Common sense, probability theory, the history of science, and detective lore all point to the usefulness of patterns. For instance, on average, only one of every 36 simultaneous tosses of two dice should yield double six.
So, if your backgammon opponent regularly casts a double six when she needs one, she is probably cheating. Likewise, the fact that, at least since the days of Lincoln, enemies of the international bankers—but hardly ever the bankers or their lackeys—tend to die under mysterious circumstances, compellingly suggests that political assassinations are commonplace and that they are, in fact, one of the seven pillars that keeps the criminal bankers in power (see this).
In the past year, this generalization seems to have broken down, when over 25 bankers and their allies have died, disappeared, or got seriously ill under dubious circumstances.
On June 13, 2014, this pattern culminated with the death of Richard Rockefeller, son of banker David Rockefeller. David Rockefeller, in turn, is the current patriarch of the Rockefeller bloodline and, possibly, one of the two most powerful men in the world. Many educated guesses can be put forward to explain these recent deaths of the bankers.
Such guesses include a statistical fluke–random deaths which deceptively appear to follow a pattern; depression caused by the current economic crisis and anticipation of the coming economic collapse; bankers silencing associates who know too much and who might spill the beans under the pressure of government investigations; bankers underwriting hefty death insurance policies for their subordinates and then killing these subordinates to further enrich themselves; an internecine struggle among bankers or among bankers, generals, and spooks; and vigilantes making international bankers pay for their colossal crimes and arrogance.
The last—least likely yet historically most significant—guess posits the birth of a new revolutionary movement, a movement that chiefly relies on targeted assassinations of influential bankers.
Recommended background readings:
The issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the banks–John Acton (1834-1902)
“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state, and nation . . . It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection . . . To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. This little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States Government for their own selfish purposes.”—John Hylan, mayor of New York City, 1927
“None but ourselves can free our mind.”—Marcus Garvey 
The Scientific Usefulness of Patterns in Criminal and Scientific Investigations
The episode below underscores the importance of patterns.
At the Vienna General Hospital, physician Ignaz Semmelweis encountered many cases of childbed fever, an excruciating form of blood poisoning contracted by mothers shortly after childbirth.
Zemmelweis noticed a curious pattern: the hospital’s two maternity divisions had strikingly divergent mortality rates: From 1844 to 1846, 11.4% in the first maternity ward and 2.7% in the second. For Semmelweis this consistent pattern was real enough, even though he was clueless at first about its causes. It was also real enough for many would-be Viennese mothers, who wisely tried to avoid giving birth in the first division.
Semmelweis then conducted simple experiments aimed at accounting for this consistent pattern. Once he had an explanation (or guess or hypothesis) for the differential mortality rates, he could rely upon it to make predictions, e.g., if physicians disinfect their hands after carrying out autopsies and before attending deliveries, mortality rates in division 1 would plunge.
Thus, recurring patterns have the same claim to our attention as any other well-established facts of life.
Deaths, Disappearances, and Grave Illnesses of Bankers and Other Individuals Linked to the Banking Syndicate, 2013-2014
This article focuses on a more contemporary pattern: the bankers’ early death syndrome. One compilation, for instance, shows that from June 1 2013 to April 7, 2014 some 25 individuals linked to the banking racket died or disappeared.
Here are a few examples:
January 11, 2014: David Bird, 55, a long-time messenger boy for the Rockefeller financial media, went for a walk near his New Jersey home and vanished. As of this writing, he is still nowhere to be found, despite the posting of a $10,000 reward for information about his whereabouts, and despite extensive searches.
January 27, 2014: Gabriel Magee, 39, a J. P. Morgan Chase Vice-President in the U.K., “fell” from the roof of the London headquarters of that bank. According to Pam Martens, “No solid evidence exists currently to suggest that the death was a suicide. In fact, there is a strong piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Magee had emailed his girlfriend, Veronica, on the evening of January 27 to say that he was about to leave the office and would see her shortly.”
Martens goes on to write:
“The Chief Medical Examiner’s office will only say that the cause of death is ‘pending’ and final results will not be announced for several more weeks. Wall Street On Parade called the Stamford Police last week to ask for the police incident report. Under Connecticut sunshine laws that report should be available to the press. We were informed that if we were able to obtain the incident report, most information would likely be redacted.”
