Becoming aware of the Marxist conquest of American society, one will never again look at things in the same way. Mainstream media, social media, the public education system, including the university, as well as federal agencies have all become vessels of various schools of thought that are rooted in Marxist ideology….

M. Lohmeier

Lieutenant Colonel Mathew Lohmeier was (until last week) an active-duty Space Force commander worried about Marxism in the U.S. military. Lohmeier knows, from firsthand, that Marxism has established a foothold in the U.S. Defense Department; so he wrote a book titled Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military. Since Marxism has taken hold of the upper management of the U.S. military, it is only natural that Lohmeier would be stripped of command and “investigated” for “partisan political activity.”

Lohmeier was shrewd, however, in framing his book’s argument. In the introduction, he quoted Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s stand-down order on extremism, which reads as follows: “This stand-down is just the first initiative of what I believe must be a concerted effort to better educate ourselves and our people about the scope of this problem and to develop sustainable ways to eliminate the corrosive effects that extremist ideology and conduct have on the workforce. We owe it to the oath we each took and the trust the American people have in our institution.”

Playing Austin’s deceptive words to advantage, Lohmeier accepted the U.S. Defense Secretary’s invitation to join the fight against extremism with the following words: “Some will say I am out of my lane as an active-duty service member writing about something that is political in nature. But I disagree. Given the context of our day … and the invitation of the Secretary of Defense noted above, this work presently becomes relevant to our ongoing education and dialogue.”

Sadly, the Marxists in charge of the Pentagon are not interested in education or dialogue. That is not what they do. When Marxists get into management, dialogue annoys them and education is replaced by indoctrination. In the Pentagon, as elsewhere, Marxism hides behind the language of “inclusion” and “anti-racism.” This façade is used as a platform from which whites, Christians, and “toxically masculine” men can be attacked. Whites are regularly intimidated into silence by the word “racist.” Christians are intimidated by the word “homophobe.” Men are emasculated by girl-power and intimidated by words like “sexist” or “male chauvinist.” Lohmeier makes the point that the Geneva Convention prohibits intimidation used against prisoners of war. And here we have U.S. military personnel, not captured by the enemy, regularly abused and intimidated by Marxist themes (day in and day out).

The current Pentagon management uses gays, women, and minorities in a clever game of Marxist divide-and-conquer. If Americans ever understood who the Marxists were, and what they wanted, there would be an unprecedented outcry. But the Marxists are clever. It is chiefly through subterfuge and deception that they have advanced their agenda. The fact that Lohmeier was removed from his command, in the present instance, is an important telltale. Lohmeier would not have been relieved of command if all was well. If the reader is having trouble determining who the real extremists are in the military, perhaps they should watch the Heather Has Two Mommies Army recruiting cartoon. Let us shatter some stereotypes, shall we? Think sabotage, think subversion, think of every dirty thing you might do to undermine the armed services. Why not recruit blind snipers or deaf radio operators? If “inclusion” is the thing, we should make the firing line of a tank division boy/girl. Right?

Lohmeier asks the question: How did we get to this point? How did we become “a country where we have cozied up to Marxism”? And why “can we not recognize our now-rapid slide into various Marxist schools of thought”? Part of the disease, it seems, is an inability to accept the truth of what has happened. “How is it,” asks Lohmeier, “that American people and institutions … increasingly resonate and align with Marxist ideology?”

Lohmeier knows that critical race theory, which says that all whites are racist by virtue of their skin color, is part of a Marxist “divide and conquer strategy.” He spells it out in the book. Instead of investigating those who are advancing critical race theory in our armed services, General Whiting orders an investigation of Lohmeier and relieves him from command! This is topsy-turvy. Officers in the U.S. military take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. By writing a book about extremism in the military Lohmeier is adhering to that oath. He is presenting facts and asking questions about leftist extremism in the military. Is he recognized for doing something good? No. The man who sounds the alarm is now the object of attack. (Where have we read this line before? Was it something a French general wrote a few weeks ago?)

Even a dull-witted person should be able to understand the hold which the Marxists now have on our military. Thirty years ago, to speak out against Marxism on a college campus was career-ending. And now the infection has reached the armed forces. To speak out against Marxism in the military is also career-ending. Does everyone see this? Are we watching with eyes wide shut?

My fellow Americans, you are probably not going to get a second Lt. Col. Lohmeier to sacrifice his career for you. This may be the last and only warning you will get. Heed it or sink into ignominy. New Zealand researcher Trevor Loudon is correct when he says we are in the midst of a communist revolution. Day by day the Marxists are working to bring the United States under their control. Loudon says the communists are following a step-by-step plan: “the independence of the legislature, the independence of the Supreme Court, the independence of the sheriffs and the police must all be destroyed, and the loyalty of the Army to the Constitution must be transferred … to the president.”

If you think Loudon is exaggerating, read Lt. Col. Lohmeier’s book. He writes of the 1619 history project. It is an indoctrination program designed by Marxists to recast America as a white racist country with a racist constitution. Here is an attempt to undermine our heritage and our system of checks and balances. It is an attempt to inflame racial resentment by vilifying the country’s white majority. As Lohmeier correctly observes, it is “a dangerous weapon in the hands of those who hate America and would like to see it dismantled, fundamentally transformed, or destroyed.” [P. 21]

 “The 1619 mythology,” wrote Lohmeier, “is now being packaged up and used in public schools and university classrooms across America … to serve as the rising generation’s first introduction to real American history.” The idea here is to breed black resentment and white guilt. Lohmeier calls this a “dreadful combination” because it leads to the destruction of our unity and our sense of history. More dangerous is the way the 1619 mythology is being used inside the U.S. military. Instead of American servicemen identifying with America, they are taught that their country is evil, that its history is nothing but a series of crimes.

Last year, in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, Lt. Col. Lohmeier was asked by his superiors to show some videos to those under his command. “The first video,” wrote Lohmeier, “portrays American history as fraught with racism from 1619 till the present – ‘400 years of white supremacy,’ is how the film’s director describes it. The film teaches that the US Constitution codified a racist social order intended to allow whites to remain in power and subjugate and oppress blacks, and that we as a nation have never escaped from that foundation of racism. Further, that upon ratification of the Constitution, ‘white supremacy [became] the official policy of the United States of America.’” [P. 29]

You might think what follows is incredible, since our commander-in-chief at the time was Donald Trump; but no, the second video Lohmeier was asked to show depicted Republicans as racists; “for example, that George Bush won his election by causing Americans to fear black people, and also showing clips of Donald Trump before the 2016 election that cast him in a negative light, insinuating that he has fueled systemic racism in America.” [pp. 29-30]

This is what our generals are doing with our tax dollars. Should we tolerate this? Should it be allowed to continue? “Some wrongly believe we can progress past the archaic ideas of America’s founding philosophy,” wrote Lohmeier. “They believe the Constitution is outdated, and that it can and should be replaced. I know because I’ve had conversations with active-duty servicemembers with those views.” [P. 42]

Are you catching the flavor of Lohmeier’s book? Do you see what has happened to our military? Of course, you might think that Lohmeier is a typical military officer. This is unlikely, however. The book recounts an encounter with a politically correct chaplain who had heard of officers like Lohmeier but said he had never actually met one. That suggests a far worse problem than Marxists in the management. Once upon a time it was expected that all military officers think and behave in the manner of Lt. Col. Lohmeier. Apparently, that is no longer the case.

