Postscript: Who Murdered William Colby?

New information has belatedly crossed our desk which prompts us to update our thesis about the unexpected death in 1996 of former CIA Director William Colby. Although we accused CIA of murdering one of its own, we did not give proper credit to Mossad.

Chronicle readers may recall that Colby conveniently died the day before he was scheduled to give testimony to Congress with some observers fearing that he might say something a little too truthy. It is not that Colby was an American hero or a good goy, but that he wasn't sufficiently reliable to put in front of Congress - he might accidentally spill the beans on something - My Lai, Viet Nam, Kennedy Assassination, Tailhook - God only know what might drift inadvertently from his wagging tongue.

At one point we thought that his death was faked so that he would not be brought before Congress to testify, as was done in the case of Loretta Fuddy. But we came across some information from Michael Collins Piper which causes us to believe that Colby was indeed murdered by Mossad.

Unfortunately for your Chronicler, Colby wasn't overcome with a sense of patriotism or remorse over his squalid past where confession would do the soul good. His troubles started in 1974 when he shoved out of the CIA the Mossad mole and Kennedy assassin James Angleton. Angleton had operated the Israel desk at the agency for most of his tenure, but the new DCI wanted to place American interests above those of Israel, which is something Angleton would not tolerate.

Why the Director of Central Intelligence wanted to change American foreign policy is above our pay grade, as we thought that it was the domain of the State Department, but Colby and Angleton clearly show that such is not the case. According to Piper, Colby wanted to take a more equitable position toward all of the antagonists in the Middle East, perhaps because oil was such a sensitive and volatile topic in the wake of the recent oil embargo.

The Johnson administration was probably the high summer of American Jewish relations before the chillier season of the 1970s. But Reagan would pursue revanchist policies to return Israel as a sacred cow Americans were forced to worship. In fact so obsequious was Johnson to the Jews that he ordered them to sink the USS Liberty, a task, fortunately, at which they barely failed. Johnson wanted to bomb Egypt into the stone ages for Eretz Israel.

Colby's idea was to moderate US stance toward the Middle East nations by showing less fealty to the sacred cow, and more sensitivity to Arab interests and concerns, a view with considerable support in the State Department. After all, Israel wasn't producing 10 million barrels of oil per day as was Saudi Arabia.

Fortunately for Colby, his job was terminated by President Ford who installed a Mr George Bush of the CIA as its new director. We say that this termination of Colby was fortunate because it prevented him from making any "controversial" moves which might anger the Jews who, as we saw with Kennedy, murdered people not subservient to its interests.

It was against this backdrop that Colby began forming high level relationships with proponents of Arab interests, including Arab government officials, for the purpose of advising them how to deal with Jewish advantages in the US government. Such consulting arrangements were well advanced by the time of his boating "accident."

Piper also noted that sweeping reforms of the organization of US intelligence were making their ways through Congress which would consolidate many intelligence decisions in the hands of the DCI, a prerogative which the military heads were not willing to relinquish. Would Colby have supported this overhaul? If not, it could do serious injury to the legislation.

But why was this legislation so covetously sought by the Jews? The reason was that a Jew, foreign born John Deutch, was the DCI. His salivations over the new powers coming his way could barely be concealed, and given Colby's actions against Jew mole Angleton, the Jews certainly would not want Colby making any remarks before Congress which would deflate the momentum behind the power grab.

When Colby's body was found floating by the dock outside of his home, it bore similarities to two other assassinations - that of CIA man John Paisley in 1978, and Mossad agent Robert Maxwell several years later. All three men had earned the ire of Israel, and all 3 were killed in a similar "wet" fashion. For serious students of covert operations, we needn't elaborate further on wet operations.

Given Colby's antipathy toward Israel, and his support of Arab interests, it is without doubt the case that Mossad murdered Colby, with CIA providing backup support.

Reference

Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment, America First Books, 6th edition, second printing ebook, 2005, illustrated, 771pp source(Microsoft Word - Final_Judgment_x_Build_20 (wikispooks.com) accessed 4/30/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Kennedy's Windshield: Proof of Conspiracy

One of the more obscure areas of the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas' Dealey Plaza concerns the windshield of the Ford-owned limousine in which he was riding at the moment of his death. The impeccable testimony of an attorney who researched the matter proves beyond doubt that a conspiracy of the Deep State murdered the president of the United States.

The subject in question was the bullet hole observed in the windshield by several witnesses, some of whom were involved in the destruction of evidence of a murder. If anyone questions that a conspiracy of murderers took the life of the president, this matter settles it once and for all.

Douglas Weldon was a reluctant researcher, a man with great success in private life as an attorney who was an innocent bystander, so to speak, of facts which compelled him to pursue the case as an investigator for his own satisfaction.

One of the topics of interest was the limousine windshield bullet hole. Many people saw it, but the criminal Warren Commission made no affirmation of it, nor did it seek testimony of the people who saw it. They were jackals and hyenas of the cabal who murdered the president, so this testimony was inconvenient and in need of a vacuum cleaner of which it received many - including murder.

