PART 2

The Georgetown ‘Jesuit’, Propaganda due (P2) crowd, that people like to call Catholics, are not Catholics. QUESTION: Why is it that Talmudic Pope Francis (Bergoglio) hangs out with Rothschild and Talmudic rabbis as well as Freemasons! Why is is that the masons signed an anti-JFK pact between P2 lodge and ZioFascists in Israel? Could that be why traditional Catholics are excommunicated from the church if they mention that Israel LLC. had anything to do with 9/11.

Nowadays, out of nowhere, a powerful sect in the Catholic church would emerge out of Vatican 2 – ‘catholics’ who love Freemasons – when for 400 years it was a gross sin to be even affiliated with Freemasonic rites and rituals. Propaganda due, the CIA and Zionists aligned with the Likud killed JFK, a Catholic. The OP in the post above tries to tell you that the JFK assassination was a hoax to try to cover for Israel.

Kennedy wanted to appoint J.W. Fullbright. Schlesinger Jr. writes:

"Elizabeth Farmer told me this evening that, at five this afternoon, it looked as if it would be Rusk in State, with Bowles and Bundy as Undersecretaries. (Ken, by the way, told me that Jack had called him on the 7th and talked seriously about Mac as Secretary.) I asked why Rusk had finally emerged. Elizabeth said, 'He was the lowest common denominator.' Apparently Harris Wofford succeeded in stirring the Negroes and Jews up so effectively that the uproar killed Fulbright, who was Jack's first choice."

Michael Collin Piper writes:

Fullbright was for the United Nations at the time and was a signatory to the Southern Manifesto. Fulbright also opposed McCarthyism (think Roy Cohn) and the House Un-American Activities Committee and later became known for his opposition to American involvement in the Vietnam War. His efforts to establish an international exchange program eventually resulted in the creation of a fellowship program which bears his name, the Fulbright Program.

Fulbright claimed that $5 million tax-deductible from philanthropic Americans was sent to Israel and then recycled back to the U.S. for distribution to organizations seeking to influence public opinion in favor of Israel.[61] That statement led to friction with organized pro-Israeli groups in the U.S.

Frustration with the ability of the Zionist Organization of America and other Zionist lobby groups to influence senators with their campaign contributions led Fulbright to retort on Face the Nation on April 15, 1973, "Israel controls the U.S. Senate." "The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion much too much. We should be more concerned about the United States interest rather than doing the bidding of Israel. This is a most unusual development."

Perhaps his most notable case of dissent was his public condemnation of foreign and domestic policies, in particular, his concern that right-wing radicalism, as espoused by the John Birch Society and the wealthy oilman H. L. Hunt, had infected the U.S. military. (The JBS also pushes Zionism.) He was, in turn, denounced by Republican Senators J. Strom Thurmond and the Zionist Jew Barry Goldwater. Goldwater and Texas Senator John Tower announced that they were going to Arkansas to campaign against Fulbright, but Arkansas voters re-elected Fulbright.

Fullbright also was concerned about the Zionists situated around McCarthy. McCarthy was targeting some of America’s old-line families and their associates in the foreign policy establishment.

And it is probably no coincidence that one of McCarthy’s most prominent targets—former Gen. George C. Marshall—was actually one of the most outspoken American critics (during the Truman administration) of the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel.

What is particularly interesting is that Ann Coulter—one of the current “neo-conservatives” whose ideological sponsors and patrons are modern-day standard bearers of the old-line Leo Strauss Trotskyite banner (now posing as “neo-conservatism”)—basically concurs with Viereck’s assessment, saying in her recent book, Treason:

McCarthy’s real “victims” were not sympathetic witnesses, frivolous Hollywood screenwriters, or irrelevant blow-hard college professors. They were elite WASP establishment policymakers . . .They were well-born and looked good in dinner jackets . . . .In other words, although Viereck was a McCarthy critic and Coulter one of McCarthy’s defenders, both assert (quite correctly) that—con- trary to the popular image of McCarthy being a “vicious anti-Semitic” hatemonger who was harassing innocent Jewish Hollywood screenwriters”—McCarthy was instead—in the broader sense—effectively taking aim in another direction altogether, thereby muddying the picture of the real sources of subversion in America.

