Donald Trump and the Shadow of McCarthyism

EPub Format⬇

Last month the Trump Administration launched an unprecedented assault against academic and intellectual freedom in America, targeting many of our most elite institutions of higher education.

As an example of this, enormous pressure was exerted against Columbia University in New York City by withdrawing $400 million in annual federal funding and demanding its full cooperation with the arrest of foreign students who had been critical of Israel’s massacre of Gazan civilians. Trump officials also required that Columbia’s prestigious Middle Eastern Studies program and other research centers be placed under “academic receivership,” ensuring their tight ideological control by pro-Israel overseers.

Faced with the dire threat of such a massive loss of funds, Acting President Katrina Armstrong acceded to those demands, but then resigned, much like her predecessor had done seven months earlier.

For similar reasons, the top leadership of Harvard University’s Middle Eastern Studies Center was forced to resign, seemingly destroying the academic independence of that prestigious institution eighty years after it had first been established. But apparently that preliminary academic concession was deemed insufficient, and Trump officials soon froze more than $2 billion in such federal funding to America’s most prestigious university. When Harvard resisted further demands, Trump illegally threatened to revoke Harvard’s non-profit status, ban all foreign students, and essentially attempt to destroy it.

Our government declared that all these attacks upon America’s top academic institutions were part of its sweeping ideological campaign to root out campus antisemitism, with that term now extended to include “anti-Zionism,” namely sharp criticism of the State of Israel and its policies.

The successful Hamas raid of October 7, 2023 had been followed by relentless Israeli attacks against the helpless civilians of Gaza, and these had prompted a huge wave of pro-Palestinian campus protests during 2024, outraging the Israeli government and its pro-Israel American supporters. The latter included many Jewish billionaire donors who exerted their enormous influence to successfully demand unprecedented crackdowns that involved the arrest of some 2,300 students and soon stamped out those demonstrations.

Despite that major success, the Zionist donors regarded their victory over the protesters as incomplete. With the pro-Israel Biden Administration now replaced by the even more strongly pro-Israel Trump Administration, they demanded that this campaign be extended to rooting out the ideological forces that they deemed responsible.

Under their influence, Trump and his top aides declared their intent to arrest and deport any foreign students who had participated in those campus protests or otherwise expressed their sharp criticism of Israel, and this soon resulted in a series of shocking incidents.

For many decades, legal permanent residents of the U.S. were assumed to possess all the same rights and privileges as American citizens, certainly including the Constitutional protections of our Bill of Rights. Their Green Cards could only be revoked for very serious crimes such as rape or murder, and cancelling student visas for ideological reasons was almost as rare.

But under Trump this completely changed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that a central foreign policy goal of the American government was combatting antisemitism everywhere across the world and anti-Zionism fell into that same category. Therefore those foreign students who strongly criticized Israel should be removed from American soil, and he cancelled the visas or Green Cards of some 300 of them, ordering their immediate deportation, with the total eventually rising to 1,500.

Some of the resulting scenes were quite shocking. A young Turkish doctoral candidate attending Tufts University on a Fulbright Scholarship was snatched off the streets of her Boston-area town by six masked federal agents, hustled into an unmarked car, and transferred to a holding cell in Louisiana in preparation for her deportation. Other raids on Columbia student housing by teams of federal agents picked up a Palestinian Green Card holder with an American citizen wife eight months pregnant. A South Korean undergraduate who had lived in the U.S. since the age of seven went into hiding to avoid a similar fate, while a student from India quickly fled to Canada to avoid arrest.

None of these university students had committed any crimes, but they were seized by federal agents in campus raids or grabbed from the streets of their cities merely for having expressed public criticism of the foreign government of Israel. Nothing as bizarre as this had ever previously happened in America.

For example, the Tufts student was abducted for having co-authored an op-ed in her campus newspaper a year earlier supporting the implementation of policies passed by an overwhelming vote of her own university’s Community Senate. The text of the piece that prompted her arrest was so anodyne and dull that I found it difficult to read without nodding off.

Repressive police states that arrest students for criticizing the government have hardly been uncommon throughout history. But I’d never previously heard of one that only implemented such measures for criticizing a foreign government. This demonstrated the true lines of sovereignty and political control governing today’s American society.

