David Irving: Another False Prophet?

by Salvador Astucia
Author of
Opium Lords: Israel, The Golden Triangle, And The Kennedy Assassination

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)
cached at:

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:

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:
"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."

"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."


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:


911 Lies exposed at http://www.public-action.com


Carol A. Valentine President, Public Action, Inc. http://www.Public-Action.com
See the handiwork of the world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI: 
Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum