Rock/Scissors/Hardplace: CIA vs JEW

I shouted out, "Who killed the Kennedys?" When, after all, it was Jew and me

You know, I’ve mostly been ignoring the JFK documents release and revelations contained therein to this point, in part because of the consciousness magnet that is the Trump chaos machine, in part because I’m living on the road currently, and maybe a little bit because there was never going to be any smoking gun, no matter how many documents they release. But today I’m going to take a partial dive into all that, after getting some old business cleaned up first.

The 10/7 Change in Jewish Speech Code

My last piece included just a bit of one Samuel Benjamin Harris, who I used to listen to with some regularity during the last decade, until he first threw up his partial paywall in mid-2019 and went even more blatantly yet undeclaredly full-Jew at about the same time. I originally listened to him over a decade ago because I found his verbal assaults on religion to be amusingly clever, but then after my own red pill moment on the JQ in 2015 and Sam’s shift from neo-atheism to Intellectual Dark Webbery my interest in him became more intensely socio-political. It was on his pod in early 2019 that I first discovered Russiagater Renee DiResta, who was destined to be named by me the person of the year in 2023, related to the Twitterfile revelations. Thanks, Sam.

I listened to Sam’s latest which was released on Sunday, apparently his new version of partial content teasing, edited highlights now in video form and with his own Tom Bradyesque version of Ed McMahon, his manager and business partner, Jaron Lowenstein, who I think we can assume is co-ethnic with Sam. This pod of course reflecting his current iteration of Trump Derangement Syndrome, a kinder, gentler version if I may, and with a greater openness on all matters Jewish, which is getting to my point here:

There Sam went from the banality of Hannah Arendt to the machinations of George Soros to a reference to Elon telling Disney Jew Bob Iger to go fuck himself, with lots of fascist frosting all over it, including the sieg heil that wasn’t. He’s right about Trump’s style of lying, if one can refer to it that way, but the emphasis on fascism obscures the view on the main reason why Trump gets away with it among his base - the disinformation-industrial complex which is the internet talking-headiverse that has been prepping his ‘tards for years if not decades now. A low standard of actual truthing will eventually have some effect.

When he gets to Soros we hear his new-found generosity, which may be because of Soros’ deep-pockets financial support for the BLM bullshit, or perhaps his emphasis on the neocon war in Ukraine over the ethno-war in Gaza, who knows. But he’s openly talking about people talking about Soros without it all just being a red flag on antisemitism. Because Elon has even more money to spend and isn’t part of a large network of deep state operatives maneuvering in the darkness, he’s right in all of our faces - Elon has enabled old George to come out of the blue closet, as it were.

But then he turns openly to antisemitism, the lead component of “every species of bigotry and awfulness”. White supremacy and fascism are of course just euphemisms for Nazism and neo-Nazism, which in turn are all about the Jews being subject to murderous antisemitism at the hands of the Euro-Christian goyische, which gets us back to his first book nearly two decades ago, Letter to a Christian Nation. That was a letter laced with virtual anthrax, of course.

Then Nick Fuentes, who represents neo-Nazism, and Alex Jones, who first brought neo-Bircherism to the bigtime on the internet. The remaining mist clears when he goes to “Nazis and far-right lunatics and conspiracists and liars”, but then he balances that picture with “trans activists and far-left conspiracists and liars”, which serves to underline what Sam is, a neo-centrist, bringing in the IDW’s righteous war on the extremes of cultural Marxism in this century. And he ends with the dreaded Chinese Communist Party, cutting all ties with the long-dead last remnant of political Marxism as a Jewish movement. Again we’re back to the outcome of Churchill’s Zionism versus Bolshevism, a Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People of more than a century ago; Sam is 100% on board with that outcome as a hardcore Jewish supremacist.

I still have a sneaking admiration for ol’ Samuel, because of his Ashkenazi high verbal intelligence and the way that he deftly arrays those big guns in the culture wars. It may be for different reasons, but I have some real agreement with Ezra Klein’s take on Sam when he was on the Fridmanosaurus Lex’s pod where I linked it in that last piece.

