Speaking for myself, and I’m sure more than few others that have been unfortunate enough to have crossed paths with you would also concur, there are not enough hours in the day to address all the falsehoods you’ve posted in your comments.
So for the most part, we just ignore them.

The problem, of course, is that you rarely address anything. You either soft shoe around issues offered, ignore them completely because you have no answer or divert completely by bringing up some new aspect of your movie scenario. I don’t dispute that any number of groups have a dislike of JFK giving them motive to bump him off. What I dispute is that any of you movie scenario buffs have the slightest evidence to back it up. And I’ve pointed that out clearly, repeatedly and compellingly.

I noticer there is nary a tiny thread of evidence that substantiates a single one of the extravagant claims of Jewish power you profess existed then. Not on single jot of it.

Wow, this is a first time I’ve seen someone actually deny the financial, political and media power of the Jews in the United States. So let me get you clearly on the record:

1. Do you deny, categorically, the financial, political and media power of the Jews in the United States?

2. Do you deny that the Jews in the United States are a separate nation within the United States whose allegiance is to Israel and not the United States?

3. Consistent with any denials above do you assert that the Jews in Israel were actually terrified of JFK’s toothless threats about Dimona? And why?

4. If Israel had successfully allowed stage-managed inspections in 1961, 1962 and 1964 what was it about JFK’s threats that lead Israel to believe that murdering JFK was the only answer?

This should be interesting. . . .

And JFK would have Eisenhowered them by telling them in that case, they were on their own.

That being so would have cut off all US funds and, most important, US military aid without which they would have been hard put to resist Arabs retaking the lands Israel had seized illegally. It would have left them to face the music at the UN on their own, with the US supporting instead a vetoing resolutions demanding Israel comply with international law . With their lobbying group required to register as an agent of a foreign power would have prevented them from ever gaining the lobbying power they have acquired.

Unfortunately the President lacks the power of the purse. And so JFK’s threats were toothless unless Congress would go along. And I don’t recall any hue and cry in the press of the time (or histories told thereafter) reporting that Congress was unified with JFK. If anything they were exhausted from his repeated foreign policy blunders.

It was in fact only by LBJ looking the other way that Israel extended its tentacles into the US body politic that has enabled them to play the tunes US politicians feels compelled to dance to.

LBJ was just another example in a long list of US politicians beholden and in the pocket of the Jews. If you’re under the delusion that the Jewish tentacles merely began their extension in 1964 then your knowledge of US history and the influence of the Jews is grossly deficient.

And that’s what terrifies you as you keep spouting how invincible Israel is and how powerless the American people are to call a halt to the whole thing while you keep whistling as you walk past a graveyard shitting your britches realizing that’s where you are headed.

The first thing you’ve been right about—-I am terrified. Trump is the only one bucking the system and even he bows before the Jews here and in Israel. Think you can solve that problem?

I have no idea whether the Jews are invincible but they held significant power in 1964 as they do today. They largely control the three branches of the federal government. They control banking which includes the Federal Reserve and they control the media. The Jew lobbies have one of the most extensive investigative networks in the US. JFK’s threats were toothless and they knew it. Show me press reports of the two houses of Congress standing in unison with JFK to cut off aide to the Jews over Dimona. The Jews in the United States had already let the nuclear genie out of the bottle when they gave those secrets to the Jew instituted Russian Commies

There is no public info to ne shown because JFK had just laid down the challenge in private, and was bumped off before he could take it public, which is what he would have done had Israel resisted.

And so there is no evidence of any well spring of support from Congress or the general public about Dimona. This is the general problem when one’s under-pinning is a movie scenario.

You really think he would have had the slightest trouble waging that campaign to demand shutting down the Israeli nuclear program as against the interests of the American people as he was seeking to stop nuclear proliferation as a threat to mankind, and then denouncing Jews who were seeking to thwart it as agents of a foreign power.