Nick Principe, a police officer and friend of Kennedy chauffeur Bill Greer who famously stopped the president's vehicle so that the snipers could place the kill shot, spoke with Greer at Bethesda Naval Hospital the night of the murder. Greer, playing innocent, told Principe that, "You should have seen what happened. Bullets were coming from everywhere. One came through the windshield and almost got me."

We admit that this testimony as it stands would have been second hand and inadmissible in court, but it is of an order of magnitude greater quality than the drivel produced by the Warren Commission. However, there is more to the story - in a moment.

How could the Warren Commissioners and their hired cover-up artists not be aware of the bullet hole when it is plainly visible in the Altgens photograph? The only explanation is that they were engaged in obstruction of justice in a murder of the president of the United States.

Principe was so intrigued by his friend's story that he went to the White House garage to view the vehicle himself. What Greer told him was the truth. He saw that there was a bullet hole in the windshield just as Greer stated - near the bottom center on the driver's side.

A fourth witness to the windshield bullet hole was George Whitaker who worked for the Ford Motor Company and saw the limousine front glass in the Dearborn Glass Plant building B behind a locked door where two of his men were replacing the glass, in the process of destroying the one with the forensic evidence as ordered by senior management. However, Whitaker still saw, first hand, the bullet hole in the windshield.

During an interview Whitaker, fearful for his life, stated that he saw first hand the damage on November 25, 1963 and knew, from his 30 years experience with damaged windshield glass, that the hole was made by a bullet, just as Greer said.

Thus we have two more witnesses unnamed, though I suspect that Whitaker named them in his interview with Weldon. We also cannot leave out Ford Motor Company chairman, Henry Ford II, whose company was among the only one in the US not closed on November 25, 1963.

At this point we have lost track of the witness count, but another is Stavis Ellis who was in charge of the president's motorcade security. At Parkland Hospital, he went to the limousine for inspection when he remarked to H R Freeman that there was a bullet hole in the windshield. Another Secret Service officer corrected him by stating that it was a "fragment." Ellis stood his ground, refusing not even for a minute to accept the lie. Years later he told Weldon that he could not talk to him because he "did not want a bullet in my head."

The FBI interviewed Secret Service agent Charles Taylor in 1975 who was in the passenger seat in the limousine when it was driven from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House garage where Nick Principe later viewed it.

His interview was so explosive that it was classified Top Secret and not released until 2000. The testimony was so damaging to the Warren Commission's obstruction that the FBI agent writing the report of the interview stated that there were no holes - even though his witness said exactly the opposite. So how did the FBI Agent know that there were no holes in the windshield even though 14 eye witnesses claimed otherwise?

Another powerful corroboration was from eye witness Richard Dudman who wrote for the St Louis Post-Dispatch which published an article he wrote stating that he saw a bullet hole in the limousine windshield. When the government saw his article, it flew him to Washington, DC where he was threatened, and never again spoke to anyone about it though in 1999 Weldon was able to at least meet him.

We produce below a list of willing and unwilling witnesses, a couple of whom are in the latter category for knowing of the bullet hole, but who insisted upon lying about its presence.

The windshield bullet hole, which came from the front, completely demolishes the mindless lies of the Warren Commission because it proves beyond doubt that conspirators murdered the president of the United States. It also proves that the Warren Commission was the tool of the conspirators to cover up the murder.

Witnesses

1. James Altgens - Professional Photographer Dallas Morning News (murdered)
2. Nick Principe - United States Park Police (Eye witness)
3. William Greer - Secret Service (Conspirator) (Eye witness)
4. George Whitaker - Ford Motor Company (Eye witness)
5. Ford employee 1 - Created new windshield (Eye witness)
6. Ford employee 2 - Created new windshield (Eye witness)
7. Ford employee 3 - Supervisor who ordered Employees 1 and 2 to replace windshield (Eye witness)
8. Chairman of Ford Motor Company (Conspirator)
9. Stavis Ellis - Dallas Police Department (Eye witness)
10. H R Freeman (Eye witness)
11. Secret Service agent who tried to correct Ellis on windshield hole (Conspirator) (Eye witness)
12. Dr Evalea Glonges - Female medical student in 1963 (Eye witness) (murdered)
13. Charles Taylor, Jr - Secret Service (Eye witness)
14. Richard Dudman - St Louis Post Dispatch (Eye witness)
15. Frank Comier (Eye witness)

Reference

Douglas Weldon, Interview by Len Osanic, nd source((574) The precise location of a bullet hole in the windshield of JFK's limousine. - YouTube, accessed 4/25/2021)

Please note that CIA-Google will take down this video soon.

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Solomon's Spurious Splendor

King Solomon of Biblical fame has often been dismissed as historical fiction due to lack of corroborating archaeological evidence for his existence. This judgment may be imprudent based upon recent discoveries in ancient history which may salvage some of his historicity, though the imperial splendor ascribed to him by Jewish writers is most likely propagandistic hagiography to salve the wounds of repeated incursions into Palestine by Mesopotamian powers.

The case of Solomon's fiction rests upon the dearth of archaeological and documentary evidence accorded to him. Quoting Isserlin, Kenneth Humphries notes that neither archaeological evidence, nor historical references in the large corpus of Assyrian and Egyptian state records mention either Solomon or his father David.

