Classic EssaysRevilo P. Oliver

Killing Kennedy

by Revilo P. Oliver

GIVEN THE INTEREST that readers of Liberty Bell have expressed in my article in the July issue, pp. 1-12, I now reluctantly return to the hackneyed subject of the assassination of Jackanapes Kennedy in Dallas on 22 November 1963, to clarify two points that I mentioned obiter in July.


My article dealt with the American Medical Association, which had mobilized two squads of tame physicians to discredit the widely shown cinema “J.F.K.” and an almost concurrently published book by one of the physicians who had been on duty in the Parkland Hospital in Dallas when Kennedy’s body was brought into the hospital. It was a desperate attempt to cover up the patent absurdity of the report on the assassination that had been contrived by a commission over which presided Earl Warren, one of the participants in the conspiracy that had expunged a President who had become a political liability.

The book in question is JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, by Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw, assisted by Jens K. Hansen, a professional writer and Vice Chairman of a Research Foundation, and J. Gary Shaw, the director of the JFK Assassination Information Center in Dallas, published in New York by the New American Library (a subsidiary of Penguin Books) in April 1992.

The core of the book is the personal observations of Dr. Crenshaw, then a man of thirty, who, although subject to his seniors, could be described, by analogy to military practice, as the executive officer of the hospital, since he was in charge of interns (among whom, by the way, his insistence on absolute accuracy gained him a reputation as a martinet) and of the treatment of persons critically injured in accidents or by gunfire. He was on duty when the bodies of Kennedy and of Oswald, the supposed assassin, were brought to the Parkland Hospital and he witnessed everything that was done medically while the bodies were in the hospital, participating himself in much of the work. His account is printed in a distinguishing typeface (Helvetica).

Mr. Shaw supplied, from the data accumulated in the Assassination Information Center over a period of twenty-seven years, the information concerning events of which Dr. Crenshaw had no personal knowledge, which are succinctly summarized in strict chronological order and limited to essentials. (1) Mr. Hansen’s contribution, I suppose, was stylistic, so I think him responsible for the passages in which the writing descends to crude journalese.

(1. He, for example, does not mention the reports that the corpse, presumably Kennedy’s, was taken to the Walter Reed Hospital in Washington before it was transferred to the naval hospital in Bethesda. There had obviously been hanky-panky after the corpse left Dallas, if its condition when it reached the hospital in Bethesda was truthfully reported, and it does not really matter where the mischief was done. Nothing categorically excludes a possible substitution of cadavers, but an attempt to patch up the corpse to conceal vital evidence is much more likely. At Bethesda the physicians who conducted a rather perfunctory autopsy found the entry wound of a bullet in Kennedy’s back, thus ostensibly showing that he had been shot from the rear–but by a bullet from a comparatively low-powered gun, since there was no corresponding exit wound in his chest–unless, of course, the enchanted bullet climbed up and exited from his throat, where the entry wound observed in Dallas had been enlarged to make it appear an exit wound. Kennedy’s back had not been inspected in Dallas, since, in the absence of bleeding and an exit wound in the chest, there was no reason to suppose there was a wound there. Mr. Shaw does not speculate about the possibility that the wound in the back was added when the cadaver was worked over in Washington to provide some indication that Kennedy had been shot from the rear by that poor, lorn critter, Oswald, as the official cover-up required.)

The book cannot in any sense be regarded as inspired by the “right wing.” Dr. Crenshaw, who is now Clinical Professor of Surgery at the University of Texas’s Southwestern Medical School and Director of the Department of Surgery in the affiliated Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, is undoubtedly a highly skilled physician and surgeon, but his political naïveté‚ is astonishing, almost astounding, when one remembers that he, by the time that Oswald was dead, was in a position to know that the assassination of Kennedy had been contrived by some part of the government in Washington. Nevertheless, even today, he denounces “extreme [!] political factions, like the John Birch Society,” and reports that, on the morning of 22 November he was (and presumably still is) shocked by a full-page article in a newspaper that “viciously attacked the integrity of President Kennedy” and described him as a Communist and traitor. Unless he is referring to some handbill or fugitive publication that has not come to my attention, he must have in mind the full-page paid advertisement that appeared that morning in the Dallas Morning News and occupied page 14 of the first section, an advertisement of which a drastically reduced photograph appears herewith.

Dallas Morning News ad
The big advertisement did not explicitly make the charges remembered by Dr. Crenshaw, but implied them in a series of questions which are here reprinted:

MR. KENNEDY, despite the contentions on the part of your administration, the State Department, the Mayor of Dallas, the Dallas City Council, and members of your party, we free-thinking and American-thinking citizens of Dallas still have, through a Constitution largely ignored by you, the right to address our grievances, to question you, to disagree with you, and to criticize you.In asserting this constitutional right, we wish to ask you publicly the following questions–indeed, questions of paramount importance and interest to all free people everywhere–which we trust you will answer…in public, without sophistry. These questions are:

WHY is Latin America turning either anti-American or Communistic, or both, despite increased U.S. foreign aid, State Department policy, and your own Ivy-Tower pronouncements?

WHY do you say we have built a “wall of freedom” around Cuba when there is no freedom in Cuba today? Because of your policy, thousands of Cubans have been imprisoned, are starving and being persecuted–with thousands already murdered and thousands more awaiting execution and, in addition, the entire population of almost 7,000,000 Cubans are living in slavery.

WHY have you approved the sale of wheat and corn to our enemies when you know the Communist soldiers “travel on their stomachs” just as ours do? Communist soldiers are daily wounding and/or killing American soldiers in South Vietnam.

WHY did you host, salute and entertain Tito–Moscow’s Trojan Horse–just a short time after our sworn enemy, Khrushchev, embraced the Yugoslav dictator as a great hero and leader of Communism?

WHY have you urged greater aid, comfort, recognition, and understanding for Yugoslavia, Poland, Hungary, and other Communist countries, while turning your back on the pleas of Hungarians, East German, Cuban and other anti-Communist freedom fighters?

WHY did Cambodia kick the U.S. out of its country after we poured nearly 400 Million Dollars of aid into its ultra-leftist government?

WHY has Gus Hall, head of the U.S. Communist Party, praised almost every one of your policies and announced that the party will endorse and support your re-election in 1964?

WHY have you banned the showing at U.S. military bases of the film “Operation Abolition”–the movie by the House Committee on Un-American Activities exposing Communism in America?

WHY have you ordered or permitted your brother Bobby, the Attorney General, to go soft on Communists, fellow-travelers, and ultra-leftists in America, while permitting him to persecute loyal Americans who criticize you, your administration, and your leadership?

WHY are you in favor of the U.S. continuing to give economic aid to Argentina, in spite of the fact that Argentina has just seized almost 400 Million Dollars of American private property?

WHY has the Foreign Policy of the United States degenerated to the point that the C.I.A. is arranging coups and having staunch Anti-Communist Allies of the U.S. bloodily exterminated?

WHY have you scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favor of the “Spirit of Moscow”?

MR. KENNEDY, as citizens of these United States of America, we DEMAND answers to these questions, and we want them NOW.

