In his groundbreaking book Conspiracy Theory in America (U. of Texas Press, 2014), Lance deHaven-Smith argues that instead of referring to the “Kennedy assassination” (meaning JFK’s public execution in Dealy Plaza) we should use the plural “Kennedy assassinations.”
The two events, he suggests, were episodes of the same crime, obviously committed by the same perpetrators.
We are approaching the June 5th anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy’s murder. Like the killing of his brother five years earlier, the RFK assassination was a coup d’état, eliminating the man who was all but certain to be elected president in November 1968.
If we are ever to make the USA a nation fit for human beings, we will have to begin by annihilating the Deep State responsible for these and so many other crimes. And among the guides who can best help us understand that Deep State in order to target it properly is Laurent Guyénot, author of JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State.
Following careers as an engineer and medievalist historian, Dr. Laurent Guyénot has become one of our most trusted voices on the Deep State, SCADS (State Crimes Against Democracy), and false flags. His contribution to We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo (the French translation of which was published this week) is a key contribution to understanding how Gladio B’s false flags may be the fruits not only of cooperation but also competition between national intelligence agencies, with the Israeli Mossad infiltrating and manipulating European and American agencies.
Below is Dr. Guyénot’s new article on the RFK coup d’état, which we are honored to publish here at VT.
SIRHAN SIRHAN and the mystery of Islamic synthetic terror
by Laurent Guyénot
A Palestinian terrorist?
In the night of June 5th 1968, twenty minutes after midnight, New York senator and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy was shot dead in the overcrowded pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He had just left the grand ballroom where he had celebrated his victory at the Californian Democratic primaries.
This victory made him the most likely nominee of the Democratic Party. In front of Richard Nixon, who had already lost against his brother John Kennedy in 1960, Bobby would have won. At the age of 43 years old, he would have been the youngest American president in history, after having been the youngest secretary, as Attorney General in his brother’s government. Instead, Nixon won.
Just hours after Robert’s assassination, the press was able to inform the American people, not only of the identity of the assassin, but also of his motive, and even of his detailed biography. Twenty-four-year-old Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was born in Jordania, and had moved to the United States when his family had been expelled from West Jerusalem in 1948.
After the shooting, a newspaper clipping was found in Sirhan’s pocket, quoting Robert’s following statement: “the United States should without delay sell Israel the 50 Phantom jets she has so long been promised.”
Handwritten notes by Sirhan found in a notebook at his home confirmed that his act had been premeditated and motivated by the hatred of Israel. Jerry Cohen of the Los Angeles Times wrote, in a front page article on June 6, that Sirhan is “described by acquaintances as a ‘virulent’ anti-Israeli” (Cohen opted for “virulent anti-semite” in another article for the The Salt Lake Tribune), and that:
investigation and disclosures from persons who knew him best revealed [him] as a young man with a supreme hatred for the state of Israel.”
Cohen infers that “Senator Kennedy […] became a personification of that hatred because of his recent pro-Israeli statements.” Cohen further learnt from Los Angeles Mayor Samuel Yorty that:
“About three weeks ago the young Jordanian refugee accused of shooting Sen. Robert Kennedy wrote a memo to himself, […] The memo said: ‘Kennedy must be assassinated before June 5, 1968’—the first anniversary of the six-day war in which Israel humiliated three Arab neighbors, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.”
In a perhaps cryptic final note, Cohen cited Prof. Joseph Eliash of UCLA’s Near Eastern languages and literature departement, who remarked that “His name, both first and last, is that of an ancient Arab tribe which once roamed the Syrian Desert,” and that his middle name, Bashara, means “good news.”
In 2008, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Bobby’s assassination, this tragic day was installed into the post-9/11 mythology of the Clash of Civilization and the War on Terror. The Jewish Daily Forward wrote:
“One cannot help but note the parallel between Kennedy’s assassination and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In both tragic cases, Arab fanaticism reared its ugly head on American soil, irrevocably changing the course of events in this country.”
