Famous JFK Half-Quotes Are Half-Truths. Deliberate Half-Truths Are Lies.
Maybe Well-Intentioned, Many People Cherry-Pick Quotes, Leave Out Pits.
Foreword: The president of the United States was murdered on November 22, 1963. The directors and the multiple shooters of that assassination of John F. Kennedy were never brought to justice. Every president since then has helped the treasonous cover-up. These facts alone should stir real Americans to unite and perform a complete sweep of our infested government. When we add the more recent crimes committed by the same infestation: 9/11, self-destructive wars, and the bankers’ national robbery of us — to name only three — there’s just no excuse for our people’s inaction. We must Defend Ourselves.
We all want to hold onto somebody as a hero or as an admirable person, a model of the kind of people we need now. Many people look back to President John F. Kennedy as the last good president.
Well, my purpose today is not to argue for or against. My purpose is to put the fruit that fell from his mouth back together again, pits and all. The evidence will speak for itself, conclusively.
Two quotes in particular are of special interest to me and, I hope, to all Americans who want the full truth.
- The most famous quote is from the “secret societies” speech (full transcript below).
- And the other is about Adolf Hitler.
Let’s take the short one first.
JFK’s cherry and pit on Hitler
I haven’t read JFK’s diaries nor have I read a book containing his diary entries, but apparently the Institute for Historical Research has. In that publication’s article linked here, JFK is described as having taken a trip to Germany in 1945, soon after World War 2 ended there. JFK was 28 years old, and Germany lay destroyed by the Allies. The “Allies” were Russia, the United States of America, and England, to name the biggies. (Yes, Joseph Stalin’s jew-controlled Soviet Russia and the USA were allies against Hitler’s White Germany. Doesn’t that provide a giant clue to who the one honest leader was?)
In Germany, Kennedy toured various locations, including Hitler’s residence.
I highly recommend the article linked above. I’m fighting the temptation to write about other details in the article. I’ll stick to the main point.
Admirable web-writers who have overcome criminal-jewry’s monumental lies about Adolf Hitler have quoted Kennedy’s diary entry in regard to Hitler. Here’s the quote some of them have used:
“[W]ithin a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived.”
And some quoters include a bit more:
“He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
Well, that’s nice. But it’s not the whole quote. As rendered by the Institute for Historical Research, the full quote is this:
“After visiting these places, you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived.
He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
You see the difference. JFK said Hitler’s ambition “rendered him a menace to the peace of the world.” That is wrong. Anyone who has read enough of World War 2 history, including the mass of material written and spoken by Hitler himself and translated into English, knows that Hitler was not the menace to peace. FDR, Churchill, and Stalin wanted the war and conspired to make it happen, using Poland as an excuse. One would think that Kennedy knew better than that ignorant quote.
JFK’s father had been an international player with top jews not only in the liquor business but as ambassador to England. England’s prime minister prior to the heinous Winston Churchill was Neville Chamberlain, who knew Hitler was not a menace to the peace of the world. Jews charged Chamberlain with “appeasing” Hitler and forced Chamberlain out. From the jew point of view, there was a danger of real peace breaking out with Hitler and Chamberlain in charge.
The jew version of “peace” is jews controlling everything and the rest of us being their “peaceful,” oppressed workers, at best.
JFK, knowing his place as a man being groomed for high office, surely wrote his diary with the future in mind. Of course, if I’m wrong, then JFK didn’t actually write the “menace” phrase, and it was added later by the controllers of published history for public consumption.
Hitler was the last honest and admirable leader of a major country in modern history. Criminal jewry reversed that truth. The full Kennedy quote follows the jew agenda.
JFK’s ‘Secret Societies’ and the missing pit
A much more popular quote by JFK is from his speech about secret societies and related matters. Kennedy’s title for the speech was actually “The President and the Press.” We can do a search on google or yahoo or whatever and find many published excerpts and published videos that include the actual sound recording of that speech.
The problem, of course, is that in their zeal to promote JFK as good or to promote the truth that secret groups exist, the quoters use only the part they like. And then there are the copycats who simply re-publish the quotes without even trying to check the original.
JFK surely made some good and true statements about our domestic enemies who swear secret oaths and have conspired to undermine and overthrow the main culture of the Founding Fathers and subsequent Americans who grew this country to greatness.