But the bottom line here is the way that 10/7 has opened up the conversation on all matters Jewish, if inadequately, even with Jewish public activists predating that watershed event. Two more examples of that are the Grayzone pod guys Max and Aaron, here from their last pod which I also clipped in my last piece; they’re talking about the evolution in US ambassadors to Israel:

What they don’t do is to go back to Clinton’s second ambassador, Martin Indyk, who couldn’t be his first because Indyk wasn’t yet an American citizen (he was a British/Israeli/Aussie triple-citizen then, from what I can tell). Before Indyk the unofficial US policy was to not place Jews in that position, to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. But now thanks to politics correcting itself we have gone from Jack Lew to Lack Jew, a Christian Zionist nutter filling in for that ethno-position which had taken a 180-degree flip in intentions, to a requirement of total conflict of interest, officially declaring, in antisemitic terms, that state-sponsored dual loyalty would be an improvement.

Not much subtlety by the boys there, beyond the emphasis on Israelis and Zionists over Jews. But for them this level of reveal only applies to Gaza and the middle east, you won’t quite see it as clearly regarding Ukraine or anything else in what has been a full-frontal ethnic assault on America going back decades now.

Later they’re back on our loss of free speech by the Trumpians, and Max stumbles along wondering how far to go:

So Max does go to American Jews, the ADL that was formed by B’nai B’rith right after the Leo Frank conviction in 1913 and the mother of the Jewish lobby, the American Jewish Committee formed in 1906, instead of the kneejerk citing of AIPAC which is always assumed to be a closet Israeli organization (it’s really not). And the consequence of all this is the rise in antisemitism, which is absolutely correct if one defines antisemitism as opposition to Jewish ethno-politics and its influence on American foreign policy. A righteous rise in antisemitism, in other words.

But then Aaron, who never wants to go quite as far as Max, starts spouting generational bullshit about Zionism having affected the older generations more, when in fact the psychological handcuffs operating here is Holocaustism, the fear that is the basis of Zionism’s leverage, the fear of goyische murderous antisemitism that is baked deeply into the cattle’s DNA. He ends up comparing anti-Israel protests over Gaza to BLM protests, when one was part of the long tradition of the Black-Jewish Alliance (also founded with Leo Frank) as political activism against the Euro-Christian majority, as if shifting sides on those is somehow inconsistent. It’s not. The Jew who stands with the black man to tear down whitey in America is, or at least can be, the same Jew who screams antisemitism when one barely questions mass murder in the middle east.

Enough of the warmup, let’s get to who killed the Kennedys:

JFK and the Speakable

My point of entry into this matter is Jefferson Morley, a former conventional journalist (he was with WaPo for 15 years) who formally went down the rabbit hole a couple decades ago. He’s written two books related to JFK and the CIA, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA (2008) and The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton (2017). Note that these books are more about the CIA than JFK.

The only book of his that I’ve read is Scorpions’ Dance: The President, the Spymaster, and Watergate (2022), which I bought in the hope that it would meaningfully reveal the deep event aspect of Watergate, and I have to say that I was rather disappointed with it. I have read a fair number of books on JFK, though, including Douglas’ JFK and the Unspeakable and Talbot’s Brothers, and the core of that reading was three books by Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993), Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics: Revelations from CIA Records on the Assassination of JFK (1995) and Dallas '63: The First Deep State Revolt Against The White House (2015). As one can tell from those titles, Scott’s interest isn’t bullet dynamics in Dealey Plaza. The last book I tackled was Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment, which basically puts the murder on Israel.

What I think one can say is that Morley has as much interest in the CIA as JFK/Dallas, and perhaps that the CIA is really his axe to grind, even if related to their role in Dallas. Where I looked at that was his appearance on Glenn Greenwald’s show after he’d testified last week in front of the House committee dealing with the records release (along with borderline-senile Hollywood Jew Ollie Stone and Jimmy DE, played by Joe Pesci). Here is the beginning of that interview:

The main subject of that clip is the politics surrounding the release and the committee. Greenie claims to want to avoid partisan politics related to this, but he’s the one who pushed partisanship right out of the box, going after fake-lashes Rep. Crockett for her comments on Signalgate, which he’s basically and laughably dismissive of, as I showed in my last piece. Glenn uses this to attack the Dems, and Morley plays along, because Crockett didn’t properly respect his life’s work.