“Robert Kennedy was the first American victim of modern Arab terrorism.”
“Sirhan hated Kennedy because he had supported Israel.”
Writing for the Boston Globe, Sasha Issenberg recalled that the death of Robert Kennedy was “a first taste of Mideast terror.” He quotes Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, a former volunteer in Robert Kennedy’s campaign (better known as Jonathan Pollard’s lawyer), reflecting:
“I thought of it as an act of violence motivated by hatred of Israel and of anybody who supported Israel,”
“It was in some ways the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America. It was the first shot. A lot of us didn’t recognize it at the time.”
For the Jewish Forward, the point was to tell the Jews: “See, it’s always the same eternal hatred of Jews and Israel.” For the Boston Globe, the point was to tell Americans: “We are all Israelis.” (The Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times, controlled by the Sulzberger family, although Dershowitz would dismiss such remark as “nonsense”, in his 2010 article, “Do Jews Control the Media?”).
The fact that Sirhan was from a Christian family was lost on Dershowitz, who speaks of “Islamic terrorism.” But the Jewish Forward took care to mention it, only to add that Islam ran in his veins anyway:
“But what he shared with his Muslim cousins — the perpetrators of September 11 — was a visceral, irrational hatred of Israel. It drove him to murder a man whom some still believe might have been the greatest hope of an earlier generation.”
No doubt such declarations, and worse ones, will be repeated on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of RFK’s death in June 2018. Let’s take them seriously for a moment, and let’s see what kind of anti-Zionist terrorist Sirhan Sirhan was. By looking more closely into his case, perhaps we shall discover something about the nature of this post-modern terrorism that infects our world and our mind since September 11th, 2001.
Did Sirhan kill RFK?
First question: Did Sirhan really kill Robert Kennedy? Over the years, independent investigators have uncovered many crucial facts that went unnoticed during Sirhan’s trial, facts that even Sirhan’s State-appointed lawyers deemed irrelevant.
Ballistic and forensic evidence suggest that, in fact, none of Sirhan’s bullets hit Kennedy. Dr. Thomas Noguchi, the coroner who conducted the autopsy, concluded (and confirmed in his 1983 memoirs, Coroner) that the fatal bullet was fired a few inches behind the right ear of Kennedy, following an upward angle.
Yet all the witnesses confirmed that Robert had never turned his back on Sirhan and that Sirhan was five to six feet away from his target when he fired. Moreover, Sirhan was physically overpowered by Karl Uecker after his second shot, and, although he continued pressing the trigger mechanically, his revolver was then not directed toward Kennedy.
The counting of all impacts and wounds indicated that at least twelve bullets had been fired, while Sirhan’s gun carried only eight. William Harper, a nationally respected West Coast criminologist, compared the bullet removed from Kennedy’s neck with one removed from a bystander, and concluded that they « could not have been fired from the same gun. » A 2008 analysis of audio recordings during the shooting has confirmed that two guns are heard.
To this must be added the incredible fact that LAPD criminologist DeWayne Wolfer introduced the wrong gun into evidence as the murder weapon instead: the serial number of the gun produced at the court differed from the one written down by the policeman who first got hold of Sirhan’s gun.
There are strong suspicions that the revolver which was positively identified as the crime weapon belonged to Thane Eugene Cesar, a security guard hired for the evening, who was set behind Kennedy at the time of shooting, and seen with his pistol drawn by several witnesses, one of whom, Don Schulman, positively saw him fire. Cesar was never investigated, even though he did not conceal his hatred for the Kennedys, who according to him had “sold the country down the road to the commies.”
Even granting that Sirhan was Robert Kennedy’s assassin, another fact raises disturbing questions: witnesses noticed that Sirhan seemed like in a trance, and showed extraordinary strength for his size, when physically contained. After the shooting, he appeared disoriented and exhausted. Sirhan Sirhan has always claimed, and continues to claim, that he has never had any recollection of his act:
“I have never been able to remember what happened in that place at that time. And I have not been able to remember many things and incidents which took place in the weeks leading up to the shooting,” he said again in a parole hearing in 2011, failing to convince the judges for the fourteenth time.
Psychiatric expertises, including lie-detector tests, have confirmed Sirhan’s amnesia. Doctor Bernard Diamond of the University of California, who hypnotized Sirhan soon after his arrest to try to unlock his memory of the events, noted that he was highly suggestible.
In the weeks prior to shooting Kennedy, Sirhan had been seen at a local pistol range, accompanied by two men, and Harvard University professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, who interviewed him for 60 hours in 2008, said that managed to remember that, at the moment of the shooting, “he found himself at a pistol range, holding a gun he had never seen before.”
Available information is too sketchy to reconstitute entirely the way Sirhan had been programmed. We know that he had been treated by a neurosurgeon after a head injury, after which his behavior had changed, as noted by his relatives. We also know he was interested in occultism and attended the Rosicrucian order AMORC, founded by Spencer Lewis. One person who may have been involved in Sirhan’s programming, as who reportedly bragged about it to two prostitutes, is famed hypnotist Dr. William Joseph Bryan Jr., who makes no secret of having worked for the Air Force in the “brainwashing section.”
Bryan’s biggest claim to fame, about which he bragged all the time, was how he had hypnotized and deprogrammed the Boston Strangler, allegedly Albert Di Salvo who thereafter confessed to the crime. Under hypnosis, Sirhan Sirhan robotically wrote in his notebook “God help me . . . please help me. Salvo Di Di Salvo Die S Salvo.” It is surmised he heard the name while under hypnotism.
Other pages of the same notebook, which Sirhan recognizes as being from own handwriting but does not remember writing, is reminding of a kind of automatic writing:
“My determination to eliminate R.F.K. is becoming more the more of an unshakable obsession . . . R.F.K. must die – RFK must be killed. Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated R.F.K. must be assassinated . . . R.F.K. must be assassinated assassinated . . . Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68 Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated I have never heard please pay to the order of of of of of.”
These words are dated May 18 in Sirhan’s notebook. However, during his interrogation, Sirhan claimed that his urge to kill Kennedy was triggered by a documentary he saw on TV mentioning Robert Kennedy’s support of Israel in 1948, and this documentary (The Story of Robert Kennedy, directed by John Frankenheimer) was only aired on May 20. This is one of many more contradictions in the official thesis.
Was Robert Kennedy a friend of Israel?
If Sirhan was, like Oswald, a patsy, only of a more sophisticated type (the Manchurian candidate type), the next question is: Who had interest in having people believe that Robert was killed by a fanatic Palestinian motivated by the hatred of Israel? To raise the question is to answer it.
But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, why would Israel kill him?
The dilemma is an illusion, it rests on a misleading assumption: in reality, Robert Kennedy was not pro-Israel. Simply, he was campaigning, and willing to win. As everyone knows, a few good wishes and empty promises to Israel are an inescapable ritual in such circumstances. And Robert’s statements didn’t exceed the minimal requirements. His only two declarations on this point were made before Jewish congregations. David Lawrence, author of the Pasadena Independent Star-News article of May 27 found in Sirhan’s pocket had, in an earlier article entitled “Paradoxical Bob”, underlined how little credit should be given to such electoral promises: “Presidential candidates are out to get votes and some of them do not realize their own inconsistencies.”