On the face of it, this lack of evidence would be a strong prima facie case against Solomon's historicity. However, Peter James, an antiquities historian, provides an alternate explanation contradicting this assumption, arguing that a lack of references to Solomon was an Egyptian propagandistic device for demeaning Syrio-Palestinian political leaders.

James argues that the Egyptian record is devoid of specific names of its political adversaries in this region because it was the Egyptian way of cursing defeated enemies, and oftentimes done in a ritualistic way in which effigies of the vanquished were destroyed, the belief being that they would have no afterlife due to their names not being uttered.

On the other hand, James admits that this practice was largely restricted to the Levantine territories, whereas Libyan and Nubian defeated leaders were frequently mentioned by name, perhaps due to respect for their antiquities - something which the Egyptians did not accord to the Israelis and other peoples to the north.

The same practice is observed in domestic conflicts of dynastic succession in which cases the memories of the predecessors are erased according to the principle that history belongs to the victor.

So in a way, James is arguing for having one's cake and eating it too, namely that the rule of effacement was restricted to the Levant whereas other regions were treated in an opposite fashion - an instance of special pleading, if you will. But there is more to the story.

So if ancient historical records are bereft of Solomon's name - aside from the rather hagiographic and propagandistic Jewish scriptures - is there any archaeological evidence to vindicate his existence? The answer is possibly yes.

Ancient ruins in and near Megiddo show significant large scale buildings in accord with the Biblical record if one lowers the dating of ancient history by up to 250 years. Even more persuasive are examples such as the Stepped Stone Structure at Jerusalem which are also suggestive of alleged Solomonic construction. Such an adjustment of dates might reconcile the Biblical accounts with the ruins. But is this modification justified?

James published a rather controversial but ground breaking book, Centuries of Darkness in 1991, which argues from multiple disciplines that ancient history is troubled with too many contradictions which are resolved reasonably well with a lowering of orthodox dates by up to two and half centuries.

One of the conflicts benefitting from such an adjustment is that of Solomon and the archaeological record. The Late Bronze Age structures at Megiddo, Jerusalem and elsewhere then fit with what is recorded about the United Kingdom monarch in the Bible, and with what is known about Egyptian history, particularly where the cryptic Shishak is concerned.

So while there is no smoking gun connecting any of the ruins to Solomon, a picture emerges which makes the Solomonic story - most likely a minimalist version - plausible. But there is a twist.

Solomon, as James proposes, through marriage to pharaoh's daughter, was a vassal king to Egypt. With Hiram and other Levantine potentates, Egypt maintained suzerainty over the region which it claimed as far as the Euphrates.

This relationship with Egypt may explain the story of Jeroboam fleeing to Egypt when his usurpation of the throne failed, a tale which Humphries dismisses as an improbability.

Solomon's position as a client to Egypt explains many anomalies in the Biblical accounts. For starters, it explains why Solomon could be said to rule over a vast territory extending to the Euphrates - but it was in the name of the Egyptian empire as a vassal king - not as an independent sovereign.

The many mind boggling marriages of Solomon also have an ember of truth as the marriage of Solomon to pharaoh's daughter described in I Kings accounts for Solomon's elevation to viceroy in the Egyptian court. When their patron was eclipsed or subjugated by successive Mesopotamian powers, the northern and southern kingdoms' positions became ever more precarious, ultimately resulting in conquest and a brief deportation to Assyria and Babylon.

Finally, the symbiosis between Egypt and Israel explains the many importations from the former into the latter's vocabulary, religion, and culture. It appears to us that the deep relationship between Israel and Egypt has many more implications for Israeli and Jewish history, with the whole of Jewish recorded history, as flatulent and fanciful as it is, a quest for achieving independence and renown in its own right.

Before closing, we have to address an anomaly presented by Solomon's alleged marriage to pharaoh's unnamed daughter. If James' effacement theory is correct concerning Egyptian chronology, then how does one explain the absence in Egyptian records of the king's daughter's marriage to his vassal prince? It makes no sense, and thus does injury to the theory.

Having come this far, Humphries' main objection to Solomonic history still stands - there is no temple, but on the other hand, by looking in a different historical age as James suggests, it might be discoverable or plausible, though its Biblical embellishments are surely the work of  a venally pious imagination.

Reference

Kenneth Humphries, Solomon? - The Emperor with no Clothes, Jesus Never Existed (website), nd, source(King Solomon? – The Emperor with No Clothes (jesusneverexisted.com), accessed 4/24/2021)

James, P., 2015a. “Kings of Jerusalem at the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition – Forerunners or Doubles of David and Solomon?” [ 4.5M], in P. James & P. G. van der Veen (eds), Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology. Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26-27 March, 2011 (BAR International Series 2732). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 236-257. source(Kings of Jerusalem at the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition – Forerunners or Doubles of David and Solomon? (centuries.co.uk), accessed 4/25/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Anne Frank Diary Hoax

As the old saying goes, there's no business like shoah business, like no business I know. So one should not be surprised to learn that the Anne Frank diary is another fable like so much of which comes out of Hollywood.