Will the American people, or their elected representatives, stand up for Lt. Col. Lohmeier? On May 19, a group of 24 Republican congressmen (see pdf) asked that Lt. Col. Lohmeier be reinstated. “We write to you out of grave concern for what appears to be an increasingly politicized environment developing in the Department of Defense….” The 24 congressmen complained that Lohmeier’s comments on the referenced podcast interview, which led to his dismissal, did not constitute partisan political activity. Such a claim, they said, is “entirely divorced from reality.” In terms of the double standard applied by the military in this case, the congressmen wrote, “we have plenty of recent examples of active duty military officers and senior enlisted leaders employing much more politicized speech than anything Lieutenant Lohmeier said last week. Perhaps Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeier observed the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein, say in June 2020, ‘Every American should be outraged that the conduct exhibited by police in Minneapolis can still happen in 2020.’ While a reasonable person can share that sentiment, it is an extremely political statement for a Service Chief to make about a then-pending legal case. Or perhaps he read the tweets by then-Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Kaleth Wright in which he accused the Air Force of racism because of ‘racial disparities in military justice and discipline among our youngest Black Male Airmen and the clear lack of diversity in our senior officer ranks.’ Again, while we can sympathize with Chief Master Sergeant Wright’s passion, these quite-political statements were made in-uniform from his official twitter account. Then there is the example of Colonel Jason Lamb, who anonymously ghost-wrote multiple articles to the Air Force Times and War on the Rocks that were extremely critical of various cultural issues within the Air Force. Rather than being reprimanded, General Goldfein offered ‘Ned Stark’ a job on Air Force headquarters staff.”

The 24 congressmen then mentioned how several senior military leaders attacked “a private citizen and a journalist, Tucker Carlson, for comments he made on his political opinion show.” No actions were taken against the officers who blasted Carlson. The congressmen further noted that “professional military and Service publications regularly host essays, articles, and discussions that call into question the decisions and policies of the Department of Defense or Services. These articles in no way violate any rules or regulations found in the UCMJ. They are appreciated for what they are: good-faith attempts to improve our national security enterprise.”

Clearly, Lt. Col.  Lohmeier would not have been removed from command if he had accused his service of being racist or sexist. In that case he would have been rewarded with a job at headquarters. Lohmeier lost his command because he objected to Marxism. The minute you question the Marxist agenda of critical race theory, you are done. In their letter supporting Lt. Col. Lohmeier, the 24 congressmen argued, “Critical race theory is a subset of critical theory that was developed in the 1980s to focus on perceived legal injustices in the United States….” This is a form of Marxism that traffics “in racial and sexual stereotypes and collective guilt … viewing any differences in outcomes as evidence of systemic injustice. This is an inescapable fact that senior leaders in the Department of Defense can no longer continue to ignore….” The congressmen then warned “those leaders in the Department complicit with this poisonous philosophy which promotes racial essentialism and collective guilt….” The congressmen added that critical race theory disrupts “good order and discipline in the Space Force and eviscerates our nation’s ability to attract patriotic talent to serve in uniform and fight our wars. Why would we expect our nation’s young men and women to join the Space Force to fight, and possibly die, on behalf of a systematically racist country?”

Well said, indeed. But this letter to the Pentagon was only signed by 24 members of Congress. Where does the rest of Congress stand this matter? Do they support the Pentagon’s action against Lohmeier? Does that mean they support Marxism and political correctness in America’s armed forces? Lohmeier has risked his career to make an important statement about our military services. It is a statement that should alarm every member of Congress. Out of 435 House members, only 24 sign a letter in support of Lohmeier. It must be said that the country is at the end of its tether. No wonder the Chinese are now bragging that they are ready to defeat the United States.

Given the nature of our current administration, and the leadership of the Pentagon, Lohmeier’s reinstatement is unlikely. After all, he is an enemy of the Marxists. Why should they tolerate such a person in the United States military? He is not wanted. He is done. Say good-bye to another patriot.

marxism’s goal is conquest

When Lohmeier attended the Defense Department’s “premier strategy school,” he encountered a professor who “was friendly toward Marxism.” This female professor suggested that America’s Cold war stance against the Soviet Union was not entirely justified. According to Lohmeier, “the subsequent discussion created an almost apologetic air toward Marxism and communism.”

This professor became Lohmeier’s thesis advisor. He found her likeable and “gregarious.” But he made a mistake when he decided to reference Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson’s work in a seminar. To his shock, he was told that referencing Peterson was “like referencing Hitler.” Lohmeier was speechless. That same day another military officer was reprimanded for using the word “mankind” instead of “humankind.” Such terms, said the professor, were “inappropriately exclusive, and therefore, offensive, and should be avoided.” [p.  67]

Making a fuss over the word “mankind” may seem meaningless; yet this is how Marxism gets inside your brain. If they can force you to drop the word “mankind” for the word “humankind,” they can leverage you on gender, they can destroy your sense of self, they can undermine common sense, and steal your country out from under you. Their bullying and threats over “mere language” may seem like nothing; but imagine being told that you have just quoted the equivalent of “Hilter.” That is a threat. Make no mistake. You are being asked to change your thought process for their thought process. As Lohmeier noted, “If servicemembers hold views – actual or assumed – that are judged to be contrary to the dictates of the Marxist faith – whether the views be political, religious, cultural, or otherwise – they are increasingly demonized and marginalized.” [P. 124]

If we imagine that Marxist professors cannot shape the thoughts of young officers, then we have underestimated the institutional power the Marxists have accumulated. “Tragically,’ wrote Lohmeier, “too many of our young active-duty servicemembers are beginning to believe … what they are being taught.” [pp. 124-25] Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin says he wants to rid the military of “racists” and “extremists.” He says that “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” are “significant” problems within the ranks.

