July 9, 2002 -- In April of this year, I published a book entitled
OPIUM LORDS: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy
Assassination. Because of the controversial nature of the book’s
content I used the pseudonym Salvador Astucia. I did so because I have to
earn a living in a Jewish-dominated business world. I have already learned
that using one’s real name when speaking truthfully about Israel can bring
economic disaster.
In OPIUM LORDS, I asserted that Israel and other
Jewish political forces sponsored the murder of President Kennedy because:
- Joe Kennedy Sr., was building a dynasty. If each of his three sons
served two terms in the White House, this dynasty would last nearly a
quarter century.
- Joe Kennedy Sr. and his sons admired Adolf Hitler and were therefore
considered enemies of Israel.
- Lyndon B. Johnson was likely a secret Jew (as was his wife) and
acted at the behest of Zionist political forces throughout his entire
political career.
- I even identified the names of the three French Corsican assassins
who killed JFK.
In a nutshell: David Irving invited me, as author of OPIUM LORDS, to
give a one hour lecture at his Labor Day Real History Conference in
Cincinnati, Ohio, but has now disinvited me on the basis that he can’t
have "anti-Zionism" or "anti-Semitism" at the conference.
Why did
Irving first invite me, then disinvite me? My surmise is that, when Irving
first read my book on the web, he skimmed it too quickly. Later, when I
sent him the book in printed format, he read it more thoroughly, became
alarmed at its content, and then went about trying to find a pretext to
cancel my appearance.
There are several reasons why Mr. Irving may
have objected to the book after a closer read. Firstly, the last chapter
of OPIUM LORDS (Chapter 14) discusses 9-11 and cites articles on that
topic written by independent researcher Carol Valentine. Mr. Irving
indicated in our first telephone conversation that he did not care for
Valentine, although he did not challenge any facts she has presented on
any topic which she has documented.
Secondly, Chapter 14
contradicts much of what Irving plans to discuss about 9-11 at the
upcoming Real History Conference. The following text is on his website
(July 9, 2002) and it generally supports the government’s official cover
story about 9-11:
Who was really behind [the 9-11 attacks]? Why did they do it? Come to
that, why did the Twin Towers collapse so swiftly? And what about those
Arabic letters that were found? Has the FBI withheld the first page, and
if so why? We hear an expert on the Arabic language tells us what is
really to be learned of the attacks from those pages, and of Osama bin
Laden's concerns as revealed in those videos.
David Irving’s description of 9-11 discussions planned for the Real
History Conference (per his website)
http://www.fpp.co.uk/cinc/2002/flier1/index.html
cached
at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/pretenders/david-irving-kosher-conf
Chapter 14 of OPIUM LORDS provides a completely different explanation
of 9-11 than does Irving et al. In fact, I questioned the authenticity of
the Bin Laden videos and drew comparisons between 9-11 versus the Kennedy
assassination and the Vietnam War versus the war in Afghanistan. The
following is an excerpt from Chapter 14 of OPIUM LORDS:
Independent investigator Carol Valentine has written several persuasive
articles concluding that the suicide plane crashes on September 11, 2001
were sponsored by Israel with assistance from the US military. Her
premise—as I interpret it—is based on two key points.
First, the airspace over New York City and Washington, DC was
intentionally left unprotected by the military agency tasked to protect
it. That group is the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
Second, the suicide jets were controlled by "advanced robotics and
remote-control technology, not hijackers." NORAD has had this capability
since 1959.
Valentine wrote in great detail how NORAD has the
capability to track planes in distress and take appropriate actions to
defend US airspace from foreign aircraft or from aircraft within the US.
In fact, NORAD had at its disposal a number of US Air Force General
Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown
into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program known as
SAGE.
Another example of remote control technology is a jet, made
by Northrop Grumman, called the Global Hawk. This jet has a wingspan of a
Boeing 737 and has flown unmanned across the Pacific Ocean. Valentine
further observed that President Bush and Robert Ayling—a former official
with British Airways—both claimed that such a technology was a thing of
the future. The two men made carefully prepared public statements which
envisioned remote-control capabilities as a lofty goal to be achieved in
years to come. In fact, President Bush was quoted in the New York Times
offering to give grants to airlines to pay for "new technology, probably
far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed
planes by remote control." Both men were obviously deceiving the
public.
Valentine compared NORAD’s lack of reaction on September
11th to its rapid response to the LearJet carrying golfer Payne Stewart
and several companions on October 25, 1999. With Stewart’s ill-fated
flight—which was en route from Orlando to Dallas, NORAD’s reaction was
fast. One or more US Air Force fighter jets were launched to control the
situation shortly after air traffic controllers knew something was wrong.