But President Lyndon Baines Johnson said some great things, too, didn’t he? And President Richard Nixon said some great things, too, right? And Ford — well, no, not Ford. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have said some great things, too, haven’t they? Mixed with the great, they also said some truth about their treasonous intentions. And then the actions of all of those presidents proved their treasonous intentions.
Well, JFK’s speech about secret societies likewise proved his intentions. The other side, the dark side, the truth he spoke that day, couched between passages of humor and lip-service to our “free and open society,” was a call to increase government secrecy for “national security.”
The key sentence is this one:
“I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.”
And Kennedy went into striking detail about it. Please read the two-faced speech of 27 April 1961 for yourself in the full transcript below. Or listen to the full speech at this jfklibrary link. After the transcript, I’ll have some critical and closing remarks.
The transcript was originally found at this link. I made slight corrections. A full transcript is also at the above jfklibrary link.
“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days, and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the Cold War.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my con trol. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said — and your newspapers have constantly said — that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of national security?” And I hope that every group in America — unions and businessmen and public officials at every level — will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation — an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people — to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well — the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security — and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder, and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”
END OF TRANSCRIPT
Marx and Meat
JFK started the speech by repeating jewry’s tale of Karl Marx’s beginnings, thus making that heinous jew a sympathetic character. Why would Kennedy do such a thing? Most people, being ignorant about history, will take JFK’s statements as truth, as if Marx could have been caressed into being an honest assimilated jew instead of an enemy. But for those of us who know, this kind of presidential propaganda is sickening. However, it’s likely that Kennedy brought up Marx to suggest, without saying the word “Communism,” that Communism is that “secret society.”
Kennedy had to have known that jews created Communism to dupe and undermine, foremost, the Eur-Asians of Russia and China. For us, jews created Capitalism to undermine our republic of free Commerce for all, as the Constitution stipulates. Look them up: Both Communism and Capitalism were created in the 1800s by the jews Karl Marx and his jew comrades. However, JFK let his audience imagine that he was talking about Communism, and in the USA, the general public did not know that Communism=Jews. Thus, jews were being protected by JFK’s speech, and he surely knew what he was doing.
Now, as we turn to the meat of JFK’s speech, I want to say that surely there was no need to increase government operative secrecy.
Crypto-jew President Franklin Roosevelt (and link here) had established plenty of secrecy in his treasonous, four-term reign. Crypto-jew President Harry “S” Truman came next and signed the establishment of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a secretive governmental crime operation. Crypto-jew President Dwight David Eisenhower presided over a massive increase in the entire Military Industrial Intelligence Complex, and then he had the audacity to issue his famous “warning” that the Military Industrial Complex could become a threat to our Constitutional republic. Before becoming president, Eisenhower, as general “Ike” (a common jew nickname), had presided over the mass starvation-murders of a million German prisoners. That’s a crime against humanity. Eisenhower should have been hung at Nuremberg, not honest Hitler’s loyal men.
And then Eisenhower presided over the cover-up, the confiscation of documents all over Europe, and the storing of them out of sight of the American people to this day. Jewry rewarded him with two terms in the White House.
JFK followed Eisenhower. JFK needed more governmental secrecy? Absurd.
Now, in JFK’s defense, we can say that the fact of his being murdered — by multiple shooters not Lee Harvey Oswald — seems to be proof that Kennedy was not a jew and that Kennedy attempted to do some good along with the bad. Jewry murdered him for it. What did he attempt? Various historians and investigative writers cite one or both of the following:
- JFK’s Executive Order on printing money independent of the jews’ Federal Reserve Bank system.
- JFK’s opposition to Israel becoming a nuclear-weapons power.
But if JFK was a true American, we have to ask why he didn’t tell the American people the full truth about jewry’s control of those secret societies. Why didn’t he tell the full truth about jewry’s control of media, Hollywood, Las Vegas, education policy, the medical system, the legal system, and whatever else he knew? If he had told the people, the people would have had a chance to rise up against the enemy network and to protect the “Profile In Courage” president. But JFK had no such courage.
Kennedy didn’t even say the word “jew.” Let me explain further about the perception of Communism at that time. When Kennedy made that speech, the public had already been fed mass doses of “Communism from the Soviet Union is the enemy.” It was only a few years earlier that Senator Joseph McCarthy had conducted his very public effort against “Communists” in the government, Hollywood, and elsewhere in our country. McCarthy chose to use the word “Communists” rather than “jews,” which would have been the exactly accurate name for the Enemy.
