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
communiqués, 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 Krüger. 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 détente
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
|