The declared aim of the Trump Administration and its ideological allies has been to completely root out and eliminate anti-Zionism across American universities. However, I think the likely outcome of this harsh ideological crackdown may be to destroy intellectual freedom at those institutions, thereby also destroying much of their global influence. Several weeks ago, I discussed these strange and alarming developments in an article.

• The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 31, 2025 • 7,300 Words

The Forgotten Menace of Soviet Communist Subversion

As might be expected, these dramatic Trump Administration attacks against free speech and academic freedom provoked a huge wave of sharp criticism, both across the mainstream media and among private individuals, and the word most often used to condemn such policies was “McCarthyism.” Throughout the month of March, I saw that term regularly expressed in angry YouTube interviews, published opinion pieces, and even in some of my personal email exchanges.

Yet although my own very critical article ran well over 7,000 words, it included no mention of either Sen. Joseph McCarthy nor his anti-Communist political crusade of the early 1950s. Trump’s actions seemed orders-of-magnitude more serious and unjustified than anything ever proposed by McCarthy, so I regarded any such comparisons as absurd and ridiculous.

EPub Format⬇

Back when I was a young child my grandfather enjoyed watching professional wrestling on his old black-and-white television, so I occasionally did the same.

In those distant days, television wrestling possessed almost no money nor prestige and was barely even considered a real sport, probably tied with roller derby as occupying the bottommost-tier of audience viewership. Wrestling matches were only carried on one of the lowest-rated local television stations, unaffiliated with any network, whose managers desperately sought out anything they could find to fill their available broadcast hours.

The notion that wrestling might someday become a multi-billion-dollar national business enterprise would have seemed totally outlandish and ridiculous. Although a 1975 Hollywood science fiction film called Rollerball envisioned a future America in which a lethal version of roller derby had become the #1 sport, no one ever suggested anything similar for wrestling.

Although I’ve never watched a single wrestling match since the black-and-white shows of my childhood and those memories have faded, I think that they may have often featured tag-team contests, in which pairs of wrestlers faced off against each other.

If so, then our national headlines are now proclaiming a heavyweight wrestling match to determine the future of American higher education and perhaps our entire society as well. President Donald Trump is facing off against Harvard University in the greatest political bout of this young century, with each of those primary contenders backed by their chosen seconds.

Trump is a noted author, with more than twenty published volumes to his name, many of them high-profile bestsellers on business strategy, politics, and negotiation. But I’m not entirely convinced that he’s ever actually read a single book cover-to-cover in his entire life, even including any of his own, and if he did, I suspect that the last one may have been decades ago, perhaps filled with many colorful pictures.

Meanwhile, his main opponent in that match is America’s oldest university, now approaching its 390th year of existence, long ranked as the world’s wealthiest and most prestigious institution of higher education.

Trump’s loyal team-mate is his Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, the billionaire wrestling-lady, while Harvard is backed by Columbia University, still smarting from the brutal beat-down it recently received at the hands of the Trump-McMahon team before Harvard had entered the lists.

Although wealthy and very prestigious, Columbia still probably ranks a bit below the longstanding Harvard-Yale-Princeton triumvirate. Therefore the threatened loss of $400 million in annual federal funding a few weeks ago brought the university to its knees, forcing its administration to surrender on all the main points demanded.

Teams of federal agents were allowed to raid student housing and drag off any non-citizens suspected of criticizing Israel, the administration agreed to create a special unit of 30 campus security officers tasked with suppressing any public displays of anti-Zionism, and its prestigious Middle Eastern Studies program was placed in “academic receivership,” presumably intended to ensure that it became entirely pro-Israel in its teachings.

All these concessions were made by Acting President Katrina Armstrong, who afterwards resigned due to that horrific pressure she had endured, becoming the second president of Columbia to do so in just the last eight months.

So based upon this painful recent history, we are clearly seeing the sort of grudge match that has become wildly popular in pro-wrestling, with Columbia eager for its share of revenge now that it has mighty Harvard on its side.

In pro-wrestling as in other spectator sports, the onlookers can side with one of the champions or the other, or else merely enjoy the battle without taking sides.

Given Trump’s ignorance and the stupidity of his policies, most recently demonstrated by his Looney Tunes tariff proposals, I certainly couldn’t see myself cheering for him. But instead of remaining neutral, I’ve found myself entirely in Harvard’s corner.

My position might seem a bit strange given the harsh criticism that I’ve leveled at my alma mater over the years, even on some of the very matters that the Trump Administration is fiercely attacking.