Evidently Mr. Shaw neglected to tell Dr. Crenshaw that, although the advertisement, which was entirely correct in its implication, was paid for by patriotic Americans in Dallas, that was done on the initiative of an ambiguous individual who is suspected of having been an agent provocateur. It would thus have been a preparation for an assassination that could be blamed on patriotic Americans, as was obviously part of the original plan.

Dr. Crenshaw thinks that Kennedy was so generally disliked in Dallas because he “came across [i.e., was regarded] as royalty with his money, his lifestyle, his family, and his charisma.” He does not even guess why Dallas was selected as the site for the assassination, and he thinks Kennedy could have been assassinated just as well in Chicago or anywhere else.

That so intelligent a man as Dr. Crenshaw could believe all that even today is an emphatic lesson for everyone who still hopes to break somehow the stupor of the American populace as it is herded to the precipice over which nations and races disappear from history.

Dr. Crenshaw is on solid ground when he explains, on the basis of his own knowledge, why he and the other medical men who knew what had happened at Parkland Hospital so long condoned by their silence the lies that were imposed on the public. A physician is particularly dependent on his reputation for survival in a highly competitive profession, and had he or any other physician disclosed what he knew about the assassination, he would have been deluged in slime from the Jews’ liepapers and boob-tubes, excommunicated from the occupation that was his only livelihood, reduced with his wife and child to indigence, and, if that did not suffice, murdered (probably suicided by a competent technician from the Secret Service, F.B.I., or C.I.A.). (2) Dr. Crenshaw begins by showing us the grinding routine of a resident surgeon in Parkland, which was not an ordinary hospital but instead an “academic hospital,” operating in conjunction with the Southwestern Medical School and devoted to teaching and research. Two members of its staff have won the Nobel Prize in Medicine, and Dr. Crenshaw himself, in his first year at Parkland, “made medical history” with research directed by Dr. Shires which discovered “that death from haemorrhagic shock (blood loss) can be due primarily to the body’s adjunctive depletion of salt water into the cells.” Two other physicians discovered a means of averting irreparable damage to the kidneys of a patient in trauma–a “medical breakthrough” so important that, in the opinion of persons competent to judge, it deserved a Nobel Prize.

(2. In this, Dr. Crenshaw is absolutely correct. Immediately after the assassination, when the information that appeared in the censored press made it seem certain that Oswald had killed both Kennedy and a policeman named Tippet, it was nevertheless obvious to anyone who considered the question objectively that the assassination had been the work of a conspiracy that had used Oswald as its tool. I accordingly stated that fact publicly in an issue of American Opinion, and since I had participated in the foundation of the John Birch Society and was a member of its National Council, my statement attracted attention; diseased pus spurted from almost every editorial office in the country and was lapped up by millions of nitwits. Cf. America’s Decline, pp. 163 f. Since the Warren Commission ascertained that I had no personal knowledge of the facts and had only reasoned from published information, it was not thought necessary to murder me. The episode was an unpleasant experience, but I now regret it only because it preserved the Birch Society by forcing the panic-stricken Welcher to face facts. Had I remained silent, the Birch business would probably have disintegrated in 1964 or 1965, and I would not have had to resign from it in 1966, after I succeeded in discovering who then controlled it and supervised Robert Welch.)

At the time of the assassination, Dr. Crenshaw was in charge of the four “trauma rooms” in the hospital, to which persons who had been smashed up in automobile accidents or critically wounded by gunfire were brought from all over the area around Dallas, since the hospital was specially equipped to treat such cases. It is sometimes forgotten that Governor Connally of Texas, who was riding with Kennedy, was critically wounded by a bullet that entered his chest and passed through his body (and so necessarily had been fired by a marksman ahead of the automobile). He was treated in a “trauma room” of Parkland by a second surgical team, but Dr. Crenshaw was told in detail what was done. It is his opinion that if Connally had been taken to any other hospital, he would have died. As it was, he survived and recovered from his wounds, but was politically ruined by his enemy, Lyndon Johnson, who had acquired the powers of the Presidency.

Dr. Crenshaw gives an orderly and precise account, sometimes minute by minute, of what happened in the Parkland Hospital while the bodies of Kennedy and, later, Oswald were there. His report makes obvious how muzzy, incomplete, and evasive was the story told by the three physicians who obediently recited for the Medical Association and tried to bolster Earl Warren’s hoax by such disingenuous claims as that they had been too busy to notice whether or not the bullet that entered Kennedy’s throat and the bullet that blew part of his brain out the back of his skull had come from behind him.

For the details of the condition of the body and the efforts of the physicians, see Dr. Crenshaw’s book, and see the book also for a listing of important but long suppressed contributory evidence about the assassination, presumably compiled by Mr. Shaw. (3) I shall here call attention only to points that clarify or correct what I reported in my article.

(3. He reports ascertained facts, but you should appraise them critically. Identifications made by persons not personally acquainted with the person identified are notoriously inconclusive when not corroborated by other evidence. As for the puzzling report by Rubenstein’s former employee, Rose Cheramie, in Louisiana, remember that expert technicians planning an assassination in Dallas might well have taken the precaution of providing evidence of a seemingly independent conspiracy (e.g., by agents of Castro) that could be used to cover up their own, if something went wrong. The young woman, who seems to have been known only by what was probably a “professional” name, may have invented the story she told two days before the assassination. That she was in some way implicated is shown by the fact that it was deemed expedient to murder her later.)

Kennedy, for all practical purposes, died instantly when the assassin’s second bullet destroyed the entire right half of his brain. When he was brought into the hospital, “the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at the hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear. Pieces of skull that had not been blown away were hanging by blood-matted hair.” Dr. Crenshaw and the other physicians knew, of course, that Kennedy was dead, but the action of the heart had not entirely ceased, and they made an effort to keep alive, not Kennedy, but his corpse. Had they succeeded, they would have performed a medical miracle and produced a living but mindless hulk of insentient tissue, something much more horrible than a zombie. (4)

(4. If I remember correctly, there is on record the remarkable instance of a man who survived a bullet that had passed through his head from one temple to the other, but had not destroyed any large or vital part of the brain. I feel certain that there would have been no precedent for maintenance of life in Kennedy’s corpse, but I have not tried to go through the pertinent medical textbooks. This fact evidently gave rise to a theory about the assassination of which I had not heard before I saw it mentioned by Dr. Crenshaw: that Kennedy’s cadaver is still kept obscenely alive in some subterranean vault under the Parkland Hospital!)

Jacqueline Kennedy did not wander in incipient hysteria around the room while the physicians worked. She was doubtless shocked, but she never lost self-control and remained composed at all times. At Dr. Crenshaw’s suggestion, she left the room before the efforts to preserve a semblance of life in her husband’s body began and waited outside the room until she accompanied the priest who had been summoned to administer the rite of extreme unction. (5)

(5. Despite her composure, Dr. Crenshaw, who seems to have had a kind of sentimental admiration of the Kennedys, was convinced by her conduct that she was really consumed with grief and love for her husband. That is not impossible. The terrible finality of death excites strong emotions, belated regret for what can never come again, and an awed perception of the insignificance and evanescence of all human life. When Mrs. Kennedy returned with the priest, she kissed the big toe of one of Kennedy’s feet, thus grotesquely imitating what obligatory etiquette had required of a concubine or odalisque of the Sultan of Turkey when summoned to serve her lord.)

