. He worked with at the weapons lab with legendary citizen-scientist Forrest Mims, who was also an Air Force comrade. Not many realize, but Mims was a key intelligence officer during the Vietnam War, stationed in Saigon. Again, I’ve touched on a deep well of “coincidence” and association most readers would not even believe. I suggest interested researchers start with Mims’ views on faith and Christianity, and especially the controversy over Eric Pianka’s ideas on engineered Ebola strains and managing world populations (yes, Gates and the liberal order have been accused). Mims is that manner of certified genius the deep state would be foolish not to utilize, and this is the case for Gates too.
Moving back to Gates and the prerogative move of home PCs toward becoming the perfect surveillance tool, MITS was sold off to Pertec Computer Corporation in 1976 and Microsoft moved to Bellevue, Washington. Roberts practiced medicine in Cochran, Georgia, until his death in 2010. And Mims continues to apply his brand of genius to the problems of humanity, namely global warming measuring. For the generation of U.S. intelligence brains of Roberts’ and Mims’ generation represented, the sale of MITS represented a changing of the guard. It is here I believe Gates mercuric success really began. Today Microsoft collusion with the NSA and the intelligence community is somewhat obscured by the ongoing sensationalistic news cycle. With Facebook and Google grabbing headlines, and with organizations like the Clinton Foundation snatching some public ire, Bill Gates’ role in the liberal order goes largely unnoticed. An article at Techrights is focused on Skype and on “back door” capabilities geeks say Gates had built into MS systems. Another report, this time from Bloomberg, tells us Bill Gates’ company offers up backdoor tech and direct reports that assist the NSA and other intelligence agencies in spying:
“Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.”
So, whether or not Gates began as an agent of the deep state or not, it’s clear his company colludes with the liberal order in spying on everybody. But Gates and Windows are one of the unique stories of technology land. Of all the companies I can name in this space, Microsoft is the only one in Crunchbase that got one funding round of $1 million bucks, that went on to rule the space. Since an initial round by David Marquardt and Technology Venture Investors in 1981, Gates’ company has never sought or received (visible) outside funding. Marquardt, who has played a central role in the shady world where companies like Microsoft and Sun Microsystems deal with government agencies like the NSA, is one of the guys I’d label as “bag man” for funding “agents” like Bill Gates and Amazon kingpin Jeff Bezos5. A final note on Marquardt here, his August Fund’s investment in smart home technologies, the Brilliant smart light switch startup may put “backdoor” snooping in every corner of the American home. Needless to say, if the deep state and the liberal world order overlooks ANY Orwellian mechanism they’d be stupid.
Bill Gates the brilliant computer genius turned philanthropist is a nice bedtime story for libtard believers. A more realistic approach for understanding such billionaires should be guarded though. Take my assertion Gates and his wife are playing the Machiavellian game. This recent Independent story about a call by Global Justice Now for investigating the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on the grounds the foundation really aids big business:
“The world is being sold a myth that private philanthropy holds many of the solutions to the world’s problems, when in fact it is pushing the world in many wrong directions.”
A report by the organization reveals the darker side of this foundation from the BMGF promoting big business interests like; influencing global policy, supporting corporate interests, promoting industrialized agriculture, and pushing for privatization such as we saw in Russia before Putin took over. If you simply read this report (PDF), and then corroborate each claim, you’ll very quickly realize Bill Gates as a great American success story is more likely a globalist mafia epoch. The BMGF invests in everything from the aforementioned Ebola variable to the military industrial complex, mining, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and much more. This is from the report:
“As of end 2014, the BMGF Trust also had investments worth $852 million in construction company Caterpillar, which has long been accused of complicity in human rights abuses in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.122 BAE Systems, the UK’s largest arms exporter, is another investee.”
So, the question for the reader remains, “Is Bill Gates a world liberal order’s high priest?” I asked myself the logical question; “How would a new world order orchestrate a new globalist mafia racquet anyway?” Through Captains, there’s your answer. Captains of a new industry, run by a very old cabal that’s been squeezing people like you and me for generations. This is my view. I leave you to your own queries, in order to establish your own.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Defending the Undefendable: The Slum Lord
Mises Institute Daily Articles / Walter Block
To many people, the slumlord — alias ghetto landlord and rent gouger — is proof that man can, while still alive, attain a satanic image. Recipient of vile curses, pincushion for needle-bearing tenants with a penchant for voodoo, perceived as exploiter of the downtrodden, the slumlord is surely one of the most hated figures of the day.
The indictment is manifold: he charges unconscionably high rents; he allows his buildings to fall into disrepair; his apartments are painted with cheap lead paint, which poisons babies; and he allows junkies, rapists, and drunks to harass the tenants. The falling plaster, the overflowing garbage, the omnipresent roaches, the leaky plumbing, the roof cave-ins and the fires, are all integral parts of the slumlord’s domain. And the only creatures who thrive in his premises are the rats.
The indictment, highly charged though it is, is spurious. The owner of ghetto housing differs little from any other purveyor of low-cost merchandise. In fact, he is no different from any purveyor of any kind of merchandise. They all charge as much as they can.
First consider the purveyors of cheap, inferior, and secondhand merchandise as a class. One thing above all else stands out about merchandise they buy and sell: it is cheaply built, inferior in quality, or secondhand. A rational person would not expect high quality, exquisite workmanship, or superior new merchandise at bargain rate prices; he would not feel outraged and cheated if bargain rate merchandise proved to have only bargain rate qualities. Our expectations from margarine are not those of butter. We are satisfied with lesser qualities from a used car than from a new car. However, when it comes to housing, especially in the urban setting, people expect, even insist upon, quality housing at bargain prices.
But what of the claim that the slumlord overcharges for his decrepit housing? This is erroneous. Everyone tries to obtain the highest price possible for what he produces, and to pay the lowest price possible for what he buys. Landlords operate this way, as do workers, minority group members, socialists, babysitters, and communal farmers. Even widows and pensioners who save their money for an emergency try to get the highest interest rates possible for their savings.
According to the reasoning that finds slumlords contemptible, all these people must also be condemned. For they “exploit” the people to whom they sell or rent their services and capital in the same way when they try to obtain the highest return possible.
But, of course, they are not contemptible — at least not because of their desire to obtain as high a return as possible from their products and services. And neither are slumlords. Landlords of dilapidated houses are singled out for something that is almost a basic part of human nature — the desire to barter and trade and to get the best possible bargain.
The critics of the slumlord fail to distinguish between the desire to charge high prices, which everyone has, and the ability to do so, which not everyone has. Slumlords are distinct, not because they want to charge high prices, but because they can. The question that is therefore central to the issue — and that critics totally disregard — is why this is so.
What usually stops people from charging inordinately high prices is the competition that arises as soon as the price and profit margin of any given product or service begins to rise. If the price of Frisbees, for example, starts to rise, established manufacturers will expand production, new entrepreneurs will enter the industry, used Frisbees will perhaps be sold in secondhand markets, etc. All these activities tend to counter the original rise in price.
“The problem of slum housing is not really a problem of slums or of housing at all. It is a problem of poverty — a problem for which the landlord cannot be held responsible.”
If the price of rental apartments suddenly began to rise because of a sudden housing shortage, similar forces would come into play. New housing would be built by established real estate owners and by new ones who would be drawn into the industry by the price rise. Old housing would tend to be renovated; basements and attics would be pressed into use. All these activities would tend to drive the price of housing down, and cure the housing shortage.
If landlords tried to raise the rents in the absence of a housing shortage, they would find it difficult to keep their apartments rented. For both old and new tenants would be tempted away by the relatively lower rents charged elsewhere.