Lohmeier absolutely denies that the U.S. military is “awash with white nationalists.” He says critical race theory is “wrecking young people’s motivation to serve in the U.S. military, regardless of political leanings.” Those who believe these false narratives lose their motivation to serve.  Those who do not believe are appalled by accusations which seem to be aimed at them. The U.S. military is being intentionally demoralized. Lohmeier shows us how young people are psychologically devastated by the Pentagon’s Marxist propaganda. One conservative young man asked Lohmeier if he would have to change his worldview to stay in the military. Many in the service feel betrayed by the leadership. “I have learned of black cadets at the US Military Academy (USMA), or West Point, who are no longer sure they want to graduate and commission in the Army,” said Lohmeier. [P. 130]

If you think West Point or the Naval Academy are free from Marxism you would be mistaken. According to Lohmeier, “The military service academies are assimilating into the progressivism of other universities throughout the country, where identity and race-based politics rule the day and the ideology of victimhood largely defines the campus environment.” [p. 131]

While conservatives in uniform are marginalized, Marxists in uniform are free to behave badly. Lohmeier poses the following pointed question: “Just what kind of extremists and radicals is the Department of Defense seeking to rid from its ranks? Besides the ‘white,’ conservative kind, are there others?” According to Lohmeier, “It is difficult to retain hope that our social, political, and cultural divide will heal anytime soon when the services allow for their members to become entangled in the political and ideological polarization that is wreaking havoc across the country.” [p. 152]

Lohmeier was almost finished writing his book when the events of last January 6 transpired. It was a frightening moment because the Marxist conquest of the country was then beginning to accelerate. Lohmeier wrote, “The progressive left’s appalling invective … reached an unbelievably low, mean, and accusatory state. I recognized that kind of speech. It was the ideologically possessed rhetoric of genocide.”

revolution, biowar and the cdc

Lohmeier fears that a fratricidal war is coming to America. “Military servicemembers of all ranks are becoming just as polarized in their views as the rest of the country,” he noted. When Marxist ideology takes root, disagreements “become increasingly grounded in beliefs about what America was, is, and should become.” Here is a formula for civil war, mediated by lies which society has been taught to believe. “The Marxist conquest is achieving precisely what it set out to accomplish – to fracture American society from within,” wrote Lohmeier. Now we arrive at the “final phase” of what KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn called the communist “long-range policy.” The Chinese and Russian missiles are standing by. America has been subverted from within. All that is needed is a catalyst, a pathogen, a vaccine, and a system of internal passports.

To set up the “final phase” of their long-range policy, the communists developed strategies for marginalizing and (in future, criminalizing) conservatives. As Kremlin strategist Georgi Arbatov explained in December 1988, “Our major weapon is to deprive you of an enemy.” The so-called “collapse of communism” ideologically disarmed the West. Once that was done, the left’s advocacy for gay marriage, critical race theory, open borders, and abortion, turned the tables on conservatives. Suddenly, Christians were called “homophobes” and “sexists”; nationalists were called “racists”; anti-communists were mocked as Cold War “dinosaurs,” maligned as “fascists” and “xenophobes.” To oppose the Marxist agenda was to receive a black mark next to your name. Even more infuriating, the right could no longer talk about a Marxist or communist threat. After all, Reagan had defeated communism. Conservative intellectuals became fond of saying that Marxism was a “failed ideology.” They mistakenly identified Marxism as an economic theory instead of a theory of revolution. In making this mistake, conservative intellectuals made themselves irrelevant. The Marxists, meanwhile, following Georgi Arbatov’s lead, deprived the conservatives of their domestic enemy – depicting themselves as moderates. At the same time, they began to label conservatives and Christians as “extremists.” This was how the campaign to marginalize the right began. It was hardly noticeable at first. And then, suddenly, it was too late for conservatives to explain that they were not “extremists” or “haters.”

Several years ago, a Greek Orthodox clergyman turned and asked me, “Where did all this pro-gay advocacy come from? How could such a thing have succeeded? Homosexuality was never popular in this country.” And that, of course, was the beauty of it. Before anyone realized what had happened, Marxism’s hold on the schools and universities produced a phalanx of young militants whose values were diametrically opposed to their forefathers. The Christian, the conservative, and the anti-communist came under attack from the left – a left that was no longer stigmatized as an adjunct to Soviet communism.

Today conservatives are marginalized in government agencies, education, big business, science, and the military. Anti-communists have even been marginalized within conservatism (see, especially, Diana West’s The Rebuttal: Defending American Betrayal’ from the Book-Burners). The KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, attempted to warn anti-communists that communism’s “long-range policy” might lead to a “new McCarthyism of the left.” [P. 346] Conservatives and anti-communists have been marginalized in many government agencies, just as Lt. Col. Lohmeier has been marginalized by the Pentagon. Who benefits from this process?

We are now in the second year of a biological war. Professor Chen Ping, a senior researcher at a communist Chinese think tank, made the following remarks during a video presentation: “In 2020, China won the trade war, science and technology war, and especially the biological war. The achievement is unprecedented.” What is the achievement, exactly? America may be hurt, economically, but we will recover from the pandemic. Or is there something Dr. Chen knows that everyone else missed? In what sense has China won anything? All nations have suffered losses in this pandemic – especially economic losses. What if America’s defeat has not registered because it involves a delayed effect?  

The Chinese communists (i.e., Marxists) are fascinated by America’s past military blunders. Therefore, they could not have missed a biological phenomenon known as Gulf War Syndrome. In studying the Gulf War, they must have become excited when they learned that America’s own Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had shipped biological pathogens to Saddam Hussein prior to the war (see Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own Documentary). If ever there was a weakness worthy of exploitation, this was it. The generals in Beijing must have sat bolt upright when they realized the American CDC had exported pathogens to a future enemy. Here was a golden opportunity. What if that same (fatally flawed) CDC or NIH could be induced to also give communist China biological pathogens? What if the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could be induced to pay for weaponizing those pathogens? What if American bureaucrats could be bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise cajoled into creating China’s preferred weapon of attack? What if China subsequently unleashed that weapon on the world? In that case, the leadership of the CDC and the NIH would be in China’s hands; for their complicity would make them China’s pawns. Through effective blackmail, China might then obtain control over the CDC and the NIH. Furthermore, if Marxists have infiltrated the Pentagon, as Lohmeier has shown, then Marxists would also have infiltrated the CDC and the NIH. So much the better, then, for securing victory in a future biological war.