February 4, 2014: Richard Talley, 57, CEO of American Title, “was found in the garage of his Colorado home dead from seven or eight ‘self-inflicted’ wounds from a nail gun fired into his torso and head.”
The Rockefeller police and media say it’s a suicide, but they are probably lying:
“That still doesn’t explain shooting yourself with a nail gun eight times from head to toe. No one wants to die that slowly and painfully. . . . Perhaps the Colorado bank CEO was being ‘questioned’ when the nail gun went off . . . eight times. I guess the interrogators didn’t like his answers.”
June 26, 2014: Artan Santo, 58, head and part owner of Albania’s 4th largest bank and an Albanian media tycoon, was shot six times as he entered his bank in the capital city of Tirana.
July 1, 2014: Jamie Dimon, 58, nominal head of J. P. Morgan Chase vampiric empire, has been diagnosed with throat cancer severe enough to require radiation and chemotherapy.
July 6, 2014: Alita Knott, 47, a sales associate at Coldwell Banker, and her husband, Julian Knott, 45, executive director of J. P. Morgan Chase Global Network Operations Center in Whippany, New Jersey, were found dead in their home (a 7/10/14 update: as readers of these lines might expect, the police have already “solved” the case, alleging that it was a murder/suicide).
A few generalizations offer themselves up. Despite the suspicious circumstances, despite the high positions of some of the dead bankers, and despite the existence of an obvious pattern, the bankers’ lapdog media and government treat these cases, whenever possible, as suicides or accidents. In cases of a sudden serious illness, the possibility of poisoning is ignored. Cases involving disappearances and drive-by shootings remain unsolved and are again treated as random events.
At least fourteen deaths occurred in the USA, five in the UK, two each in Switzerland and France, and one each in Albania, Germany, Hong Kong Lichtenstein, the Netherlands, Singapore, and Thailand.
Interestingly, deaths from December 2013 to May 2014 include five current workers and two former workers of the Rockefeller-linked J. P. Morgan Chase. “All seven were in their late 20s or 30s and three of the deaths involved alleged falls from buildings – a rare form of death even during the height of the financial crisis in 2008.” To which by now we can add (i) the airplane death of the son of the grey eminence of that bank, (ii) a grave cancer diagnosis of this bank’s nominal head, and (iii) the death of Julian Knott.
The Enigmatic Death of a Son of a Son of a Son of a Banker
“The fathers had eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge”—Jeremiah, 31:29.
On Friday, June 13, 2014, Richard Gilder Rockefeller, 65, died in a small plane crash in New York State. He was flying back to his Maine home, after attending, the evening before, the 99th birthday celebration of his father.
The death of Richard merits special attention in part because he was David Rockefeller’s son. David, in turn, merits our attention for two reasons:
First, he is the éminence grise of J. P. Morgan Chase, a bank which, as we have seen, figures prominently in the mystery of the dead bankers.
Second, David Rockefeller and the current patriarch of the Rothschild bloodline, could well be the most powerful men in the world. It is they who offer a nod of approval to the Tweedledums and Tweedledees running for just about any important political office in many countries of the world. In most cases, it is these two bloodlines that decide who is going to join the exclusive billionaire club.
Indeed, according to Rockefeller’s own ”encyclopedia”:
“Rockefeller has interfaced with every United States president since Eisenhower [read: he single-handedly handpicked and bossed them around] . . . In Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller found a political operative . . . They first met in 1954, when Kissinger was appointed a director of a seminal Council on Foreign Relations [Wikipedia forgets to mention that “the first important financial donation to the C.F.R.. . . was made by one of the Rockefeller Family Foundations” ] study group on nuclear weapons, of which David was a member. Rockefeller consulted with Kissinger on numerous occasions, as for example in the Chase Bank’s interests in Chile and the possibility of the election of Salvador Allende in 1970 [in other words, Rockefeller is behind the Chilean coup and massacre, and the documented murder of at least two American citizens who supported the democratically-elected Allende]. Rockefeller also reportedly has connections to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). . . . David was extensively briefed on covert intelligence operations by himself and other Agency division chiefs, under the direction of David’s “friend and confidant,” CIA Director Allen Dulles [in other words, the CIA is Rockefeller’s personal assassination squad]. Additionally, he serves as the only member [got that? only member!] of the Advisory Board for the Bilderberg Group. Throughout his life, Rockefeller has participated in and even created a number of policy groups . . . Through its roster of blue-chip corporations, Rockefeller sits at the core of a network of the most powerful and influential businessmen and women in corporate America. In 1992, he was selected as a leading member of the Russian-American Bankers Forum, an advisory group set up by the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to advise Russia on the modernization of its banking system, with the full endorsement of President Boris Yeltsin [Read: Rockefeller masterminded the social and economic rape of Russia, the emergence of its murderous oligarchs, and the rise to power of the Russian drunkard and traitor, Boris Yeltsin]. . . . Rockefeller began a lifelong association with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) . . . Rockefeller proposed a “Western Hemisphere free trade area,” which subsequently became the Free Trade Area of the Americas . . . Rockefeller helped found the Trilateral Commission in July 1973. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under Carter . . . became the inaugural United States director. . . . The Clinton Administration had close to a dozen Commission members, including Clinton himself; both Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush had consulted the think tank.”
We need to highlight as well one difference between the dead, vanished, and sick financiers and Richard Rockefeller. The 26+ bankers on record were willing participants in, or supporters of, the financial Mafia. Richard, on the other hand, merits our attention primarily because of his kinship to a master spider.
At the moment, we don’t know whether Richard participated in or approved of the racket. On the one hand, Richard was president of the Rockefeller Family Fund and served on the board of Rockefeller University—suggesting loyalty to the Rockefeller’s agenda. On the other hand, the little we know of him implies a rejection of (or even a desire to atone for) his father’s, grandfather’s, and great-grandfather’s involvements in thefts, murders, genocides, and ecocides.
He practiced and taught medicine in Maine. Curiously, in the last few years of his life, he focused on the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, itself a casualty of his father’s fondness for wars. For over twenty years, Richard chaired the advisory board of the USA branch of Doctors without Border, and, for six years, he chaired the Maine Coast Heritage Trust (a coast that is one of his father’s thousands of environmental casualties).
What’s Killing the Bankers?
1. The Bankers’ Version I: Random Deaths
According to the media’s jumping jacks, no explanation is necessary for the cluster of bankers’ death. When they appear as suicides, that is exactly what they are. When shootings, or an airplane crash, or a severe illness are involved, these are random occurrences. Only conspiracy theorists would argue otherwise.
This explanation fails to account for the cluster of deaths: we know, for instance, that the dead financiers did not set foot in any of the Rockefellers’ notoriously unsafe coal mines, and hence that the cause of their death must be something other than black lung disease. This explanation likewise ignores another incontestable pattern: assassinations in the western world are as commonplace in the USA as cane toads are in Australia (see here, here, or here).
I wouldn’t give this explanation more than a 5% probability of being correct.
2. The Bankers’ Version II: Wave of Suicides a la the Great Depression
The presstitutes’ second explanation concedes the existence of a pattern and explains it by harking back to the Great Depression. In 1929 and later, a few financiers did commit suicide (mostly by shooting or poisoning themselves, and not, as is commonly believed, by jumping from office buildings). The bankers would have us believe that the same thing is happening now.
However, the ongoing collapse hasn’t yet touched men of wealth. In fact, thanks to their control of all Western governments, most bankers are now vastly wealthier than they were at the beginning of the crisis.
The presstitutes might concede this obvious point, but might still aver that it is anxiety about the coming collapse that leads their associates to leap into the path of speeding trains. But why should they be anxious? If they sense collapse, can’t they gradually cash out, buy gold, silver, and farms, and comfortably wait things out?
Moreover, this hypothesis can’t explain the drive-by shootings, airplane accidents, and cancer, which coincide with the “suicides.”
And there is another aspect of the Great Depression that raises doubts about this explanation. The 1920’s boom and bust were nothing more than “the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the world money powers.” Indeed, insiders like Joseph Kennedy and the Rockefellers were richer once the golden dust settled.
Here is one factual account:
“I spent September of ’29 in Rome. . . . My friends at the Vatican told me that the crash was coming and strongly advised me to sell all my American securities. . . . I didn’t hesitate for a moment . . . I lost nothing; in fact I had made what you would probably call a packet. I was able some time later to buy back my securities for a fraction of their original cost.” 