In fact her questioning and statement came after a point made at the beginning by Dem ranking member Garcia, who bores down on the heart of the matter to be established right out of the box here, a smoking gun implicating the CIA:

Given that there is no smoking gun implicating the CIA as taking part in a conspiracy to kill the president, I think Crockett’s later statement isn’t nearly as unreasonable as Greenwald is framing it. And given the current political situation in DC, it’s also not unreasonable to think that this isn’t the most important thing for congress to be attending to at this moment in time. Signalgate may not be either, but at least it’s closer to the immediate problem, which is the guy on Pennsylvania Avenue who thinks tariffs are to be played with like a yo-yo and immigrant documentation comes in the form of tattoos.

To say or imply that the Dems today are revealing a one-party alliance with the CIA as the head of the national security state snake that goes back over 60 years to the assassination of a Dem president, likely the most-beloved Dem president post-FDR, seems like a serious stretch to me. And what Morley says about balloon-lipped Rep. Luna here is kinda bullshit - just before where I begin the next clip from the hearing regarding Epstein, she goes on and on about largely-unrelated but definitely-partisan matters like the Chinese virus and the laptop from hell.

Beyond that, what I saw of this (I hit my wall about halfway through) reminded me of the Jordan committee and the testimony of Taibbi, Shellenberger (and RFK Jr as well), where the battle was essentially between right-wing conspiracy and left-wing intellectual denial. I wrote a piece on the Twitterfilers’ day in the sun in March 2023 titled Matt Taibbi Goes Full Congressional, and this is the first paragraph of that piece:

*Sigh* So that was painful. Painful because it turned out to be a childish Dem-GOP pissing match, of course, and also because I know the vast majority of people watching it, mainstream or alt, inevitably took a side on that, essentially cheering for their team. But beyond that, digging through all the crap, it focused on exactly what I would have predicted it would: the intelligence agencies’ efforts to influence Twitter censorship, as agents for “the government”.

After watching this hearing for an hour or so I felt exactly the same.

Continuing, Greenwald and Morley reveal their political interests and biases and flaws related to this matter:

Morley connects the death of JFK directly with the neocon warmongering that has defined US foreign policy in this century, which is a flawed analysis that at minimum requires Vietnam to bridge the gap between Dallas in 1963 and the birth of neoconservatism no earlier than 1967, with the Six Day War and the rise of the Vietnam anti-war movement on the Dem left. To make that linkage as solid as he frames it requires a narrative that has the Jews killing JFK not only to assure US support for “the security of Israel” but also to amp up the cold war with the USSR, or hated mother Russia in ethno-terms.

In other words, the faction that ended the Vietnam Syndrome with Bush Sr’s first Gulf War in 1991 and drove all the wars since then, the neocons and their ethno-allies, is claimed by Morley to have existed as such in 1963 and one assumes reversed Kennedy’s position of retreat from Vietnam under LBJ. And I think that’s badly-flawed analysis, you simply cannot define Vietnam as a neocon war because they didn’t even exist as such then. And generalizing US warmongering since 1963 erases the neocon ethnic component, which again creates a fatally-flawed analysis that would lead to things like American Jews having no particular culpability in the US government’s blind support for mass murder in Gaza. It’s bullshit, Jeff.

In that general regard, what is missing from this discussion? This is what’s missing:

It’s missing here because Greenwald the anti-CIA Jew wants to focus on the Schlesinger “1000 pieces” memo regarding reorganizing the evil CIA to clip its wings, and not on what was revealed about any Israeli role in Dallas. Pure misdirection, as always from this slippery blue worm. And Morley doesn’t even understand Greenwald’s politics, having implied at the beginning that Glenn is on the left instead of the extreme neo-libertarian right, of course without Greenie correcting him.

More on Morley’s naive political view from his appearance on Rising Points mentioned by Greenwald:

I suppose it’s understandable that Jeff misreads the political intent of Rising Points, even talking to committed radical righty Cigaar. I’m not sure the founders even understand that. 😁

I think his link between war and JFK is kind of fishing for an answer, and my view is that it has more to do with anti-establishment narratives more broadly, including the MIC demonization and the legacy of Vietnam, especially related to LBJ. But related to that, it’s also somewhat about the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance, of course, the nodes of anti-war sentiment in American politics, their greatest commonality.

When he talks about COINTELPRO targeting the left what he’s actually talking about is targeting the New Left, which is the waspy deep state intelligence agencies going after a series of predominantly Jewish-led revolutionary social movements starting with civil rights, with residual echoes of communism remaining - see the smearing of ML King as a communist, mostly related to his connection to people like the Jew Stanley Levison and future blackface neocon Bayard Rustin.