Fulbright's career was somewhat stunted, with its influence never matching its luminescence. For all his seniority and powerful committee posts, he was not considered part of the Senate's inner circle of friends and power brokers. He seemed to prefer it that way: the man who Freemason Harry S. Truman had called an "overeducated SOB" was, in the words of Clayton Fritchey, "an individualist and a thinker," whose "intellectualism alone alienates him from the Club" of the Senate.

On July 11, 1973, during a speech at an American Bankers Association meeting, Fulbright criticized Capitol Hill attempts to block trade concessions to the Soviet Union until it allowed the emigration of Jews and other groups:

"Learning to live together in peace is the most important issue for the Soviet Union and the United States, too important to be compromised by meddling — even idealistic meddling — in each other's affairs."

This was what former CIA director Smith and then JFK and now Fulbright believed. That the military should only be used when all diplomatic options are used up and only when the nation, more specifically, its people are threatened with great harm. The neocon/Zionist propaganda due crowd aligned with the CIA felt otherwise. That detente and diplomacy were weakness.

Therefore, although McCarthy was very much correct, it seems, in pointing out that there were indeed “communists in the government,” it is probably safe to say that the war that was being fought out on Capitol Hill during the McCarthy hearings and in the media was actually hardly more than an overflow, into the United States, of the long-standing war between the surviving Russian Nationalist Communist elements in the Soviet Union (formerly led by Josef Stalin) and their bitter enemies in the Jewish-Zionist-Trotskyite movement which was now ensconced on American soil.

Truman was a Freemason; Gigliotti, a Protestant Freemasonic Zionist preacher who mingled with the Likudniks had convinced Truman to fire former CIA director Smith because he made the CIA a mere caricature of what Gigliotti thought it should be. That it is its own military. Hence, JFK ‘s statement that the CIA should be splintered into a thousand pieces. He was refering here to the pro-interventionist, pro-psychological warfare CIA.

Michelle Metta writes:

On July 7, 1960, an alliance agreement was signed in Rome between US Freemasons and Grande Oriente, the most high-profile Italian community of Freemasons. At the signing ceremony, two men represented Italy: Antonio Trabucchi, a member of the Italian government, and Publio Cortini, the Grand Master of the Italian Freemasonry. The United States were represented by the Ambassador James Zellerbach and by a certain aforementioned Frank B. Gigliotti. https://www.amazon.co.uk/ITALIAN-UNDERCOVER-MOSSAD-STATION-ASSASSINATION/dp/1719822662/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1569652539&refinements=p_27%3AMichele+Metta&s=books&sr=1-1

Apparently, the event had no mysterious connotations. However, years later it became clear not only that Gigliotti was a CIA extremely powerful agent, but also that this ceremony had secret clauses, the first of which was to stop John Kennedy from becoming POTUS. But in order to complete the argument, we should move on to January 24, 2011, when Bruno Rozera was interviewed by L’Espresso, a well-known Italian weekly magazine. Rozera was a top member of P2. P2 was an ultra-secret Italian Freemasonic lodge not only deeply connected to CMC, but also to the Unorthodox warfare the Stay-Behind network is based on. The crux of the matter is that Rozera reveals in his interview that the organizer of the anti-JFK Gigliotti’s mission in Italy was Giuseppe Pièche. An eminent general under Mussolini, Pièche, after WWII, became an equally eminent figure of the Unorthodox warfare against communism under the auspices of NATO and the CIA. In fact, Pièche, with the full complicity of the then Italian Interior Minister, Scelba, created and directed an entity, ServizioAntincendi. He was helped in this venture by a soon-to-be member of P2, Edgardo Sogno, who, in the 1990s, made several public declarations in which he himself clearly qualified this Antincendias a NATO project linked to the Stay-Behind network. So, there was a fascist occultist masonic and Zionist element against JFK simply because he wasn’t hard enough on communism and also because he was a Catholic, against the war, and fervently against Israel’s nuclearization.