Even if landlords banded together to raise rents, they would not be able to maintain the rise in the absence of a housing shortage. Such an attempt would be countered by new entrepreneurs, not party to the cartel agreement, who would rush in to meet the demand for lower priced housing. They would buy existing housing and build new housing.
Tenants would, of course, flock to the noncartel housing. Those who remained in the high-price buildings would tend to use less space, either by doubling up or by seeking less space than before. As this occurs it would become more difficult for the cartel landlords to keep their buildings fully rented.
Inevitably, the cartel would break up, as the landlords sought to find and keep tenants in the only way possible: by lowering rents. It is, therefore, specious to claim that landlords charge whatever they please. They charge whatever the market will bear, as does everyone else.
An additional reason for calling the claim unwarranted is that there is, at bottom, no really legitimate sense to the concept of overcharging. “Overcharging” can only mean “charging more than the buyer would like to pay.” But since we would all really like to pay nothing for our dwelling space (or perhaps minus infinity, which would be equivalent to the landlord paying the tenant an infinite amount of money for living in his building), landlords who charge anything at all can be said to be overcharging. Everyone who sells at any price greater than zero can be said to be overcharging, because we would all like to pay nothing (or minus infinity) for what we buy.
Disregarding as spurious the claim that the slumlord overcharges, what of the vision of rats, garbage, falling plaster, etc.? Is the slumlord responsible for these conditions?
Although it is fashionable in the extreme to say “yes,” this will not do. For the problem of slum housing is not really a problem of slums or of housing at all. It is a problem of poverty — a problem for which the landlord cannot be held responsible. And when it is not the result of poverty, it is not a social problem at all.
“With rent control, the incentive system is turned around. Here the landlord can earn the greatest return, not by serving his tenants well, but by mistreating them.”
Slum housing with all its horrors is not a problem when the inhabitants are people who can afford higher quality housing, but prefer to live in slum housing because of the money they can save thereby.
Such a choice might not be a popular one, but other people’s freely made choices that affect only them cannot be classified as a social problem. If that could be done, we would all be in danger of having our most deliberate choices, our most cherished tastes and desires characterized as “social problems” by people whose taste differs from ours.
Slum housing is a problem when the inhabitants live there of necessity — not wishing to remain there, but unable to afford anything better. Their situation is certainly distressing, but the fault does not lie with the landlord. On the contrary, he is providing a necessary service, given the poverty of the tenants.
For proof, consider a law prohibiting the existence of slums, and therefore of slumlords, without making provisions for the slum dwellers in any other way, such as providing decent housing for the poor or an adequate income to buy or rent good housing. The argument is that if the slumlord truly harms the slum dweller, then his elimination, with everything else unchanged, ought to increase the net well-being of the slum tenant.
But the law would not accomplish this. It would greatly harm not only the slumlords but the slum dwellers as well. If anything, it would harm the slum dwellers even more, for the slumlords would lose only one of perhaps many sources of income; the slum dwellers would lose their very homes.
They would be forced to rent more expensive dwelling space, with consequent decreases in the amount of money available for food, medicines, and other necessities. No. The problem is not the slumlord — it is poverty. Only if the slumlord were the cause of poverty could he be legitimately blamed for the evils of slum housing.
Why is it then, if he is no more guilty of underhandedness than other merchants, that the slumlord has been singled out for vilification? After all, those who sell used clothes to Bowery bums are not reviled, even though their wares are inferior, the prices high, and the purchasers poor and helpless. Instead of blaming the merchants, however, we seem to know where the blame lies — in the poverty and hopeless condition of the Bowery bum.
In like manner, people do not blame the owners of junkyards for the poor condition of their wares or the dire straits of their customers. People do not blame the owners of “day-old bakeries” for the staleness of the bread. They realize, instead, that were it not for junkyards and these bakeries, poor people would be in an even worse condition than they are now in.
