Jump to content
The Education Forum
Robert  Harper

Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

Recommended Posts

I deliberately used the term - "unspeakable" - that James Douglas made concomitant with JFK's murder - as a reference to those topics that are not spoken about in public. I found it appropriate in the MSU proceedings about Mr. Nasser, because it involved the breaking of trust and the abuse of authority which was  sheltered by the silence such situations evoke. Very few people and practically no media outlet questioned the Warren Commission results. Mark Lane had to have his books published in Canada and France to be heard. For many years, the very notion of a coup d'etat was suppressed; many were concerned that the USA would look like a "Banana Republic."
 
In Trump and the Unspeakable? post, I wanted to explore the ways other agencies in the government work to support or undermine the Executive. I offered Joseph DiGenova's take on the current investigations and included in a later post, a synopsis of the origin of the Congressional Hearings that began to decipher some of these unspoken-about-activities by individuals in certain agencies of the government. These Hearings lead to investigating any involvement of the government in the deaths of JFK or MLK.
 
No one knows what the current investigation authorized by the Congress will reveal - or lead to. However, on the day when there are reports of 60 dead Palestinians - including children and journalists - following the Trump decision to unilaterally place the American Embassy in what the world regards as "occupied territory," one is forced to wonder how this will reverberate. There is a natural inclination to wonder what, if anything, is "unspeakable" about this laissez faire attitude about the deaths of civilians in land occupied by an alleged ally.
 
 Executive actions and violence are often intertwined. When Clinton was being investigated by Congress, he bombed Iraq; right before Obama was  inaugurated, Israel killed 1300 civilians in occupied Gaza including 500 women and children while it razed over 11,000 homes. No Israeli civilians were killed; one home was partially damaged. Why so little attention to when these incidents occurred? 
 
 Why has this not been a subject of discussion in Congress and the public? Why did Governor Cuomo sign a bill prohibiting commerce with any company who joins the boycott against the Israeli occupation? Didn't it used to be the other way round? South Africa was successfully boycotted by many in the free world  for it's racist occupation of land and criminal abuse of the indigenous people. Why is such an effort now considered "bad?" Has Israel been made critic proof by attacking those who bring up the subject? This is one of the premier "unspeakable" topics in America today.
 
One of the ways the "unspeakable" defends its presence in government, is by having shils attack any counter view. We have seen in other threads comments by Harvey and Morales and Pawley and many others, that JFK was guilty of "treason" for not using violence when they thought it proper. Richard Goldstone - an esteemed South African jurist who was Chair of the Kosovo tribunal ( as well as a Jewish Zionist) chaired an investigation into the attack on Gaza.  When his report came out, saying, among other things, that the UN should urge the Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court, the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz called him a "traitor" and Shimon Peres called him " a small man, devoid of any sense of justice." The morally challenged PM, Netanyahu, said that the Goldstone report "was a kangeroo court against Israel." Remember when Curtis LeMay referred to "Munich" when JFK wouldn't bomb Cuba? Well, the Knesset Speaker Rivlin warned that the report would "usher in a new era in Western civilization, similar to the one we remember from the Munich agreement."
 
 If one were to use a Hitler analogy discussing the assault on Gaza, who are the "Jews" and who is "Hitler?"
 
During JFK's presidency, no one ever spoke of the disagreement with Ben-Gurion about JFK's desire to limit Israeli nuclear production. When a whistleblower in Israel exposed the truth to the world in 1986, he was kidnapped by the Mossad and held in solitary confinement for 11 years. This wasn't spoken about. One hears of Snowden as a "traitor" and Ellsburg as a "traitor" because each placed - echoing the Nuremberg principles - his conscience above the dictates of government. When the fierce attacks on Richard Goldstone became unbearable for him,  he wrote an Op-Ed piece distancing himself from what his own committee had produced. It didn't enhance his reputation as an honorable jurist, but no matter - that was enough for the US Senate to vote to reject the investigation's findings, and Goldstone was again allowed back into the tribe.
 
Is this the sort of morality we want? If International law is ignored on this case, will it be ignored in other cases?
 
Once Johnson became president, Israel developed the bomb without acknowledging it, and attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans while trying to create a "false flag" attack that would force the US into the War with Egypt. This became the only American attack of a ship never fully investigated by the US Navy. This was done by an ally.Why?
 
When George Bush #41 ran for president, no one spoke of his family's past. I didn't know about Prescott Bush and his being the banker of the Union Bank that supplied Hitler until forced to close by the FBI in 1942. There was no discussion about "Operation Paperclip" which brought Nazi war criminals to America by McCloy and others, rather than have them hung or recruited by Russia. This was not spoken about. The use of Nazis was unspeakable. The connection of America's ruling class with the Nazis was unspeakable.
 
In 2001, President Bush announced a "war on terror"--the result was  akin to having a war against anger - a never ending war against those who are against whatever empire abuses the US - or Israel - engages in. History books in America tell of the displacement of the indigenous tribes roaming the land, as does the Australian books about their efforts to cleanse the land of those who lived there. When Israel--according to international law - occupies another country and prohibits the realization for self determination of those inhabitants- indeed, terrorizes them and humiliates them, while caging almost 2 million people in an "outdoor prison" in  David Cameron's words, why is it not talked about?
 
The Trump national security people seem averse to the UN which was created after two devastating world wars. The US and Israel ignore the jurisdiction of the UN Criminal Court. Why? Whenever a vote occurs in the UN general Assembly about the Palestine-Israel issue, the vote is usually around 160 to 4. Within the 4, are the US and Israel. Who is the moral authority here? Is the rest of the world wrong? Why is that gulf not spoken about?
 