Metta also exposes Bloomfields connection to the crime and so there exposes a Mossad connection.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mettacmc/45405649974

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mettacmc/45405501734

PART 3

To understand the great importance of it, here you can read the Foreword to Metta's book written by the appreciated journalist and writer Jim DeBrosse, Paz Rosas writes:

WHEN New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discovered in 1967 the links to the JFK assassination among local businessman Clay Shaw, anti-Castro groups, the CIA and a murky world trade promotion group known as “CMC-Permindex,” Garrison was truly, as the title of his 1988 book declaims, “on the trail of the assassins.” Unfortunately, as we all know, Garrison didn’t get very far in his prosecution of Shaw and his fellow conspirators.

Garrison’s investigation was sabotaged from the inside by FBI and CIA agents and sympathizers and from the outside by the disappearance of key witnesses. Some simply fled to other states, where governors refused to extradite them for Garrison’s case. And, of course, his star witness, David Ferrie — an associate of both Shaw and alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald — died under mysterious circumstances of a cerebral hemorrhage less than a week after he learned of Garrison’s investigation. Adding insult (more accurately, slander) to injury, Garrison was pilloried in the media as an egomaniac and loose cannon making wild accusations against innocent people, especially “poor” Clay Shaw who — despite the repeated denials at the time, both personal and official — was later revealed to be a CIA agent.

No one in the U.S. media, nor among America’s independent JFK investigators, was brave or perhaps smart enough to “follow the money” and enter the investigative door so courageously and widely opened by Garrison. The Montreal paper Le Devoir and the Italian leftist newspaper Paese Sera were the first to report on the workings of CMC-Permindex in articles published in March 1967, not long after Jim Garrison arrested Shaw. Paese Sera wrote that CMC (Centro Mondiale Commerciale) “was the creature of the CIA … set up as a cover for the transfer of CIA … funds in Italy for illegal political-espionage activities.”

It wasn’t until decades later in the 1990s that CMC-Permindex received any mainstream attention at all in America. That’s when, thanks to the release of Oliver Stone’s movie JFK in 1991, Garrison’s book became a best seller.

So now, more than 50 years after the failed prosecution of Shaw, someone has done an actual documented investigation into the history, aims, operations and tangled international relationships of CMC-Permindex. Not surprisingly, that man – Michele Metta – is an Italian, not an American, journalist. Having finally found the CMC internal papers, including the minutes of their board of directors’ meetings, Metta has been able to examine the workings of CMC from the inside. The resulting book is a major breakthrough in the JFK murder case, documenting startling new information that goes to the root of the complex and tangled international conspiracy behind the assassination.

The bottom line in Metta’s investigation is this: starting in the late 1950s, CMC-Permindex acted as the covert funding and planning source for right-wing political terror in both Europe and the U.S., including the assassination of JFK. The board membership and financial resources of CMC-Permindex included men associated with the CIA, the American and Italian Freemasons as well as American and Italian organized crime, Italian and German neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, the Israeli Mossad and Israel’s early leaders and Zionist supporters, and the French secret paramilitary organization, OAS, enraged at de Gaulle for having ceded Algeria to the Arabs.

All of these groups represented different and sometimes conflicting interests but shared one key characteristic — they were rabidly anti-Communist and rabidly anti-Soviet and willing to maim, kill and assassinate to stop the perceived threat to a conservative world order.

But don’t take my word for it. Read Metta’s book carefully as well as his documentation. I think you’ll agree it marks a stunning leap forward in unraveling — at long last — the dark truth behind the murder that changed the course of modern American and international history.