Then he gets to Angleton and the Israelis. His framing of that and COINTELPRO is kind of internalized Zionism versus Bolshevism all over again, with the intelligence agencies allying with Israel while battling the red menace. Then Cigaar gets to Ben Shapiro’s “who cares?”, which gets us back to Greenwald:

Chomsky is of course notorious for his “who cares?” on JFK, but also on 9/11. And let’s remember that Greenwald was called the heir to Chomsky over a decade ago, at least by Amy Goodman, and that both Greenwald and Chomsky can be called libertarians, Gnome the anarcho-syndicalist an old school Marxist left libertarian while Greenie is a next-gen pro-oligarchy neo-libertarian on the right, at least in my opinion.

Gnome is also a structuralist, in the opinion of PD Scott, and I suppose one could say that Greenwald is as well, in the sense that his fundamental public self-definition is based on a few broad, high-level principled philosophies: free speech absolutism, anti-imperialism anti-war, opposition to his national security state related to both, social libertarianism, that kind of thing. And just like with Gnome, that all serves to cover up his self-identified Jewishness underlying his actual politics.

But the bottom line is that in this interview the word “Israel” is never spoken, even though the two big revelations in the documents according to Morley are the CIA stuff in the Schlesinger memo and the Israel stuff in the Angleton closed testimony transcripts. Greenwald clearly chose what he wanted to talk about and what he didn’t. Even though his final question was on Angleton, it wasn’t about Israel.

Btw, I have read the transcript of that Angleton testimony, linked to me by reader Desert Ramada (thanks!), and there is a lot of fascinating stuff in it beyond Israel. But I won’t go into that now.

Back to the hearing, Luna and Morley:

Okay, so a direct answer to a direct question under oath, and Morley does the expected: it’s the CIA and the military-industrial complex, stupid. And Israel is out, at least as a driver in the op. Instead it’s the Ghost Angleton and the ghost of expelled Allen Dulles, and also-expelled (to NATO in Europe and Operation Gladio) Lyman Lemnitzer and Curtis “Bombs Away!” LeMay on the joint chiefs. It’s like the last half-century simply didn’t happen. Interpolation would suggest that 9/11 was the same evil forces, with Big Oil thrown in as Bush and Cheney were Texas oilmen, perhaps the third group in JFK/Dallas if Morley was forced to expand further.

Have we learned nothing in the last 18 months?

RFK and the Somewhat Speakable but Largely Incoherent?

Sticking with Kennedys but shifting from the dark past to the dark present, and the apparent rumor mill on RFK Jr’s image problems and a theory to explain that away with minimal self-inflicted pain. This example from Sabby Sabs, who seems to still be figuring out how to define herself after playing her small role in bringing Trump to power, that outcome also thanks to The Deal made with RFK Jr that got him the HHS job. Or rather it’s Sabby utilizing fellow black female talking head Candy-O, who seems to have been on a roll since she separated herself from one of the worst of the worst, pencilneck Beanie Benjy Shap.

“I don’t think anyone was harsher towards RFK Jr than I was.” I think anytime you hear anyone say anything like that you know it’s bullshit. I didn’t really listen to Salvati back then, but when RFK first announced his Dem run he was really the only candidate with any chance to unseat hated Biden, and it’s hard for me to believe that she was fully throwing him under the bus pre-Shmuley. But I also don’t know how much 10/7 triggered her animosity toward “the Biden-Harris administration” (as it came to be known) either, so I suppose it’s theoretically possible that what she had for him was mostly all negative then. I think maybe one of the first times I listened to her pod was after he’d announced in her Boston, and if so it seems like she was kind of neutral, wait and see, in my misty memory.

To refresh my understanding I went back to see what I could find from the beginning of his run, and here is a discussion with anti-covidian nutter/liar Kim Iversen in April 2023 where they get to RFK Jr in a segment on the pandemic:

So her criticism of him then basically came down to two things: he was running as a Democrat and he wasn’t criticizing Biden sufficiently out of the box; there’s also a hint of criticizing Trump too much, which Kim takes and runs with on the technicality that the authority on lockdowns isn’t centralized in the federal government. There was simply nothing that the president could do - so that’s what he did, nothing.