Although all should know about the forgery of the alleged Frank diary, there are still museums, even in Atlanta, Georgia of all places, still peddling this maudlin tripe to gullible goyim.

The first revelation of the hoax emerged from a trial in Germany when Otto Frank, the father of Anne, hauled into court Ernst Roemer, aged 76 at the time, to sue him for his assertions that Frank peddled forged documents which he called the Anne Frank diary, chronicling her experience while she hid from the Nazis in an attic. Roemer claimed that Frank himself had written the diary - not his dead daughter.

Frank was a Jewish merchant living in Frankfurt before World War 2, but was arrested in the Netherlands, then sent to the Auschwitz work camp. While imprisoned, his daughter Anne died of typhus. No, she was not hiding in an attic in some cattle's home in fear of the "evil" Nazis.

After his release at the end of the war, he pitched the "diary" to different publishers. Before proceeding we should note that Frank walked out of Auschwitz in good enough health, suffered no traumas from persecution, and was not put in an oven. Isn't it astonishing that he was quite possessed of mind to concoct a story to profit from his dead daughter who had just died in 1945?

But the more important point, to put stress upon it, is that the Franks were not hiding out in Holland. They were carted off to Auschwitz as were many other Germans.

After the book hit the big time, there were of course movie rights to cash in. Frank stole the screen play from Meyer Levin who sued him for 50,000 dollars which the court ordered as payment for damages. Ironically, Frank would make the courts his home away home as he sued innumerable people for doubting his hoax.

Doubts and questions surrounded the book from the beginning, but because Germany is a Jewish colony, the courts always ruled in favor Frank. With a string of court victories, Frank thought his victory against Roemer was a fait accompli, and indeed it was in the first two trials.

Perhaps age was catching up with Frank for he made one critical blunder. He managed to find or pay enough handwriting analysts who testified that the writing of his notes and his forged diary were all written by the same hand, and the plaintiff insisted that it was the hand of his dead daughter.

Roemer refused to roll over, as in 1980 it was still possible to contest these matters without receiving mandatory incarceration for even thinking that the holocaust was a fraud. On his third appeal, the court asked the German Federal Criminal Office to perform analysis of Frank's manuscripts - all 3 bound volumes with their 338 pages.

The German authorities concluded that large portions of the diary was written in ball point ink pen, which would not have been a problem if Anne Frank had died after 1951. The ball point pen was not manufactured until 1951, meaning that the large oeuvre, all written by a single hand according to the court testimony, had to be that of Otto Frank - not his daughter.

And besides, how is a sickly 15 year old teenager going to compile all of that material in such a short time, especially when she was hiding in an attic in Holland in fear for her life? In shoah business, anything is possible.

Unfortunately Otto died before the third trial concluded, so defense lawyers could not grill him under cross examination after the FCO issued its report. But the fraud still lives and breathes its hoary breath. Have these people no shame?

The comments section of our referenced article produced one fascinating examination of the diary based upon comparative literary analysis of novels from the 18th and 19th centuries which provides another way of assessing the authenticity of this maudlin tripe.

Before examining that aspect in detail, the author asks if a young girl in hiding from big bad Nazis would really be allowed to keep a journal documenting names of family, friends and collaborators. Should such materials fall into the hands of the Nazis, then these mentioned people would also be at risk for their livelihoods if not lives. So the specter of fantasy haunts the diaries from the very outset.

As we all know, the Germans did catch up with the Franks in 1944 and removed them to Bergen-Belsen where Anne died of typhus caused by the unsanitary conditions in the camp brought about by the ferocious allied bombing. So clearly keeping a diary was not in anyone's interest.

(When Anne died, very near the war's end, she was probably taken to a crematoria if the Germans still had fuel to operate them, or else tossed her corpse in a mass grave if the ovens were no longer operable).

Our mystery writer, Aleth, identified 2 major sources and several minor ones from which the authors or editors drew upon to produce the first version of this maudlin tripe which first appeared in 1947 in the Netherlands.

My theory is that Anne indeed produced a rudimentary diary which did not have enough material or interest for a book, so Otto hired several writers or editors to spruce it up. He or she had the literary background to embellish the actual diary with vignettes, pericopes, and samplings from other works which were applied to the war time story to give it appeal and maudlin sentimentality. Indeed many of the books to be mentioned were targeted to young girls in their early teenaged years.

Aleth notes Der Trotzkop by Emmy von Rhoden, Jakob von Gunten by Robert Walser, plus the following works:

• Pamela or Virtue Rewarded, by Samuel Richardson, 1740
• Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship
• Early 19th Century tales, Hoffman
• Joop ter Heul, Cissy Marxveldt, 1919-25
• Through a Window, H G Wells, 1894
• It Had to be Murder, Cornell Woolrich, 1942
• Pedagogical concepts and books, Maria Montessori
• Assorted German writers and philosophers

Aleth identified Anneliese Schutz and Abe Cauvern as Otto Frank's primary collaborators in producing what became Anne Frank's Diary.