On September 11th, NORAD apparently did nothing because no jets were
launched—at least no evidence has been presented indicating that NORAD
jets were launched. Based on prior emergencies, there was more than enough
time for NORAD to send jets to control the situation.
But how could
Israel coerce the US military into committing such an act of treason? One
word: OPIUM! History repeats itself. This is what was done when President
Kennedy was assassinated. In exchange for helping the Jews kill Kennedy,
the military and organized crime were given a war in Southeast Asia in an
area where growing opium poppies was big business. Afghanistan and
Pakistan are two major producers of opium today.
A pact was apparently made between Israeli planners, US generals, and
elements of organized crime stipulating that America would wage a war
against Afghanistan in retaliation for the self-inflicted September 11th
attacks. Osama bin Laden would be blamed, his Al-Queda group would be
labeled terrorists, and America would wage war against Afghanistan for
harboring these terrorists. US forces would drive out the Taliban, who
successfully banned the growing of opium poppies in Afghanistan, and
replace them with the Northern Alliance who would legalize opium
production. Windfall profits would be shared by the participants from the
illicit sale of opium and its derivative narcotics (namely heroin). The
wealthy interests of the Western nations would also share in the illicit
drug money as they have done for over a century. It’s the same technique
used in the Kennedy assassination.
Everyone would benefit except
the American people and the [9-11] victims and their families. Israel
would use the "terrorist" attacks as a pretext to intensify the war
against Palestinians. Clearly a cover story was written and distributed to
the Western news media prior to the attack. To achieve such a vast
conspiracy, the plan must have been announced by the president of the
World Jewish Congress. That individual is presently Edgar Bronfman, son of
the late Sam Bronfman (reference Chapter 8). The junior Bronfman followed
the path of Joseph Caiaphas, high priest of the Sanhedrin who sanctioned
the plot to kill Jesus. Bronfman also followed the path of Nahum Goldmann,
who apparently sanctioned the plot to kill President Kennedy.
Osama
bin Laden was made the patsy like Lee Harvey Oswald was years earlier in
the Kennedy assassination. The US government provided a video of bin Laden
taking credit for the attacks in a secret meetings. While that may seem
authentic, we should remember that the US government produced phony
pictures of Oswald holding the alleged murder weapon (Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle) in the backyard of his Dallas apartment in 1963 (Chapter 6). We
also know that the CIA provided the Warren Commission with a fake
photograph of Oswald at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. The photograph
supported the false claim that Oswald had applied for a visa to Cuba. The
Warren Commission used the alleged trip to Mexico City as further proof
that Oswald was a communist (Chapter 6). This is the same old story, but
most of the actors changed.
(Salvador Astucia, OPIUM LORDS, pp. 324
- 326)
Mr. Irving is planning to push the government’s 9-11 cover story on
revisionists but OPIUM LORDS completely contradicts him and the other
scheduled speakers. Once he and his handlers read Chapter 14, they decided
I was more of a liability than an asset. Consequently, he was forced to
cancel my invitation.
For those who trust David Irving, this must
be difficult to believe. But I have supporting evidence. I have provided a
summary of our phone conversations, written communiquÈs, and copies of 25
email exchanges for your review. You can see Irving bobbing and weaving
and contradicting himself in one email after another.
The following
is a summarized chronology of events: You can see copies of the e-mail
messages at:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/d_irving_emails.htm
April 17, 2002 (see Email # 1)
I send emails to various websites
requesting that they link with my site which contained an online book of
Opium Lords. David Irving was one of the recipients of my
emails.
April 18, 2002 (see Email # 2)
I receive an email
from Mr. Irving expressing interest in my book and promising to look at it
the following week.
April 18, 2002 (see Email # 3)
I
immediately thank him. Because he expressed concern over Salvador
Astucia’s command of the English language, I tell Mr. Irving that I was
born and raised in the USA, and divulged my real name, address, and phone
number. I requested that he not make that information
public.
May 31, 2002 (see Email # 4)
I receive tentative
invitation from Mr. Irving to speak at the Real History Conference on
Labor Day weekend. He expressed concern over my use of a pseudonym and
requested that I phone him to discuss the matter.
Phone call,
May 31, 2002
I place a telephone call to Mr. Irving immediately, we
chat for several minutes. I explain that I did not use my real name
because I had to earn a living in a Jewish controlled business
environment. I further explain that I do not wish to suffer economic
hardship for publicly criticizing Jewish political
interests.