Although the answer can only be speculative, it would seem that there is a positive relationship between the amount of governmental interference in an economic arena, and the abuse and invective heaped upon the businessmen serving that arena. There have been few laws interfering with the “day-old bakeries” or junkyards, but many in the housing area. The link between government involvement in the housing market and the plight of the slumlord’s public image should, therefore, be pinpointed.
That there is strong and varied government involvement in the housing market cannot be denied. Scatter-site housing projects, “public” housing and urban renewal projects, and zoning ordinances and building codes, are just a few examples. Each of these has created more problems than it has solved. More housing has been destroyed than created, racial tensions have been exacerbated, and neighborhoods and community life have been shattered.
In each case, it seems that the spillover effects of bureaucratic red tape and bungling are visited upon the slumlord. He bears the blame for much of the overcrowding engendered by the urban renewal program. He is blamed for not keeping his buildings up to the standards set forth in unrealistic building codes that, if met, would radically worsen the situation of the slum dweller. Compelling “Cadillac housing” can only harm the inhabitants of “Volkswagen housing.” It puts all housing out of the financial reach of the poor.
Perhaps the most critical link between the government and the disrepute in which the slumlord is held is the rent control law. For rent control legislation changes the usual profit incentives, which put the entrepreneur in the service of his customers, to incentives that make him the direct enemy of his tenant-customers.
Ordinarily the landlord (or any other businessman) earns money by serving the needs of his tenants. If he fails to meet these needs, the tenants will tend to move out. Vacant apartments mean, of course, a loss of income. Advertising, rental agents, repairs, painting, and other conditions involved in re-renting an apartment mean extra expenditures.
In addition, the landlord who fails to meet the needs of the tenants may have to charge lower rents than he otherwise could. As in other businesses, the customer is “always right,” and the merchant ignores this dictum only at his own peril.
But with rent control, the incentive system is turned around. Here the landlord can earn the greatest return not by serving his tenants well, but by mistreating them, by malingering, by refusing to make repairs, by insulting them. When the rents are legally controlled at rates below their market value, the landlord earns the greatest return not by serving his tenants, but by getting rid of them. For then he can replace them with higher-paying non-rent-controlled tenants.
If the incentive system is turned around under rent control, it is the self-selection process through which entry to the landlord “industry” is determined. The types of people attracted to an occupation are influenced by the type of work that must be done in the industry.
If the occupation calls (financially) for service to consumers, one type of landlord will be attracted. If the occupation calls (financially) for harassment of consumers, then quite a different type of landlord will be attracted. In other words, in many cases the reputation of the slumlord as cunning, avaricious, etc., might be well-deserved, but it is the rent control program in the first place that encourages people of this type to become landlords.
If the slumlord were prohibited from lording over slums, and if this prohibition were actively enforced, the welfare of the poor slum dweller would be immeasurably worsened, as we have seen. It is the prohibition of high rents by rent control and similar legislation that causes the deterioration of housing. It is the prohibition of low-quality housing by housing codes and the like that causes landlords to leave the field of housing.
The result is that tenants have fewer choices, and the choices they have are of low quality. If landlords cannot make as much profit in supplying housing to the poor as they can in other endeavors, they will leave the field. Attempts to lower rents and maintain high quality through prohibitions only lower profits and drive slumlords out of the field, leaving poor tenants immeasurably worse off.
It should be remembered that the basic cause of slums is not the slumlord, and that the worst “excesses” of the slumlord are due to governmental programs, especially rent control. The slumlord does make a positive contribution to society; without him, the economy would be worse off. That he continues in his thankless task, amidst all the abuse and vilification, can only be evidence of his basically heroic nature.
Excerpted from Defending the Undefendable
Original Article: https://mises.org/wire/defending-undefendable-slum-lord
Hanukkah Celebrates Victory Over Liberal Jews — Zionist
(Satanist Jews celebrate their latest acquisition, the White House.)
Tonight is the eve of Hanukka.
“The Hasmonean War was primarily directed against Jews and not against Greeks… meaning the Hellenistic Jews”
An Israeli writer interprets the Hasmonean War as a Jewish victory over assimilated Jews whom he associates with George Soros and the Communist wing of the Masonic Jewish conspiracy.