The disturbance in the trauma room was occasioned, not by Jacqueline Kennedy, but by an agent of the Secret Service, who ran about, “waving a cocked and ready-to-fire .38 caliber pistol.” (6) He may have been distraught, as he seemed to be, or he may have been detailed to make certain that Kennedy could not live or that agents of the F.B.I. were not allowed to see the wounds. He was persuaded to withdraw. There was an unexplained hostility between the Secret Service and the F.B.I. As Kennedy’s body was being brought into the hospital, an agent of the Secret Service, armed with a sub-machine gun, used his weapon as a club to smash the face of an agent of the F.B.I., perhaps because the latter had wanted to accompany the body to the trauma room.

(6. Obviously not a .38 Colt Cobra, the weapon preferred for shoulder-holsters, but presumably a revolver. The word ‘pistol’ is ambiguous, but .38 caliber automatic pistols were rare, and the .358 and .40 had not yet been introduced. The numerous agents of the Secret Service and F.B.I. at the hospital appear to have been armed with .38 or .45 caliber weapons that they carried in holsters at their hips, partly concealed by the coat-tails of their fashionable suits. Some also carried sub-machine guns.)

When Kennedy was officially pronounced dead, the agents of the Secret Service did not rush away with the wheeled table on which the body lay, presumably to have it packed for shipment elsewhere, as the American Medical Association’s physicians implied in their recitation. On the contrary, a bronze coffin (not the wooden one in which the body was delivered in Bethesda) had been obtained, and Kennedy’s body was properly and decently placed in it by the hospital’s staff. The trouble arose when the physicians and then the Dallas County Coroner, Dr. Earl Rose, tried to prevent removal of the body before the requirements of the laws of Texas had been met, as could have been done, Dr. Rose estimated, in three-quarters of an hour. The Secret Service men were determined to prevent such examination of the body. They used their guns to intimidate the physicians, and finally their chief, a man named Kellerman, raised his sub-machinegun, pointed it at Dr. Rose’s chest, and promised to pull the trigger if he did not step aside. The thug’s cohorts were ready to draw their guns from their holsters. Dr. Crenshaw was convinced that they would have murdered Dr. Rose and then killed all the witnesses, had Dr. Rose not yielded to their violence.

A Justice of the Peace named Ward, either intimidated by the gunmen or politically corrupt, signed a lying certificate that an autopsy had been performed and an inquest held before the body was removed. The Warren Commission, however, did not dare to use that blatant falsification.

It is now virtually certain that one of the principals in the assassination was a petty crook named Lyndon Johnson, who, doubtless counselled by his wife, a wealthy Jewess, had slithered up to the post of Vice President. (7) The death of Kennedy saved him from loss of that position in 1964 (8) and boosted him into the Presidency, a position which he managed to retain until 1968. It is not remarkable that the Secret Service men guarded him sedulously, even the night before the assassination, when the men detailed to guard Kennedy went out on a glorious drunk.

(7. The best characterization of Johnson is A Texan Looks at Lyndon, by J. Evatts Haley, a real Texan, and published by his Palo Duro Press, Canyon, Texas, in 1964. It is said that about two million copies of this book were sold, but, so far as I know, it is now out-of-print. It is to be regretted that the book was not revised in a second edition which would have included the crook’s disgusting performances in the White House.)

(8. On the political situation in November 1963, see the appendix below.)

While Johnson was flying to Washington with Kennedy’s corpse, he was informed from Washington (i.e., by McGeorge Bundy or Commander Hallet in the White House) that “no conspiracy” was concerned in the assassination–this at a time when no investigation had been made (Oswald had just been arrested and was being questioned, but denied that he was the assassin). Obviously, Johnson was being informed that the high command had decided to make the assassination the work of a ‘loner’–and had probably also decided that Oswald was a suitable patsy and must be eliminated before he had a chance to made a formal statement. (9)

(9. Oswald prudently refused to make a statement before he had a lawyer to advise him. It is probable that he was also awaiting instructions from his employers, who may or may not have been agents of the F.B.I. He was in touch with a local agent of that organization named Hosty, and about two weeks before the assassination had left with the Special Agent in Charge in Dallas a memorandum or report that was torn up and flushed down a sewer after the event. He was in any case acting for some covert agency of the Federal government. There is an unsubstantiated but not implausible theory that he was thus employed while in Russia. However that may be, it is likely that his activities on behalf of Fidel Castro’s Soviet outpost in Cuba were carried out while he was in the employ of some agency of the government in Washington, and that he was directed to make his attempt to murder General Edwin A. Walker, the most prominent anti-Communist in Dallas. (Had the attempt succeeded, it could have been argued that American patriots in Dallas assassinated Kennedy in revenge for the murder of Walker.) His rôle in the assassination, like that of Rubenstein, alias Ruby, with whom he seems to have acted in concert, is still undetermined. A possible element in the puzzle is the fact that the C.I.A. is legally forbidden to operate within the United States, so that its domestic agents commonly operate as, and may actually be, agents of the F.B.I. All these speculations may seem far-fetched to persons who have no knowledge of the secret operations of intelligence agencies.)

The morning after the assassination, Johnson, apparently not trusting the efficiency of the conspiracy’s agents and itching with worry lest crucial facts be somehow ascertained and divulged, telephoned Captain Will Fritz, chief of the homicide detail of the Dallas police, and ordered him to stop all investigation of the assassination. It is proof of the distance we have descended into dictatorship while the boobs were led to believe that the parts of the Constitution that had not been rescinded in 1865 were still in effect, that Captain Fritz did not reply, “You have no Constitutional authority to order me to violate the laws of Texas, you son-of-a-bitch.” Instead he obeyed, and told his friends, “When the President of the United States called, what could I do?”

The Dallas police, however, did continue to interrogate Oswald and arraigned him, not for the assassination of Kennedy, but for the murder of a policeman, Tippet, who was killed shortly after the assassination for reasons still unknown.

When Oswald, still barely alive, was brought to the Parkland Hospital and physicians were trying to save his life, (10) Johnson himself had Dr. Crenshaw, who was in charge, called to the telephone, and told him that he, the new President, wanted a “deathbed confession” of guilt from Oswald, and that his agent, a typical thug from the Secret Service, sartorially disguised in then fashionable clothing that emphasized the impressive pistol in his holster, was waiting to take that confession. The confession, needed to bolster the propaganda that Oswald was the real assassin, would doubtless have been faked in some way, but Oswald died soon after Johnson’s telephone call, and the frustrated thug with his gun departed.