Currently another topic has been unspeakable--the attacks of 9/11. No one questioned the official version. Did some guys in a cave pierce a 500 billion dollar Defense system? How did they do that? Why did a steel building "collapse" that wasn't even hit. Why was that 47 story building not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report? Don't talk of the unspeakable. Oh, yeah, on the day before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced an accounting loss at the Pentagon of 2 trillion dollars(!!); next day, the accounting offices are all destroyed by....something that hit and pulverized the area. Convenient or random? Was Larry Silverstein lucky - like Abraham Zapruder was lucky? Or was each part of the action?  No one talks about it.
 
It's now 17 years post 9/11. At this point after JFK's killing, we had books by Lane,Buchanan, Meagher, Sauvage and others; we had the Clay Shaw trial with Jim Garrison; the House Committee on Assassinations & the Watergate Hearings; we had George Bush installed as head of the CIA and Jimmy Carter was president, running for re-election with hostages in Iran as he became a victim of an "October Surprise" by the CIA.
 
Books about the JFK killing were done not by journalists, but by independent scholars. Richard Popkin was a philosopher, Lane a lawyer. In the 15 years after 9/11, there have been books by a process theologian, David Griffin, by a scientist Judy Wood and by writers Christopher Bollyn, Philip Marshall, Thierry Meyssan and Peter Dale Scott (of course). But why is the topic of government involvement in the tragedy still unspeakable? 
 
What are the elements that dictate that a topic shall not be discussed? Why are some topics--but not others--unspeakable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Harper said:
During JFK's presidency, no one ever spoke of the disagreement with Ben-Gurion about JFK's desire to limit Israeli nuclear production. When a whistleblower in Israel exposed the truth to the world in 1986, he was kidnapped by the Mossad and held in solitary confinement for 11 years. This wasn't spoken about. One hears of Snowden as a "traitor" and Ellsburg as a "traitor" because each placed - echoing the Nuremberg principles - his conscience above the dictates of government. When the fierce attacks on Richard Goldstone became unbearable for him,  he wrote an Op-Ed piece distancing himself from what his own committee had produced. It didn't enhance his reputation as an honorable jurist, but no matter - that was enough for the US Senate to vote to reject the investigation's findings, and Goldstone was again allowed back into the tribe.
 
Is this the sort of morality we want? If International law is ignored on this case, will it be ignored in other cases?
 
Once Johnson became president, Israel developed the bomb without acknowledging it, and attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans while trying to create a "false flag" attack that would force the US into the War with Egypt. This became the only American attack of a ship never fully investigated by the US Navy. This was done by an ally.Why?

A nicely worded piece Robert... till I hit the nuke issue and that tired old cliche of the rift between these men...

.....

We've been down this road with that awful book and author...

Do a search please as I completely debunked this JFK/Ben-Gurion disagreement...  The Israeli's went behind our backs as JFK was talking concern over proliferation to get help from the French.

On January 1, 1961 a full report on the history and status of the situation was presented to JFK...

JFK was more concerned with the ARABS taking up Nuclear arms in response to Israel, then on any disagreement with Gurion...

image.thumb.png.209e7e334d10ab8bc7658e8f34306a98.png

 

There was also something called the Sonneborn Group of wealthy American Jews who help finance things in Israel...

You think because Bloomfield is on the list... there is a direct line o the assassination?

1606231290_SonnebornGroupfinancesIsraelibomb-includesBLOOMFIELDinCanada.thumb.jpg.ce54b966e6e1ed48042045ee7fca6247.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David:

One does not need to be in the late Mr Piper's camp to understand that Kennedy was against anyone in the Middle East having atomic weapons.

In Roger Mattson's fine book, Stealing the Bomb, which I reviewed for the late Bob Parry, he discussed this issue.  And since he had been part of an official inquiry in the seventies into how the Israelis got the enriched uranium to do so, he had access to several intelligence officers.  They told him in almost uniform chorus that the last president who was adamantly against nuclear proliferation by anyone was Kennedy.  The reason he did not want Israel to have the bomb was because it could inspire the Arabs to do so.  His policy was that the Middle East should be absent these weapons period.

Exxcerpt from Letter from JFK to Ben Gurion in May of 1963:

"We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel. I cannot imagine that the Arabs would refrain from turning to the Soviet Union for assistance if Israel were to develop a nuclear weapons capability—with all the consequences this would hold. But the problem is much larger than its impact on the Middle East. Development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel would almost certainly lead other larger countries, that have so far refrained from such development, to feel that they must follow suit."

Then came the threat: Kennedy, noting the ways the United States had assisted Israel, warned Ben-Gurion that the U.S. commitment to his country “would be seriously jeopardized in the public opinion in this country and in the West as a whole if it should be thought that this Government was unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of the character of Israel’s efforts in the nuclear field.”

Ben Gurion resigned a few weeks later.  But Kennedy did not let up the pressure. 

 Kennedy demanded of Eshkol that the United States be allowed to conduct visits:

as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as the the peaceful intent of the Dimona project…. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Goverment’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field….. It would be essential… that our scientist have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time be allotted for a thorough examination.

When Kennedy was killed, the policy became more relaxed under LBJ, who did not bat an eyelash when the CIA told  him they thought Israel had the bomb.

This  is simply a matter of record.  Its one of the policies of Kennedy that was altered and then reversed first by LBJ and then by RMN.  Like I said I have been studying this for five years. It does not at all mean that Piper was right about the JFK assassination.  It just means that Kennedy had a definite Middle East policy that was then changed drastically after he was killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Harper said:
I deliberately used the term - "unspeakable" - that James Douglas made concomitant with JFK's murder - as a reference to those topics that are not spoken about in public. I found it appropriate in the MSU proceedings about Mr. Nasser, because it involved the breaking of trust and the abuse of authority which was  sheltered by the silence such situations evoke. Very few people and practically no media outlet questioned the Warren Commission results. Mark Lane had to have his books published in Canada and France to be heard. For many years, the very notion of a coup d'etat was suppressed; many were concerned that the USA would look like a "Banana Republic."
 