Hanukka is a joyful holiday that commemorates a great Jewish victory over foreign forces. Young and old alike are familiar with the tale of the outnumbered Maccabees who fought against the heavily armed Greek forces, and the miracle of the rededication of the Temple, where sacred oil that should have lasted only for one day instead lasted for eight days.
Less well known is the back-story, so to speak, to the struggle that Hanukka actually depicts: the struggle of the Maccabees not only against the Greeks, but against the Hellenized Jews of Israel. These not only culturally identified with the Greeks, but actually encouraged them to strike at the institutions and the essence of traditional Jewish practice.
In other words, as painful as it is to acknowledge, Hanukka represents the reality of a semi-civil war among the Jews. How did this civil war play out? The Jewish aristocracy had increasingly become enamored with Greek culture, with its emphasis on physical beauty, sport, different dress, and a world view at odds with that of traditional Judaism.
Thanks to their wealth and influence, they succeeded in securing the permission of Antiochus, the Greek ruler of the Levant, in building a gymnasium in Jerusalem. This in turn became the wedge for the attempt to attack and to supplant traditional Jewish practice, such as the Temple ritual, study, and commandments, including the commandment of circumcision.
While this was destructive in and of itself, the Hellenistic Jewish elite committed the great sin and error of actually encouraging the Greeks to impose sanctions on the traditional Jews. In his seminal work, The Land of Israel during the Second Temple Period,” Prof. Ze’ev Safrai writes: “From the standpoint of the Greek-Seleucid regime, the decision to impose religious decrees is out of the ordinary. Their goal is to see their vision of what Israel should be like take hold, regardless of whether it is the vision of a majority of Israelis themselves. Bereft of popular support among the Israeli public, these groups turn to sympathetic foreign sources for financial and political support.”
Today we see such domestically discredited groups as Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights and dozens more that secure enormous sums from the US-based New Israel Fund, European governments and government-affiliated NGOs.
These small NGOs reflect and mirror the agendas of these foreign entities, each frustrated by their inability to have the Israeli government do their bidding.
Unfortunately, the Hanukka story has an additional very troubling aspect to it, one that should send shivers down the spine of all of us who care deeply about Israel. The fact is that the Hellenists opened a Pandora’s box that ultimately turned against them.
As Josephus recounts, Antiochus first invaded Jerusalem (after he withdrew from Egypt for fear of encountering a Roman force). He did so at the invitation of the Hellenists and “he took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him.” Having plundered and slain many of the traditional opposition, Antiochus then withdrew from Jerusalem back to Antioch (in modern day Syria).
However, as Josephus notes, Antiochus returned on his own terms. “Now it came to pass, after two years… that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it…led by his covetous inclination… and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made in order to plunder the Temple.”
In this second invasion, Antiochus turned against Hellenist and traditional Jew alike and for the first time plundered the Temple.This of course prompted the uprising of Mattathias and his sons, led by Judah.
The historic lesson of Hanukka is simply that once foreign forces are drawn in to domestic disputes, there is a great danger that all can be lost. By making the proverbial deal with the devil, the Hellenists were complicit in their own destruction, because they had no control over the agenda or motives of the foreigners whose help they sought.
It is no different today. Anti-Zionist Israeli NGOs are happy to share the policies and attitudes of foreign entities, and are happy to get the financial and operational support of these European governments and their related NGOs, as well as the New Israel Fund. In doing so, they are playing with fire, for their patrons have their own agendas, which could be even more threatening to Israel’s welfare than those of the NGOs themselves.
Regardless, it behooves those of us who believe in the Zionist enterprise both to call out the actions of the Israeli NGOs and their foreign enablers. In doing so, we will have internalized the history and hidden significance of Hanukka.
On this Hanukka, let us not only appreciate the great deeds of the Maccabees, but also understand that what the Maccabees opposed we also face today in our midst.