In beginning her analysis, Aleth observes that the quality and sophistication of the literary tapestry of the diary exceeds that of a 12-14 year old girl, and draws on too many sources for which such a young girl holed up in an attic would have access.

She then proceeds to pull specific passages from the above mentioned works and correlates them with the corresponding passages in the diary. The observations and insights of Aleth are spectacular and devastating to the idea that a young girl wrote what was published as Anne Frank's Diary.

If the diary had been presented as a work of fiction based on a true story, no one would have any objections or qualms. But the fact that Otto Frank and his collaborators used his dead daughter to bamboozle the goyim with maudlin sentimental tripe is outrageous and disgraceful. Have these people no shame?

Reference

Dr William Pierce, Anne Frank Hoax Exposed, National Vanguard, January 18, 2015, source(Anne Frank Hoax Exposed | National Vanguard, accessed 4/14/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Adele Edisen Story and the Murder of John Kennedy

Adele Edisen is not a name commonly found in Kennedy assassination histories, but her story is fascinating nonetheless, she being a proleptic witness to the murder of John Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

Like Rose Cheramie, Edisen received pre-assassination warnings when she had an encounter with an enigmatic figure named Jose Albert Rivera who made cryptic predictions about Kennedy's murder, and all too accurate predictions about Lee HARVEY Oswald and Edward Grant Stockdale.

Before plunging into the story, we should address some of the objections or apprehensions many have registered about her tale, the common one being that she does not have smoking gun evidence of her encounters with Rivera. Defenders note that her mind was sharp and lucid during interviews, and that files have since surfaced corroborating parts of her story. 

Our view is that she is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No one has found evidence to rebut or falsify her story - merely potential objections without substance. William Perry, one of her chroniclers, satisfied himself through independent corroboration that her account is trustworthy, based in part on other researchers' independent verifications of the story's details.

The following summary of her experience is condensed from William Perry's article which we reference below, and to which we add our own commentary. In many ways Adele's revelations are explosive.

Edisen held a post-doctoral fellowship at the  National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness in 1963 in New Orleans, the very place where Kennedy murder conspirator Alton Ochsner worked at Tulane University, and the very city where CIA contract employee Lee HARVERY Oswald was stationed in 1963.

Rivera had ties to New Orleans as well, having been a faculty member of the Loyola University biochemistry department. He subsequently lived in Washington, DC. But his career included much more than academics, for he joined the US Army in 1948, retiring in 1965. His obituary claims that he joined in 1942, but we favor the former date for reasons to develop elsewhere.

His birth date is a bit of a mystery, with different dates provided depending upon the government file consulted. However, one researcher, Tom Scully, found his birth certificate which records his birth in 1898 in Lima, Peru. But why all of the birth dates which typically have him born anywhere from 1905-11? And why the discrepancies on his military service?

Edisen and Rivera met at a professional convention in Atlantic City in April 1963 from which a social relationship of brief duration ensued. During one visit, the subject of Dallas came up at which point Rivera encouraged her to visit the Carousel Club managed by soon-to-be famous Jack Ruby. Rivera also asked if she knew Lee Oswald whom he encouraged her to meet. He knew all about his wife, child, and move to New Orleans even if Oswald himself did not know about it. Later, when urging Edisen to call Oswald, he told her to tell him to "kill the chief."

During the visit, Edisen also found out that Rivera was a colonel in the army doing work for the State Department. While driving around Washington on a site seeing tour, Rivera asked what Jackie would do when Jack dies, a question which startled Edisen. He also knew about her pregnancy although Edisen did not, indicating that neither did the general public know. Rivera also asked his guest if she had seen Caroline on her pony. In general, Rivera expressed negative or hostile attitudes towards Kennedy.

During another dinner, Rivera asked Edisen if she knew John Abt, chief counsel for the Communist Party USA. Abt would be the lawyer whom Oswald would attempt to reach when jailed falsely for the murders of President Kennedy and JD Tippit. Abt himself is almost a footnote in the JFK drama, but Rivera was plugged into him and his future role at an early date, telling Edisen that Oswald would call him for defense.

Following his preview of John Abt, Rivera proceeded to inform his dinner companion that Grant Stockdale, the one-time ambassador to Ireland, and some-time fundraiser for Kennedy, would kill himself due to inconsolable grief. Rivera showed extraordinary powers of clairvoyance to say the very least.

When Adele returned to New Orleans, she called Oswald thinking that he was a research colleague of Rivera's. The first time she called, the man answering the phone said that she must have the wrong number. A week later, the same man said to wait a moment - he was just arriving. In Oswald's absence, she spoke with his wife Marina whom she described as having a Slavic-Russian accent, and who understood the conversation, then told her she was welcome to call back later when her husband was present. The most interesting fact of this conversation is that Marina could speak and understand English, a point we have made before which contradicts many of the popular and CIA based stories lying about Oswald's wife's inability to speak English.

Even more interesting than confirmation that Marina was rather fluent in English is the fact that Rivera had given Edisen Oswald's phone number before he had moved to New Orleans or had even found a place to live. We will return to this item in our conclusion.