There is a question we ought to ask ourselves: What kind of victory are Chinese strategists and scientists talking about when they refer to biological war? To answer this it is useful to consider a curious passage in the secret speech of Gen. Chi Haotian. Roughly twenty years ago, Gen. Chi spoke before a group of high-level Communist Party cadres. Chi said, “death is the engine that moves history forward.” He explained that “two rivals, China and the United States, will eventually meet each other on a narrow road….” Chi also said China was facing an environmental collapse from overpopulation. Chi further explained, “If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place.” Arguing for the necessity of a future war to take America’s land, Gen. Chi said, “It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But it is the only path that will secure a Chinese century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter….”

It is worthwhile, in this context, to consider the statements of Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist at Pfizer. Yeadon describes himself as “a boring guy” who worked for Big Pharma. But one day he woke up and realized that something inexplicable was happening. Those responsible for fighting the pandemic were “absolutely lying about everything,” he explained. “It’s a fallacy, this idea of asymptomatic transmission … that lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value … and that variants are scary things and we … need to close international borders….”

Yeadon is suspicious of gene-based (mRNA) vaccines. He smells a conspiracy behind the “convergent opportunism” of Big Pharma. He sees evidence of a totalitarian agenda. Yeadon warned, “There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic.” He then added, “One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.”

Stop for a moment. Take Lohmeier’s observations about the Marxist conquest of the U.S. military and apply his analysis to the “management” of the pandemic. Could it be? Is the pandemic being exploited by Marxists? Yeadon is worried. He cannot understand the “end game” as it unfolds. But he knows there is an endgame. Yeadon’s suspicions follow a familiar track: “I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’ … Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.”

Why would Marxists want everyone to “take a jab”? Did this idea originate in Beijing? Does this loop back to Gen. Chi’s talk of killing “one or two hundred million Americans”? And where did Chi get his large, round figures? No biological weapon could kill that many people in the deniable way that a realistic war plan would require; unless, you had 100 percent cooperation from your victim in setting up your attack delivery system. A number of questions follow from this: What if the main biological attack vector is not a virus? What if COVID-19 is merely a provocation? What if the lethal attack vector is the mRNA technology? What if the real attack is the vaccine? Why, in fact, aren’t the Chinese and Russians using mRNA vaccines? Why won’t any of America’s enemies use mRNA technology in fighting the pandemic at home? (Note: China is testing an mRNA virus for use in Mexico, not in China.)

Lohmeier tells us that Marxists are inside the Pentagon. They are making policy. They are demoralizing our troops. Are American Marxists likewise making policy from inside the CDC and NIH? Are they the ones who determined mRNA vaccines would be used? Who guided them to this decision? Were they advised by Marxist comrades in China? Yeadon speculates “our controllers” want to set up a unified population data base for the world. According to Yeadon, “once you’ve got that we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it. For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off … your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.” Everything in this emerging system of control, says Yeadon, is based on lies and manipulations. Then the controllers – whoever they might be – can adjust gene-based vaccinations to eliminating their enemies. “I will take you through this,” said Dr. Yeadon, “because I am qualified to comment.” Politicians and health bureaucrats are lying about this, Yeadon emphasized. Why are they lying? According to Yeadon, you could be vaccinated with a gene “that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period or cause your kidneys to fail…. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.”

Yeadon cannot think of “a benign explanation for any of the steps” now being taken. What is being introduced by this new class of vaccines is “unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.” Well, there must be a reason; only we are not being told what that reason is. “I’m very worried,” says Yeadon, “that [the proposed] pathway will be used for mass depopulation, because I can’t think of any benign explanation.” Those who have had the illness, and have acquired immunity, do not need a shot. So, the government program of lying, and pushing mRNA shots, is a red flag. If the process itself were honest, we might feel more trustful. But the governments, says Yeadon, are all lying. But who in these governments are the liars? Are they the Marxists Lt. Col. Lohmeier is warning us about?

Listen, if you can, to this discussion with Dr. Delores Cahill, professor of molecular genetics, School of Medicine at University College Dublin. She says mRNA vaccines create various adverse reactions. First, the subject of injection can suffer anaphylaxis. In time, when the subject encounters the virus which the mRNA was primed against, “a low-grade autoimmune disease” can occur. According to Cahill, “about a week later, when the adaptive immune system kicks in … you go into organ failure.” Because the mRNA is now in every cell of the subject’s body, “it’s almost unstoppable. It destroys the heart, or the spleen, or the lungs, or the liver because the mRNA is expressing the protein in every cell.”

In other words, vaccines that change the human immune system can produce lethal effects. If we go back to the First Gulf War, we run up against the phenomenon of Gulf War Syndrome. Here is where the medical science bureaucracy catastrophically collided with the military bureaucracy. What we find is extremely disturbing. Chinese generals, who have long been preparing for a biological war, could not have missed the striking confluence of two bureaucratic miscalculations. During the First Gulf War the U.S. and U.K. militaries illegally vaccinated servicemen with bio-war vaccines that were untested. When it later turned out that 400,000 British and American servicemen were somehow injured at that time, with an array of disabling symptoms, the medical science bureaucracy ran down so many rabbit-trails the truth was almost lost. That a vaccine was the culprit is shown by the fact that nearly half of all servicemen involved in Gulf War I were not disabled during the war, but came down with symptoms months or years later. This would not be the case if the cause stemmed from immediate exposure to chemical or biological weapons. Untested vaccines, which can trigger autoimmune illnesses, tend to cause delayed effects. In addition, immuno-suppressive drugs are used to effectively treat Gulf War Syndrome which, once again, suggests the damage was caused by vaccination. As Hill & Ponton disability attorneys later argued, American troops “may have received as many as 17 vaccines in a short period of time. These vaccinations included the botulinum toxoid vaccine and anthrax vaccine, [which were] not yet approved by the FDA.”

Having compromised themselves with illegal vaccinations, the military and its scientific adjunct were desperate to prevent the connecting of certain dots. According to Hill & Ponton, “Vaccinations given to soldiers deploying for the Persian Gulf War may explain the complex and frequently misunderstood symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome.” In fact, scientific studies show a high correlation between those who got sick and those who were vaccinated. (See notes below.)

Imagine if, more than twenty years ago, a discussion had taken place between China’s leading generals on this subject: “The Gulf War was an impressive victory for the Americans. They only suffered 147 deaths,” says General X. “Yes,” says General Y, “But they suffered 400,000 wounded when they vaccinated their soldiers against anthrax.” General Chi Haotian might then interject: “The Americans made a serious mistake. They panicked at the beginning of the war because Saddam Hussein had biological weapons. Being driven by fear, they foolishly vaccinated their troops with harmful materials. In fact, they were very fortunate. This mistake might have cost them everything. they might have killed or crippled their entire force. Imagine a future biological attack on America with a rapidly spreading virus. Of course, there would only be a million deaths from the virus. But everyone would be gripped with fear. People would be afraid to leave their houses. Society would be desperate for a quick fix. Might we, then, induce them to kill 100 to 200 million of their own people by panicking them into using an experimental vaccine technology? The officials in their CDC and NIH are soft and stupid, like all American bureaucrats. We could easily influence them. If necessary, we can use bribery or blackmail. And our Marxist friends in the government could also assist us. And their generals are stupid enough to inject their troops with anything!”

Are American generals stupid enough, once again, to inject their troops with a potentially harmful vaccine? Consider the commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division, Maj. Gen. Joseph P. McGee. In accordance with McGee’s orders, unvaccinated soldiers will not be given a pass and cannot take leave. Unvaccinated soldiers will be considered non-deployable. All of this is intended to coerce soldiers into “taking the jab.” According to Gen. McGee, “It would be irresponsible of me to allow soldiers to travel unvaccinated throughout the United States and bring that back and have an impact on our soldiers, their families and our overall operational readiness. I’m sure that’s not going to be a popular decision for some, and that’s quite alright.”

Is it really right? Is General McGree stupid or crazy? Does he realize that coercing soldiers into taking an experimental vaccine is criminal? Given Lt. Col. Lohmeier’s book, it is readily apparent how McGee achieved the rank of major general. From this little episode, McGee is probably on his way to securing a third star. He has certainly pleased the Marxist managers in the Pentagon. But has he protected his troops?

coming attractions

Consider a “manifesto” penned by recent West Point Graduates – young officers who demand that West Point “normalize anti-racism” and “radical inclusion.” Here is “the lens through which” West Point should execute “all of its aims,” they say. The lead authors of this manifesto believe there is no such thing as non-racist whites. Any white who denies being a racist, is revealing their racism. Joy Schaeffer, a white female and valedictorian of her 950-member West Point class, wrote a section of the aforementioned manifesto titled “West Point Fails to Teach Anti-Racism.” Here is what she wrote: “I graduated without an understanding of how I could still be a racist, despite my best intentions and the fact that I have always espoused the equality of all people.” She goes on to describe her failure “to identify and call out microaggressions,” which “enables greater acts of racism.” Her demonization of white people, and her self-vilification, knows no bounds.

Marxists are undermining America, medically and militarily. Marxists are inside the Pentagon. They are graduating from West Point. The country, in fact, is being gradually conquered by Marxists. But nobody seems to care – excepting Mathew Lohmeier and a handful of de-platformed, defunded voices that cannot be heard over the droning of the mainstream media. America is being disarmed. We are being locked down. We are being set up “to take a jab.” And the Chinese are getting ready kill us and take our land.

Lohmeier’s book contains a section titled “Averting the Wrath to Come.” He asks: “What is our obligation in the face of an ideology that suppresses thought, demands conformity, propounds distortions, and threatens to burn down society until it becomes a smoldering heap? Is it possible to avert the looming peril? To escape or flee the wrath to come?” [p. 173-74]

The answer, he says, is “national repentance.” This is not going to come through any political party, especially since parties are, says Lohmeier, “utterly inhuman formations, and the very object of their existence precludes repentance.” The change required must begin with the individual, the family, and “small groups or communities.” As the reader can see, Lohmeier did not write a partisan book. At no time did he engage in prohibited partisan activity as alleged in the investigation against him. The concern is strictly a patriot’s concern. “If the nation remains divided and becomes increasingly polarized,” he noted, “averting the wrath to come may not be possible, and Marxism’s goal of conquest will indeed be realized in the very country Engels referred to as ‘the last Bourgeois Paradise on earth’ – the United States.” Engels knew, as did Lenin and Stalin, that the collapse of America would be the “snapping of the mainstay.” Lohmeier places the ultimate responsibility with the American people. Will we stand passively by and allow the Marxists to divide and conquer us, or will we resist?

The essence of repentance is not blind action. It is not to exchange new lies for old. According to Lohmeier, “Our repentance consists of abandoning the web of deception and the fog of lies in which we all labor. Such a challenge is not impossible, but it requires seeking for and turning to truth. It requires us to abandon arrogance and to become humble.” Repentance, he added, also consists “in Americans believing in America – in its fundamental goodness. It means believing in … America’s founding principles as our best hope as a country….” [p. 174]

From the White House to the Pentagon, we are led by those who have wrapped Marxism in the American flag. Their idea of freedom is to tell American servicemembers that they are serving a systemically racist country. And now, at this critical moment, we have suffered a biological attack from Marxist China. We are threatened by Marxist missiles, fleets, and armies. We are being told to accept an experimental vaccine which Dr. Yeadon says we do not need. Have we understood what this is? Have we understood the game?

It is useful to end this essay with a quote from Robert Morris, a famous lawyer who investigated communism under the auspices of the United States Senate during the McCarthy era. He wrote as follows: “It is now April, 1961 and … I am President of the University of Dallas. Many of the strands of the conspiracy that we have sketched … have become greatly distended. Soviet conquests have been continuing during these years and now at an accelerated pace. Not only do they broaden the scope of the whole picture but they bring into bolder relief the central theme of this work – the gradual loss of our heritage without a response on our part worthy of our great traditions.” 

This is Part V of THE CRISIS

Special thanks to Barrett Moore, who provided research and editorial input.

Quarterly Subscription (voluntary)


notes and links

Robert Morris, No Wonder We are Losing, p. 205.

Pamela B. Asa, Yan Cao, and Robert F. Garry, “Antibodies to Squalene in Gulf War Syndrome,” Experimental and Molecular Pathology 68, 55-64 (September 23, 1999). (See Experimental and Molecular Pathology ( “Multiple vaccinations and vaccination against biological warfare agents are the factors with the highest correlation with GWS [Gulf War Syndrome] symptomology (Unwin et al., 1994).” The authors argue that exposure to chemical, chemical weapons or biological agents in the Persian Gulf theater “would likely have immediate effects and many Gulf War veterans were well until months or years after the military conflict. Many of these GWS patients have improved on treatment regimens prescribed by their personal physicians … [applying] immunosuppressives…. Such treatments would have no effect on subjects exposed to chemical weapons. If GWS was due to an exogenous infectious agent, the immunosuppressive regimens used would likely result in an exacerbation of the symptoms.” In other words, Gulf War Syndrome was caused by vaccinations.

Special note for the beginner: Marxism and communism are the same thing. The two terms are interchangeable. Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto. All existing communist states are Marxist, with addendum from a Marxist named Vladimir (Ulyanov) Lenin on “imperialism,” which he called “the highest stage of capitalism.”

A note for those who do not know their obligation under law: The legal definition of misprision of treason, pursuant to 18 USCS § 2382: “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or some judge of the United states, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.”

For those who have forgotten: The definition of treason is given in the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3. Treason consists in levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is punishable by death. Furthermore, under U.S. Law no person can be convicted of treason unless there is more than one witness to the same overt act of treason, or a confession in open court.

A note on Lohmeier’s account of the origins of Marxism: Lohmeier traces the origins of communist thought from the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, from secret societies and “philosophers, through various characters such as Adam Weishaupt of the Bavarian Illuminati and Jean Jacques Rousseau, down through Filippo Michele Buonarroti, Maximilien Robespierre, Francois-Noel Babeuf, Thomas Robert Malthus, Georg W.F. Hegel and then to the master of masters, Karl Marx himself. Lohmeier stresses the seminal role of the Bavarian Illuminati because Marxism is, like Illuminism, centered on a scheme “to overthrow governments, religion, and the family….” Strictly speaking, Lohmeier is correct in citing the Illuminati as an earlier iteration of Marx’s revolutionary ideal. However, Lohmeier’s references to Weishaupt will probably be used to tag him as a “conspiracy theorist.” Lohmeier correctly avoids the pitfalls of “conspiracy theory,” sticking only with conspiracy history and more importantly, the history of ideas. Nevertheless, critics will use this against him. The problem with emphasizing the influence Weishaupt and the Illuminati, is that famous cranks have already taken this road, deploying faulty theoretical constructs which laid anti-communism open to effective counterattack.

Note 1 on the dangers of vaccination: In terms of Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), the Department of Veteran Affairs consolidated its research into GWS in 2008 and attempted to write of the syndrome as caused by nerve agents from SCUD attacks as well as certain pesticides associated with a class of chemicals called Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. The problem with this explanation is that The Guardian (UK) published a report that Gulf War Syndrome was more likely the result of an “illegal” vaccine booster using squalene. By 2001 it was found that servicemembers who were vaccinated suffered GWS symptoms even if they were not deployed to the Middle East. Here is the problem of sorting out bad science and bad bureaucracy. The element said to be responsible (squalene) was said to be in the anthrax vaccine that was then given to British and American troops. The question of medical ethics, and the incompetence of military medicine, is worth reviewing for anyone who has second thoughts about today’s mRNA vaccine. Yes, science makes mistakes. Scientists, after all, are human beings; and more recently, they have become bureaucrats. See Researchers narrow Gulf War Syndrome causes | Article | The United States Army and Illegal vaccine link to Gulf war syndrome | Environment | The Guardian

Note 2 on dangers of vaccination: In 2011 the UK Independent learned that “five or six” injections were given to troops which the Ministry of Defence refused to acknowledge. It is suspected that these vaccines were experimental and illegal. The vaccines were given to protect troops from several biological agents believed to be in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. The vaccinations, being illegal, were not recorded on the medical records of the troops. Gulf troops given secret injections | The Independent | The Independent

Note 3 on the dangers of vaccination: LifeSiteNews presented quotes from Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy and Respiratory matters. He spent 32 years as a scientist. Yeadon apparently broke with the system because of Big Pharma’s “convergent opportunism” related to imposing their vaccine product on the Western world. Yeadon later recast this opportunism in terms of an apparent “conspiracy.”  Yeadon says there is absolutely no need for mRNA vaccines. He believes there is a totalitarian agenda behind the vaccination program. EXCLUSIVE – Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.’ | News | LifeSite (

Links for Gulf War Syndrome Theories:

The Environmental Illness Resource: Gulf War Syndrome
Gulf War Syndrome and the Army’s Depleted Uranium Training Videos
Gulf War to Iraq War Timeline
Leafly- OG Kush
What Are Cannabis Terpenes and How Do They Affect You?

Note on Marxist infiltration: When Lohmeier describes the way in which Marxist ideas are used to sabotage morale and destroy unit cohesion, he describes something that becomes possible only after institutions have been infiltrated. It should go without saying that large government institutions, like the Pentagon, are vulnerable to infiltration because no effective countermeasures were ever adopted. Where there is no defense, an attacker will succeed. Former communist Louis Budenz explained, “Many by-products beneficial to the [Marxist] conspiracy arise from this infiltration, since concealed Communists in education or their friends become sponsors of Communist fronts, aid in financing Communist causes, and sometimes play in influencing the attitudes of certain scientists, specific church circles, and government agencies.” Budenz wrote of the “Trojan horse policy” of the Marxists, which was officially adopted by the Communist International in 1935. The objective of this longstanding policy was to exercise influence “without exposing themselves.”

Second note on Marxist infiltration: The September 1952 Senate testimony of Bella Dodd is instructive, especially during her questioning by Senate counsel Robert Morris and Senator Ferguson on how Marxist infiltration works in practice. Americans, said Dodd, “have to learn that if you have … one Communist in an organization, that person is dedicated to building a unit. And a unit consists of a minimum of three people.” You build the unit by finding “the sore spots” in an organization. You find people who think they are “being abused” or “discriminated against.” Such people are easier to recruit. Anyone who is unhappy can be won over (in theory). The Marxist, said Dodd, “fastens himself on them and pretty soon he’s got them functioning with him. First, they will function not as party people, but just as … a group.” Dodd testified that communists seek a “strategic position” within an organization; for it is impossible to man an entire organization with communists. The objective is to affect the organization’s philosophy. You mentor people. You guide policy. You make yourself popular. An important technique, she said, was “to place a secretary at the disposal of a man who is not too alert…. And that person … reports to the party or helps control the person whom she is supposed to be serving.” When you have seen Marxists at work, when you know who the Marxists in an organization are (because they are trying to recruit you), the larger game comes into focus. Once you have firsthand experience, you can take a survey of any organization and readily identify the working “unit.” This is not so easy when surveying conservative organizations. The infiltrators of conservative organizations are better camouflaged and usually sound like everyone else. (In conservative organizations the goal is subtle misdirection rather than recruitment, and it is harder to spot.)

NOTEFrench virologist Luc Montagnier, winner of the Nobel Prize, has allegedly said that everyone vaccinated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has no chance of long-term survival. “There is no hope and no possible treatment for those who have already been vaccinated,” he said. “We must be prepared to cremate the bodies.” I sincerely hope he is mistaken or has been misquoted. Reuters fact check is claiming that Montagnier did not say “There is no hope” for the vaccinated. This statement also does not appear in the video in French. There are definite questions as the to authenticity of the quote.