May we be blessed to have their clarity in perceiving our dangers, their courage to confront their foes, and their success in protecting the Israel and all who cherish her.
The Road to Food Sovereignty. Peasant Farming, Not Industrial Food Production
globalresearch / New Internationalist
Industrial agriculture isn’t the efficient beast it’s made out to be. Peasant farming, not industrial food production, is the way to feed the world, argue Pat Mooney and Nnimmo Bassey.
Time is running out if the world is going to …
Jerusalem Recognition Stems From JFK’s Murder
(Crypto Jew LBJ played critical role in assassination and cover-up)
On November 20,1963, the US delegation at the UN
called for the right of displaced Palestinian Arabs
to return to their homes in Israel and for those
who chose not to return, to be compensated. Nothing came
of that or of Kennedy’s opposition to Israel acquiring nuclear weapons.
A direct line runs from JFK’s assassination Nov 23, 1963, through the
Israeli attack on the USS Liberty to Israel’s role in 9-11
to Netanyahu’s 26 standing ovations from Congress in 2015 to Trump’s decision Wednesday likely influenced by Mossad sexual blackmail.
According to Michael Collins Piper, the Mossad likely played a decisive role
in Kennedy’s murder. Connect the dots folks. The US has been hijacked.
Americans are the bitches of the central banking cartel
who use Zionism as their instrument. Like Communism, Zionism is
a part of Freemasonry (Cabalism, Satanism). Below, The American
Chronicle elaborates on Piper’s findings.
(abridged by henrymakow.com)
We have long maintained that it took a village to murder the president, but the work of Michael Collins Piper distills the motive of the crime and its origins in Israel and with leading Zionists in the United States and Canada.
Although the final act which sealed Kennedy’s death was his refusal to permit Israel nuclear weapons, he was a marked man from his inauguration when he was forced to accept Lyndon Baines Johnson as his Vice President. Johnson’s maternal grandmothers were Jewish which, according to modern Jewish law, makes the child a Jew. Johnson spent time in the 1940’s smuggling arms into Palestine for the incipient Jewish state and aided their illegal importation into the United States in the 1930s…
The gauntlet against Kennedy was thrown down on June 26, 1963, when David Ben-Gurion resigned from office in protest over Kennedy’s refusal to grant nuclear technologies to the terrorist state of Israel. Wikipedia claims that Ben-Gurion resigned for “personal reasons” but only a shill or the incompetently naïve would accept such statement. Ben-Gurion’s very dramatic action was a signal to complete the operation to murder Kennedy.
Some authors such as Jim Marrs have protested Jewish involvement in the murder because the State of Israel supposedly lacked the ability to reach beyond its borders in 1963, but he misses the point entirely. The State of Israel is international and transnational – a lawless state which knows no borders. Thus it could rely upon very powerful Zionists in the United States and Canada to do its bidding. The Diaspora is the State of Israel, of which Israel is but a mere doormat.
Israel is a Rothschild colony, but the state is Rothschild aided by many courtiers who fulfill its master’s whims. Prominent Jewish names involved in the murder, both great and small, include Theodore Racoosin, Henry Crown, Louis Bloomfield, James Jesus Angleton (non-Jew), Lyndon Johnson, Abraham Zapruder, Sam Bloom, Edgar Bronfman, Julius Schweppes, Clay Shaw (non-Jew?), Jack Ruby, Arlen Specter, Walter Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Meyer Lansky, Frank Sturgis, and more.
The primary agencies through which these Jews worked were Permindex, CIA, and Citizens Council of Dallas. Clay Shaw, the subject of Jim Garrison’s prosecution, was the homosexual board member of Permindex who operated the World Trade Mart in New Orleans, and whose defense was funded by the wealthy Jewish Stern family of New Orleans. Permindex was the topmost authority in the murder, using Caribbean locations to hold very high-level planning sessions of which Shaw was a part.