(10. As is well known, Oswald, while handcuffed between two detectives, was murdered by a gangster from Chicago named Jacob Rubenstein, alias Jack Ruby, who thus acquired the distinction of being the first man to commit murder while being photographed by several television cameras. Rubenstein, who operated night clubs in Dallas, had been associated with Oswald in some transactions of which the nature is still uncertain. He had a criminal record and was a paid employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but Earl Warren naturally covered up for him in his report. Rubenstein had obviously been instructed to eliminate Oswald before he could made a formal statement. In Dr. Crenshaw’s opinion, it might have been possible to save Oswald’s life, if, within three minutes after he was shot, he had been given the treatment he received in the trauma room at Parkland; that, of course, would not have been possible, and the delay of fifteen minutes made death inevitable. Had Oswald lived, Johnson and his fellow conspirators would have had to devise some means of silencing him before he could talk. Mr. Shaw’s summary does not mention the significant fact that Rubenstein in prison evidently decided to disclose some of the crucial facts to a female journalist, Dorothy Kilgallen, who delightedly told her friends that she was going to “blow sky high” the official story of the assassination, but was murdered before she could do so. Rubenstein was eliminated soon thereafter; the official story was that he had died of sudden cancer. It has been estimated that a total of some forty to fifty persons, witnesses to one or another crucial incident, were murdered to prevent them from contradicting the Warren Report. There are still many naïvely opinionated Americans who refuse to understand the character of the government that rules them.)

The only alternative to taking the nervous crook’s telephone calls as tantamount to a confession of guilt is a desperate hypothesis that Johnson was impersonated on the telephone by some other member of the conspiracy.

Mr. Shaw believes that J. Edgar Hoover withheld evidence obtained by his Bureau because he was a friend of Lyndon Johnson. Informed opinion in Washington was to the effect that Hoover withheld incriminating evidence to prevent Johnson and “Bobby Sox” Kennedy from retiring him as head of the F.B.I. After Johnson was elected in November 1964, he replaced Kennedy with a Jew, Katzenbach, who had been officially Deputy Attorney General and, in all likelihood, actually Kennedy’s supervisor, but Hoover remained the Director of the F.B.I. until his death in 1972. The evidence that he used to protect himself by political blackmail has not been revealed. It may be disclosed in 2039, when the files sealed by order of Lyndon Johnson may be opened–if, at that time, the rulers of the territory that is now the United States are interested in events of what will then be a dead past.

 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.

Very many–perhaps the majority–of anti-Communists exposed themselves as poltroons. On the morning of the twenty-second of November they had talked loudly of impeaching “that son-of-a-bitch” for high treason. That afternoon they should have said, or at least thought, “Good riddance!” But the next day they were tearfully protesting they had always respected and loved “our martyred President” and had only differed from him about some minor matters of policy, as was permissible in “our great democracy.” They were a nauseating spectacle.

The assassination of Kennedy was thus a crucial event in American history, canceling what was the last reasonable hope that the American people could escape the doom prepared for them by their implacable enemies.

Various other motives have been suggested, all of which are trivial in comparison with what was accomplished. I did mention in my article the least nugatory, a report that has been widely current in “right-wing” circles in recent years. I quote it from what is probably the last issue of Racial Loyalty (May 1992), which quotes the Canadian Intelligence Service, which in turn cited other sources:

‘Kennedy…bypassed the Jewish Federal Reserve and issued government notes…as did President Abraham Lincoln a hundred years earlier and for which he, too, paid the ultimate price. … On June 30, 1963, Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110, and further amended E.O. No. 10289 of September 19, 1952, thereby giving the President authority to issue the currency. He thereupon ordered the issue of $4,292,893,875.00. This was almost ten times as much as the $450,000,000.00 [“greenbacks”] printed by Lincoln during the Civil War. He evidently forced the then Secretary of the Treasury, C. Douglas Dillon, another name-changing Jew (Lapowski?), to sign the United States notes. Shortly thereafter…Kennedy paid the ultimate price and was shot, as was Lincoln. … The first thing President Johnson did when he flew back to Washington was to reverse this order.’

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. (1) The report therefore was not invalidated by a mistake about Kennedy’s intent and about the effect of Lincoln’s issue of ‘greenbacks.’

(1. A mistake about the issuance of the notes was facilitated by the fact that part of Lincoln’s issue of ‘greenbacks’ was never withdrawn, and a very small part of that part is kept in circulation, as required by law. When the pieces of paper are worn out, they are replaced by freshly printed notes, which, of course, are signed by the Secretary of the Treasury in office at the time.)

It must be remembered that in the autumn of 1963, Kennedy’s popularity had been greatly impaired and he could not have been reëlected 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, (2) 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. (3)

(2. The real name of Kissinger was disclosed by the Supreme Rabbinic Court of America when he was excommunicated from Jewry on 20 June 1976. The real reason for the excommunication has not been disclosed, and it would be a waste of time to consider conjectural explanations.)

(3. We must remember that although God’s Race presents a united front against our race, which they both despise and hate, there are often violent disagreements about the expediency of some policy and consequently frequent, if not constant, quarrels between factions within the Self-Chosen People. For a good example, see Lenni Bremmer, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir (London, Zed Books, 1984). Needless to say, the “revisionism” mentioned in the title has nothing to do with the “revisionism” of honest historians who are now trying to expose the Jews’ great Holohoax. Zionist “revisionism” deals with changes in policies for putting and keeping the goyim in their servile place. Bremmer particularly reprehends Shamir and his party of Zionists for attempts to enter into a military alliance with Adolf Hitler to expedite his “ultimate solution” of the Jewish problem in Germany by transferring the Jews in Germany to Palestine. Cf. Liberty Bell, March 1991, pp. 1-3; April-May 1991, pp. 108-114.)

The issue, which still divides the “right-wing,” can be summarized, if stripped to its barest essentials. Money in the strict sense of the word appears to have been an Aryan invention made in the seventh century B.C., when coins replaced barter in commercial transactions. It consisted of coins of gold, silver, and electrum (an alloy of the two), with tokens of bronze and copper for fractions of a coin of precious metals. It was supplemented by credit, that is to say, promises to pay a specified number of coins at a specified date or on demand. The precious metals thereafter served as a fixed measure of value.

In the later Middle Ages, when coins of precious metal were stored with goldsmiths (most of them Sheenies) for safe-keeping, the goldsmiths issued certificates of deposit for money stored with them, and soon learned that they could issue many more certificates than the gold they had on hand, since only a fraction of the certificates would be brought for redemption at any one time. With unimportant and ephemeral exceptions, the basis of all currency was coins of precious metal, and financial crises were caused by the issue of more certificates of deposit (bank notes) than the coins available to redeem them. The first serious attempt to replace the precious metals was made by the criminals of the French Revolution, who issued assignats in such quantities that the paper became worthless. The paper money issued by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution coined only the phrase “Not worth a Continental” and gave an impressive lesson in the use of currency that could be printed and multiplied, by legislatures with the dishonesty that is normal in democracies.

The Constitution, therefore, contemplated only the issue of coins of precious metals, and until the Northern states attacked the Confederacy in 1861, the currency consisted of precious metals and the notes issued by private banks, redeemable on demand in real money, which were in general use because the weight of any fairly large sum of money (gold or silver) was more than an individual could conveniently carry on his person.

Since the latter part of the Nineteenth Century Americans have been faced with a choice between several kinds of currency, viz.: (a) gold coins and bank or treasury notes certifying that their face value in coins were on deposit and could be obtained on demand; (b) coins of both gold and silver issued on some fixed ratio of value between the two and similarly represented by bank or treasury notes; (c) the National Banks’ paper currency based on debt, i.e., government bonds held by banks that collect interest on them, the bonds, however, being theoretically exchangeable for real money, so that the paper currency could likewise be converted to real money when desired; (d) ‘greenbacks,’ i.e., fiat “money,” paper currency representing no real money and having value only by unconstitutional legislation compelling individuals to accept it in the payment of all debts, but having the advantage that the Federal government can issue them instead of borrowing from banks and paying interest to them; (e) the present system, perfected after Kennedy’s time, whereby the Federal Reserve issues notes that are actually ‘greenbacks’ but collects interest on them as though they represented real money.