The Jews have been so successful at painting themselves as the eternal victim since WWII that JFK would have been facing an uphill battle in Congress and among its misinformed citizens.. It was the supposed Jew victim-hood which lead to the Balfour Declaration. Jews had no right to any of Palestine yet the US and Britian provided them the support to murder and displace Arabs, Christians and other non Jews. There was hardly a whimper in congress during and after WWII about the Jewish murderous exploits in Palestine. There is hardly a whimper in Congress or among the public at large in recent weeks about the latest Israeli-Jew murders and displacements of non Jews.

He would have crushed them with such a campaign that would have brought the US public to his side and neutered whatever power Jews had in America.

Wishful thinking but this is not born out at any time subsequent to the discovery of the Dimona reactor. Since WWII public and parochial schools in the US beat into our children from K-12 since WWII that Jews were innocent victims in history and that Palestine is there’s; anything they need to maintain their security is justified. This is what the majority of our uninformed US citizens believe.

Furthermore JFK’s failed foreign policy exploits from the beginning of his Administration were never going to engender undying support from either house in Congress about ANYTHING—– particularly when the Jews were funding and portraying congressional re-election campaigns in Jew-owned media.

JFK’s dimona threats were toothless. There is no evidence of a ground-swell of support for dismantling Dimona from anywhere in the United States before or after the JFK assassination. The Jews, who had long been ensconced in the Executive Branch, long funded most congressional re-elections and with their lobbying groups having one of the best investigative networks in the US knew all too well that JFK’s sanctimonious threats about nuclear proliferation in the state of Israel were TOOTHLESS.

I won’t beat this to death any longer with you.

He doesn’t need the power of the purse to prevent Israel from receiving money from America when he is seeking to prevent it from being spent on Israel.; it only matters were he wantring to spend money on Israel.

This concedes, of course, that JFK would never have been able to swing Congress to put teeth in his idle threats to Ben Gurion.

And since Congress is the representative will of the people any attempt by JFK to withhold lawfully enacted aid would also be an act against the people—the voters. If JFK withheld the aide he would have been finished politically. Most of the Bible Christians in the United States saw in 1961 (and still see today) that the Jew return to “Israel” was biblical manifest destiny. Combine that with the continuous barrage by the Federal Gov’t and the Jew-run media that Jews are/were eternal innocent victims to be protected at all costs and JFK didn’t have prayer. The Jews knew this then AND they know it now. The Jews had no need to kill JFK.

I’d say LBJ had a much more compelling motive to do the deed. But there isn’t any evidence of that either. Believe in your movie scenarios but your arguments lack any historical understanding.

I won’t beat this to death any longer.

Of course you don’t argue the facts. You simply make a childish smear. This is about the best most of you can muster.

Like all the others you fail to explain why, in 1963, Jews—–who were largely in control of the three branches of the US Gov’t and most of the US Press—–feared JFK’s self righteous indignation about Dimona. Feared him to the point that they would risk a messy assassination in broad daylight? This is almost nonsensical.

The problem of course is there was no consensus of indignation expressed by Congress over Dimona in 1963. JFK’s threats to terminate Israeli aid over Dimona were toothless. Congress was never going to cut off Israeli aid. And the Jews, who controlled J. Edgar Hoover, likely were well aware of JFK’s continuing adulterous affairs while President. Likely they were in possession of photographic and audio evidence. They owned JFK and as a result they didn’t need to murder him.

You keystone cops still can’t decide how many shooters were at Deally Plaza, where they were located or what calibers they used. In fact most of you couldn’t care less what happened at Deally Plaza since your faith-based beliefs rest on fanciful movie scenarios.

Right. Just like there was no consensus expressed in Congress to adopt the Test Ban Treaty that JFK submitted for ratification. So tell us. did the Senate reject the treaty for which there was no consensus to adopt it when JFK submitted it.

I didn’t say that JFK was impotent to convince Congress of anything, only that he was impotent to convince them to cut Israeli aid in 1963. That his threats to cut off aid to Israel over Dimona were as toothless then as they are now. Today members of the two Houses of Congress are falling over themselves to get billions of more dollars to the Israelis to murder and displace as many non Jews in the greater Palestine area as they can. Of course this is what they’ve been doing since 1948.