One interesting item we learn from Perry's recounting is that Oswald used Sgt Robert Hidell as a reference on his application to CIA front company William B Reilly. This last name would show up again in connection with his post office box, and with identification found in his planted wallet at the Tippit scene with the name Alek Hidell.

Edisen saw Rivera one more time when he was on business at Louisiana State University. The encounter was by chance - at least from Edisen's point of view. There was nothing but a clumsy passing interaction between the two near an elevator. Rivera allegedly retired from the military in 1965, and allegedly died August 15, 1989 at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

One month prior to encountering Rivera at LSU, Adele received an unmarked envelope containing a drawing similar to one Rivera drew for her while they dined together in Washington. Rivera was in a near frenetic state at the time but made the point that there will be men on the 5th floor of the building he drew on the napkin, and that Oswald is not what he seems, and other incoherent thoughts. The 5th floor is actually where the shots from the Texas School Book Depository were fired, or where significant command and control operations occurred.

To conclude the recitation of events, we will note that Edisen contacted the Secret Service about these strange events and encounters - twice before the assassination, and once after. In no case did the Secret Service take any actions to follow-up on her reports, or to protect the president. Indeed, the Secret Service was involved in the assassination.

Edisen's story is extraordinary in several ways. One of the more curious aspects is that Rivera bothered to share specific details with Edisen. They were dangerous to reveal if for no other reason than exposing the plan to assassinate the president could have brought a lot of unpleasant publicity for the conspirators. Unfortunately, at the time, Rivera's babblings sounded senseless. And why would one of the conspirators reveal the plans to a stranger?

The only explanation which makes sense to me is that CIA was conducting a systems check to make sure that there were no leaks in the formal bureaucracies which might compromise their plans. In other words, they had to be sure that there were no inter-agency cooperations in following up assassination tips and that all information was dutifully scrubbed from the records so that the murder cover-up would succeed.

The common belief, expressed in his CIA-Wikipedia article, is that Grant Stockdale committed suicide. This vignette with Rivera tells us clearly that he was murdered when the assassins pushed him out of the window of his hotel room. Rivera's foreknowledge of this event and its public explanation is the smoking gun that he was murdered.

We also learn that Oswald was indeed the patsy. His movements were so controlled that Rivera could state where he would be before Oswald could. We also see the co-conspiracy of the vile Ruth Hyde Paine who was an important handler of Oswald.

The fact that Oswald's telephone number was being answered by the apartment owner shows the collusion between him and the conspirators.

Perhaps the most enlightening disclosure in this affair is the complete, total, and minute control CIA had over the entire operation, including the creepy observations by Rivera of Jackie's baby and Caroline's pony. 

Anyone who has managed large organizations or projects knows that goals and work do not happen by accident. The amount of managerial  and logistical support required to murder a president of the United States was epically enormous. It involved a massive apparatus from several countries, the most important of which were the United Kingdom, Israel and International Jewry, and the United States. 

One final point regarding Oswald - he may have been mind controlled. Edisen raises the suggestion that Rivera may have tried to poison her with LSD, and this would be entirely unsurprising given CIA's deep investment in MK Ultra.

While Adele Edisen's story is generally a detail in the vast knowledge we now have about the murder of Kennedy, it is our opinion that it may rise to the top as one of the most important because it reveals the scope and breadth of the planning which attended the assassination long before its execution. The only question now is, how long before April 1963 was the assassination planned?

Reference

William Perry, A New Oswald Witness Goes Public, JFKCountercoup, December 30, 2009, source( JFKcountercoup: A New Oswald Witness Goes Public, accessed 4/11/2021)

Tom Scully, Adele Edisen in the Searchers, Deep Politics Forum (website forum), January 22, 2017, source( Adele Edison in The Searchers (deeppoliticsforum.com), accessed 4/11/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Dutch Jewish Irish Slave Trade

As Jews demand reparations of Whites for blacks, they need to be held accountable for their fomentation and facilitation of both the African and Irish slave trades. Yes, the Jews had an Irish slave trade of which few are aware.

We have noted in previous Chronicles that in the 17th century, fully one half of all British colonial slave ships were owned by Jews. I have seen lists of the names of the ships which unfortunately have been lost to me in the vagaries of time.

This fact is all the more remarkable when one considers that Jews in colonial America constituted a sliver of their large numbers today. The exorbitant Jewish Privilege of controlling Holland afforded them the means of starting and controlling the slave trade - even with their attenuated numbers in the British American colonies.

But that was not enough for the Jews. As equal opportunity enslavers - because that is for what goyim were made - the Jews raided Ireland to create a white slave trade which targeted the British West Indies. While this human trafficking was done with the cooperation with the British, it was the powerful, wealthy, privileged Jews of Holland who conducted the most lucrative part of the trade.

According to Rosemary Pennington, writing in the article referenced below, Sephardic Jews in Holland provided the "credit, machinery, and shipping facilities" for the slave trade which turned Barbados into one of the crown jewels of the British empire. In fact she notes that profits from this one island group exceeded that of all other British possessions combined.