END QUOTE

Here's the kicker; if we take the people's word, we get a Joseph P,. Kennedy who did not like the lot of political Jews:

According to Harvey Klemmer, who served as one of Kennedy’s embassy aides, Kennedy habitually referred to Jews as “kikes or sheenies”. Kennedy allegedly told Klemmer that “[some] individual Jews are all right, Harvey, but as a race they stink. They spoil everything they touch.” When Klemmer returned from a trip to Germany and reported the pattern of vandalism and assaults on Jews by Nazis, Kennedy responded, “Well, they brought it on themselves.”

On June 13, 1938, Kennedy met with Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador to the United Kingdom, in London, who claimed upon his return to Berlin that Kennedy had told him that “it was not so much the fact that we want to get rid of the Jews that was so harmful to us, but rather the loud clamor with which we accompanied this purpose. [Kennedy] himself fully understood our Jewish policy.” Kennedy’s main concern with such violent acts against German Jews as Kristallnacht was that they generated bad publicity in the West for the Nazi regime, a concern that he communicated in a letter to Charles Lindbergh.

Kennedy had a close friendship with Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne, wife of Viscount Waldorf Astor of the Astor family. The correspondence between them is reportedly replete with anti-Semitic statements. According to Edward Renehan:

As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these “world problems” (Nancy’s phrase)….. Kennedy replied that he expected the “Jew media” in the United States to become a problem, that “Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles” were already making noises contrived to “set a match to the fuse of the world”.

By August 1940, Kennedy worried that a third term as the President for Roosevelt would mean war. As Leamer reports, “Joe believed that Roosevelt, Churchill, the Jews, and their allies would manipulate America into approaching Armageddon.” Nevertheless, Kennedy supported Roosevelt’s third term in return for Roosevelt’s promise to support Joseph Kennedy Jr. in a run for Governor of Massachusetts in 1942. However, even during the darkest months of World War II, Kennedy remained “more wary of” prominent American Jews, such as Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, than he was of Hitler.

PART 4

Joseph P. Kennedy. The father of JFK told the reporter Joe Dinneen:

It is true that I have a low opinion of some Jews in public office and in private life. That does not mean that I….. believe they should be wiped off the face of the Earth….. Jews who take an unfair advantage of the fact that theirs is a persecuted race do not help much….. Publicizing unjust attacks upon the Jews may help to cure the injustice, but continually publicizing the whole problem only serves to keep it alive in the public mind. –

In the recently published Journals: 1952-2000 of the late American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. writies about JFK:

A MONTH after Kennedy's election, Schlesinger recorded in his diary a resume of his conversations with the president-elect. The central topic was the task of shaping the new administration. When they reached the subject of who would be secretary of state, the name of David Bruce, a veteran diplomat, was mentioned, but Schlesinger thought he would "not have too many ideas of his own."

Later, at Kennedy's house, the president-elect talked favorably about senator J.W. Fulbright. For Kennedy, the influence of Fulbright in the Senate "seemed a paramount consideration." Schlesinger asked Kennedy if Fulbright would not "alienate the negroes and the Jews?" and Kennedy said, "I don't care about the Jews" [in this connection].

A few days later, Schlesinger learned that the apparent candidate would be Dean Rusk, who was ultimately nominated. In early December 1960 Schlesinger noted that Harris Wofford (one of Kennedy's advisers) had "succeeded in stirring up the Negroes and Jews so effectively that the uproar killed Fulbright, who was apparently Jack's (Kennedy) first choice."

It appears that Fulbright never forgot his defeat. [According to a pro-Israel Jewish Telegraphic Agency writer.]

The next reference to Fulbright and Israel appears in April 1973. Schlesinger was flying to Palm Beach Florida, and he found that Fulbright and his wife were on board. Here is what Schlesinger recorded of the conversation with the senator:

Fulbright "began by talking about the Middle East. He is fed up to the teeth with the immensely successful Israeli lobbying operation in the Senate... Senator Jackson could rely on about 80 votes in the Senate for any Israeli issue. The other day Fulbright had a couple of Arab diplomats for lunch. He asked a number of senators; most made excuses; one said he would come by after luncheon but did not; and only three or four accepted."