In Trump and the Unspeakable? post, I wanted to explore the ways other agencies in the government work to support or undermine the Executive. I offered Joseph DiGenova's take on the current investigations and included in a later post, a synopsis of the origin of the Congressional Hearings that began to decipher some of these unspoken-about-activities by individuals in certain agencies of the government. These Hearings lead to investigating any involvement of the government in the deaths of JFK or MLK.
 
No one knows what the current investigation authorized by the Congress will reveal - or lead to. However, on the day when there are reports of 60 dead Palestinians - including children and journalists - following the Trump decision to unilaterally place the American Embassy in what the world regards as "occupied territory," one is forced to wonder how this will reverberate. There is a natural inclination to wonder what, if anything, is "unspeakable" about this laissez faire attitude about the deaths of civilians in land occupied by an alleged ally.
 
 Executive actions and violence are often intertwined. When Clinton was being investigated by Congress, he bombed Iraq; right before Obama was  inaugurated, Israel killed 1300 civilians in occupied Gaza including 500 women and children while it razed over 11,000 homes. No Israeli civilians were killed; one home was partially damaged. Why so little attention to when these incidents occurred? 
 
 Why has this not been a subject of discussion in Congress and the public? Why did Governor Cuomo sign a bill prohibiting commerce with any company who joins the boycott against the Israeli occupation? Didn't it used to be the other way round? South Africa was successfully boycotted by many in the free world  for it's racist occupation of land and criminal abuse of the indigenous people. Why is such an effort now considered "bad?" Has Israel been made critic proof by attacking those who bring up the subject? This is one of the premier "unspeakable" topics in America today.
 
One of the ways the "unspeakable" defends its presence in government, is by having shils attack any counter view. We have seen in other threads comments by Harvey and Morales and Pawley and many others, that JFK was guilty of "treason" for not using violence when they thought it proper. Richard Goldstone - an esteemed South African jurist who was Chair of the Kosovo tribunal ( as well as a Jewish Zionist) chaired an investigation into the attack on Gaza.  When his report came out, saying, among other things, that the UN should urge the Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court, the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz called him a "traitor" and Shimon Peres called him " a small man, devoid of any sense of justice." The morally challenged PM, Netanyahu, said that the Goldstone report "was a kangeroo court against Israel." Remember when Curtis LeMay referred to "Munich" when JFK wouldn't bomb Cuba? Well, the Knesset Speaker Rivlin warned that the report would "usher in a new era in Western civilization, similar to the one we remember from the Munich agreement."
 
 If one were to use a Hitler analogy discussing the assault on Gaza, who are the "Jews" and who is "Hitler?"
 
During JFK's presidency, no one ever spoke of the disagreement with Ben-Gurion about JFK's desire to limit Israeli nuclear production. When a whistleblower in Israel exposed the truth to the world in 1986, he was kidnapped by the Mossad and held in solitary confinement for 11 years. This wasn't spoken about. One hears of Snowden as a "traitor" and Ellsburg as a "traitor" because each placed - echoing the Nuremberg principles - his conscience above the dictates of government. When the fierce attacks on Richard Goldstone became unbearable for him,  he wrote an Op-Ed piece distancing himself from what his own committee had produced. It didn't enhance his reputation as an honorable jurist, but no matter - that was enough for the US Senate to vote to reject the investigation's findings, and Goldstone was again allowed back into the tribe.
 
Is this the sort of morality we want? If International law is ignored on this case, will it be ignored in other cases?
 
Once Johnson became president, Israel developed the bomb without acknowledging it, and attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans while trying to create a "false flag" attack that would force the US into the War with Egypt. This became the only American attack of a ship never fully investigated by the US Navy. This was done by an ally.Why?
 
When George Bush #41 ran for president, no one spoke of his family's past. I didn't know about Prescott Bush and his being the banker of the Union Bank that supplied Hitler until forced to close by the FBI in 1942. There was no discussion about "Operation Paperclip" which brought Nazi war criminals to America by McCloy and others, rather than have them hung or recruited by Russia. This was not spoken about. The use of Nazis was unspeakable. The connection of America's ruling class with the Nazis was unspeakable.
 
In 2001, President Bush announced a "war on terror"--the result was  akin to having a war against anger - a never ending war against those who are against whatever empire abuses the US - or Israel - engages in. History books in America tell of the displacement of the indigenous tribes roaming the land, as does the Australian books about their efforts to cleanse the land of those who lived there. When Israel--according to international law - occupies another country and prohibits the realization for self determination of those inhabitants- indeed, terrorizes them and humiliates them, while caging almost 2 million people in an "outdoor prison" in  David Cameron's words, why is it not talked about?
 
The Trump national security people seem averse to the UN which was created after two devastating world wars. The US and Israel ignore the jurisdiction of the UN Criminal Court. Why? Whenever a vote occurs in the UN general Assembly about the Palestine-Israel issue, the vote is usually around 160 to 4. Within the 4, are the US and Israel. Who is the moral authority here? Is the rest of the world wrong? Why is that gulf not spoken about?
 