The late great American historian Eustace Mullins wrote that he, Mullins, had informed McCarthy of the jews of Communism, but McCarthy chose the “safer” term. And what good did “safer” do him? He was still railroaded, tarred, and feathered by the jew-owned media and the jew-controlled government — with crypto-jew Eisenhower as president.
The lower-level dupes in the press (I used to be one of those, in my former ignorance, working for the former Nashville Banner daily newspaper) and the small segment of the public who might have heard or read JFK’s words would have thought “Communists” and not “jews.” Kennedy knew it. Here comes the nail in the coffin. Kennedy said:
“For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage;”
That is a direct reference to what Soviet leaders had said. It is not meant as a reference to jews. (Jews in the USA had already owned, for example, the New York Times for six decades and had no need for the theft, bribery, nor espionage.) Other statements could be culled from JFK’s speech to further prove my point.
Thus, we can discard this speech as part of what got JFK in trouble with criminal-jewry. The speech was to keep Communism as the boogeyman (thus keeping attention off jewry in the U.S.), and to increase secrecy, thus further enabling criminal jewry. Also, the speech was cover for the jew media (ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine, etc.) to continue withholding the truth from us.
Why then did jewry murder JFK? We have only his supposed interfering with jewry’s control of our money and his reported interfering in illegal-Israel’s affairs in regard to nuclear weapons.
The late great Revilo P. Oliver, writing in the truly patriotic Liberty Bell magazine of the 1970s-1990s, tackled this subject. His amazing article is titled “Killing Kennedy.” (Link to the article only, opens as a pdf file. However, in that pdf, the footnotes are confusingly disorganized and repeated. Link to the entire issue of the October 1992 Liberty Bell, highly recommended, opens as a pdf.)
In this article, Oliver refers to a previous article he had published, which had stirred readers to request that he write more on the assassination. Why is Prof. Oliver an authoritative source? Number One: Oliver was not a jew. Also, Oliver worked for Intelligence during World War 2, before Oliver realized that our government is not ours and is jew infested. Oliver maintained patriotic sources of information. Furthermore, he was a scholar of history in a very deep sense. Thus, readers were correct in clamoring for Oliver to write more on the assassination of JFK.
Referring to his previous article, Oliver wrote:
In my article I indicated the major motive for the assassination of Kennedy: the need to abort the growing dissatisfaction of the American people with a government that was obviously acting in the interests of our enemies, the masters of Communist Russia—a dissatisfaction that had been brought close to the boiling point by the Indignation Meetings held throughout the country, which were sponsored by patriotic Americans in Dallas.
This purpose was achieved and the pro-American movement liquidated by the assassination, followed by a spectacular funeral for which the Army detachment had been diligently rehearsed in advance and at which Jacqueline Kennedy gave a brilliant performance. A well-contrived deluge of wildly irrational bathos in the press and over television sufficed to reduce the majority of Americans to the status of savages who beat their breasts and howl when their big chief dies.
Oliver was not one to withhold his sarcasm for the enemy and for the seemingly willfully ignorant sheeple.
Later in the article, Oliver gets to the subject of the famous Executive Order 11110. More than that, though, Oliver tells us about JFK’s supposed popularity, which is information the jew media never tell us about their myth of “Camelot,” do they?
Now Executive Order No. 11110 is indexed in the Federal Register as pertaining to treasury notes and silver certificates, and the reported tenor of it was quite plausible. It was even possible, though unlikely, that the amount mentioned had been printed, although not put into circulation. The report therefore was not invalidated by a
mistake about Kennedy’s intent and about the effect of Lincoln’s issue of ‘greenbacks.’
It must be remembered that in the autumn of 1963, Kennedy’s popularity had been greatly impaired and he could not have been reelected in 1964 without some heroic effort to regain the favor he had lost. (See the appendix below). It would have been reasonable for him to try some spectacular manoeuvre that would be commended by many of the intelligent Americans whom his conduct in office had alienated and angered—especially a manoeuvre that seemed to avert national bankruptcy and to limit the looting of the country by the Federal Reserve. His administration, furthermore, was riddled by fighting for power within it, and such an order, even if never carried out, would have sufficed to intimidate some factions.