The Rothschilds (working primarily through their agent, J. P. Morgan) and the Rockefellers engineered the Great Depression and gained handsomely from it. Likewise, members of the top echelon of the banking racket today are already gaining handsomely from the current economic crisis, and stand to gain even more when the economy has its next great fall.
The unfolding of this engineered collapse is unlikely to cause them—or their mid-level operators—to commit suicide.
I wouldn’t give this explanation more than a 1% probability of being correct.
3. Fear of exposure
The above two explanations originate from the bankers. It is high time to turn from “intellectual prostitutes,” “jumping jacks,” “tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes,” to real journalists.
Here are Pam and Russ Martens again:
“Within a little more than a month of the [cluster of bankers’] deaths, J. P. Morgan had been put under a form of probation by the U.S. Justice Department. In exchange for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement that ran for two years and $1.7 billion in fines to avoid the criminal indictment of individuals and the firm for facilitating the largest financial fraud in U.S. history, Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, J. P. Morgan was forced to agree to “secure the attendance and truthful statements or testimony of any past or current officers, agents, or employees at any meeting or interview or before the grand jury . . . provide in a responsive and prompt fashion, and upon request, on an expedited schedule, all documents, records, information and other evidence in J. P. Morgan’s possession, custody or control as may be requested by the Office, the FBI, or designated governmental agency . . . bring to the Office’s attention all criminal conduct by J. P. Morgan or any of its employees . . . commit no crimes under the federal laws of the United States subsequent to the execution of this Agreement.”
The bankers, according to this third explanation, had to do something to protect themselves. So they assassinated their associates “to prevent insider testimony of bank fraud from reaching the prosecution:”
“These are not mere random, tragic cases of suicide, but the methodical silencing of individuals who had the ability to expose financial fraud at the highest levels, and the complicity of certain governmental agencies and individuals who are engaged in the greatest theft of wealth the world has ever seen.”
This explanation would have perhaps been likely 100 years ago, when the bankers’ control of the government and the press was incomplete. Nowadays, they have nothing to fear from the regulators, prosecutors, and other government agents they own.
The bankers break laws and rig all markets day in and day out, everyone knows this, and yet not one of them (small fish excepted) has served time. Not only that, they receive billions in personal compensation and trillions in so-called bailed-outs as gifts from we the people, as our way of showing how much we appreciate being fleeced and impoverished. They can break any remaining inconvenient law with impunity, given a captive government and given the silence of the sheared lambs. The worst that can happen to them is having their wrists slapped and paying a miniscule fine, for appearances’ sake (for which they will be multiply reimbursed, under the guise of yet another “bail-out”).
Indeed, the big bankers are above the law, period. That is not my opinion, but the considered judgment of the Rockefeller agent who, in 2014, is masquerading as the Attorney General of the United States:
Another problem with this interpretation is that all the dead financiers appear to have been members in good standing of the Banking Cartel. These people are too high up not to know who is in charge of the Western world. It would be suicidal for them to spill the beans on their Godfathers–just as it would be suicidal for members of the Junior Cosa Nostra to spill the beans on theirs.
It is almost certain that Richard Rockefeller knew a great deal about the inner workings of the banking cartel—perhaps much more than the 25+ dead bankers. We have no way of knowing whether he supported the cartel or chose his dad’s 99th birthday celebration to threaten the cartel with exposure.
Subjective probability that bankers were murdered to prevent them from “singing:” Lower than 20%.
4. Killing Associates to Collect Life Insurance
Once upon a time in America, people tried to profit from death insurance scams. By 1881, the Supreme Court stopped that shady practice dead in its tracks, arguing that:
“In all cases there must be a reasonable ground, founded upon the relations of the parties to each other, either pecuniary or of blood or affinity, to expect some benefit or advantage from the continuance of the life of the assured. Otherwise the contract is a mere wager, by which the party taking the policy is directly interested in the early death of the assured. Such policies have a tendency to create a desire for the event. They are, therefore, independently of any statute on the subject, condemned, as being against public policy.”