Currently another topic has been unspeakable--the attacks of 9/11. No one questioned the official version. Did some guys in a cave pierce a 500 billion dollar Defense system? How did they do that? Why did a steel building "collapse" that wasn't even hit. Why was that 47 story building not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report? Don't talk of the unspeakable. Oh, yeah, on the day before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced an accounting loss at the Pentagon of 2 trillion dollars(!!); next day, the accounting offices are all destroyed by....something that hit and pulverized the area. Convenient or random? Was Larry Silverstein lucky - like Abraham Zapruder was lucky? Or was each part of the action?  No one talks about it.
 
It's now 17 years post 9/11. At this point after JFK's killing, we had books by Lane,Buchanan, Meagher, Sauvage and others; we had the Clay Shaw trial with Jim Garrison; the House Committee on Assassinations & the Watergate Hearings; we had George Bush installed as head of the CIA and Jimmy Carter was president, running for re-election with hostages in Iran as he became a victim of an "October Surprise" by the CIA.
 
Books about the JFK killing were done not by journalists, but by independent scholars. Richard Popkin was a philosopher, Lane a lawyer. In the 15 years after 9/11, there have been books by a process theologian, David Griffin, by a scientist Judy Wood and by writers Christopher Bollyn, Philip Marshall, Thierry Meyssan and Peter Dale Scott (of course). But why is the topic of government involvement in the tragedy still unspeakable? 
 
What are the elements that dictate that a topic shall not be discussed? Why are some topics--but not others--unspeakable?

Great post. I've been thinking about 'Unspeakable' history since I was a kid listening to my idealistic Communist father rant, and talking about it my entire adult life. I like Dr. Helen Caldicott's phrase 'psychic numbing'. Most people just can't handle truth unless it comes from the government itself, and it doesn't. Why are these undeniable historical truths unspeakable? Key question. Oliver Stone's TV series "Hidden History of the United States" examined this in some depth. Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" provides some relevant answers. History is written by the victors, mainly wealthy white men. Whoever controls the present controls the past. Small consolation of course, knowing that our history is full of unsung heroes. As Zinn's points out, our Constitution was written with two major aims - prevent dictatorships, and prevent the people from rulership. It's no Democracy, it's at best enlightened Oligarchy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, consider it may be a full blown plutocracy.  The reason subjects are unspeakable is because they are not allowed to be spoken of by the owners of the Main Stream Media.  The 1% own 95-98% of the MSM, which is where most people get their news, entertainment and just about everything else.  Broaching a taboo subject can result in a warning, reprimand or firing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

till I hit the nuke issue and that tired old cliche of the rift between these men...

 

 
from May 15 issue of The Intercept:
 
(#2 House Dem)"Hoyer has sided not only with the Israelis, but also with the Trump administration, which on Monday quashed a resolution calling for an independent inquiry into the killings in Gaza. On Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said Israel acted with “restraint” in its response to Palestinian protesters. She walked out of the room when the Palestinian delegation spoke.
 
Hoyer, the minority whip, was referring to a threat he claimed Israel faces from Hamas. But it was unarmed civilian protesters, not militants, who Israeli soldiers targeted on Monday, killing at least 58 people and injuring 2,771 others, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry." 
 
Imagine law enforcers in the American South in the 1956 using snipers to kill unarmed demonstrators against segregation. When dogs, fire hoses and batons were used, outrage was evoked. The killing of 3 young men caused an uproar. Who was "right" and who was "wrong" got clarified by their actions. Now 60 years later,  leading American pols support such a notion -- claiming that the occupier has to "protect its borders" by killing women and children and unarmed civilians. In addition of course, the official borders of Israel do not exist; the borders described are their version of what constitutes their border. 
 
from Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option (1991):
 
The Presidents's apprehension about the Israeli bomb was undoubtedly a factor in his surprising appointment of John McCone to replace Allen Dulles as CIA director in the wake of the Bay of Pigs debacle. There was every political reason not to appoint him: McCone not only was a prominent Republican but had spoken out against the White Houses's much-desired test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. Arthur Schlesinger writes that Kennedy, obviously sensitive about his preference, invited McCone to a private 2 hour meeting....There is no public record of what the two discussed, although Ben-Gurion's latest annoying letter had arrived only days before and the Soviet Union had announced the resumption of nuclear testing, ending  the informal US-USSR moratorium. In any case, McCone subsequently told Walt Elder, his executive assistant in the CIA, that Kennedy had complained to him about the fact that he was "getting all sorts of conflicting advice on the whole range of nuclear issues," including the Israeli bomb.....
 
What Kennedy did not tell his Ambassador(in Greece) was that inspection rights to Dimona were at stake. That message was personally relayed to Ben-Gurion by Meyer Feldman, who was dispatched in August to inform the Israeli government of the sale (Hawk airplane sale)and what Jack Kennedy wanted in return. ...
 
Ben-Gurion took no chances: the American inspectors - most of them experts in nuclear reprocessing-would be provided with a Potemkin Village and never know it....a false control room was constructed at Dimona, complete with false control panels and computer-driven measuring devices that seemed to be gauging the thermal output...there were extensive practice sessions in the fake control room....In Abe Feinberg's view, Kennedy's unyielding demand for an inspection had left Israel with no option: "It was part of my job to tip them off that Kennedy was insisting on this. So they gave him a scam job."
 
In other words, America's "best Ally" lied to them. Ben-Gurion resigned in May 1963. Following JFK's murder, Israel resumed testing and faking all through the Johnson and Nixon years. Is is any wonder when the world asks why other countries must adhere to rules ignored by Israel? I also wrote in another thread, that the terrorist Shamir - who became Prime Minister(as did fellow terrorists Begin and Sharon) - said that the murder of Swedish diplomat  Count Bernadotte who was sent to head negotiations over Jerusalem was "justified, because "Jerusalem was worth a life." Well, 60 years on and we are seeing how many lives Jerusalem "is worth." I think it's an open question whether or not the Mossad assisted in the planning or murder of JFK. If the Bloomfield papers are ever opened to the public, maybe more will be known to deflect or support such notions. I have also read Matteson's book How Denial and Deception Armed Israel(2016). Among tidbits the following: "What Einstein,Oppenheimer and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel for their own people....The triumvirate of Ben-Gurion, Peres, and Bergmann drove the Israeli nuclear weapons program...The coincidence between truth and myth is not accidental--Ben-Gurion designed it that way."
 