As for the documentary aired on May 20, 1968 mentioning Robert’s trip in Palestine in 1948, it was another electoral advertising destined for the Jewish voters. When Robert Kennedy had visited Palestine, one month before Israel declared its independence, he was 22 years old. In the series of articles he drew from that trip for the Boston Globe, he praised the pioneer spirit of the Zionists, and expressed the hope that: “If a Jewish state is formed it will be the only remaining stabilizing factor in the near and far East.” But he had also voiced the fears of the Arabs in quite prophetic terms:
“The Arabs are most concerned about the great increase in the Jews in Palestine: 80,000 in 1948. The Arabs have always feared this encroachment and maintain that the Jews will never be satisfied with just their section of Palestine, but will gradually move to overpower the rest of the country and will eventually move onto the enormously wealthy oil lands. They are determined that the Jews will never get the toehold that would be necessary for the fulfillment of that policy…”
Less than five years before his presidential bid, Robert Kennedy had not been, in his brother’s government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: he had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an investigation led by senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a “foreign agent” subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming itself AIPAC).
All things considered, there is no ground for believing that Robert Kennedy would have been, as president of the US, particularly Israel-friendly. His brother certainly had not been. The Kennedy family, proudly Irish and Catholic, was known for its hostility to Jewish influence in politics, a classic theme of anti-Kennedy literature, best represented by the 1996 book by Ronald Kessler, with the highly suggestive title, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded. During John’s presidential campaign, the Israeli party Herut wondered publicly if the father, Joe Kennedy, “did not inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children.”
In conclusion, it is only by an outstanding hypocrisy that The Jewish Daily Forward could write, on June 6, 2008:
In remembering Bobby Kennedy, let us remember not just what he lived for, but also what he died for — namely, the precious nature of the American-Israeli relationship.”
Robert Kennedy’s death had not been a bad thing for the precious “American-Israeli relationship.” Would he have saved Israel from disaster in 1973, as had Nixon and Kissinger with unlimited military support against Egypt? Nothing is less sure.
But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Robert Kennedy was perceived as pro-Israel in 1968. All the same, Israel would have had interest in eliminating him, for the simple reason that Robert was, above all else, his brother’s heir and avenger. I am going to explain this bold statement in the rest of this article.
To begin with, let us examine what kind of brother was Robert. All of his biographers have stressed his total commitment and loyalty to his brother John, whom he lionized. In return, John had come to trust his judgment on almost every issue, and had made him, not only his Attorney General, but also his closest adviser.
Robert didn’t have John’s charisma, or his ambition. He felt that his brother’s coat, which he had literally worn during his first months of mourning, was too big for him. If he finally decided to run for president in 1968, it was under the pressure of destiny.
As a lover of Greek tragedies, Robert believed in fate. And he knew that he was, in the eyes of millions of Americans, the legitimate heir to the murdered king — as well as his avenger, even if the thought was rarely voiced. His public appearances led to displays of fervor never seen before for a presidential candidate, and his total lack of concern for his own security made him look all the more genuine.
This exceptional brotherly friendship between John and Robert has an obvious implication for the investigator into Robert’s death. And the fact that this is seldom mentioned is a cause for wonder. As Lance deHaven-Smith has remarked in Conspiracy Theory in America, “It is seldom considered that the Kennedy assassinations might have been serial murders. In fact, in speaking about the murders, Americans rarely use the plural, ‘Kennedy assassinations’. […] Clearly, this quirk in the Kennedy assassination(s) lexicon reflects an unconscious effort by journalists, politicians, and millions of ordinary Americans to avoid thinking about the two assassinations together, despite the fact that the victims are connected in countless ways.”
When John’s death is discussed, Robert’s death is not mentioned, and when Robert’s death is the issue, John’s death is only alluded to. But John and Robert should be considered as two brothers united by and unshakable love and loyalty, and not as separate individuals victims of unrelated murders — or of some kind of mysterious curse. What is the probability that these two murders are unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. For there is a good chance that in the link between both resides their solution.
Israel and JFK’s murder
Both murders have at least two things in common: Johnson and Israel. First, consider the fact that they precisely frame the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, who controlled both investigations: Johnson became president the day of John’s death, and he retired a few months after Robert’s death.