For example, as far back as late 2012, I’d published a short piece arguing that Harvard had gradually transformed itself from a great academic center of learning into an enormous hedge fund with some sort of small school or something attached off to one side.

• Paying Tuition to a Giant Hedge Fund
  Ron Unz • The American Conservative • December 4, 2012 • 1,300 Words

As I noted in a follow-up column a few days later, my criticism had deeply resonated in liberal journalistic circles, and during the years since then denouncing our elite universities as disguised hedge-funds has become widespread:

Late Friday afternoon, the piece was prominently featured on the Business Insider and CNBC websites, and soon redistributed on twitter by a large throng of individuals, some of them prominent journalists. MSNBC‘s Chris Hayes tweeted “very jealous I did not write this article” to his 175,000 followers, Pulitzer Prize winner Bart Gellman described it as “eye opening,” and New York Times economic policy reporter Annie Lowrey used the phrase “Harvard as a giant hedge fund plus a wee research university.”

Moreover, that particular piece had actually been published as a side-bar to my extremely long analysis of the admissions practices at Harvard and our other most elite universities, which together served as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, media, and finance. My statistics demonstrated that their admissions process had become hopelessly corrupt, and I summarized these conclusions.

In recent decades, elite college admissions policy has frequently become an ideological battlefield between liberals and conservatives, but I would argue that both these warring camps have been missing the actual reality of the situation.

Conservatives have denounced “affirmative action” policies which emphasize race over academic merit, and thereby lead to the enrollment of lesser qualified blacks and Hispanics over their more qualified white and Asian competitors; they argue that our elite institutions should be color-blind and race-neutral. Meanwhile, liberals have countered that the student body of these institutions should “look like America,” at least approximately, and that ethnic and racial diversity intrinsically provide important educational benefits, at least if all admitted students are reasonably qualified and able to do the work.

EPub Format⬇

In an amusing display of British pride and solipsism, the venerable Times of London once ran the headline “Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off.”

Overly arrogant individuals sometimes find it difficult to recognize that they are not the center of the universe, and that instead they might actually be considerably less large and powerful than those they intend to overawe, cut off, or isolate.

This sort of notion was also famously expressed in a Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoon I remember seeing during my childhood. One of the Looney Tunes characters—I forget which one—was perched on the branch of a tree and idiotically decided to destroy his adversary by sawing it off. Since cartoons may easily defy physical laws, his ridiculous plan actually succeeded and that branch remained suspended in mid-air while the rest of the tree suddenly plummeted to the ground. But real life is considerably different than what was portrayed by Warner Brothers cartoonists.

Some may disagree. I’ve sometimes wondered whether the surprising trade policies that President Donald Trump announced over the last couple of weeks might have been inspired by those Bugs Bunny cartoons of the 1950s. Perhaps he assumed that they accurately portrayed real life events and decided to apply that same strategy to America’s international trade problems.

Certainly the sudden, unilateral application of new tariffs against every other country in the world—ranging from a stiff minimum of 10% against the entire human race to a China rate that ultimately reached an absurd 145%—seemed more like something out of a cartoon than normal economic policy planning.

The initial tariff rates shown in the chart that Trump held up at his April 2nd announcement produced a jaw-dropping reaction by nearly all economic observers. I suspect that many of them may have wondered if he’d somehow gotten his dates confused and the whole exercise had actually been intended as an April Fools’ joke.

I was recently interviewed by a right-wing British podcaster named Mark Collett, and he suggested that Trump’s erratic and mercurial political decisions reminded him of the Roman Emperor Caligula, leading me to concur with his historical analogy.

Caligula is probably best known for announcing that he would appoint his horse Incitatus to the consulship, the highest political office of the Roman government, and also for declaring himself to be a living god. But I think that if Trump had given his favorite dog or cat a Cabinet post and even Tweeted out a few fanciful claims regarding his own divinity, the negative impact upon America’s position in the world might have been considerably less damaging than what was caused by his outrageously bizarre tariff proposal.

Tariffs are just a type of tax levied on imports, and America annually imports well over $3 trillion dollars worth of foreign goods, so tariff taxes obviously have a huge economic impact. But Trump suddenly raised those taxes by more than a factor of ten, taking them from around 2.5% to 29%, rates far, far beyond those of the notorious 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff and reaching the levels of more than 100 years ago. This certainly amounted to one of the largest tax increases in all of human history.