David Josephs -  If you are referring to the book Final Judgment by Michael Piper Collins (1993), I might remind you that that book - like the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by professors Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) were widely condemned as the "a" word by the same people who attacked the Goldstone Report. In a silence encouraged society it is  always wise to preface any remark about them, by first distancing oneself from their image even before addressing their information or conclusions. This is a form of the unspeakable, and as history has shown, such leads to bloodshed. 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://medium.com/@pazmarverde/clay-shaws-centro-mondiale-commerciale-and-its-israeli-connections-e461175e404

Clay Shaw’s “Centro Mondiale Commerciale” and its Israeli connections

 
1*S4ftkUggJhuhqbwUaoyPPg.jpeg
This is the English translation of an Italian article by Michele Metta. My thanks to Ward O. Wheeler for helping translating. Click here for the original

Warning: this article of mine is for me the most difficult. It will also be the most important. It is, first of all, my tribute to the birth centenary of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and to the anniversary of his assassination. It will sometimes contain personal accents. This in no way means that it will lack of objectivity. Quite the contrary. Please, more than ever I beg to read it to the end. Well, let’s go.

I never ever doubted that one day I would have been narrating what I’m about to say. I was only looking for the right mean, and I think I found it: it’s L’Antidiplomatico and its director — my director — Alessandro Bianchi, that — you must know it — never censures a dot or a comma of what I write.

Because of the content of the previous chapters of my CMC investigation, I can easily imagine some of my readers becoming surprised, if not even dazed, at reading the title. In all of those previous chapters, in fact, I did each time show the presence, in Centro Mondiale Commerciale, of individuals with a clearest fascist connotation. Speaking of Israel suddenly, might seem a contradiction. I answer that — and I stress unfortunately — it is not. And, before going to the enormous revelation on CMC I am about to give you, I will explain why it’s not a contradiction thanks to a very concrete example. It is an example taken from another issue that I know very well: the History of Chile, a country that — in this case, it is not a stock phrase — everyone should visit at least once in their life. When Pinochet came to power there through a coup d’état supported by the US, a girl was kidnapped by the DINA, the regime’s torture organization. She was only 23, her name was Diana Frida Arón Svigilsky, and she was born from a Jewish family. She was amazingly beautiful. In describing her, the language of poetry rises to your mouth: the face sprinkled by the spring of a conference of freckles; the hair crossed by obsidian; the height soaring like the rush of a hymn; the gait with something of the aerial proceeding of dreams. And just like her father Elias, Diana was a journalist. A journalist on Allende’s side. That means, on the side of the legitimate President of Chile that Pinochet killed. Since Diana, because of her sensitivity so special that, among her friends, had given her the joking definition of Aliviol, the most famous Chilean brand of painkillers, immediately understood what her duty was: despite her profound economic prosperity, she instantly supported that socialist whose government priority was that the poor could stop being poor.

Therefore the DINA, on November 18, 1974, set up an ambush in which, in order to capture her, they even shot her. An ambush after which they led her forcibly to Villa Grimaldi, the main dictatorship detention center. A place where Diana, as witnesses later told, suffered the tortures of Miguel Krassnoff Martechenko, notorious tormentor. Tortures imparted despite that Diana was already copiously bleeding from the wounds received at the time of the seizure. Tortures imparted — please, pay attention — while mocking the religion of Diana; shouting at her a chilling infamous: “Not only a Jew, son of a bitch! No! You are even a communist!”. Tortures given despite Diana’s three and a half months of pregnancy. Tortures imparted until her heart ceased beating.

And all this, while Diana’s parents, begging for the pity of a release, had sent their own rabbi, with the idea, thus, of being able to indirectly obtain compassion from the Hebrew Kissinger, the US Secretary of State and hidden mind of the coup. But the conversation between the rabbi and Manuel Contreras, the head of the DINA, produced only the extreme insult of the latter, who, despite knowing, of course, the true fate of Diana, denying, lying, had exclaimed: “Oh, please, please, come on! These girls! These girls! They go around, looking for adventures, and we have even to listen to you pointing at us your finger!”

Her parents did not understand that those like Kissinger, whose power is outside of any democratic definition, got that so incredible power because they simply do not consider their own ethnicity at all. Because if he had considered it, Kissinger would never have been the right-hand man of the deeply anti-Semitic Richard Nixon. If he had considered it, he would not have been maneuvering conspiracies from the White House. Instead, he would have been, for example, a member of one of the many Jewish Associations in the world that demand justice and equity for the Palestinians. If he had considered it, he would have realized that supporting someone like Pinochet, a madman surrounding himself with real Nazis like the Italian Stefano Delle Chiaie, is tantamount to twice killing the millions of Jews who were victims of Hitler’s gas chambers.

In other words, Diana’s parents did not understand that someone like Kissinger is incapable of finding inside himself and others that empathetic denominator of commonsense so wonderfully synthesized by JFK during his well-known June 1963 speech where the 35th President explained the absolute need to reach peace in the world by saying: “For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

That said, here it is the revelation: Gershon Peres sat inside CMC, from 1967 to 1970. This is huge, because we are talking about the brother of Shimon Peres, the Israeli President from 2007 to 2014. During Shimon Peres’ presidency, a white phosphorus attack against the Palestinians was perpetrated, killing hundreds of children.