Americans who hope to regain possession of the country that once was theirs recognize, of course, that (e) is simply an outrageous system for exploiting slaves, but they differ greatly about the expediency of (a), (b), (c), and (d). That debate is irrelevant to our interests here, where we need only to consider Kennedy’s reported intent to resort to (d) on a large scale, as was done by Lincoln’s administration in 1862.

Abraham Lincoln, a shrewd backwoods politician though not without some principles, (4) was put in the White House by a scabrous gang of hate-crazed fanatics or degenerates, such as Thaddeus Stevens, and a pack of politicians greedy for loot, who called themselves the Republican Party, having stolen even their name from the American Republican Party, which the Abolitionists had been used to disrupt.

(4. The “Great Emancipator” seems to have had one real principle, dislike of niggers, whom he wished to export from American territory. In the “emancipation proclamation” he made provision for shipping the niggers back to Africa or some more convenient place in the Caribbean or Central America, and he did export at least five thousand of them to Haiti. That is the number exported, at a cost of $50.00 a head, under contract by Leonard Jerome, a financier, thought to have been partly Jewish, whose daughter married Lord Randolph Churchill and became the mother of the notorious Winston Churchill. On Lincoln’s character, see especially the article by Sam G. Dickson, “Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln,” in the Journal of Historical Review, VII (1986), pp. 319-344.)

Lincoln, who is reported to have said that he was bought and sold several times at the Republican convention that nominated him, came to Washington knowing that his function was to destroy the American Constitution, for which he had little respect, and to end the American Republic by attacking the South.

Part of the deal was that he was to make a scabrous politician named Salmon P. Chase the Secretary of the Treasury in the interests of the then great banking house of Jay Cooke, who insured Chase’s obedience by giving him for “expenses” $100,000 (in real money; the equivalent of at least $20,000,000 in the Federal Reserve’s pieces of printed paper that the White Slaves now use as a substitute for money). In return, Chase gave Cooke’s banking house the extremely lucrative monopoly of underwriting the entire Federal debt. No one objected because everyone was delighted when Chase began to deface our currency with the silly motto, “In God We Trust.” (5)

(5. Cf. Liberty Bell, September 1984, pp. 2-3, 6.)

Chase suspended payment in specie (i.e., real money) at the Treasury and the banks in the Northern states had to do likewise. With the way thus prepared, Lincoln, in 1862, obtained Congressional permission for Chase to issue $150,000,000 worth of paper currency which was made legal tender in open violation of the Constitution (which the suckers thought still in force), and after that first splurge it was easy to increase the fiat currency by increments of $150,000,000 every few months.

Was this, as naïve persons believe, a threat to the banking interests headed by Cooke? Far from it. The enormous cost of the invasion and conquest of the South was more than could be conveniently absorbed by credit from Cooke, Rothschild, and associates. The ‘greenbacks’ were simply preparation for two brilliant coups de bourse.

First, the looters gained control of most of the independent banks in the United States by inaugurating the bizarre scheme of basing currency on debt. As explained by Dr. Murray Rothbard, (6) “Cooke and Chase then managed to use the virtual Republican monopoly in Congress during the war to transform the American commercial banking system from a relatively free market to a National Banking System centralized under Wall Street control. A crucial aspect of this system was that national banks could only expand credit in proportion to the Federal bonds they owned–bonds which they could only buy from Jay Cooke.” Neat, wasn’t it?

(6. MoneyWorld, Winter 1988, p. 24.)

Second, in addition to destabilizing the independent banks and thus bringing them under the control of Cooke and the Rothschilds, the ‘greenbacks’ provided the financiers with gorgeous loot. It must be remembered that in the 1860s, the Northern Americans, although crazed with homicidal righteousness, were not so befuddled that they would have tolerated the present system, by which the international bankers, through their Federal Reserve swindle, issue ‘greenbacks’ and collect cumulative interest on them. The ‘greenbacks’ had to be issued as Treasury Notes, which the populace, crazed by their unholy war, were forced to accept a legal tender, and which were not even backed by a pledge they would ever be redeemed in money. Naturally, the result was that there were three quite different kinds of currency: intrinsically worthless ‘greenbacks,’ the notes of private banks which promised redemption in real money (gold or silver) and might be so redeemed after the end of the war, and gold and silver coins, which had intrinsic value and were obviously safe and preferable to paper notes, so that cautious persons invested their savings in them. As was to be expected, the ‘greenbacks’ rapidly depreciated in value. The Southerners defended themselves effectively until they were finally overcome by attrition, and the outcome of the Northern states’ war of aggression remained doubtful until 1865. Had the South succeeded in defending its independence, the ‘greenbacks’ would have become worthless, and they soon dropped to fractions of their face value in real money, i.e., gold and silver. Their value eventually fell to 35 cents. The conspirators bought the trash wholesale, and when paper for which they had paid $0.35 was eventually redeemed for $1.00 in real money, they realized a modest profit–modest by the standards of international finance.

In 1963, the boobs had not yet been completely reduced to their present status as a helpless and enslaved proletariat. Although the American Lenin, soon after he began the systematic destruction of America in 1933, had forbidden his subjects to have gold money, they were still permitted to own silver coins that had intrinsic value, and which were also represented by silver certificates issued by the Treasury and still honestly redeemed on demand in 1963. Their masters intended, of course, to take those bits of real money from them, but the procedure by which that was to be done may not have been definitely determined. Furthermore, the publication of Gertrude Coogan’s The Money Creators in 1935 and several books derived from it had permitted any literate person to understand the Federal Reserve swindle, (7) but almost no one understood the great ‘greenback’ coup in Lincoln’s day, which was not mentioned even in college courses in (censored) American History.

(7. Some business men foresaw that the enormous quantity of trading stamps in circulation could never be redeemed in money. One man, who dealt in player pianos, each of which sold for several thousand dollars, offered his customers a 15% discount for payment in real money, i.e., silver, since the American serfs were forbidden to possess gold.)

The time was ripe, therefore, for a new ‘greenback’ swindle, which could also be used to revive the waning popularity of Jackanapes. The widely circulated report, which I quoted from Racial Loyalty above, was entirely plausible. And everyone knew, of course, of the sinister Executive Orders by which preparations have been made for the impositions of a Lenin-style dictatorship whenever it is deemed expedient to beat the White boobs into their styes. (What may be the worst of these, Executive Order 12148, issued by Jimmy ‘the Jerk’ Carter on 10 July 1979, is reproduced in full, with apposite commentary, in a special twelve-page supplement to the Spotlight that was distributed with the issue dated 25 May 1992).