The “Test Ban Treaty” only restricted those countries who signed and as far as I know Congress didn’t threaten Israel to sign. So your argument is rubbish. Furthermore while JFK blathered about non proliferation he was quite willing to use nuclear weapons and proliferate their use. In Dec 1962 JFK agreed to sell Polaris submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles to the UK. And in the same month the Test Ban Treaty was offered for signatures JFK considering using conventional and nuclear weapons against Chinese facilities to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

Dumb ass doesn’t know how to spell the location of the murder site that tells all about what he knows about the case.

And this is why I have nothing to fear from your side. Your childishness is regularly evident and an indication of intellectual bankruptcy.

Right we don’t, and one good reason is that the majority of the staff of the Warren Commission were either Jews or married to Jews whose only job was to suppress those facts from the American public.

But there have been plenty of investigations. They either don’t look at Dealey Plaza or there’s nothing there to see. That is, there is no evidence whatsoever of your movie scenarios. Motive isn’t evidence. And the weakest motive I’ve seen is the claim that Dimona caused the Jews to assassinate him. Your beliefs about motive don’t constitute evidence of anything.

That’s right, your point was about Israel, but my response was that given he was potent enough to turn the opposition to the test ban treaty around from about 70-30 against to 70-30 in favor by waging a grass roots campaign that energized the American people into supporting in so strongly the Senate adopted it tells everything about his power to move public opinion to support a position he advocated.

You’re grasping at straws. The very Test Ban Treaty—-with your claim of its over-whelming US public and Congressional support—could have been used but wasn’t used as a tool to pressure Israel over Dimona. Pressuring the Jews to agree not to test any nuclear device they developed might have been better than nothing. But JFK couldn’t pull this off either. No consensus of congressmen ever uttered any such thing with the Test Ban Treaty as cover. Furthermore this would have required public exposure to the world that the Jews had a nuclear weapons program. Your latest red-herring is weaker than usual.

Congressmen don’t bite the hand that feeds them and they fear the vicious dog that threatens them. That is—-both in 1963 and now—-the Jews controlled Congressmen with money for re-election campaigns, with the power of the Jew-controlled press and/ or through extortion after leading them into the usual sins.

Just like today. All Biden has to do to bring the Sinai genocide to a screeching halt is to tell Bibi that is he doesn’t stop within one hour and start withdrawing from Gaza within an hour later, he’s on his own and the US will call an Emergency meeting of the UN and demand Israel be declared waging an illegal war and invoking the UN to stop it.

Biden would be Eisenhowering them again and about time.

Coulda, woulda and shoulda. . . . but they DON’T. The US Gov’t controlled by Jews let the Eastern European Jews get a foot hold in Palestine in 1948 and continuously since then funded them to kill Palestinians and all non Jews. Eisenhower was a disgrace and completely under the control of Jews as was FDR and Truman. How do you think, Eisenhower who had no combat experience was made Supreme Allied Commander? At the end of WWII Eisenhower and Truman turned over half of Europe to the Jew-created communist Russia and you think Eisenhower was a real threat to the Jews in Israel? You are in a movie land and not the real world.

Someone could have solved this affair and finally made public all the records, contrary to Trump, Biden, Obama & co. It is Robert Kennedy Jr. if he was elected president this November.

If the CIA and FBI as institutions conspired to assassinate JFK at Dealey Plaza, for example, why on Earth would they put evidence in their files that would implicate themselves? This would be like an idiot bank robber who leaves his driver’s license at the teller window after leaving the bank. So why this over-whelming belief that gov’t files will solve the crime?

E. Michael Jones is a Vatican II church member and as such follows the “doctrines” and heresies emanating from the Vatican II Constitutions. The heresies of the Vatican II Constitutions are an over-riding break with the previous 1900 years of Church history and doctrine. So the Vatican II Church has broken with Apostolicity and is therefore neither Catholic nor Universal. Provost is a product of the Vatican II Constitutions that brought us the disastrous Bergoglio papacy; a pope which Provost has praised and not disputed. About all this Jones is utterly silent.