As for Israel’s implication, it is the plot to blame an anti-Israel Palestinian, which gives it away in Robert’s case. In John’s case, Israel’s fingerprint is even more unmistakable, and one must wonder why most investigators make so much effort not to see it. By a strange paradox, those who do not believe in Oswald’s guilt nevertheless try to find the culprit by scrutinizing Oswald’s weird biography. It is like trying to solve 9/11 by studying Osama bin Laden’s life.
The obvious track to follow is rather that of the man who silenced Oswald, making sure he would not repeat in a court hearing what he had managed to tell journalists in a Police station corridor: “I’m just a patsy!” Oswald’s murderer is Jacob Leon Rubenstein: he is the only real murderer caught in relation to the Dallas assassination plot. Yet his trail seems to be “the road less travelled.”
Hardly anybody has ever heard his full name, for he is simply called Jack Ruby — which sounds conveniently Italian for a mobster, as he is sometimes depicted. And who has ever read that Ruby confessed separately to his rabbi (Hillel Silverman) and to his lawyer (William Kunstler): “I did it for the Jews!” Jack Ruby was intimately connected to the Jewish mafia — the Mishpucka (“Family” in Hebrew), also known as the “Yiddish Connection”. As Gail Raven, a former girlfriend of Ruby and nightclub dancer in his Carousel Club, once said: “He had no choice. […] Jack had bosses, just like everyone else.”.
Jack Ruby’s boss and mentor was Hollywood mobster Mickey Cohen, successor to Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegelbaum, head of Murder Incorporated. Cohen became infatuated with the Zionist cause after World War II, as he explained in his memoirs: “Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war”; what kept him so busy was mostly stealing WWII American surplus weapons for Israel.
Mickey Cohen “spent a lot of time” with Menahem Begin, the former Irgun chief, according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department.
Beginning with Jack Ruby, the whole cover-up was run by ardent Zionists. There is Arlen Specter, a key member of the Warren Commission and the inventor of the “magic bullet” theory, who would be mourned after his death as “an unswerving defender of the Jewish State”.
There is James Jesus Angleton, who managed the cover-up as chief of Counterintelligence in the CIA, who, according to his biographer Tom Mangold, “was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death”.
I mention them in my book and in earlier articles, built upon the pioneer work of Michael Collins Piper. Here is another clue: JFK’s trip to Dallas, being officially “non political,” was sponsored by a powerful business group known as the Citizens Council; Kennedy was on his way to their conference when he was shot. The Citizens Council was dominated by Julius Schepps, “member of every synagogue in town, and de facto leader of the Jewish community”, according to Bryan Stone.
Among other influential figures was advertising executive and PR man Sam Bloom, who chaired the “host committee” inviting Kennedy. According to former British Intelligence Officer Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, It was Bloom who « suggested that the Police make Oswald accessible to the press. He also suggested — against the explicit advice of the local FBI — that they move the alleged assassin from the Dallas police station to the Dallas County Jail in order to give the newsmen a good story and pictures.
Dallas FBI agent James Hosty always believed that Bloom and Ruby were in cahoots ; when the police later searched Ruby’s home, they found a slip of paper with Bloom’s name, address and telephone number on it.”
There is massive evidence, from the organization of JFK’s trip to Dallas to the massive cover-up after his death, of a plot schemed by a Zionist terrorist network — an underground compartment of what James Petras calls the Zionist Power Configuration — in conspiracy with Lyndon Johnson, who had an obvious personal motive. Why would Israel want to kill Kennedy? One likely motive has been revealed by two books: Seymour Hersh’s The Samson Option in 1991, then Avner Cohen’s Israel and the Bomb in 1998. A reviewer of Cohen’s book wrote in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz:
The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option.”
The recent edition by Martin Sandler of The Letters of John F. Kennedy has confirmed what these books had already proven: that Kennedy was fiercely determined to force Israel.