There appeared to be a real rift within the organization of our rulers (as distinct from dissent simulated to entertain the populace). A correspondent kindly informs me that he clearly remembers that, not long before Kennedy was expunged, Eisenhower appeared on television irately to denounce Kennedy for plans to tamper with the sacrosanct Federal Reserve, going so far as to regret that he had not campaigned for Nixon and thus assured his election in place of Kennedy. Since I almost never watch the Jews’ picture-shows, I did not see that program. I do have vague recollections of very adverse criticism of Kennedy by the Super-Sheeny, Avraham ben Elazar, alias Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was probably the Jewish satrap in charge of supervising the government in Washington. This seemed to indicate an internal struggle among our rulers, possibly a struggle between two factions of the ruling race.
As you can see, the Oliver article is a must-read. I have excerpted only a tiny portion of it. Continue reading it to learn about Abraham Lincoln, the Federal Reserve, and Oliver’s assertion that JFK’s action on money would simply be “a new ‘greenback’ swindle.” Kennedy’s Secretary of the U.S. Treasury was C. Douglas Dillon, of course a jew.
In a footnote, Oliver completes his overturning of what we have been “taught” about Executive Order 11110:
And so, needless to say, it was not revoked by Johnson after the assassination made him President. Kennedy’s last Executive Order 11127, 9 November 1963, concerned a strike on the Florida East Coast Railway. Johnson’s first orders were 11128, giving Federal employees a holiday on Monday, 25 November; 11129, extolling Kennedy and renaming the Atlantic Missile Range in his honor; and 11130, appointing the Warren Commission.
Israel’s Nuclear Weapons
The only subject left is the question of whether JFK went against jewry by standing in the way of Israel becoming a nuclear-weapons power.
At this point, in light of all of the above information, it is nearly impossible to believe such a story. However, what if JFK did, temporarily, block Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons? What if JFK did block Israel from finishing the nuclear-weapons production facility widely reported as being started in the late 1950s underground at Dimona? We have no need for that as an additional reason for jewry to kill him. But if true, it would fit with jewry’s historic behavior, though it would not fit JFK’s. By the way, how about that Dimona being started during the 1950s? Started during jew Eisenhower’s presidency, and not a peep from “Ike” about it. That is because Ike was a jew.
The above evidence is surely enough damning evidence about JFK, and yet I have more, which I intend to include in a shorter article to follow this one. (Update, 9 Dec. 2012: Part 2 is here.) For now, let us conclude this article with the following points.
Communism has been replaced by Terrorism as the boogeyman keeping attention off jewry, which most people don’t realize. (Terrorism is another jew orchestration. Look at 9/11: Jews controlled every agency and company directly involved, from Larry Silverstein to Michael Chertoff.) Likewise, most people don’t know that Communism = Jewry. Marx and Engels, who JFK mentioned, were jews.
In regard to the “secret societies” partial quote by JFK that has been widely repeated on the Internet, it is fair to think that most people believe Kennedy — especially when they hear a clip of the recording of the speech — right?
So, what’s keeping our people from a proper reaction to JFK’s message and warning? I have Questions for my fellow Americans.
- Which part of “secret society” do our fellow Americans not understand?
- Which part of “a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” do our fellow Americans not understand?
- Which part of “..military, government, education …” do our fellow Americans not understand?
JFK didn’t say “jews” because he was deliberately protecting them. Otherwise, he was correct. The secret society is monolithic: “mono” means one. It is one ruthless conspiracy around the world. And just as “monotheism” means one god, “monolithic” means one entity. That entity is the jew race.
(For readers who see the word “race” and go woozy, read this one recent article as a pdf file by the late J. Philippe Rushton, professor of evolutionary psychology. The reality of race is proved and plain to see. For that link and much more, see the TopLinks page right here on www!)
For Americans who still think that perhaps Muslims are the ultimate enemy, or a group of White men, or other nonjews, consider the following. If jews are not the ultimate enemy, then it would have to be explained how a nonjew power has allowed jews to own the Federal Reserve Bank System, own our media, own Hollywood, flood the top jobs in higher education, flood every president’s administration, and on and on. State your case. Otherwise, get on board, people. Get on board. JFK died in 1963, and he said it was already a worldwide conspiracy throughout governments, military, education, etc. JFK was murdered by them. We’ve spent our entire lives under their network of treason and oppression. Enough already. Enough.
Rise up. Choose the Solution activity that fits your capabilities. Do it. In Self Defense, in defense of our families, in defense of our race, and in defense of our White-founded White-built country. Do it now and untill it’s done. Don’t wait for others to show the way. That’s what too many others are doing already. Step up. Help show the way. They will follow.
Whites Will Win! — again.
James T. Laffrey