According to our Constitution, tariffs and other tax changes must be enacted by Congressional legislation. But Trump ignored those requirements, instead claiming that he had the power to unilaterally set tariff tax rates under the emergency provisions of a 1977 law that no one had ever previously believed could be used for that purpose.

Across our 235 year national history, all our past changes in tariff, trade, or tax policy—including Smoot-Hawley, NAFTA, the WTO, and Trump 45’s own USMCA—had always been the result of months or years of political negotiations, and then ultimately approved or rejected by Congress. But now these multi-trillion-dollar decisions were being made at the personal whim of someone who had seemingly proclaimed himself a reigning, empowered American autocrat.

As might be expected, Trump’s huge tax increase on $3 trillion of imports quickly led to a very sharp drop in stock prices, but Trump declared that he was unbending and would never waver. China had prepared for exactly such an economic attack, and when it soon retaliated with similar tariffs on American products, Trump counter-retaliated, with several days of those tit-for-tat exchanges eventually raising tariff rates against China to an astonishing 145%, essentially banning almost all Chinese goods. Many other countries and the EU also threatened similar retaliatory tariffs, but since their tax rates were governed by law rather than autocratic whim, their responses were necessarily much slower.

However, just a week after he announced those gigantic tariffs against the entire world and repeatedly promised to maintain or even further raise them, Trump suddenly changed his mind. Although he kept the Chinese rates at those ridiculous levels, he declared that tariffs on all other countries would suddenly be reduced to a very high but rational 10% rate for the next 90 days while he decided what to do.

Thus, during the course of a single week, Trump had raised American tariffs by more than a factor of ten, then dropped them by a factor of two, representing exactly the sort of tax policy we might expect to see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Trump’s totally unexpected reversal naturally produced a huge rebound in stock prices, which recovered much of the ground that they had previously lost, and Trump boasted about all the money that his friends had made from that unprecedented market rebound. This led to some dark suspicions that our unfortunate country had just witnessed one of the most outrageously blatant examples of insider trading in all of human history.

Across thousands of years, the world has seen many important countries ruled by absolute monarchs or all-powerful dictators, with some of these leaders even considered deranged. But I can’t recall any past example in which a major nation’s tax, tariff, or tribute policies have undergone such rapid and sudden changes, moving up and down by huge amounts apparently based upon personal whim. Certainly Caligula never did anything so peculiar, nor Louis XIV nor Genghis Khan nor anyone else who comes to mind. Lopping off the heads of a few random government officials was one thing, but drastic changes in national financial policies were generally taken much more seriously. I don’t think that Tamerlane ever suddenly raised the tribute he demanded from his terrified subjects by a factor of ten, then a few days later lowered it back down by a factor of two.

EPub Format⬇

I’ve never met Donald Trump nor had any dealings with him, and since I don’t watch television, I’d barely paid attention to his antics until his unexpectedly strong run for the White House began attracting heavy media coverage in 2015.

But some time ago I was privately meeting on other matters with one of Trump’s powerful and influential backers when Trump’s name happened to come up. Since I tend to be forthright and speak candidly about most things, I casually described him as an “ignorant buffoon.” I was hardly surprised that my interlocutor failed to reply to that provocative characterization, but I noticed the slightly embarrassed expression on his face and interpreted his silence as an admission that he quietly shared my own appraisal.

I strongly suspect that the worldwide tariff policies recently declared by Trump will soon cause more and more Americans, including erstwhile Trump supporters, to come to that same distressing conclusion.

Tariff policy is part of economics, and I hardly claim any great personal expertise in that discipline. Indeed, quite the contrary.

Back almost a dozen years ago, before my increasingly controversial writings rendered me far too radioactive for such things, I was invited to participate in a televised NYC debate on the economics of immigration policy, with one of my opponents being the prominent libertarian economist Bryan Caplan of George Mason University. The show was syndicated around the country and simulcast on NPR, and early on I boldly admitted my total ignorance of economics, declaring that not only had I never taken a class in that subject, but I had never even opened the pages of a single economics textbook.

However, I also suggested that much of economics constituted basic common sense and perhaps partly as a consequence of that approach, our side won the debate by the widest margin in the history of that series, with one of the opposing team members even shifting towards our position.