CIA’s James Angleton, in addition to being head of counter-intelligence, a job at which he “failed’ miserably, was also head of the Mossad desk. Israel erected a bronze statue of him after his death in recognition of his many contributions to the Jewish/Rothschild state.
With his very powerful position in CIA, Angleton provided both the patsy, Lee Oswald, as well as the logistical and technical support of the agency in its “Executive Action” against the President. Oswald had been sent in the late 1950s to the USSR as part of the false defector program run by CIA and State Department. His highly confidential activities, unknown to most Americans even today, made him an easy option as a “communist sympathizer.”
The ambush in Dallas was completely managed at the political level by Jews who controlled the city. As Piper notes, Dallas was not ruled by Anglo oil barons, but by the Jewish aristocracy who were on the Jewish controlled Citizens Council. It was the real power behind whatever thrones in Dallas ostensibly ruled the city. Sam Bloom, David Weitzblatt, and Julius Schweppes were the power brokers of Dallas who set up the key events which guaranteed Kennedy’s death.
Kennedy’s Dallas trip was declared a non-political event which took it out of the hands of the Democrat National Committee which was controlled by the President. The managers of this trip were, in fact, the (Jewish) Citizens Council who forcefully insisted against Kennedy advance man Jerry Bruno’s better judgment to hold the luncheon for the President at the Trade Mart rather than the Women’s Club, a move which guaranteed a ride through Dealey Plaza.
Sam Bloom also pressured the Dallas newspapers, against Secret Service preferences, to publish the presidential motorcade route, thus providing plausible – though quite flimsy – evidence for Oswald to know where to position himself to shoot at the president.
Abraham Zapruder was not an innocent bystander who just happened to be in the right place at the right time with a brand-new fancy film camera. He was also connected to Bloom and Morty Friedman and filmed the shooting for CIA who could produce an altered version to fit their theory of the crime.
Bloom also strongly pressured Jesse Currie, chief of Dallas Police, to present Oswald to the press in the brief and famous midnight press conference to paint the picture of a villain, and then to publicly transfer him from the Dallas Police Department to the city prison. The reason for the public transfer was to continue to paint the villain image, and to provide easy access for an assassin to murder Oswald on national television to secure his silence, and burnish his guilt…
When the Jewish Lyndon Johnson formed the Warren Commission at the behest of the Jewish Eugene Rostow, it was staffed inordinately with Jewish lawyers and staff, one of whom was Arlen Specter who gave the world the idiotic “single bullet” or, better yet, “magic bullet” theory. The ballistics evidence, plus an overwhelming amount of other forensic evidence, demonstrates clearly that Kennedy was murdered in full-surround ambush using sophisticated techniques perfected by CIA.
One of the assassins was Frank Sturgis, left, who had a long history with Israeli intelligence, including work with the terrorist Jewish Haganah, and with anti-Castro Cubans in Lake Pontchartrain. Sturgis would reappear for Watergate, another CIA “Executive Action” operation executed to keep the family secrets secret.
Guy Banister, former FBI agent turned CIA contractor, worked closely with the Jewish Anti-Defamation League on anti-Castro operations which involved Lee Oswald at the famous 544 Camp St address.
With Jewish and CIA control of the press, and Jewish control of Dallas and its police department, it was nigh impossible for any truth to emerge about the assassination. However, in large measure due to Piper’s work, the full story of the Kennedy assassination can be told. Kennedy was murdered by Jews who hated him because he refused them nuclear weapons.
Putin-Assad Meeting Cements the End of US Dominance in the Middle East
Russia Insider Daily Headlines / Tom Luongo
I’m not a terribly religious man. But, I’d like to believe there is a special corner in Hell reserved for those that fomented the Syrian Civil War.
From its beginnings in Libya with gun-funneling through the U.S. embassy in Benghazi to yesterday’s meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, this entire affair will be remembered as one of the most cynical and abusive periods of history.