Now, the bankers own all courts, and routinely, cynically, and clandestinely act against public policy:
“Most Americans are unaware that for at least 25 years big business and banks have been secretly taking out millions of life insurance policies on their workers and naming the corporation the beneficiary of the death benefit without the knowledge of the employee. The individual policies are frequently in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes millions. To keep track of employees who have left the company, deaths are routinely tracked through the Social Security Administration. The policies became known as ‘dead peasant’ or ‘janitor’ policies because corporations took out life insurance on millions of low-wage workers, including janitors, without their knowledge or consent.. . . Just four of Wall Street’s largest banks (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup) . . . are holding $681 billion in face amount of life insurance on their workers.”
We, the hapless pawns of the bankers, may never know two essential details: whether all the dead financiers had been insured, and whether their death insurance policies handsomely covered the costs of killing them.
This insurance scam could explain the cluster of bankers’ deaths on its own, or it may complement the earlier fear-of-persecution hypothesis. In fact, by liquidating their junior associates, the bankers could be killing three birds in one stone: silencing them, scaring the daylights out of the survivors, and financially profiting from the bankers’ growing graveyard.
The insurance scam explanation cannot be dismissed on the mistaken grounds that it entails grave risks for the bankers. We have already seen that the bankers can commit massive frauds with impunity. They likewise have nothing to fear from murder trials, for they have a license to kill. Over the past centuries, thousands of their influential opponents, individuals who knew too much, or just plain folk who accidentally got in their way, have been killed. In some cases, the evidence of foul play is overwhelming, yet the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, and even their minions, have never been, not even once, charged for murder.
This explanation, hence, cannot be as readily dismissed as the preceding one. The only valid arguments against it are lack of concrete proofs and the existence of competing explanations.
For the time being, I’m inclined to Intuitively assign to it a probability of 30%.
5. Internecine Feuds
It could be that the recent deaths are part of an ongoing jockeying for power among the oligarchs. For instance, it might one day occur to the Assassination Squads (e.g., CIA) or to the generals—just as it occurred to Roman Praetorians—to take power into their own hands and subdue the parasitic bankers. Similarly, the de facto alliance between the Rothschilds and Rockefellers could fracture.
Indeed, history suggests that oligarchic alliances are fragile, and that, sooner or later, members of, say, ruling triumvirates, kill competitors.
This hypothesis, it should be noted, is a mere theoretical possibility. At the moment, no evidence exists to support it. Also, although such feuds happened often in the past, the ruling bloodlines of the last couple centuries have managed to avoid them. This does not rule out such feuds, but it does diminish their likelihood.
Subjective probability of this explanation for the bankers’ deaths: 10%.
Zero Hedge asks:
“Is it becoming the norm that when dealing with members of the banker class, the population – disenchanted with a legal system that is largely in the pocket of the financial system – is increasingly resorting to not only vigilante justice, but the taking of banker lives with no regard for innocent bystanders?”
“If indeed so, this could mark a dramatic, and lethal, escalation in the way bankers are treated by the broader public, not only in places where banker revulsion is palpable but in quiet, sleepy backwaters like a small Belgian town.”
It seems unlikely that, the world over, in the last few months, people simultaneously woke up and decided to suicide, murder, or poison bankers. It also seems futile: what can such killings achieve, unless they are part of an overarching strategy? Also, why not go for big fish like George Soros or Bill Gates, instead of mid-level bankers? Speaking of which: Why not go after the master spiders themselves?
But one never knows: I’d give this view a probability of 5%.
7. The Al-Sabbah Brigade
How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?—Bob Marley
At long last, we’re coming to the most fascinating explanation. To introduce it, let me quote extensively from Doug Casey’s brilliant Learn to Make Terror your Friend. Terror is
“a tactic of using violence more for psychological purposes than for physical damage and that is intended primarily to delegitimize a regime by showing it to be ineffectual or by inciting it to overreact . . .
“It’s important to keep terrorism in context. It’s simply a method of conflict. Conflict itself isn’t good; I believe violence is a last resort and should be avoided at almost all costs. But terror, which is essentially and primarily a method of psychological warfare, is potentially much less destructive, as well as more effective, than conventional war. . . .
“Assassination is the premeditated murder of a political figure. The assassin is the smallest actor playing on the stage of political violence with, usually, only one perpetrator and one target. When it comes to creating political change, assassination is the simplest program available: do-it-yourself warfare. Its effect is immediate and direct, up-close and personal; and its costs and collateral damage are both very low.