• Open Borders, American Elites, and the Minimum Wage
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • November 11, 2013 • 1,700 Words

Video Link

Given this history, my negative appraisal of Trump’s new tariff policies should obviously be taken with a large grain of salt but not necessarily completely disregarded.

During his successful 2024 presidential campaign, Trump had often promised to impose heavy tariffs upon those countries that he believed were unfairly benefitting from one-sided trade with America, and reindustrializing our country would be an important element of his plan to “Make America Great Again.” So his personal affinity for tariffs was hardly unexpected.

Indeed, soon after coming into office, he had used what he described as his economic emergency powers to impose heavy new tariffs upon much-demonized China, which was not unexpected. But he also declared that huge tariffs would be imposed upon goods from Canada and Mexico, our closest neighbors and friendly allies. This was a major surprise, not least because during his previous term he had personally negotiated his own USMCA North American free trade agreement with those same two countries.

Now for Trump as our 47th president to denounce and completely repudiate the policies of Trump as our 45th president was at least a little eye-opening.

However, over the next few weeks, his repeated suspensions, reversals, and modifications of these new North American tariffs led to many suspicions that they merely amounted to bluster, being international bargaining ploys aimed at bullying our neighbors and that they would only briefly remain in place. This considerably lessened their perceived impact upon the integrated regional economy that had grown into place since the 1993 enactment of the original NAFTA agreement under President George H.W. Bush.

As a consequence, his announcement last Wednesday of sweeping new tariffs against almost every other country in the world hit like a thunderbolt. On April 2nd, Trump held up his chart showing those new tariff rates, and the figures were so astonishing that many observers probably felt that the plan should better have been issued a day earlier on April Fools’ Day.

For one thing, Trump’s actions were clearly illegal under American law. As many have noted, tariffs are obviously taxes, and according to the American Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representations and then be passed by both houses of Congress rather than be unilaterally imposed by our executive branch of government.

This has been the system for nearly our entire 250 year national history, including such cases as the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and Trump 45’s own USMCA agreement signed in 2018.

But now Trump 47 declared that he would impose these new worldwide tariff rates by unilateral executive order, citing the emergency powers that he possessed under a 1977 law.

However, the “emergency” in question was apparently America’s ongoing deindustrialization of the last ninety-odd years. As prominent international economist Prof. Jeffrey Sachs pointed out, an “emergency” that had been taking place for nearly a full century hardly seemed the sort of “emergency” envisioned under that bill.

Video Link

Yet that minor legalistic technicality barely scraped the surface of the very bizarre tariff rates that Trump had decided to impose against the 150-odd other countries of the world.

For example, our factually-challenged president declared that his new tariff rates were “retaliatory” and indeed the first column of the chart he displayed showed the foreign tariffs that had allegedly provoked his retaliation, but everyone quickly noticed that these figures were total nonsense. Switzerland hardly imposes a 61% tariff on American goods, nor does Vietnam maintain a 90% tariff rate against our products.

Instead these figures were merely calculated using a formula based upon America’s existing trade deficit in goods, which was something entirely different. So if another country sold us more goods than they themselves bought, that was described as due to a tariff even if no such tariff actually existed. In a perfect example of this absurdity, Trump incorrectly claimed that the penguins of Norfolk Island Heard and McDonald Islands near Antarctica maintained huge barriers against American products, with his counter-vailing tariff of 29% aimed at punishing those water-fowl for their unfair trading practices.

The Trump Administration recently declassified and released some 60,000 government documents relating to the JFK Assassination, provoking a great deal of discussion on social media and the rest of the Internet. This prompted Mike Whitney to interview me on that subject, providing me an excellent opportunity to draw together and summarize the many articles I had published from 2018 onwards on that infamous historical event.

As I explained at length, there seemed strong, even overwhelming evidence that Israel and its Mossad had played a central role in the death of our president and also the killing of his younger brother Robert a few years later.

President Kennedy had been embroiled in a bitter political battle with Israel over the latter’s illegal nuclear weapons development program, a program that he had sworn to eliminate. He was also determined to break the growing power of the Israel Lobby in the U.S. These two issues provided the obvious motives for his killing.

Meanwhile, the younger Kennedy was struck down just after his victory in the winner-take-all California primary seemed to assure him of the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination. He had told his circle of friends and advisors that if he reached the White House, he would track down and bring to justice those who had been responsible for the death of his older brother.