But, on closer inspection, the CMC is impregnated everywhere with the presence of Israeli power. For example, its member Roberto Ascarelli was a prominent representative of the Roman Jewish community. Yet, just as with Kissinger, this status did not stop him, as he should have instead stopped, from being a fundamental pivot in the rise of Licio Gelli inside P2. To say it with Sergio Flamigni, someone who has dedicated his life to the study of this fascist lodge, it is thanks to Ascarelli that “Gelli’s past as a fascist and a member of the Repubblica Sociale Italiana that have blocked his affiliation until that moment, becomes now rather an element of guarantee for the anticommunist function that he will be called to do.” It is thanks to Ascarelli that some CMC Board of Directors meeting will be celebrated at his office in Piazza di Spagna 72/A, a place where, at the same time, P2 runs its first fundamental steps. Piazza di Spagna 72/A besides home of another secret lodge, Hod, headed by the very same Ascarelli. Hod described, by witnesses listened by the Italian Parliamentarian Commission on P2, as an antechamber, if not a real twin branch of P2. And in fact, before landing in P2, Gelli had been a Hod member. And again, just like Kissinger, his being Jewish had certainly not induced Ascarelli to find it absurd to add his name to that of Gutierez Spadafora, a fascist whose son was married with a daughter of Hjalmar Schacht, and one of Hitler’s strongest collaborators; or to add his name to that of Giuseppe Pièche, one of Mussolini’s strongest collaborators.

Also keep in mind that CMC member Dov Biegun, who worked for the British Intelligence during WWII, is connected to Israel. Biegun is the national secretary of the National Committee for Labor Israel. It’s an institution whose goal is to solder bonds between Israel and the US. It was fundamental in creating and strengthening the State of Israel, through such actions as the purchase of Israeli bonds. A notable role within it, was taken by conservative Unions radically oriented towards the expansion of the war in Vietnam: which was the opposite of what Kennedy was preparing to do if he had not been killed. JFK, in fact, had already arranged for the withdrawal of US troops from the Asian country. Not to mention the fact that Philip Agee, a former CIA agent, accused the NCLI of connivance with the Central Intelligence Agency. An accusation that fits very well with today’s NCLI relationship with Unions referred to as mongers of the attempted fascist coups d’état in Venezuela. Biegun, moreover, was part of the Jewish National Fund. The same JNF that, through dirty tricks, seizes land owned by Palestinian citizens and transfers them into Israeli hands.

Please consider that there were two other excellent reasons for which Israeli leaders saw Kennedy as smoke in their eyes. The first was the opposition of this US President to the Israeli nuclear arsenal. The second was that JFK was in favor of a fair policy towards the Arabs, as demonstrated by his support towards Mattei’s oil policies and towards the end of colonialism. Something which necessarily leads us to the CMC member Alfredo Crocco. Crocco had a brother, Luigi, who was recruited by William Donovan, the head of the OSS, the CIA’s forerunner. Luigi Crocco was a very long-standing friend and collaborator of the Jewish scientist Theodore von Kármán. The latter was the president of the AGARD, a special NATO structure whose aim was the direct coordination between scientists with the highest contributions to the Western war machine. The AGARD representative in Italy was Giuseppe Gabrielli, who is none other than the brother-in-law of Alfredo and Luigi Crocco. Theodore von Kármán was also among the fathers of the RAND Corporation: a fanatically anti-Communist think-tank, in osmosis with the Pentagon, responsible for the most senseless US escalations during the Cold War. But above all, Theodore von Kármán was president of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, which is the root of Israeli nuclear ballistic development.

Also, deeply tied to Israeli power is Louis Bloomfield, the founder of Permindex, the company from which the Italian CMC was born. Bloomfield decided, shortly before his death, to leave his papers to the Archives of Canada. It was where the researcher Maurice Phillips was able to find a letter, dated April 1, 1959, from Bloomfield to Abraham Friedman, a member of Israel Continental Oil. A letter in which Bloomfield refers to the desire to meet the famous Jewish banker Edmund Rothschild to discuss details about a CMC operation named Capocotta. An operation that was a mask devised by the CMC to buy off the holders of the Italian power. And, in fact, involved in Capocotta we find a right-wing General, Giovanni De Lorenzo, and an admiral, Giuseppe Pighini, who was at the top of the Mussolini’s Navy under fascism, and then at the top of NATO ComNavSouth, the Headquarter of NATO Naval Forces in Southern Europe. Another Italian Commission of Inquiry — that on Michele Sindona, a member of P2 and Mafia — shows us the secret face of Pighini: according to the testimony of Carlo Bordoni, a long and very close friend of Sindona, Pighini, during the 70s, received millions of dollars from Sindona to establish in Italy a far-right military dictatorship.

As I demonstrated in my immediately preceding two articles for this newspaper, it is the very same Sindona who was deeply connected to CMC. The same Sindona about whom Peter Tompkins writes in his Strategy of Tension, a book that is a sort of concentrate of Tompkins’ knowledge about the US abuses of power. Tompkins knows this kind of subject very well, since he had taken part in the activities of the OSS in Italy, so he really deserves a very special attention when he recalls that we can find the origins of Sindona’s fortunes in what happened during the Landing in Sicily, in 1943, of the Allied Forces. A landing behind which there is a shameful agreement with the Mafia. A pact Sindona was involved in, and in which a strong role was also had by the member of the OSS Max Corvo. Circumstances — is always Tompkins to point it out — by Corvo admitted in an interview in the 80s to the Italian magazine Il Mondo. Admission as clear as to induce Il Mondo to comment with this very eloquent phrase: “Thanks to the connection between Sicilian mafia, the Italo-American, and the American secret services that had been created 35 years earlier, at the time of the Allied landing in Sicily, the former financier [Sindona] had made alliances that explain the rise of a young man without a penny, to the top of world finance.” This means that Sindona had become an OSS trustee, and the head of the Italian section of the OSS was James Angleton. News that we must add to that kindly given to me, through his assistant Giulia Corradi, by the already mentioned Sergio Flamigni: once again during the Italian Liberation Campaign, Angleton recruited Licio Gelli.