Very much unlike it is today, Barbados was once an island populated mostly by Whites, including the Irish slaves which the Jews brought to the island. Quoting Ms Pennington,

George Downing wrote to John Winthrop, the colonial governor of Massachusetts in 1645 that planters who wanted to make a fortune in the British West Indies must procure White slave labor “out of England” if they wanted to succeed.

During the first half of the 17th century, White slaves from Ireland and even Britain made the sugar colony immense wealth for the Jews and Britain.

However, as the British would find out over the next 3 centuries, the Irish did not play door mats, and proved consistently "incorrigible" which prompted the Jewish plantation owners and trading companies to switch from White slavery to black slavery. Their difficulties with the Irish marked the shift from Ireland and Britain to West Africa for its supply of human commodities.

The black slaves would prove more pliable and profitable.

In the northern colonies, the situation was different in that blacks, arriving in 1619, were the only slaves of which we are aware who manned the British manors and plantations in North America. Otherwise, the wealthy colonialists relied upon indentured servitude for labor.

The Jews have yet to make restitutions to the Irish for their crimes against humanity, and you can bet your bottom shekel that they never will.

Reference

Rosemary W Pennington, National Alliance (website), July 13, 2020, source( Dutch Jews and the White Slave Trade | National Vanguard accessed 4/10/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

How the Jews Murdered 60 Million Russians

History will never adequately tell how the Jews murdered 60 million Russians, but with complete control of the newly established Soviet Union, it had the power and means to do it, with the opening salvo the murder of the entire Romanov imperial family.

Psychopathy does not begin to describe the Jewish rule of the USSR, but one has to begin somewhere to tell this savage misrule of a nation. Adjectives are too effete to plum the depths of Jewish wickedness but we will find the will to do it.

It is well established through the works of numerous authors, not the least of which was Antony Sutton, that Western money financed the Soviet Union and its revolution of 1917-19. Bankster billionaires such as Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs, J P Morgan, Kuhn Loeb, Rothschild dynasty, and many more in London and New York financed the revolution.

Some will contend, They can't do that - they are capitalists and capitalists don't support communists. Such a sentiment is foolish in the extreme. The billionaire banksters are first and foremost Jewish. Nothing comes in the way of that. The Russians were an impediment to Jewish central banking, and had untold wealth which could be had for nothing with the right regime in office.

Wall Street and City of London were the only means of supporting a successful revolution of against the Czarist government. In many respects Nicholas was too weak and too naïve to understand the forces arrayed against him. His heavily indebted nation was conned into joining the Triple Entente in exchange for a warm water port in the Black Sea.

World War 1 so diluted and distracted the Czar, that the New York and London money allowed Trotsky and Lenin to topple the government with ease. When the Wall Street funded government took control of Russia, it was wall to wall Jew.

An article by Mark Weber, referenced below, documents the make-up of the Soviet government. Robert Wilton provided much of the data of the racial make-up of the high level government organizations in the 1920s, information which was censored from English language translations of his French book, Les Derniers Jours Des Romanoffs.

Of the 62 members of the Bolshevik Committee, 41 or 62% were Jewish. Of the 36 members of The Extraordinary Committee, also known as Cheka - the vicious secret police, 23 or 63% were Jewish. Of the 22 members of The Council of the Peoples' Commissars, 17 or 77% were Jews. Of the 556 highest level officials in the Soviet government of this period, 457 or 82% were Jews. Of the 12 members of the all powerful Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, 9 or 75% were Jews.

But the Jews not only controlled the Soviet government, but also the opposition. The percentages of Jewish members of these groups are as follows: Mensheviks 100%, Communists of the People 83%, Social Revolutionaries 87%, Committee of the Anarchists of Moscow 80%, Polish Communist Party 100%. These groups were designed to disorganize opposition to the Jewish takeover of Russia.

If you are wondering what happened to diversity and inclusion, you are a fool. This arrangement was diversity and inclusion. Wilton showed us why the Revolution was red - it was red from the oceans of blood spilled by Jews who were financed and supported by their New York and London sponsors.

Through bullets and engineered famine, the bread basket of Europe became an bottomless sea of blood from Jewish hands - they ate, drank, and bathed in blood.

As the decades passed, the situation worsened. When Gordon Bakken interviewed Sergei Khrushchev in 2002, he asked son of the former premier about the Jewish rule of the USSR. The latter stated that the Jews "executed" 50 million Russians during its history. This number says nothing of the tens of millions starved to death through collectivization and other planned destructions of the food supplies.

Does it sicken anyone that a race which vociferously and violently cries about 6 million non-existent fake deaths of the Holohoax has the audacity to do so when it murdered 60 million real Russians? Have these people no shame or conscience?

Reference

Gordon Bakken, An Interview with Sergei Khrushchev, National Vanguard, January 15, 2021, source(An Interview with Sergei Khrushchev | National Vanguard, accessed 4/5/2021)

Mark Weber, Newly Updated: The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime, part 3, National Vanguard, November 17, 2020, source(Newly Updated: The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime, part 3 | National Vanguard, accessed 4/5/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Killing the Khazar Theory

Long time readers of these Chronicles may recall our endorsement of the Khazarian theory which supposes that modern Jewry owes its existence to a melding of ethnic and religious forces which divorced itself from the traditional Levantine source around the 10th century or so. We have since been taken to the Khazarian woodshed, finding that the theory is more Jewish hokum.