That of course was the consequence of Sabby feeling burned by the Dems and Bernie in 2016 and 2020 and her decision to define herself as a third party advocate in 2024. One has to ask if RFK Jr had pulled out of the Dem race to go indie before Ashkenazi covid immunity and Shmuley, and before 10/7 and total capitulation to Zionism, if she would have been supportive of his campaign. My money is on yes, and that’s an important thought more broadly.

That simply isn’t “harsher than anyone” on RFK, what it is was slightly more circumspect than a significant chunk of oppositionalists in the alternative space, including Kim who was all wet with RFK fever but had the same problem with Democrat Derangement Syndrome, also arising out of Bernie’s ethno-oppositionalism and the Original Steal.

If you’re interested, here is how I assessed RFK Jr at that time, relying in part on what Kimmy was saying then but also on what Blumenthal was saying. I think I can rightly say I was harsher than any of them:

Then Candy-O tells a story about an ex-CIA agent who ended up married to RFK’s son, treating that as a smoking gun and throwing in the usual required bits like “once CIA, always CIA”. But would she ever say, “once a Jew, always a Jew”? I’m not sure. Would Sabby find it a bit odd if RFK had hired a Jew to replace Denny K to run his campaign instead? Maybe a Jew who married into the family like Jared Kushner? Of course not, she can’t even utter the word out loud.

Btw, Fox’s mother remarried to a Jew, a moneyed Hollywood producer, Steven Rales, in 2012. Fox married RFK III in 2018, when there was no reason to believe RFK Jr would ever seriously run for president or end up in a cabinet position. In fact that marriage occurred much closer to the onset of covid, where RFK Jr played a much greater role spreading essentially propaganda, consistent with his anti-vaxxing prior to Fox meeting RFK III. So why doesn’t Candy consider the possibility that that was the CIA op, spreading bullshit about covid? We all know why - the stories one tells are only the ones that fit their politics and narratives.

All through this Candy displays signs of ignorance, like her description of Aung San Suu Kyi, whose name she gets wrong. She claims people who can’t control themselves tend to end up being controlled by others, her followers no doubt nodding along in agreement with her wisdom, when it seems at least as logical that someone who can’t even control themselves is unlikely to be controllable by others. And then she refers to herself in the third person, a behavior which to me suggests two things, egotistical arrogance and stupidity. Finally, she makes this a left-right thing - OMG, this person is going after Trumptard conservatives like Tucker the Fucker! Who wanted to be CIA, btw…

More:

A foreign car in Malibu! That must stick out like a sore thumb! I saw a Datsun in Newport Beach once, but Malibu?? What sticks out likely is what a junker it is. Here is that “car” in more pristine condition, from a British manufacturer that was bought out by Peugeot 45 years ago:

OMG, the plate says RKO, which must mean Robert Kennedy Orgasms! Of course that’s not as bad as RFK 666, which is what Candy is implying the full plate says. This is dumb-ass shit like numerology that is the obsession of many neo-Birchers and the like, the belief that all the agents of evil in the world are obsessed with leaving little hints of who they really are and what they’re up to. In all likelihood that plate is older than the woman who owns the car that she probably doesn’t even drive. I mean, would you drive that pile of junk? In Malibu?? 😱

Then Candy says, “We all kinda know who killed JFK” and seems to imply that it was Israel. If so, how long has Candy known this? Did she know this when she worked for/with Zionist extremist Ben “Die, Goyische, Die!” Shapiro? Or is she a complete newbie on the right-wing conspiracy thing, and never had a negative thought about Jews prior to 10/7 and her conversion to (conservative) Catholicism shortly after that? In fact the percentage of Americans who think the Jews, Israeli or otherwise, killed JFK must be microscopic.

Saying “we all kinda know” makes much more sense if she’s talking about the CIA, but then why does she go on to talk about Israel? Does she think the CIA and the Mossad are basically the same thing and have been since the 1950s? What about Bush Sr, as much of a Rockefellerist deep state operative as has ever occupied the Big Chair, ending CIA reliance on Israeli intelligence in the mid-’70s as DCI?

She utilizes fellow righty Dave Smith to express outrage over RFK’s support of Israeli mass murder, as opposed to getting into the kind of Israeli propaganda and lies he believes and echoes as detailed by someone like Blumenthal, and doesn’t even bother to show his response to Smith so we can all judge that for what it was. Then it’s on to Shmuley, and we all know why he attached himself to that scumbag - his dumbass after-dinner conversation about his brand of “covid science” that stepped over the thin blue line. Oops. And then came 10/7.