In his last letter to Ben-Gurion, dated June 15, 1963, Kennedy demanded an immediate inspection of Dimona followed by regular visits every six months; otherwise “this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized.” The immediate result was that Ben-Gurion resigned on June 16 and dived into deep water. Five months later, Kennedy’s death relieved Israel of all pressure.
As Stephen Green tells it,
“Lyndon Johnson’s White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964.”
In my view, Kennedy’s determination to abort the Dimona project was only part of the Kennedy problem, for Israel. Just as importantly, Kennedy was supportive of Abdul Gamal Nasser and of the Palestinian cause. Historian Philip Muehlenbeck writes:
“While the Eisenhower administration had sought to isolate Nasser and reduce his influence through building up Saudi Arabia’s King Saud as a conservative rival to the Egyptian president, the Kennedy administration pursued the exact opposite strategy.”
Kennedy was also committed to the right of return for the nearly 800,000 Palestinian refugees expelled in 1947-48. As late as November 20, 1963, the US delegation to the United Nations was calling again for Israel to implement Resolution 194, which triggered an outrage in Israeli circles.
The serial assassinations of the Kennedies
The only question that remains is: Was there, in 1968, any reason to believe that Robert intended to reopen the investigation on his brother’s death, once in the White House? The answer is yes.
From 22 November 1963, Robert was alienated and closely monitored by Johnson and Hoover. Although still Attorney General, he knew he was powerless against the forces that had killed his brother. Yet he lost no time to begin his own investigation; he first asked CIA director John McCone, a Kennedy friend, to find out if the plot had anything to do with the Agency.
In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for ten years, and whom he suspected of having taken revenge on his brother. Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to search for any complicity in the Secret Service, who had been responsible for the President’s security in Dallas. And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always despised and mistrusted.
Knowing he could not expect the truth from the Warren Commission, Bobby then contacted a MI6 officer friend of the Kennedy family (dating back to the days when Joe Kennedy was the US Ambassador to England), who made arrangement for two French intelligence operatives to conduct, over a three year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States.
One of them was André Ducret, head of the security for French President Charles De Gaulle. Over the years, these French secret agents hired men to infiltrate the Texas oil industry, the CIA, and Cuban mercenary groups in Florida.
Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months before his own assassination in June of 1968. After Bobby’s death, the last surviving brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, showed no interest in the material. The agents then hired a French writer by the name of Hervé Lamarr to fashion the material into a book, under the pseudonym of James Hepburn.
The book was first published in French under the title L’Amérique brûle, and translated in 11 languages. No major US publisher was willing to print it, but it nevertheless circulated under the title Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK. Its conclusion is worth quoting:
“President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. […] the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a ‘madman’ and negligence.”
Robert Kennedy had planned to run for the American Presidency in 1972. One factor which pushed him to run in 1968 was the investigation by the New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. Garrison was privileged to see Abraham Zapruder’s amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination, which show that the fatal shot came from the grassy knoll well in front of the President, not the School Book Depository located behind, where Oswald was supposed to have fired. Robert Kennedy confided to his friend William Attwood, then editor of Look magazine, that he, like Garrison, suspected a conspiracy,
but I can’t do anything until we get control of the White House.”
Garrison claims that Robert sent him a message through a mutual friend:
“Keep up the good work. I support you and when I’m president I am going to blow the whole thing wide open.”
In conclusion, there can be no doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have reopened the case of his brother’s assassination, in one way or another. This certainly did not escape John’s murderers. They had no other way to stop him than by killing him.
The instigators of John’s murder sent a Jewish gangster with Irgun connections to silence Oswald. The instigators of Robert’s murder blamed a Palestinian motivated by hatred of Israel. These two pieces of the puzzle, once connected, reveal rather clearly the profile of the instigators of both murders. That is why the complicit media keep them as disconnected as possible.
They sometimes invoke, as a diversion, a mysterious malediction upon the Kennedy clan. What ancestral sin may have provoked divine vengeance? Washington Post journalist Ronald Kessler points to the anti-Semitism of the father, Joe Kennedy, and his politics of appeasement toward Hitler when he was US ambassador in London. The title of his book, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded (1996), is a subtle reference to Exodus 20:5 :
“I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God and I punish a parent’s fault in the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren among those who hate me.”