To restate the thesis a bit more elaborately, the Khazars were a group of Mongoloid-Turkic tribes who coalesced into a regional power in the Eurasian Caucuses during the 7th to 10th centuries AD. The belief further supposes that the Khazars in want of a religion, adopted Judaism, thus creating a non-ethnically Jewish host for its religion. Somehow this created a divorcement between race and religion.

This belief was directly or indirectly supported by such scientists as Eran Elhaik of John Hopkins University, and other Jewish "thinkers" who had argued since the 1970s that Jewish identity is more a question of religion than of race. Unfortunately for the believers, this theory does not have scientific foundation.

As Dr David Duke noted in a 2015 article, referenced below, the overwhelming conclusions of genetic studies are that Jews form a distinct racial species, even though admixtures of host nation DNA have infiltrated their genome. The focus of the studies are the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews who together constitute the majority of Jews worldwide. In Israel, the Sephardic Jews are about 50% of the population.

Jews have tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, they are a racial minority who uses the race card in a dizzying array of claims of persecutions. On the other hand, they claim that they are merely a religious sect who is also unfairly persecuted, railing against the establishment of religion.

Duke noted that Israel uses DNA testing as a basis for determining which immigrants are Jews and thus who will be granted entry and citizenship. Thus the issue is settled decisively that Jews are a distinct race. By observing that even atheists are considered Jews, it is nigh unto impossible to argue that religion is a basis for Jewish identification - unless your are an adept Talmudist - in which case anything is possible and impossible at the same time.

But it is the Jewish religion which is the cancer and cause of so much death and destruction around the world and throughout time. The Jewish god demands that its adherents, his chosen people, annihilate all peoples who stand in the way of their possession of the promised land. In fact Saul lost the throne for failure to utterly destroy the vile goyim as Jehova/Yaweh commanded them.

From this, Duke documents the many laments the Romans expressed about the Jews as an unassimilable and trouble causing population throughout the empire, forcing Rome to expel them from numerous provinces and from the empire itself.

The atrocities Jews committed have continued unabated to the present as one can see in their hatred for the Palestinians, and the heavy roles they played in fomenting World Wars 1 and 2, plus a host of cultural demolitions against the Germans after World War 1, and the Western world in general after World War 2. Their cultural trash is reprehensible.

Returning to the studies, Duke enumerates 12, conducted often collaboratively between Jews, Aryans, and none of the above, showing that Ashkenazi Jews form a distinct racial species based upon DNA characteristics, though they have about 30% admixture of European genes. The Sephardic Jews are even more distinct with greater purity. These DNA constellations correlate well with the traditional Jewish groups in the Levant. Thus Jews are first and foremost a distinct racial group, a fact which coupled with their religion, impels them to destroy anything which is non-Jewish, the most important target being the white races - especially the Germans.

One of the reasons for their racial continuity, of course, is their endogamous practices, again found in the Jewish scriptures. Everything which their host nations valued, the Jews contradicted, which explains their endless laws which perversely antagonize their host peoples, one example of which is the demand that all foods be kosher. Although the ancient Romans clearly saw the problem, the modern Aryans are far too simple minded to see it, which is one reason why the Jews refer to non-Jews as goyim - cattle.

This ultra-hatred is legendary, finding its teachings in the Torah and Talmud, only the latter of which is supremely authoritative. To quote Duke

It was, after all, the former chief rabbi of the Sephardic Jews in Israel who announced that Gentiles are donkeys, created by God only to serve Jews, among many other overtly racist comments. This ultra racist Jew, Rabbi Yosef, recently died and had the largest funeral in the history of Israel.

Israel is a theocracy of sorts, meaning that its religious leaders have the final say on what is acceptable Jewish behavior and praxis. So the pronouncements of Rabbi Yosef are not without consequence, something which the Palestinians experience on a daily basis - as does the West as it fights Jewish wars of imperial aggression.

Returning to the Elhaik article we had originally lauded, Duke points out its fundamental flaw - that there are no Khazar reference populations against which to argue that modern Jews are Khazarian descendants. Even if they existed, it would hardly matter since racial identity is based upon genetic characteristics, not lineal or legacy ones related to geography.

The Khazar theory is not required to nullify Jewish claims on Arab lands. Such thefts should be naturally abhorrent to normal people. The Torah is a fantasy promulgated to justify thefts, even 2 millennia after the alleged fact. Their psychopathic god and racial features are the bases for granting Jews a patent to terrorize the world or the Arabs in the Middle East.

While we have been served a heaping helping of humble pie, there is still more to the story to explain the virulent hatred which Jews have toward the Aryans. That story is to be continued and does involve the Jewish god and genetics.

Reference

David Duke, Rethinking the Khazar Theory, National Vanguard, June 7, 2015, source(Rethinking the Khazar Theory | National Vanguard, accessed 4/4/2021)

Copyright 2021 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.