Sabby’s argument against Candy’s thoughtful analysis turned out to be what Denny K said after leaving the campaign and being asked by Sabby about RFK being a Zio-loon, and he said of the Bobber, “Israel never has had a stronger supporter than Robert F. Kennedy Jr” - remember what I said about those kinds of statements… although this might be the exception that proves the rule. 😁 She also said Joseph Kennedy’s mob connections would suggest that the family knows how to deal with blackmailers, which was unconvincing to say the least. She never said anything about the example of his own father’s death as a cautionary tale regarding crossing a certain ethnostate.

So what’s going on here? Again, let’s get this plane up to 35,000 feet and look at the big picture. RFK Jr became an oppositional hero when covid turned him from being a minor anti-vaxx loon extremist into almost a prophet of doom on what the left establishment was doing to America in that massive op, concocted by the demonic Faustian Fauci and financed by Billionaire Bill Gates, the occupant of the pyramid penthouse. So his moment had arrived, and he decided it was enough to perhaps make him president, or at least enough to somehow allow him to really make his mark in the area of his greatest bullshit. But then he went into spasms of full-on Jew worship in the most offensive of ways, first Shmuley-sucking in public and then the 10/7 onset of Hamas Derangement Syndrome.

But oppositionalism doesn’t let go of their heroes so easily, especially the greatest one arising out of the Great Distraction of covid. So they turn to the shelf to pull out an Ivermectin-like narrative cure for that, and that narrative is political blackmail. He’s not a bad guy, he’s still a good guy but one who is also a sex addict and has gotten trapped by the real bad guys by that unfortunate weakness.

And who is trapping him? That’s not entirely clear here, but there’s a pretty powerful suggestion that it’s the all-time oppositional villain - not Israel but rather the CIA. Which will eventually get us to the Chomsky Theorem (echoed by Larry Wilkerson), that it’s the US, the US deep state, that really tells Israel what to do. And for the most part that leads them back to the CIA and not the Jews who dominate the 21st century US deep state.

Finally, I want to make clear what my view is and has been on the JFK assassination, just for the record. I think it was rightly called a deep event, including in the sense that it was the deep state that decided he had to go. The deep state was then controlled by the WASP Rockefellerist faction, and the CIA had been constructed in part to be their operational arm in the American empire resulting from the consequences of WWII. But the Jewish/Zionist faction was rising from the ashes of the effective end of communism in America a decade earlier, and I think the argument that they played a role is compelling. I do believe that the component most likely to have played a major role is the CIA, who I think coordinated and executed the hit. But it wasn’t their decision that JFK had to be eliminated, that decision was made by various components of the deep state, the list of suspects we all know from decades of theorizing. Including the one that Douglas didn’t talk about in his book.

Beyond the CIA we know that there were elements of anti-Castro Cubans and the mafia and others involved in aspects of the op, including the autopsy at Bethesda (the MIC thing). We also know that two of the best-known players in the drama, Jack Ruby and Abraham Zapruder, were Jews. On one level the operation was perhaps an attack by the WASP and Jewish factions of the deep state on the third, the Catholic faction and their principle face in the public state. This is the triple melting pot angle. The Catholic faction took a real beating through the sixties, including the elimination of RFK in ‘68 utilizing a Palestinian lone nut, and the Jewish faction went through a spectacular rise at that same time, including the roots of the 21st century deep state that they would dominate with neoconservatism, neoliberalism and cultural Marxism. And we know that JFK was acting in opposition to two key components of that faction and its rise, the Jewish lobby and the Israeli nuclear bomb program. Oh, and he also insisted that ML King disassociate himself from Stanley Levison, the former commie, if he wanted a friend in the White House.

In any case, what we have here are really three Kennedys whose political impact on the nation was potentially reduced, corrupted or ended altogether by actions which may have involved Israel and its ethno-supporters. JFK and RFK Sr were simply terminated without prejudice, and RFK Jr’s oppositional campaign was twisted by his desperate latching onto Shmuley and then backing Israel to the wall post-10/7 equally as offensively. The senior Kennedys had to die because they were made of sterner stuff, but pliable little Junior could be dealt with with less finality, greater ease and even with a touch of comedy, turning him into a pathetic but still dangerous clown. Dangerous to his own supporters, that is, the goy cattle who will be the pawns in his experiments with American health.

But the oppositional right doesn’t let go of their heroes easily, so…