The apparently documented attribution of an Executive Order for fiat currency to Kennedy was so plausible that many intelligent Americans, ignoring the more obvious motive for the highly successful assassination that I have mentioned above, leaped to the conclusion that Kennedy had been assassinated to prevent the issuance of currency on which the country would not have to pay usury to the Federal Reserve. And the supposed purport of Executive Order 11110 is mentioned in the campaign speeches of the American candidate for the Presidency, Colonel James “Bo” Gritz, who, although you would never know it from the jewspapers and boob tubes, is on the ballot in some twenty states as the candidate of a Populist Party and could receive ‘write-in’ votes in all but seven of the remaining states. In his speeches he elaborates on what he said in Called to Serve, that Kennedy “prepared his own death warrant” because, inter alia, “he actually minted [!] non-debt money.” (8)

(8. The quotation comes from p. 512. In my review of Colonel Gritz’s Called to Serve in Liberty Bell, May 1992, I noted that his book contains a perceptive critique of the official lies about the assassinations of both Kennedys and what appeared to be an attempt to assassinate Reagan. This section (pp. 512-533) is well worth reading, and you will find it worthwhile to take a magnifying glass and read the documents photographed on the seventh, ninth, and eleventh unnumbered pages that follow p. 554. I wish Colonel Gritz could have had the benefit of Dr. Crenshaw’s book, but he leaves no doubt but that the evidence for conspiratorial dirty work in all those incidents is overwhelming and incontrovertible. (There is a slight discrepancy between what is said about the position of Oswald at the time of the assassination on p. 525 and the statement on p. 531, resulting from an unresolved conflict in evidence.) My review warns you to discount the author’s naïve acceptance of Judaeo-Communist propaganda about the loveliness of “democracy,” the horrors of “Fascism,” and the Satanic work of “Hitler’s mad dogs,” which gravely becloud his inferences; in addition, he, like Dr. Crenshaw, has a sentimentally uncritical admiration of Kennedy. But when he discusses the mechanics of the assassinations, he speaks as an expert. He has used all the weapons employed in such work; he has himself killed many men and observed the killing of many others. He knows, better than any physician, how men react to the bullets that kill them, and he knows how to organize covert operations and ambushes. I am sure that if Colonel Gritz and his Green Berets had disposed of Kennedy, they would have done a perfect job and left nothing for Earl Warren to cover up. His scenario of the assassination of Jackanapes is more complex than my summary account, which, using Occam’s razor, I reduced to the bare essentials, and incorporates much cogent evidence that I did not mention. — I wish we could hope that Colonel Gritz, a true American and a national hero, would win a number of Electoral votes in November. Needless to say, if there were any chance whatsoever of his attaining the Presidency, we would have already had another “puzzling” assassination, covered up in what has become the Occupation Government’s habitual way.)

Unfortunately, the plausible report is a hoax. The person who contrived it was ingenious. He gave the numbers of Executive Orders that did deal with currency, and he provided the seemingly precise figure of $4,292,893,815.00 as the amount of ‘greenbacks’ authorized by Kennedy. (9)

(9. In what follows, I am deeply indebted to Dr. Walter F. Claussen, who generously undertook research in libraries in which I no longer have the stamina to work, and who had the patience to look through the enormous and numerous volumes, consisting principally of congealed hogwash, of the Federal Register and its derivatives to find the text of the Executive Orders and of Congressional legislation relative to them.)

Executive Order 10289, issued by Sheeny Truman, 17 September 1951, consists of three long sections, called “paragraphs,” each containing a number of “subparagraphs.” All authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to perform specified functions without further authorization from the President. Paragraph 1, which has eight subparagraphs, (a) to (h), deals exclusively with the collection of customs duties, port duties, American yachts, and hospital ships. Paragraph 2 has three subparagraphs pertaining to currency: (c) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury “to issue rules and regulations (with respect to silver bullion) necessary or proper to carry out the purposes) of Ch. 1805 of the Internal Revenue Code. (d) authorizes him “to issue regulations prescribing the conditions under which gold may be acquired and held, transported, melted or treated, imported, exported, or earmarked for certain purposes.” (f) authorizes him “to investigate, regulate, or prohibit, by means of licenses or otherwise, the acquisition, importation, exportation, or transportation of silver and of contracts or other arrangements made with respect thereto, and to require the filing of reports in connection therewith.”

To give you an example of the incoherence of many Executive Orders, I remark that (e), sandwiched between (d) and (f), deals with the anchorage and movement of vessels in American ports.

This order was first amended to affect currency by Kennedy’s Order 11110, 4 June 1963, of which Ch. 1 added to the first paragraph of 10289 (which had nothing to do with currency) a subparagraph (j) which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption.” (10)

(10. Ch. 2 revoked subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Paragraph 2 of 10289.)

Not a word about ‘greenbacks’! (11)

(11. 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.)

Kennedy’s executive order is to be understood in connection with the Public Law 88-36 of the same date, 4 June 1963, found on p. 66 of the Congressional Record and expounded at some length on pp. 678-686. Silver certificates for $5.00 and $10.00 had already been replaced by Federal Reserve notes, but certificates for $1.00 and $2.00, redeemable in real money, remained in circulation. The net effect of the Act of 4 June 1963 was to provide for the gradual replacement of all silver certificates with notes of the Federal Reserve — a replacement which, it was said, would not devalue the dollar or be inflationary because the Federal Reserve’s notes were theoretically backed by suppositious reserve of 25% gold (which no lowly American could obtain) and actually based on the Federal debt, i.e., bonds on which the taxpayers pay interest to the Federal Reserve! This law, however, still permitted the boobs to have bits of real money, half-dollars, quarters, and dimes of alloyed silver.

(At this point we must bear in mind a fundamental distinction. Real money, silver coins and certificates that such coins are on deposit in the Treasury, naturally create no public debt. The international bankers who own the Federal Reserve operate their swindle by printing Federal Reserve notes and using them to obtain interest-bearing government bonds, and the interest is then paid by more interest-bearing bonds, so that the interest is really compounded each year. And no matter how grievously the taxpaying animals are afflicted, the inevitable result of the swindle must eventually be bankruptcy of the Federal government and domestic chaos.)

Now Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110, by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to continue issuing silver certificates and minting silver coins, including silver dollars, could be construed as countering the Act of Congress of the same date, for, on its face, it certainly does not conform to the policy of gradually taking silver certificates and silver dollars from the boobs. If that was his purpose, it was certainly commendable. But we must note that the actual issuance of real money was left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, a Jew who called himself Dillon, and one cannot be certain of the intended effect of the order without a detailed knowledge of the secret tensions and intrigues within the Administration.

The final despoilment of the boobs was effected by Johnson on 22 July 1965 with the Coinage Act, Public Law 89-91 (pp. 270-275, 22989-2313), which, coated with a lot of persiflage about a need to “conserve” silver, instructed the Treasury gradually to replace the bits of real money still in the hands of the boobs with counterfeits made of copper and nickel.

That did it. That enabled the Den of Thieves in the Capitol to steal ad libitum from every American who owned bonds, had a pension or insurance, or any equity payable in dollars, while squandering the revenue they extorted from taxpayers to drive the country into bankruptcy so that the consortium of international bankers, Jews and their White stooges, could multiply their worthless ‘greenbacks’ while collecting usury for them. The American boobs were at last launched on the last stage of their toboggan slide into the ecological niche prepared for them, where taxpaying animals will be raised in pens, like their intellectual peers, thoroughly domesticated cows. (12)

(12. There will be an intermediate stage in which each animal will be given a computer card, such as is now being tried out and perfected in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, which will record their serial numbers, their vital statistics, and the credit they are each week allowed for work, from which will be deducted the ‘cost’ of the trinkets they will be allowed to ‘buy.’ When it is discovered that the cards can be lost, the data will be imprinted on their skulls with radioactive particles, which will have the same function as the ‘chips’ in your computer.)