“One would think threat of assassination should be the most effective means of making a government comply with political demands. After all, a government isn’t a magical entity; it’s really just a few people who wanted power and got it. Officials don’t want to die a violent death any more than the next guy. That’s why an ‘offer you can’t refuse’ from the mafia is usually accepted. And it’s widely admitted that, certainly if an assassin is willing to die in the process, nobody is proof against it. . . .
“Why should the death of a politician be more serious than the death of anybody else? Murder is never a good thing, but isn’t the death of a scientist, an artist or a businessman necessarily a bigger loss to society? Isn’t the death of some politicians (certainly including known mega-killers – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., etc.) a good thing? I would say that making assassination a special offense is fallacious propaganda, encouraged by states whose leaders are investing in professional courtesy.
“But not always, as shown by Hasan al Sabbah.
“Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, known as “The Old Man of the Mountain,” founded the order of the assassins in the late 11th century. He apparently maintained his power not by fielding expensive armies, which are blunt-edged instruments at best, but by fielding well-trained assassins whose identities were unknown outside his inner circle and infiltrating them into enemies’ upper ranks. A conflict with Sabbah, unlike a conventional war, was almost certain to result in the opposing ruler’s death. Unlike in war, the common people were never hurt and, I suspect, almost always quietly applauded the death of their ruler – even if he was replaced by another just like himself.
“Sabbah notwithstanding, assassination, even more than terrorism, can never be official state policy, simply because it overturns the basis of politics itself. People who get to the top of the government heap view themselves as part of a class, with as much loyalty to their peers – other political leaders – as to the entities they govern. The last thing they want is to encourage something that not only might come back to bite them but would estrange them from their peers. It’s a pity, really, because assassination is a much better way of effecting political change than war from everyone’s viewpoint – except that of the rulers.
“Most assassinations throughout history have been perpetrated by lone cranks or ideologues, with no plans beyond killing a perceived miscreant and no backup organization to capitalize on the resulting power vacuum. Two rare and famous exceptions are Brutus’ killing of Caesar in 43 BCE and Stauffenberg’s attempt on Hitler in 1944. You’ve got to be sympathetic with Sabbah. The fact is that, throughout history, most leaders who were targets of assassination actually needed killing. Historically, assassins have been the benefactors of mankind. They may be due for a comeback, in the mold of Sabbah’s group, or perhaps the heroes of the novel The Four Just Men.”
Let us return to the dead bankers. Could their deaths be traceable to an already-formed modern Al-Sabbah Brigade? Is it possible that we are witnessing the first shots in a revolution that could shake the world?
At least two strong objections could be made against this explanation:
1) The revolutionary’s dilemma underscores the aversion of good people to premeditated killing.
2) This explanation posits a rare or non-existent combination of qualities, including rationality, open-mindedness, abstract thinking, holistic education, nonconformity, courage, and selflessness.
Given these strong objections, I’d only assign a 1% chance to the view that an Al-Sabbah-type Brigade is behind the recent spate of bankers’ deaths.
8. Other Explanations?
Finally, a perceptive reader might wonder: Why don’t the probabilities of all the explanations above add up to 100%?
When it comes to information, outsiders are operating with both hands tied behind their back. They must somehow piece together a jigsaw puzzle with just 1/2 of the pieces on board, of which 9/10 have been tampered with.
It could be, therefore, that one of the explanations above is far more probable than intuition suggests. Alternatively, it could be that the real explanation has so far escaped notice.
1. Bob Marley incorporated this phrase in his “Redemption Song.” Both Marcus Garvey and Bob Marley were mercilessly harassed by the bankers, and both died (aged 52 and 36) under suspicious circumstances.
2. Naturally, the bankers’ media fail to mention that (1) Jamie Dimon’s personal tragedy is part of a pattern, a pattern which particularly applies to Dimon’s place of employment, (ii) Dimon could have been poisoned, (iii) chemotherapy only adds days of life on average, (iv) although most oncologists happily prescribe chemotherapy to their patients, at least one-third would not elect to use it if they themselves had cancer.
3. Curtis Bean Dall, FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law (1968).
4. W. Somerset Maugham, The Razor’s Edge (1944).
5. John Swinton’s characterization of himself and fellow editors and newspapermen, circa 1880, cited in Upton Sinclair’s The Brass Check (1919).
Dr. Moti Nissani is a jack of most academic trades and professor emeritus, Wayne State University.