Because of all the above, it then ceases to appear strange what the Italian historian Giuseppe Casarrubea discovered years ago: the commingling, in the shadow of Angleton, of fascism, mafia, and future citizens of Israel, in creating the Israeli army.

And it also ceases to appear strange the proposal of support Israel made to the Italian terrorist group Brigate Rosse. Proposals that would have resulted in concrete financial aid from the Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence, according to the testimony, on June 19, 2017, of Luigi Carli, former magistrate of Genoa, to the Italian Inquiry Commission on Moro assassination. Something to which add the words of Giovanni Galloni, a brave and honest man, former vice-president of the Italian Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura. In fact, as recorded by the journalist Saverio Occhiuto, in 2007 he said, “Then there is my sentence, something that I have always said without ever getting attention, on some confidences that Moro gave me a few months before being captured. He told me that he was worried because he believed that the US and the Israeli espionage had infiltrators in the Br [Brigate Rosse].”
 It is really impossible, at this point, to avoid remembering that documents exist demonstrating the infiltration into Brigate Rosse made by the P2 member Edgardo Sogno through those who, very subtly, he baptized Committees of Democratic Resistance. Committees the CMC member Corrado Bonfantini was part of. Bonfantini that, what a coincidence, was a very strong trustee of Sindona. As much as it is impossible to avoid remembering what said by Giacomo Lauro on January 22, 2010, during the trial for the fascist massacre, connected to the Strategy of Tension, made in 1974 in the Italian city of Brescia. Lauro, who is one of the most reliable former members of a branch of the Italian mafia named ’ndrangheta, during his dense testimony specified that he had managed to become very close to one of the most powerful members of P2 ever: Francesco Cosentino. That’s how Lauro was able to know that Cosentino was the true occult mind of the deviated P2 management of the seizure, and then execution, of Moro. Lauro added that, just in carrying out this role, Cosentino was constantly in touch with another Freemason: a doctor named Roberto Zamboni. Roberto Zamboni who, incidentally, is not only the protector of Franco Freda, the executor of the 1969 Piazza Fontana fascist massacre connected to the Italian Strategy of Tension, but also the doctor cited as Scientific Director of a so-called Press Information Agency under whose aegis a very peculiar document is issued: a document by the P2 member Aldo Semerari, and whose goal was to try to morally assassinate the very well-known Italian artist Pier Paolo Pasolini, as Pasolini himself repeatedly underlined. What does CMC have to do with it? It has to do with it because behind that document there was a lawyer, Giorgio Zeppieri, who was also a CMC member.

On that Zamboni’s and Semerari’s document there is also a telephone number and an address. When I revised them, I stumbled in a very special publisher: Giovanni Quattrucci, a Freemason at the head of a structure with masonic connotations. It’s Great Italy, and Francesco Pazienza had quite a lot to do with it. It’s the same Pazienza then condemned for another episode of the Italian Strategy of Tension: the Bologna massacre. And then perhaps we must also ask ourselves what was the true origin of both this massacre and that previously happened in San Benedetto Val di Sambro. Because about the latter — of which, coincidentally, Pasolini spoke, including in his posthumous Petrolio — it emerges that on that train exploded in 1974 because of a bomb placed on board, Aldo Moro was about to have a trip but was asked at the very last moment to get off to sign some important papers, the daughter of Moro in April 2004 revealed. Regarding the attack in Bologna, which took place at a short geographical distance from the other, someone said that it would have been necessary because that in San Benedetto was a message, and this message had not been understood; it was therefore indispensable to repeat it by a new explosion. From there, it has been speculated, even in the presence of very questionable evidence, that the act at the Bologna station was by Palestinians furious at the failure of the so-called Lodo Moro: a secret agreement, signed by Moro, and with the main clause to always turn a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism. In the light of what I have outlined above, I think it is more than reasonable to ask whether the terms of the question have not been reversed and, to say it very clear, if in this frightful affair there is instead an Israeli contribution, firmly stressing that no doubt exists that the executors are Mambro and Fioravanti.

I would like to conclude with a last personal note: anyone who wants to use what I wrote today to launch in their own voice claims like “Hitler was right”, or “Death to Israelis” and similar, did not understand what I have explained here and, more generally, does not understand anything of life, and is not my friend.
 On the contrary, I trust very much that this article may serve as a reflection for the many enlightened Jews who — to return to JFK — inhabit our little planet: to meditate, to ask themselves if they want their fate in the hands of a Kissinger or in those of a Diana Frida Arón Svigilsky. The question, all in all, is this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this translation. It can be absorbed easier, if one is unfamiliar with any writings on Gladio or P-2,  by watching the Italian film Il Divo (WIKI: The Celebrity or more literally The Divine, from latin divus, god) , a 2008 Italian biographical drama film directed by Paolo Sorrentino. It is based on the figure of former Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti.