Such are the facts about the fiction that credited Jackanapes with the issuance of usury-free ‘greenbacks.’ The contriver of the hoax was, as I have said, clever. I do not know his motive. He may have been one of the fairly numerous “right-wingers” who think that such hoaxes will enable them to attract a following and become “leaders,” or who imagine that a clever hoax will call the boob’s attention to some crucial fact, such as the Federal Reserve’s great swindle. (13) They do not perceive — or perhaps do not care — what damage they do to the cause they presumably wish to further.

(13. One of the most audacious hoaxes was devised when the filthy mongrel called Eisenhower was President. The hoaxer printed letterheads of a Mamie Stover Foundation, headed by the Communist Kike on the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter, and sent out on that letterhead form letters that solicited contributions to establish a memorial for the mulatta who was Eisenhower’s mother. The hoaxer thought that a good way to call public attention to the fact that “dear old Ike” was part nigger (as well as part Jew). Although he covered his track so well that the F.B.I. could find no valid evidence against him, he very seriously embarrassed the publisher with whom he was then associated. Another hoax involved quotations from a book supposedly written by a Jew, but of which no trace could be found. When the hoaxer was confronted with this fact, he defended himself by pleading that “Any stick is good enough to beat a Jew.” He evidently could not understand that a stick that breaks in one’s hand is not only useless, but dangerous and likely to wound the hand that wields it. To the extent that he was believed by persons on our side, he had done–unintentionally I hope–the work of an agent provocateur.)

 The political situation in November 1963 may be summarized as follows. Kennedy would probably demand to be renominated by his “Democratic” Party, but would jettison Johnson, whom he disliked and perhaps hated, (1) and replace him with a less despicable candidate. In any event, it was most unlikely that Kennedy would be reëlected in 1964.

(1. The antagonism between the two men was so notorious that some months after the assassination a wag on the staff of one of the small ‘off-beat’ newspapers that “intellectuals” enjoy, devised an obscenely ludicrous account of the way in which Johnson, whose sexual proclivities were well known, abused Kennedy’s corpse when it was it was on the airplane en route to Washington.)

Kennedy had been elected in 1960 by a very narrow margin (less than two-tenths of one percent of the popular vote) over Richard Nixon, and had owed that election to wit, youthful appearance, and visage that many women thought handsome. He may have owed that narrow margin specifically to Nixon’s blunder in engaging in debates with him over television. Kennedy’s cosmeticians made him seem more youthful than he was, and his ready wit enabled him to give immediate replies, often sophistry or mere verbiage, but he had the advantage that even persons who perceived something wrong with his answer did not have time to think about it before they had to watch and listen to what followed. No one ever thought Nixon handsome, but his cosmeticians made him seem older than he really was, and the producers of the show manipulated the lighting to his disadvantage. He was a man who does not think quickly and who considers every statement before he utters it, so that he appeared hesitant and embarrassed. (2)

(2. At the request of some stalwart Republicans, I witnessed on television a debate between Kennedy and Nixon. When the show was over, I told my hosts, “Gentlemen, you have just lost an election.”)

Kennedy in office quickly lost much of his narrow margin of popularity. For one thing, he was of Irish ancestry, the first president since Herbert Hoover who was not sanctified by a large admixture of Jewish ichor in his veins, and consequently the jewspapers were not zealous in protecting his reputation. His betrayal of the anti-Castro Cubans was not outweighed by an obviously phoney ‘confrontation’ with the Soviets. (3) His cheap grandstand ploy when he visited Berlin and made the patently absurd statement, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” seemed contemptible to many. His shipment of American troops to Vietnam in preparation for another fake “war,” such as the one in Korea in which so many American lives had been wasted to disgrace the United States, alarmed even persons who had no conception of the Judaeo-Communist conspiratorial drive for “One World,” and he was considered responsible for the assassination of the Americans’ supposed ally, Ngo Dinh Diem, which was so badly managed that it quickly became apparent that it was the work of “our” C.I.A. There was great sympathy for the widow, Madame Nhu, a very attractive and highly intelligent Oriental woman, during the twenty days that elapsed between the C.I.A.’s murder of her husband and its deletion of Jackanapes Kennedy in Dallas. (4)

(3. Khrushev obligingly had a few rockets, or cardboard models of them, loaded on a ship for Americans to photograph from the air, but it was soon known from reconnaissance flights over Cuba that all of the ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, which had a range of about 1800 miles, were still in place and ready for action against the United States, only ninety miles away.)

(4. One of the last American journalists, Westbrook Pegler, with whom I am proud to have been associated, sent a public telegram of condolence to Madame Nhu: “Please accept my sad apology for the murder of your husband and your brother-in-law by the corrupt, Pro-Communist government of the United States, probably directed by the Central Intelligence Agency. … The President is an uncouth double-crosser and his treachery to Senator McCarthy was a betrayal comparable to the kiss of Judas. We, too, are having a revolution attended by bloodshed in the Southern States which the Kennedys’ Communist henchmen fomented. Loyal American generals and others in the Pentagon may yet mount a coup and storm the White House. … You have won many friends in the United States whose outspoken support may hearten you in this dark hour.”)

Kennedy’s boyish charm was evanescent. He, like all of his clan, was wealthy, but the wealth had been acquired by his father, a parvenu enriched by financing bootleggers during the Prohibition Era, and his superficially civilized manners often wore thin and revealed a “low-brow, shanty-Irish politician from Boston.” His notorious philandering (5) was widely disapproved and a tape recording of his session in bed with one of his numerous females was in circulation. He seemed, at best, a lascivious playboy. Jacqueline Kennedy and Princess Radziwill were notorious leaders of what was called the “Jet Set,” among whom “[marital] faithfulness was simply not playing the game.” Jacqueline’s cruises on the yacht of the Onassis whom she later married aroused comment, but Americans especially disapproved of her widely reported affaire with her husband’s brother, Robert Kennedy, known as “Bobby Sox,” whom the C.I.A. deleted some years later, but not in time to save the life of the two brothers’ common playgirl, an actress known as Marilyn Monroe. The régime of “beatified adultery” was freely reported in the press and gossip magazines under such headlines as “The Night Jackie Almost Lost Her Husband.” Many Americans disapproved of the “Jet Set” and their morals. (6) And, furthermore, it was reported that, despite all that fashionable permissiveness, Jack and Jackie hated each other. That gave rise to the quip that circulated in Washington immediately after the assassination: “Christmas has come early this year. Jacqueline already has her present, a Jack-in-the-box.” A widely circulated booklet of cartoons portrayed the Kennedy clan as avian raptors, e.g., Mrs. Kennedy was portrayed as a chicken hawk, called the “high-flying Jackie bird,” whose cry was “Gimme! Gimme!”