Note on the general corruption of society as factor: Step-by-step we have advanced from one set of plausible lies to another. We did not look at these lies too closely because we wanted to believe we had won the Cold War. We wanted the “peace dividend.” We wanted access to cheap Chinese labor. We wanted to avoid the prospect of nuclear war. We did not want anyone to think we were racists, or gay-bashers, or sexists. We gave in to Marxism, again and again. At each turn, we went along with lies because we did not want to face the truth. There is an old saying: “You cannot cheat an honest man.” The communists succeeded in cheating us because we were not as honest as we might have been.

132 thoughts on “The Marxist Takeover of America

  1. Must be some frustrating to see things so clearly while the masses are so dummied down . We definitely need more intelligent soldiers like you Jeff ! Unfortunately most everyone I know are hopessly lost spoiled and ready for harvesting. Pathetic but not at all surprising. Good work Jeff your not completely alone but it’s sure feeling that way.

  2. Now you are going to call me a racist (see how much I care about that!): The truth is, you Americans (followed by most Europeans) opened the bastion of white power to the hordes now calling for your/our destruction. It is a fallacy to believe that white and black is the same – hear me clearly: I am not saying that white is good and black is bad. I am saying that they are not the same. I am also saying that you can not mix iron and clay (Dan 2:34) and what was done by you Americans (ably assisted by the Europeans) is you have attempted to mix iron and clay. This has opened the city gates to those who seek the destruction of the white race and now the enemy is on the inside! Come to South Africa and see what the result of that iron/clay mixture is – it leads to the destruction of everything built up by the white race and it leads to the physical death of white people. No matter how much the whites concedes to the blacks the the hatred does not stop and the Marxists keep fanning the flames. The only way to save the whites from total destruction (and there is no nice way of putting this) is to kill the Marxists and get the blacks existing on their own – the whites can not continue to accept responsibility for the blacks whilst at the same time carrying the risk of living amongst them.

    1. Dear Willem. I’d advise you to direct your rant to Candace Owens, one of the greatest heroines of the American Conservative movement. She would, certainly serve you a right answer.
      As ignorantly as tragically you have forgotten that for the plight of the black Americans are responsible mainly, albeit not only, the WHITE PARASITES coalescing mainly around the so called “democratic party”
      who have done everything to destroy the emerging at the beginning of the 20th Century black, or whatever, social and political existence,
      You are also forgetting that those are also communists that are responsible for the destruction of Africa and of the white Africa in particular.
      You cannot win the battle against EVIL if you are unable to diagnose it’s roots and it’s nature.
      Mentioned by Jeff Bella Dodd spoke also widely about the communist infiltration of the American Catholic Church which also faces utter destruction. Why then mostly white Catholics are so dumb to allow this to happen?
      Unfortunately, blacks, seem to be much more susceptible and I have to admit that to a commie propaganda.

      1. Dear Bogdan, You are right, Candace Owens is fantastic. The only problem is that she is an exception. If she is honest she will readily admit to the fact that blacks and whites differ and that the differences are used by the Marxists to fan the flames of hatred for whites. In South Africa the electorate voted to hand the country to the black majority and the ANC became the government. Now, after twenty five years the economy is on it’s knees, the once great infrastructure is lying in tatters and true to African form the elites are fabulously rich and the poor are being used as an excuse to fleece the whites. All this under the direction of the Marxists in government. They are fanning the flames of hatred for whites just like they do all over the world – behold a president (until very recently) singing a little ditty called “Bring me my machine gun” and an ex-leader of the ANC Youth League chanting “One Settler One Bullet”. The world which so loudly objected to “apartheid” is now deathly quiet in the face of a murder rate on par with most war zones and plans to expropriate property without compensation. I remember how Australia and New Zealand objected to “political interference” in South African sport – why are you so quiet now? Are you intimidated by the white hating Marxists running sport in South Africa? I wish Cancace Owens could come and talk some sense into the black Marxists running South Africa. But she won’t because she knows as well as I do that she is an exception.

      2. Your comment on Candace Owens is actually rather funny. If she had grown up in South Africa, it would be a different story. Americans do not understand South Africa and I don’t think Americans truly realise the freedoms they have.
        I have not read anything by Candace Owens, so took a look at her Twitter. Last I looked, she was criticising Chrissy Teigen. Definitely getting to the crux of matters.
        My idea of a true heroine, is Saint Joan of Arc. To me, Candace Owens is just another celebrity conservative. She says just the right things. With her platform, she could be warning about the danger America is facing from Russia and China. Any true anti-communist wouldn’t last very long.
        Or maybe I am just a bit cynical. I doubt it though. I just think one has to be very honest and look at things truthfully.

    2. Of course, a privileged minority in an apartheid state had high living standards. Nowadays the majority is definitely better off, African economy is growing fast, due to collapsing (neo) imperialism. Imperialists are the true parasites in the developing world.

      1. Dear Commit, If you think that the majority in South Africa is “better off” you are sadly mistaken. Their economy has been destroyed by the Marxists – the unemployment rate is somewhere north of fifty percent. The company that generates all the electricity is on it’s knees due to the Marxist business model of promising free electricity to ignorant voters and failure to maintain infrastructure. Perhaps you should take note of what is being said at the Zondo Commission of Enquiry. The amounts of money stolen by those animals who “are more equal than others” (remember Animal Farm?) is truly mind boggling – but there’s the black Marxists for you. Like one of them (Smuts Ngonyama) once said: “we did not struggle to be poor”. South Africa’s once great railway system lies in tatters, the heallth system is a shambles, most municipalities are bankrupt and disfunctional and the pass rate in government schools is 25%. The State owned companies like South African Airways, the arms manufacturer Denel, the Post Office and others are bankrupt and cannot pay their staff’s wages. So somehow you got stuck on the Marxist refrain of “apartheid” , “white priviledge” and how much better off the blacks are under a Marxist government but you are deluded.

    3. Willem, several years ago when the SA genocide began to be exposed, Russia gave free invitation to tens of thousands of white Boer farmers to migrate to Russia. What ever happened with that invitation? Was it legit. Russia loves caucasions as they must be ready to resist the growing virulient muslim minorities in their midst just as it is in China, but the majority of Boers are strong Christians. I find it interesting that communist Russia was willing to invite SA farmers at the same time Communist China is expropriating huge swathes of SA and African continental mineral resources—one would wonder if the SA communist parties will be taken completely over by China. That is some double pincer movement!

  3. Good morning, your article makes everything very clear – mainly about forced vaccination – no matter the punishment, I will avoid being vaccinated, Here in Brazil at least more than 90% of the population is asking on their knees for any vaccine.