Among other things E. Michael Jones is principally focused in his intellectual career on the effects of human events on Culture. To the man with only a hammer everything looks like a nail. So the title of Jones’s piece, its opening paragraph, its connecting paragraphs and his concluding paragraph are almost wholly about Provost’s cultural makeup and NOT whether he has taught or will teach what Jesus and his Apostles after Him taught. Nevertheless Jones feels confident to conclude about Provost that

Logos trumped ethnos, if by that we mean race, as it always does in the universal church.

I have no doubt that Provost will faithfully continue with Bergoglio’s legacy of following the heresies contained in the Vatican II Constitutions. If this were not the case he would never have been elevated to Cardinal. Finally it is the Vatican II Church which came to agreement with Protestants over the correctness of Lutherian Justification—a doctrine made up from whole cloth by Luther not Logos. And so the conclusion to be drawn is that the Vatican II heresies trump Logos and race.

You are one of the few who have correctly figured out E. Michael Jones.

I would agree that Jones in his opening paragraph uses the word “universalism” in the theological sense. While “catholic” is a synonym for “universal,” “universalism” in the theological sense was condemned by the Catholic Church. Why is it that Jones, the “Catholic Intellectual of this Century,” seems unaware of that fact?

After falling away from membership in the Catholic Church in his youth Jones returned after it had fully transmogrified into the Vatican II Church (1970). The Vatican II “popes” enforcement and application of the new Vatican II Constitutions became ambivalent to the Four Last Things (Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell). That is, the Vatican II church began teaching that membership in the Vatican II church was not the only faith leading to salvation. The Vatican II church also formally accepted Lutherian Justification which teaches that every person who professes faith in Christ is saved regardless of their behavior. Lutherian Justification is a form of theological universalism.

Luther’s attack on the Catholic Papacy was largely ad hominem with little substance. Luther (an apostate Catholic priest) denigrated the authority of the Papacy and taught his followers that every man and women of reasonable intelligence were their own biblical authority. Unfortunately Luther himself saw the detrimental results of his invented doctrine: many of his growing number of followers were keeping their own council on the meaning of Scripture leading to harmful behavior. Luther saw himself as the super authority and attempted to rein his followers in but to no avail—-Luther taught that each of them was their own authority.

Luther also wrote that his invented doctrine of “Justification” lead to equally bad behaviors throughout Europe. Yet Luther had encouraged such bad behavior. He had encouraged the members of his Lutherian faith to sin early and often because their salvation was guaranteed. Luther plunged Europe into 30 years of war and destruction. Lutherian historians have admitted as much about all this

Thousands of Protestant sects—who today still praise Luther—have nonetheless placed their head councils in place of the Papacy. Instead of one, universal, Christian leader professing and teaching what Jesus and His Apostles taught we have thousands of Protestant leaders teaching their sect members some different doctrines.

Jesus stated clearly and unequivocally that, upon this rock I will build My Church.” Of course Jesus was referring to Peter. And the Catholic Church has had an unbroken succession of Popes leading directly from Peter. Jesus chose Peter as his successor on Earth—-the Vicar of Christ. This title is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep” (John, xxi, 16, 17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matt. xvi, 18, 19. Luther and future Protestant theologians have no good reply. Luther saw the detrimental effects of making everyone a “pope.” Yet he admitted at the time that he believed himself to be the uber authority, but he had already let the genie out of the bottle. And today the head of each Protestant sect has effectively set themselves up as plenary “pope” of their own sect.

Hulkamania wrote:

Papism is not universalist. True universalism is the recognition of all particularities in their interconnectedness, not the elimination of all particularities and distinctions through relentless abstraction.

By definition, the Catholic Church is a universal church: one church, containing multitudes (even different, separate rites, such as the Byzantine rite), but unified under the pope. Catholic Universalism (mentioned by E. Michael Jones in his opening paragraph) on the other hand almost always refers to the doctrine introduced by Origen: that everyone is saved. Universalism is a sentimentalist position, not a dogma of the Catholic Church and is nowhere taught in Scripture. It was never taught to the faithful (at least not prior to 1970). So Hulkamania ‘s opening paragraph is a wrong turn into oblivion,

Hulkamania’s 2nd, 3rd and first part of his 4th paragraphs are philosophical nonsense unless he could actually connect it to Catholic Dogmatic teachings which he doesn’t——a sharper turn into oblivion.

Hulkamania then wrote:

That is why papists say, with all honestly, that they worship the same god as Muslims or Jews: because they all worship the same conceptual understanding of god. This is also known as the “god of the philosophers.”

Of course Hulkamania couldn’t produce Catholic doctrine justifying this if his life depended on it. However, after the Vatican II Council the new Vatican II Church did make the heretical claim that salvation can be had via other faiths.

Hulkamania continues:

For example, if you look at the famous “five proofs” for god from Thomas Aquinas, none of these “proofs” are proofs for the Christian God. They are “proofs” for this general and conceptual “god of the philosophers,” so they apply equally well to the god of Muslims, the god of pagan philosophers, the “first mover,” or even to Satan.

More grasping at straws. Aquinas’s five proofs are philosophical musings and not part of Catholic Dogma/Doctrine. That is, they are certainly interesting but irrelevant to the Catholic faith. Furthermore for us Christians (which includes Aquinas) the Muslim god and the god of the Talmud bear no resemblance to the Holy Trinity; that is, they do not exist. How is it that we should be concerned about entities that are considered a priori non existent? Likewise for the god of philosophers who doubtfully has none of the characteristics of the Holy Trinity.

Hulkamania finally wrote:

This explains why the papist cult is so overtly Satanic. Satan is the king of abstraction. The elimination of distinctions is the core of Satanism. This is because with enough abstraction, anything can become equal and the same as anything else. In this way, Satan can be equal to and the same as God.

Argument by bald assertion is practically useless.

I thought Notsofast’s comment was well written, brief and to the point.

Hudson’s Trotskyist upbringing is certainly predictive of his Judaized position on the eternal goodness/victim-hood of the Jews along with his eternal hatred of the Catholic Church. Hudson’s comments about Catholic Dogma (for example, the Trinity) and his interpretation of the Lord’s prayer bordered on the nonsensical. So if he makes no effort to get that correctly it is doubtful that he is any more interested in finding the hidden truth of historical events hinted at in his upcoming book. Hatred and destruction are the hallmark of the judaized mindset which typically causes its holder to have a disinterest in the truth and a desire to do harm.

I am aware that an attempt was made to suck Smedley Butler into leading an armed coup against our government. An attempt which he spurned and then courageously tried to make public. I suspect he was successful in quashing additional attempts but memory of that history and of Bulter are largely unknown. By then the Jew/Commies had already succeeded in the banker’s coup by establishing the privately run “federal” central banking system under Woodrow Wilson. And FDR was so deeply under the control of the jew/commies that when Whitaker Chambers (10 years before he went public) tried to warn FDR about their entrenchment in the US government he effectively told Chambers (through an intermediary) to go piss up a rope.

Most modern economists (like Hudson) are trained to believe that their field of study is science rather than a subset of sociology and psychology. Except in simplistic thought experiments their ability to predict how people, societies and government’s will behave under conditions of scarcity is ephemeral. That is, their predictions are almost always wrong. Yet if you read the transcript of Hudson’s interview (which was, apparently, a preview of his upcoming book) he doesn’t display the understanding of an economist nor even the attributes of a serious historian.

Don’t get me wrong most serious historians do not paint a rosy picture of the prelates of the Catholic Church throughout most of its history including E. Michael Jones (see Jones’s, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury). I’m not a particular fan of Jones either but at least he offers of balanced view of Church history.

If one believes Whitaker Chambers’s view of the communist party in the United States some (or many) of the trade unions were the result of communist organizers. And just like the Bolsheviks misled the poor laborers in Russia to destruction so did the communist organizers in the US

Anonymous{963] wrote:

I can’t help but feel a tickle of amusement when the Sophists pull out their own “intellectual rigor” and always play the same semantic shell game – “well it’s not actually doctrine, but…”

Long delay in responding but better late than never:
Above Anonymous{963] creates a straw-man which he couldn’t defend from anything I wrote in post #420—–the post to which he responded.

My post #420 was a reply to Hulkamania’s (Post #38) which was mostly a vague rant about Papism none of which he did or even could justify from Catholic Dogmas concerning the Papacy. In fact Hulkamania would have had difficulty justifying his vague claims through an honest historic review of the history of the Popes—good and bad. Hulkamania’s vitriol against the Papacy was akin to the un-reasoned and largely ad hominem rants made by the apostate priest Martin Luther. Luther’s written works are so filled with unsupported vulgarity that his supporting protestant theologians/historians never quote for fear of discrediting him.

In my reply to Hulkamia I make quite clear that Catholic Universalism espoused by Origen is NOT part of Catholic Dogma or any Church teaching binding on its members. I’m afraid there is no “but” in there.

Anonymous[963]

Good to see you saying that the Pope, (indeed the Antichrist, where all the sin of the world emanates from – especially modernism realized as the merging and exaltation of pagan ideals (!) into Catholic doctrine to become secular humanism, Social Teaching, and globalism – teaching pagans. . . .

Of course I say nothing of the sort. Who is the sophist now?

Then Anonymous[963] dove head-long into a rant which had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion begun by Hulkamania (post #38) or my reply to him (post #420). Nonetheless I’ll make a few points in reply to it:

1. All the Vatican II Constitutions promulgated by anti-pope Paul VI in 1970 were declared by the Vatican authorities to be pastoral and not dogmatic. Technically this is correct however anti-pope Paul VI and all the anti-popes after him treated these constitutions as the new guiding “dogmas” of the Vatican II Church. Most (if not all) of the Vatican II Constitutions contain heresies inconsistent with actual Catholic Dogmas propounded in the previous 1900 years of Catholic history.

2. As a note of interest the heretical Vatican II Constitutions were in large part designed by anti-pope Paul VI (and his loyalists) to move “Catholic” doctrine closer to Protestantism and Judaism—both in its beliefs and its worship.

3. Two of Luther’s principle, largely invented “dogmas” were that
a. every man was his own authority in the interpretation of Scripture and
b. that once a man professed belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior his/her salvation was guaranteed no matter how vile their behaviors were before and subsequent to that profession.

Luther himself discovered that after he let the genies of (a) and (b) out of bag that conditions in Europe at the time turned to disaster—-30 years of war. Luther hoped to depose the Catholic Church’s authority and replace it with himself. Sadly once Luther proposed (a) his authority with regard to Scripture was shucked by many of his followers.

4. Lutheranism and Calvanism splintered into 100s or 1000s of different protestant sects each claiming to know the correct interpretation of Scripture. Hence Anonyymous[963]’s interpretation of Scripture is just one among many that has No greater validity—–according to protestantism.

5. Luther’s invention of protestant Justificationism was a direct result of his own rampant sinfulness. He found himself unable to turn from sin and needed a way to avoid Hell. Lutherian Justification was his personal invention which taught that any profession of faith in Jesus Christ shielded the professor from Hell no matter what subsequent evil acts were committed. Luther saw the disaster in Germany and Europe that resulted from this. The Protestant doctrine of Justification is closer to that of Talmudic Judaism and Islam than to anything Christ taught in the New Testament. That is, very little causes their adherents to enter Hell. Freed as the Protestant, Jew, and Muslim is from the prospect of Hell for doing evil may be the proximate cause of much Evil in the world.

6. As the Vatican II Church attempted to move closer to the evils of protestantism in the Vatican II Constitutions in 1970 so did it also in its 1999 agreement about the validity of Lutherian Justification.