Kessler’s biblical phrase became prophetic when, three years later, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Junior died in mysterious circumstances, with his wife and unborn child: following the trail of his father, he was just about to enter politics after a brief carreer in journalism, which had led him to be interested in conspiracy theories regarding Israel and political assassination.
So, conspiracy theory, or malediction theory?
 Jerry Cohen, “Yorty Reveals That Suspect’s Memo Set Deadline for Death,” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1968, pages 1 and 12, on latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/06/june-6-1968.html. Jerry Cohen, “Jerusalem-Born Suspect Called An Anti-Semite,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 6, 1968, on www.newspapers.com/newspage/11976683/ and www.newspapers.com/newspage/10399250/ See also Harry Rosenthal, “Senator Kennedy’s support for Israel promoted decision declares Sirhan,” The Telegraph, March 5, 1969.
 Sasha Issenberg, “Slaying gave US a first taste of Mideast terror,” Boston Globe, 5 juin 2008, on www.boston.com
 Alan Dershowitz, “Do Jews Control the Media?”, huffingtonpost.com, October 6, 2010.
 Jeffrey Salkin, “Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For,” Forward.com, June 5, 2008. Also Michael Fischbach, “First Shot in Terror War Killed RFK,” Los Angeles Times, June 02, 2003, on articles.latimes.com
 Watch on YouTube, “RFK Assassination 40th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN.”
 Philip Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On the Conspiracy And Cover-Up, S.P.I. Books, 1994, p. 25. For a full overview, watch Shane O’Sullivan’s 2007 investigative documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy. For more detail, read his book Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy, Union Square Press, 2008. See also Don Schulman’s testimony in The Second Gun (1973), from 42 min 40.
 Listen to Sirhan pleading for parole in 2011 on YouTube, « Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole ».
 William Turner and John Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Cover-up (1978), Basic Books, 2006, p. 225-229.
 Shane O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy, Union Square Press, 2008, p. 5, 44, 103.
 The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/
 Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.
 Alan Hart, Zionism, The Real Ennemies of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 252.
 Jeffrey Salkin, « Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For », op. cit..
 PBS American Experience & The Kennedys part 2, sur YouTube.
 Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America, op. cit., k. 284-292.
 William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer, Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158 ; Steve North, “Lee Harvey Oswald’s Killer ‘Jack Ruby’ Came From Strong Jewish Background,” The Forward, November 17, 2013, sur forward.com
 Mickey Cohen, In My Own Words, Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92.
 Brad Lewis, Hollywood’s Celebrity Gangster: The Incredible Life and Time of Mickey Cohen, Amazon, 2009, p. 56, 265-266, 287.
 Natasha Mozgovaya, “Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82”, Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.
 Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA’s Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991.
 Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200. Wealthy Jews were highly influential in Texas, as Natalie Ornish has also shown in Pioneer Jewish Texans, The Texas A&M University Press, 2011.
 John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An American Coup d’État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.
 Michael Collins Piper, False Flag : Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 54-55.
 Warren Bass, Support any Friend: Kennedy’s Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219. The Letters of John F. Kennedy, edited by Martin W. Sandler, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013.
 Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.
 Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012, p. xi, 122-4.
 Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 6th ed., ebook 2005, p. 115.
 David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007,
 Jeff Shesol, Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade, WW Norton & Co, 1997, 2012, p. 95.
 Gus Russo, Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK, Bancroft Press, 1998, p. 574-575.
 James Hepburn, L’Amérique brûle, Nouvelles Frontières, 1968 ; Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.
 David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 312-314.
 Garrison quoted in David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 333.
 Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.
 Barry Chamish believes that John John was victim of an Israeli plot: “The Murder of JFK Jr – Ten Years Later,” sur www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.
He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.