This persuasive framework was first worked out almost exactly thirty years ago by the late journalist Michael Collins Piper. But the exceptionally explosive nature of the Piper Hypothesis has ensured that it has been almost totally ignored, never mentioned either by the mainstream media, nor by more than a tiny sliver of the multitude of JFK Assassination researchers.

My analysis also pointed to the other key figures very likely involved in the plot. These included Vice President Lyndon Johnson, whom the Kennedys were on the verge of dropping from the reelection ticket, destroying politically, and sending to prison, and James Angleton, the CIA’s long-time counter-intelligence chief.

For decades Johnson had been regarded as one of America’s most pro-Israel political figures, while Angleton was considered so close to the Israeli Mossad that he was widely suspected of having become an outright asset of that foreign intelligence service. Therefore, both these individuals would have naturally cooperated with Israel on the assassination, with Johnson playing an especially important role in orchestrating the subsequent cover-up.

My lengthy article presenting all this important material has quickly become one of my most popular pieces of the last twelve months:

• How Israel Killed the Kennedys
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 24, 2025 • 11,500 Words

As mentioned, one of the main motives for JFK’s killing was his effort to sharply curtail the growing political power of the Israel Lobby, and his death immediately reversed that project. During the sixty-odd years that followed, AIPAC and its allies have grown so enormously powerful that they currently control all but a handful of the members of Congress. For example, in an interview last year with Tucker Carlson, Rep. Thomas Massie revealed that nearly all of members of the House and the Senate currently have their personal AIPAC handlers, who direct their votes on related issues.

The same situation seems the case with the Trump Administration. It recently launched an absolutely unprecedented political crackdown on America’s most elite academic institutions, forcing them to eliminate any criticism of Israel or its policies in their curriculum or by their students.

In a particularly shocking development, masked federal agents have been deployed to arrest students merely for criticizing Israel in campus op-eds or public demonstrations, either seizing them by raiding their dorms or abducting them from the streets of their cities. This is an absolutely unprecedented violation of our Bill of Rights and academic freedom, fully reminiscent of authoritarian dictatorships.

I argued that these policies will result in the destruction of the international credibility of our leading institutions of higher education, which for decades have constituted some of the most important elements of America’s global soft power.

• The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 31, 2025 • 7,300 Words

Although many of my articles over the years have been widely read, they often addressed ultra-controversial topics that have deterred all but a tiny handful of podcasters from interviewing me. Given that many individuals prefer absorbing their content in video rather than written form, this has considerably restricted the reach of my analysis,

However, these recent articles drew the strong interest of a couple of small podcasters, who provided me an opportunity to present my analysis of the JFK Assassination analysis and related matters. The several hours of resulting video interviews seemed to come out quite well, allowing me to effectively summarize my factual information in that format.

Video Link

Video Link

ORDER IT NOW

One of the tiny handful of other individuals who has been willing to discuss the crucial role of the Israeli Mossad in the Kennedy assassinations has been longtime French conspiracy-researcher Laurent Guyénot.

I would strongly recommend his 2019 work The Unspoken Kennedy Truth as the best book presenting the Israel/Mossad case for the JFK Assassination. Although I might not necessarily endorse every single element, this paperback summarizes all the important information and is short enough that it can easily be read in just a day or two.

Guyénot also presented this same controversial material in the form of a 2022 documentary available on YouTube. Although perhaps a little too hagiographic, it constitutes the best video documentary on that subject.

Video Link

And although it is somewhat disorganized, I would also recommend Ryan Dawson’s complementary 2023 video documentary, which focuses very heavily upon Israel’s nuclear weapons development program:

Video Link

POSTSCRIPT:

On Friday Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson were on Napolitano’s show, and near the end they came closer to fingering Israel in the Kennedy assassinations than any other reasonably mainstream individuals that come to my mind:

Video Link

McGovern spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, including serving as the morning Intelligence Briefer to a half-dozen American presidents.

He also mentioned that early in his career, there had been a rule that any intelligence report mentioning Israel in any way had to be sent to Angleton for his personal approval.

Several days later, Johnson made that position explicit, publishing a post containing the following concluding paragraph:

The failure to do a proper forensic analysis of the entry and exit wounds is another bit of circumstantial evidence that Kennedy’s murder was planned and orchestrated. Yes, it was a conspiracy. I think Michael Collins Piper’s book, Final Judgment, provides the best explanation of the conspiracy.