I felt that, of all people, David Irving would
understand my reasoning, considering that Irving has claimed in court his
own career as a writer has been virtually destroyed by the Jewish
supremacy movement.
Nevertheless, I make a compromise with him. I
tell him that he may use my real name to promote his
event.
Mr. Irving then shifts to the topic of my
book.
"What was your source?" he
asked.
This seemed like an odd question for an historian to
ask. The online version of OPIUM LORDS, and the paper version, both
contain an extensive bibliography and 28 pages of endnotes. Why would Mr.
Irving ask such a rudimentary question when he already had the answer at
his fingertips? Upon reflection, however, I believe he was asking me to
divulge the name of a person who fed me the information that solved the
mystery of the Kennedy assassination. Irving likely thought that no one
could figure it out without being advised by someone very close to the
parties involved.
The plain truth is I solved it myself. I
bounced ideas off of a few knowledgeable people to ensure that my research
matched historical events. But it was essentially a one man show. Nobody
fed me information.
To the best of my recollection, this is
how I answered Mr. Irving’s question about my
sources:
[Salvador:]
"My source? I used several books,
many of them very rare ones. I followed the research of Jim Garrison and
his book, 'On the Trail of the Assassins,' because I believe he uncovered
a lot of important information that seems believable and logical.
Generally though, I tried to stay away from assassination books because so
many of the researchers are tainted and work for the same forces who
sponsored Kennedy’s murder. I mainly used history and biographical books.
I found a good rare book, 'Israel Diary,' by Bernard Bloomfield, brother
of Louis Bloomfield, the man I believe engineered the
assassination—although he didn’t issue the order to kill Kennedy. It was
bigger than him. 'Israel Diary' provided a good profile of Louis
Bloomfield.
"I suppose the turning point in my research came
from another rare book, 'Contrabandista,' by Evert Clark and Nicholas
Horrock. Another good book is 'The Great Heroin Coup' by Henrik Kr¸ger.
They both tell about the French Corsican assassins who worked for heroin
kingpin Auguste Joseph Ricord. They also tell about Nixon’s war on drugs
which was likely the real reason he was driven from office. Of the two
books, I think 'Contrabandista' is a better source, particularly regarding
Nixon’s fate. Although 'Contrabandista' was written by two journalists—and
I don’t trust journalists as a rule—it was published in 1973, and Nixon
was still in office at that time. A huge anti-Nixon propaganda campaign
began after Nixon left office in the summer of 1974. 'The Great Heroin
Coup' was written in 1976 and it is filled with anti Nixon
rhetoric.
[Irving interjected:]
"Yes, the Jews really did a number on
Nixon."
[Salvador:]
"Definitely. Anyway, The Great Heroin Coup is less
reliable, in my view, although it still has good information. But
Contrabandista is a better source because it was written while Nixon was
still in office. Consequently, the authors provided unbiased treatment of
his war on drugs. Nixon was leading a serious war on drugs which included
the arrest, extradition from Paraguay, trial, and conviction of Ricord.
Under Nixon’s order, Lucien Sarti—the man who shot Kennedy in the head—was
tracked down by police in Mexico City and shot and killed after resisting
arrest for attempting to smuggle drugs into the United
States.
"Nixon did other things to upset the powers that be,
like opening relations with China, establishing dÈtente with the Soviet
Union, withdrawing American forces from Vietnam, and ending the
draft.
"'Contrabandista,' in particular, helped me identify
the names of the assassins. They were the bodyguards and lieutenants of
Auguste Joseph Ricord (the heroin kingpin). That book, combined with an
interview with drug trafficker Christian David—which appeared in Nigel
Turner’s documentary, 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'—really nailed down the
identities of the assassins. Both sources corroborated each
other.
"Once I realized Ricord’s heroin cartel was involved,
then I read 'The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia,' by Alfred McCoy.
It gave me a good background about opium smuggling in the Golden Triangle
and the history of Opium Wars against China by the Western
powers.
"Of course I used many other sources, which are
listed in the bibliography and endnotes, but those are the main
ones."
Mr. Irving also expresses an interest in Jack "Rubenstein" (aka, Ruby)
and asks what was his role in the conspiracy. I explained that the House
Select Committee on Assassinations linked Ruby to Meyer Lansky (per
Encyclopedia Britannica: Lansky) and that Ruby had been identified by an
eye-witness as driving a pick-up truck and dropping off a young man with a
rifle who walked towards the "grassy knoll" about an hour before the
assassination. I further stated that Meyer Lanksy helped recruit the
French Corsican assassins and set up a deal with the US Government wherein
the American Mafia would use opium produced in Southeast Asia for heroin
production in exchange for killing Kennedy. I noted that Lansky of course
was Jewish, as was Ruby, which supports my thesis that JFK’s death was
ultimately the result of a Jewish conspiracy. Mr. Irving concurred that my
reasoning made sense.