(5. I use this unfortunately polysemous word in the sense in which it is most commonly used today, i.e., as a literary allusion to Ariosto’s Orlando furioso. The word in its less common but etymologically correct sense would imply that Kennedy was a homosexual, and that certainly was not the case. According to the then prevalent gossip, he appears to have been compulsively concupiscent, and to have been like the hero of Choderlos de Laclos’s Liaisons dangereuses, who lost interest in a woman soon after he seduced her, but prided himself on the number of his seductions. It is doubtful, however, whether any of Kennedy’s bedmates needed to be seduced.)

(6. For a report on the tenor of life in the White House, see the article by A.F. Canwell, “Those White House Guests,” in American Opinion, December 1963, pp. 43-49. He distinguishes between the “Jet Set,” who were wealthy, profligate, and thoughtless, and the “Rat Pack,” which consisted of Communists (Jews and traitors), thieves, and degenerates who hated Americans.)

The Kennedy’s notorious ‘lifestyle’ alienated many Americans who had no perception of political realities.

Kennedy’s domestic policies alarmed intelligent Americans. He sent hordes of vicious goons, dressed as Federal Marshals, into Louisiana and Arkansas to pollute American universities with niggers. He appointed his brother, Robert, Attorney General and so head of the Department of Justice, a post for which he had no qualifications, and Robert (“Bobby Sox”) used his authority over J. Edgar Hoover to begin to fill the F.B.I. with thugs, many with criminal records, known as “Bobby’s Boys.” They were detested by the older agents, who had some pride and belief in the integrity of the F.B.I. If you asked a veteran agent with whom you were acquainted about “Bobby’s Boys,” he usually made a grimace of pain and disgust and replied, “Well, I’ll be able to retire in another two (or three or four) years.”

Kennedy’s foreign policy, based on a supposed “cold war” with the Soviets, always resulted in another Communist triumph, most commonly because “Foreign Aid” (and the C.I.A.) had been used to overthrow civilized or semi-civilized governments and replace them with barbarous outposts of the Soviets’ ever more formidable military machine. Americans capable of distinguishing between a politician’s screen of verbiage and his acts asked the questions that were posed, the very morning of the assassination, in the advertisement of which the essential part is reprinted above.

(In 1963 there were a great many Americans who had not been narcotized by the Jews’ press and schools, and who remembered what the United States had once been. Most of them have died in the almost thirty years that have passed since the assassination, and have been largely replaced by typical products of the tax-supported boob-hatcheries.)

For these various reasons Kennedy had become unpopular in many circles before the Indignation Meetings throughout the country, organized by patriotic Americans in Dallas, awakened bitter resentment at his stripping of our Air Force to supply our latest and best aircraft to the Communists in Yugoslavia. (7)

(7. It is not impossible that these planes are still in service and are being used in the slaughter in Hertzogovina, Croatia, and Slovenia now in progress. Serbia is, of course, still controlled by the Communists put in power by Tito, and it is not a coincidence that their acts were endorsed publicly by the notorious Holohoaxer, Wiesenthal, and some of his fellow tribesmen.)

I do not know whether moral or political considerations were paramount in the mind of the senior physician at Parkland Hospital who echoed the sentiments of many Americans when, on the morning of the assassination, he was asked whether he would go to see Kennedy parade through the streets of Dallas, and replied, by a prophetic coincidence, that he would see “that son-of-a-bitch” only if he came to the back door of the hospital (i.e., in an ambulance, as Kennedy was brought that very afternoon).

In November 1963 it seemed highly unlikely that Kennedy could devise anything to regain the popular approval he had lost, and the “Republican” faction was anticipating an almost certain victory in 1964. What was much worse, there was a rising tide of American patriotism which had to be stopped–and was stopped by the simple device of putting a bullet through Kennedy’s skull.

Since the foregoing was written, the issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association for 7 October has come to hand. The cover reproduces a portrait, drawn with mediocre skill, of a hairy hook-nosed man in an Oriental costume, sitting with his hands on his thighs. It is entitled “The Praying Jew,” and a full page of the magazine is devoted to a lavish encomium of Moyshe Shagal, known as Chagall, and his wonderful paintings, usually “crowded with colorful images that obey neither the laws of space nor those of time.” Chagall’s incoherent parodies of art, like the daubs of his fellow Sheeny, Picasso, are collected by wealthy suckers who are devoid of an aesthetic sense.

The cover is therefore appropriate for an issue in which the Medical Association continues to certify the truth of Earl Warren’s famous hoax. The editor, Dr. Charles D. Lundberg, loudly proclaims again (pp. 1736-1738) that there is no possible doubt whatever that the Warren Report is ultimate truth. (He admits, incidentally, that the autopsy on the body delivered at Bethesda disclosed no evidence of the severe and potentially fatal Addison’s disease from which Kennedy was known to have been suffering, but he offers no explanation of a fact that is medically incredible.)

In the articles I discussed above, I noted that Dr. Pierre Fink, the only trained forensic pathologist present at the autopsy, had not been consulted, and that precautions had been taken to discredit his testimony as unreliable, should he dissent. The Medical Association sent a Dr. Dennis L. Breo to Switzerland to interview Dr. Fink, who decided to sing in the chorus and was rewarded with three large photographs of his withered countenance and five pages of flattery (pp. 1748-1754), embodying his assertion that the autopsy in Bethesda confirmed the transcendental verity of the Warren Report, which proved, for all eternity, that “Lee Harvey Oswald, a political fanatic and the lone gunman” assassinated Kennedy all by his lonesome.

The disgrace of the Medical Association is somewhat alleviated by the publication (pp. 1681-1684) of letters from six alert physicians who refused to be bluffed by Dr. Lundberg and his chorus, and who pointed out fallacies and inconsistencies in the official fiction. I wish I could quote all of them, for each pointed out some damning discrepancies in the testimony in Warren’s hoax, but I dare not add much to an article that is already excessively long. I can only heartily congratulate Dr. Wayne S. Smith of the School for Advanced International Studies of the John Hopkins University for his cogent letter, which begins by remarking, apropos of the articles in the earlier issue of the Medical Association’s Journal, “I do not recall ever having seen so many erroneous statements in so few pages.” He concludes his able critique with a fact that is conclusive in itself:

‘The articles note that panels of experts, basing their analysis on the autopsy photographs and roentgenograms, have consistently upheld the Warren Report. Yes, but the two naval medical technicians who took those roentgenograms and photos have now revealed (in a press conference on May 29) that the photos and roentgenograms sent to the Warren Commission and examined by all subsequent panels were not the ones they took. They are fakes! So much for the conclusions of the panels of experts and the irrefutable nature of the evidence.’

And so much for frantic efforts to repair a thoroughly demolished imposture on the public! The British expert, Dr. Cyril Wecht, who made a thorough study of the Warren Report, concluded that libraries should put the twenty-six volumes in the fiction section of their stacks, alongside Huckleberry Finn and Gulliver’s Travels. I suggest that the poisonous trash should be shelved with “Hitler’s Diaries” and the “Diary of Anne Frank.”

* * *

Source: Liberty Bell magazine, October 1992

For Further Reading

Previous post


Next post

Why Jews Must Be Excluded From All White Societies

No Comments Yet

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.