 

The killing of Moro is not widely known in America (no surprise there) but it is a sad, brutal act, pinned on others("the communists") by an infiltrator ( "nazis-like") because the "communists(= "terrorist"?) might get elected. Pope Paul VI, wept for his friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Robert Harper said:

The killing of Moro is not widely known in America

Yes: time to know the Italian History, if the USA would like to finally understand who really killed JFK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said:

Yes: time to know the Italian History, if the USA would like to finally understand who really killed JFK

I agree. Brave Italians, still today not willing to accept the Unspeakable, have proved in court that Gladio was real, that the Red Brigades were infiltrated, that the terrorist bombings and the kidnapping of Aldo Moro were part of the Strategy of Tension designed by fascists to smear the Communists. 

Mossad hired none other than Otto Skorzeny to kill nuclear scientists in Egypt in the late 1950’s. One can watch (sorry for the lack of links) on YouTube Skorzeny bragging that he worked for US Intelligence in the early 1960’s. I can’t vouch for the research on soon to be released books claiming that Skorzeny had a hand in the JFK assassination, but I’m looking forward to them none the less. 

Unreleased Bloomfield papers cover the early 1960’s. How peculiar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I agree. Brave Italians, still today not willing to accept the Unspeakable, have proved in court that Gladio was real, that the Red Brigades were infiltrated, that the terrorist bombings and the kidnapping of Aldo Moro were part of the Strategy of Tension designed by fascists to smear the Communists. 

Mossad hired none other than Otto Skorzeny to kill nuclear scientists in Egypt in the late 1950’s. One can watch (sorry for the lack of links) on YouTube Skorzeny bragging that he worked for US Intelligence in the early 1960’s. I can’t vouch for the research on soon to be released books claiming that Skorzeny had a hand in the JFK assassination, but I’m looking forward to them none the less. 

Unreleased Bloomfield papers cover the early 1960’s. How peculiar. 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Paul, consider it may be a full blown plutocracy.  The reason subjects are unspeakable is because they are not allowed to be spoken of by the owners of the Main Stream Media.  The 1% own 95-98% of the MSM, which is where most people get their news, entertainment and just about everything else.  Broaching a taboo subject can result in a warning, reprimand or firing.   

And thus the no-fly zone in the MSM over hard questions about 9/11, for one.

Group-think is a suka, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The attached link is an example of "the unspeakable" in the United States, today.

 No wonder for the past 30 years no one speaks about it; they never hear about it, and if they do hear about it, it's from a few media companies or a "passionate" statement from one of the American PR folks, formally known as members of Congress. Others are from numerous tax-exempt "Think Tanks" and "Agency for the Advances or (fill in) or any PAC).  The reporter is right- these pictures do not appear in main American Media .A teenager shot in the head for running around at a protest? A mother jailed because she showed the video of her daughter getting slapped?  The daughter, a teenager, gets jailed for slapping the face of an occupying military enforcer?

Eventually, this too shall pass. The recording of Rodney King caught business as usual in the USA in many, many places.The internet will change that, but it takes time and resistance to the control of access.

John and Robert Kennedy's murder was "solved" within 48 hours. One was blamed on a "communist" and the other a "Palestinian"; 9/11 was "solved" in 24 hours, blamed were the" terrorists."

What gets heard, who gets heard? Who is part of the racket?  What is so unspeakable? No Americans have ever seen the images posted here on the main stream media and yet their leaders and PR Congress regurgitate the same stupidity. How can one justify the the stupidity of the comments regurgitated by the pimps of the warfare Lobby?  Why is America supportive of this? 

In less than 10 minutes this video offers  a combination of the topics  recently brought up  these threads threads. This Executive action (opening of the Embassy;  the Obama Inauguration); and,  at the same time,  the unspeakable occurs with  Operation  Cast Lead or Operation Kill the Protesters.

 

https://israelpalestinenews.org/noura-erakat-articulately-and-compellingly-summarizes-the-palestinian-cause-memorize-this/

Edited by Robert Harper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
 "unspeakable" has a long tradition in history.
 
In 1824, on this day May 17, the publisher John Murray decided to destroy the manuscript of Byron's memoirs (which he has been given to publish) because he (and a couple of others) believed they would damage Byron's reputation.
All of a sudden, Byron's truth is tossed out in favor of Murray and pals. 
Anyone hear echoes of Dulles & his pals?
 
A tangential thought relating to this thread topic, evoked memories of my first encounter with Trump and the concept.
 
Watching the first big debate of the Republican Primary during the 2016 election, - with about 12 candidates, senators & governors and all the usual suspects and Trump was center stage. First question to him is by a woman who asks about his comments about women being fat or stupid or ugly or something. In the midst of the question, I recall thinking - how will he answer this? Deny the use of such terms? attack fake news that reports it?Pontificate on the #MeToo rights of women? - and while these thoughts brew, Trump interrupts to say --- No No! No! that was just about Rosie O'Donnell.
 I burst out laughing as did much of the audience. 
 
Why that response from him or me or the audience?
 
Never a good idea to analyze a laugh; but that one begged for one. It was shockingly hurtful and insensitive; it went right at the claim of the reported quote, and it completely upset our mental preparation for the expected pontificating on "values". That he also managed to divert the question itself was a result of the laugh.
Things that are unexpected can make us laugh; what we expect at any given time can be evaluated, in some ways, by the laughs they produce.On another thread, there was a discussion of Lenny Bruce opening his act after JFK's death.
 
He handled the unspeakable of that day with a response that got a laugh. 
 
JFK would get a laugh - and he got many - by embracing the topic raised, facing it with wit or a succinct evaluation. I don't recall any political laugh generated by an interruption that manged to simultaneously deflate the impact of an accusation, acknowledge a truth within it, and at the same time,  insult and demean an individual. Maybe Andrew Jackson pulled something like that off  - he was around at the time publisher Murray decided that some things about Lord Byron were "unspeakable," but one has to go that far back I think, to find it in American politics.
 
 
Edited by Robert Harper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×