Irving then explained that the
conference theme would be 9-11 as well as history. I asked if he had read
any of Carol Valentine’s articles on 9-11.
I think we all
recognize that the tone of a person’s voice, as well as the words used,
communicate meaning. Although this was the first time I had spoken to
David Irving, up to now, the tone of his voice was pleasant and
well-modulated. But at the mention of the name "Carol Valentine," Irving’s
voice tone changed remarkably. The most apt word I can think of to
describe his tone while speaking about her is "snarl."
Irving
said he viewed Valentine as a "radical" and did not want her to speak. He
further stated that he was trying to get officials from the FBI to attend,
in order to tell their side of the story, but none would show up if
Valentine was on the program. I made the following comment in defense of
Valentine:
"Well, I’m not trying to tell you who to
invite to your event, but Carol Valentine has written some good articles
about 9-11, particularly regarding NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense
Command) and how they failed to protect airspace over New York City and
the Pentagon on September 11th."
"We’re trying to
get some people from NORAD to attend as well," he replied. "I
read the stuff she sends around," referring back to Valentine, "but it’s a
bit too extreme for me, and again, if I invite her, then no one from the
other side will want to attend."
Mr. Irving was not directly critical of statements written by Valentine
per se. He never openly accused her of being deceitful or spreading
information that was untrue. His criticism was conveyed more by his tone
of voice than actual words spoken. It was clear that he did not like her.
There is no question in my mind about that.
Regarding the
Real History Conference, Mr. Irving stated that my expenses would be paid.
He further requested that I email him a list of visual aids I might need,
a preferred speaking time, and a list of "discussion threads." In response
to his suggestion about visual aids, I mentioned that I might want to show
the Zapruder film and give an analysis. He seemed to like
that.
Mr. Irving concluded the conversation by stating that I
should think about things for a few days and email him the requested
information as soon as possible.
June 3, 2002 (see Email #
5)
I send Mr. Irving an email officially accepting his invitation to
speak. I include the information he requested (preferred speaking time,
visual aids, and list of discussion threads). In addition, I request his
mailing address in Florida so I can send him a copy of the
book.
June 3, 2002 (see Email # 6)
Irving approves terms
of speaking agreement, and gives me his mailing address in Florida so I
can send him a copy of the book, OPIUM LORDS.
Prior to this,
Irving had access to OPIUM LORDS via my webpage. I wanted him to have a
copy of the book because reading a book is easier than reading a
webpage.
June 3, 2002 (see Email # 7)
I tell Mr. Irving
his copy of the book is in the mail.
June 5, 2002 (see Email
# 8)
I send Mr. Irving an email requesting permission to promote the
scheduled speaking event on my website.
June 5, 2002 (see
Email # 9)
Irving grants permission and gives me a URL which contains
specific information about the event. We agree that I would link to the
specified URL (located on his site) from the homepage of my
website.
June 15, 2002 (see Email # 10)
I send Mr. Irving
an email requesting names of people willing to help me promote or publish
my book. I state that I am interested in traveling the country on a book
tour if he could direct me to the appropriate people in the
industry.
June 15, 2002 (see Email # 11 & Email #
12)
Irving sends two emails less than a minute apart. The first is
polite, the second is curt and somewhat rude. In the polite email (# 11),
he says he cannot give advice on promoting OPIUM LORDS. He also says he is
reading OPIUM LORDS and comments that "it is a bit extreme." Note,
however, he does not challenge any of my documentation or my
reasoning.
In the second email (# 12) he continues to berate
me for using a pseudonym. He says that my "use of a pseudonym is a real
turn-off." This criticism is made despite my having explained to Irving
the reason for using a pseudonym (I cannot afford to have my livelihood
destroyed by using my real name).
June 15, 2002 (see Email #
13)
I ask Irving why using a pseudonym is a "turn-off." I wonder why it
should make any difference at all.
But I agree to compromise. I give
him written approval to use my real name for promoting his Labor Day Real
History Conference in Cincinnati.
July 2, 2002 (see Email #
14)
I send Mr. Irving an email advising him of a software tool
(Websense) for Internet filtering that had labeled both our sites
"racism/hate." As a result, the sites are being blocked from Websense’
customers. I had learned of Websense just that day and relayed the
information to Irving as a favor.
July 2, 2002 (see Email #
15)
Irving sends me an email asking me to call him to "discuss if and
whether you would talk at Cincinnati." He added that he still has not made
up his mind.
"If" and "whether" I should speak? Obviously
Irving is trying to back out of our agreement that I should speak. (See
Emails 5 & 6 which confirm the terms of our agreement regarding the
speaking engagement.)
Surprisingly, Mr. Irving ignores the information
about Websense smearing his name.
July 2, 2002, Phone
Calls
I phone Mr. Irving three times and speak briefly with him twice.
He was too busy to have a conversation with me; however, I called a third
time and left a polite voice message asking him to return the call. (He
never did.)
July 2, 2002 (see Email # 16)
I asked Mr.
Irving about his "if" and "whether" statements concerning my speaking
engagement. I point out to him that he confirmed my speaking engagement. I
ask that, after having received the book OPIUM LORDS, and read it, whether
his change of heart was occasioned by something he read. I attach a
complete history of our correspondence.
July 3, 2002 (see
Email # 17)
Mr. Irving does not answer my question. He responds by
deleting the history of our correspondence and changing the subject. He
now states that my talk would "focus" on Jack Ruby and the Zapruder film.
(Note: Irving could get any JFK assassination hack to talk about these
subjects. My unique contribution to the JFK assassination history is my
documentation of its Israeli design.) He also continues to complain about
my use of a pseudonym even though I had granted him permission to use my
real name to promote the event.
July 3, 2002 (see Email #
18)
I send Mr. Irving another email requesting that he respond to my
question without changing the subject and without deleting the history of
our correspondence. I restate my basic question, Would I speak or not? And
if not, then why not? Again, I specifically asked if he had read something
in my book that had caused him to change his mind.
July 3,
2002 (see Email # 19 & Email # 20)
Irving sends two emails just 4
seconds apart. Both address my previous email. (# 18) In the first email
(# 19), Irving now denies he has read OPIUM LORDS, and says he was merely
"glancing through it." This statement tends to contradict his earlier
statement that my book "is a bit extreme." (see Email # 11) If Irving had
not read the book, how could he characterize it in any
way?
He now says OPIUM LORDS is "not the subject of the talk
we may want to deliver."
In the second email (# 20), Mr.
Irving now says that he did not confirm a speaking engagement with me.
(This contradicts the history of our correspondence. See Emails # 5, 6, 8,
& 9.)
Irving now says (# 20) that before I can speak at
his conference, "first I must hear your views." (Irving already has my
views, as expressed in OPIUM LORDS and has already stated those views were
"a bit extreme." See Email # 11.)
July 5, 2002 (Email #
21)
After thinking things over, I send Mr. Irving an email stating that
Israel’s involvement in JFK’s murder must be the central part of my
lecture; however, I did not mind discussing Jack Ruby and the Zapruder
film as well. I point out that to focus only on Ruby and the Zapruder film
and ignore Israel’s involvement would be intellectually
dishonest.
July 5, 2002 (Email # 22 & Email # 23)
Mr.
Irving responds with two emails less than a minute apart. In the first one
(# 22), he politely agrees to my terms but warns me that the talk must be
"well reined in, with no overt anti-Semitism as such." (???
!!!)
In the second email (# 23), he demands that I stop using
my pseudonym or the invitation would be withdrawn. He does this despite my
agreement that he could use my real name in his program. (see Email #
13)
At that point, it becomes clear to me that David Irving
does not want me to talk about Israel’s involvement in the Kennedy
assassination and is using the pseudonym issue as an excuse to cancel his
invitation. I quickly send him the following short email
message:
July 5, 2002 (Email # 24)
I tell Mr. Irving that
I am intrigued that a man who professes to tell the unsettling truth about
exaggerated German misdeeds during the period known as the "Holocaust"
would work so hard to secretly defend Israel regarding JFK’s
assassination. I call him a false prophet.
July 6, 2002
(Email # 25)
I receive a final email from Mr. Irving withdrawing the
invitation to speak. He also accused me of trying to turn his conference
into a "platform for anti-Zionist rhetoric."
Corroboration
I
have included 25 emails between Mr. Irving an me, which include message
headers, to demonstrate their authenticity. The emails are unedited with
the following exceptions:
* References to Mr. Irving’s mailing
addresses and phone numbers are omitted.
* References to my true
identity, mailing address, and phone number are omitted.
* Information
about my career is omitted.
* Minor reformatting was done to make the
emails easier to read.
* Portions of some emails were omitted to avoid
redundancy with previous emails. š
===
Readers: Please
visit Sal's URL to see the e-mails:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/d_irving_emails.htm
911 Lies exposed at http://www.public-action.com/911
|