What an obsessed scoundrel was this Fulbright. [Words from a Zionist Jew journalist.]

On January 9, 1975, Schlesinger met senator George McGovern, who was pondering whether to seek the chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on the Middle East. Fulbright had personally held this chairmanship himself, "in order, as he told McGovern, to prevent its falling into the hands of someone who would be too responsive to the Israeli lobby, and he has encouraged McGovern to take it on."

On June 11, 1981 Schlesinger lunched with the prominent journalist Joe Alsop. The topic was "the sneak Israeli attack on the nuclear installation in Iraq, an appalling action" in Schlesinger's view; but he recorded that Bill Paley, president of CBS, and Alsop, the Wall Street Journal and even Schlesinger friend's the liberal journalist Jim Wechsler applauded the attack. When Kissinger was asked his view at a dinner party, he said, "Privately, I am pleased. I think many Arabs are pleased."

Wat??? DP you see the doublespeak these Zionsits speak. I am starting to believe Schlesinger was more a friend of Israel, covertly, than JFK, and it shows with his Foreign Policy piece calling for middle-eastern wars.

At a party in April 1982, Kissinger told Schlesinger that he had "much less sympathy for Nixon now than he had in 1974-75. 'What really finished it for me was the trip to Sadat's funeral,'" when Kissinger went along with Nixon, Ford and Carter. As soon as they got into the plane, "Nixon was his old self again, trying to manipulate everybody and everything, dropping poisonous remarks, doing his best to set the people against each other."

When they were later in the car without Nixon, former president Ford said to Kissinger: "Sometimes I wish I had never pardoned that son of a bitch."

Now what about this Alsop, a friend of Schlesinger.

It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965), that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post, and strong supporters of Israel.[52] Schlesinger doesn’t reveal Graham and Alsop’s arguments, and states that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for a historian so well informed on the topic.

Johnson was not someone that Kennedy had affection for before, during or after the election.

Prior to the 1960 convention he and Johnson were bitter rivals for the nomination. Kennedy was 43 and a Catholic, Johnson was 51 and a Protestant, so they were also at odds on religious and age fronts. When Kennedy chose Johnson it was a surprise to many in the Democratic establishment and was seen as an attempt to to “win party unity and new strength below the Mason-Dixon Line by choosing the Texan”

As Mr. Kennedy sat in the rocker in my office, his head resting on its back he placed his left leg across his right knee. He rocked slightly as he talked. In a slow pensive voice he said to me, 'You know if I am re-elected in sixty-four, I am going to spend more and more time toward making government service an honorable career. I would like to tailor the executive and legislative branches of government so that they can keep up with the tremendous strides and progress being made in other fields.' 'I am going to advocate changing some of the outmoded rules and regulations in the Congress, such as the seniority rule. To do this I will need as a running mate in sixty-four a man who believes as I do.' Mrs. Lincoln went on to write "I was fascinated by this conversation and wrote it down verbatim in my diary. Now I asked, 'Who is your choice as a running-mate?' 'He looked straight ahead, and without hesitating he replied, 'at this time I am thinking about Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. But it will not be Lyndon.'

Indeed, according to an unpublished memoir by Hyman Raskin, a Chicago lawyer and political operative whom Hersh cites, Kennedy was forced to pick then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate in 1960 when Johnson and his fellow Texan, then-House Speaker Sam Rayburn, threatened to divulge some unidentified episode from Kennedy’s past. “Those bastards [Johnson and Rayburn] were trying to frame me,” Raskin claimed Kennedy told him. “They threatened me with problems, and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.”

And what about this nice Jewish Arthur Schlsinger Jr. historian:

"In defense of the world Order, U.S. soldiers would have to kill and die. ... We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood, as well as in words and money."

-- Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Back to the Womb, July/August 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs

Kennedy surrounded himself with his enemies. Noahide Freemasons, Zionists, Likudniks and lairs and criminals.