  4. It all looks as if the once-non-communist world is check-mate in a much more horrifying way than almost anybody would have expected until recently…

    In this context, Gorbachev’s widely unnoticed Dec 10, 2011 speech at Munich comes to mind (the CSU-affiliated Hanns Seidel Foundation had honoured him with their Franz Josef Strauß Award). In that boastful, seemingly chaotic, through-and-through Leninist speech, Gorbachev gave a number of cryptic hints. One disturbing moment was when he said,

    “And, also, it’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out! Also small countries need contacts.”

    But it turned more bizarre still:

    “I believe I have now strayed quite far from the Franz-Josef-Strauß Award, but I’m convinced that the one is closely connected to the other; connected to the legacy passed on to us by smart brains. I’d like to once again express my heartfelt thanks. You know, I speak at home, here in Germany, in Europe, in the world; I advocate cooperation and of course a deepening in the cooperation between Russia and Germany. Because, this means very, very much for the overall situation; it stabilises it, develops it towards a positive outcome, and the people who are demonstrating in Wall Street demand social justice and equality. And, as you can see, also in the EU, mistakes were made. But this isn’t yet the essential point I want to make. I have the impression that – of course we aren’t out of the old crisis yet, and there are already signs on the horizon for a new crisis, but – as LENIN calmed his comrades-in-arms, this was when the Soviet power came into being, when there was a chaotic situation in the country: ‘Yes, of course we have chaos, BUT FROM CHAOS SPRING UP NEW FORMS OF LIFE’. And therefore, chaos IS a problem, a crisis IS a problem, all this isn’t easy, but there are always included opportunities that definitely should be made use of. And I wish the Germans a healthy New Year. And this time you will still have enough bratwursts and pork-knuckles for New Year’s Eve. WELL, AND AS FOR THE NEXT NEW YEAR’S EVE, WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT, TOGETHER! And, I tell you quite frankly: it is for me a special, an emotional day. And regarding the accomplishments that I myself associate with my life – the German question, the destiny of Germany – these were for me of determining importance. And I’m proud of what I could do. – Thank you very much! I’m wishing you good success!”


    1. Unfortunately and tragically, my country of origin, Poland is sandwiched between those two monstrous entities. Everything points on the possibility that they are up to something very, very nasty towards Poland again.
      Greetings from Aussie

      1. The late British analyst Christopher Story (1938 – 2010) wrote an amazing book, that he self-published in 2002, titled “The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States – A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution.” In it, he explores (and documents) the mind-boggling cooperation as well as rivalry between a meanwhile “post-communist” Russia that has remained as Soviet as ever and a seemingly post-National-Socialist Germany, that simply continued, after the end of the war – without swastika, Nazi rhetoric or so much as a Führer – its same-old pan-German hegemonial designs.

        However, after 7 years of a far-left Red-Green coalition government under Schröder/Fischer (from 1998 through 2005) and for the following 16 years a series of changing coalitions under a Christian Democratic Union hijacked by an obvious communist Trojan Horse from former communist East Germany, it is hard to imagine that anything of the old pan-German strategy could have survived.

        Here is the book:

        Postscript: Poland’s geographical position between Russia and Germany of course hasn’t changed, but on the other hand: Has Poland – or any other “former” satellite state, for that matter – really ever come out of Moscow’s sphere of influence since the alleged “collapse of communism” in 1989?

      1. There is an additional chilling element involved here. Mere hours after Gorbachev’s brutal speech, which was given around noon time (CET) of Dec. 10, 2011, there occurred a total lunar eclipse, a so-called Blood Moon, between 3:06 and 3:57 p.m. Central European Time (when the moon rose for Munich, totality had already passed). What a terrible celestial illustration!

      2. Christopher Story interviewed re “The Perestroika Deception”

  5. Another piece of excellence JR. I hope you are putting these parts together for a book. There are a lot of crazy conspiracy theories on the web about the vaccines. It’s hard to know what to believe, especially when so many who have been vaccinated are not experiencing adverse reactions. And how can we know that Marxists are involved in the vaccines unless we can identify them in the Big Pharma companies that produce them? That being said, there are enough reactions and deaths from the vaccines to warrant great concern. We won’t hear anything from the Marxist media that’s for sure. We need more Big Pharma officials to blow the whistle and get the blood off their hands. But how will they hear without preacher? How will they get this message when the media is so compromised? It’s hard to believe we are under attack….biological attack. Martin Armstrong believes that Bio-War is preferable to nuclear war since the land and infrastructure can be used so your essay makes sense in that regard. For me, you have put enough pieces together here to believe we are under attack and that the vaccines are the weapon. Can’t believe I just wrote that.

    1. I am asking some serious question about an unnecessary “vaccine” technology involving changes in human genetics. Dr. Yeadon, formerly a chief scientist at Pfizer, says this gene-based vaccine technology is unnecessary. Why are the usual suspects pushing it so hard? If employment is threatened to force the vaccine on people, there could be criminal implications if people die. We hanged Nazis doctors at Nuremberg for forcing vaccinations. Is threatening a person’s livelihood or ability to travel coercive? Undeniably. This vaccine is experimental. Such threats are not being deployed by conservatives. I cannot emphasize this enough. Put that together with Lohmeier’s book and this bizarre Chinese bragging about “winning” a biological war. Yeadon does not understand why this kind of vaccine is preferred. He thinks something sinister is going on. Having read Gen. Chi Haotian’s speech about killing off hundreds of millions of people in a biological war, I put the question to everyone: Why are the Marxists in our establishment so insistent on discouraging the use of anti-virals and so very insistent on mRNA technology? These are questions that ought to trouble us.

      1. Sounds like WW4 has started. And they use the media to encourage the enforcement and coercion vaccination under the pretense of helping the economy and things going back to normal. And that is what most Americans think the motivation is all about. But like you said that doesn’t explain why they’re so opposed to antivirals like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. And why they still want to force those who have already had COVID-19 to get vaccinated. I believe you are pointing in the right direction and we need more whistleblowers like Dr. Yeadon.

      2. Jeff, I just came across this video this morning and there is some startling information in it. The video is in French with English sub-titles, so you have to pay close attention, and maybe even back up a few times to get it all.

      3. I saw it. The French scientist you refer to is certainly qualified to have an opinion. It is a frightening opinion, to be sure.

      4. The video link I posted is how the covid virus vaccine(s) have been manipulated with some very disturbing strains of other viruses.

  6. One of your greatest articles, Jeff. Thank you so much for this invaluable information.

  7. Marx never promoted degeneracy, narcissism, (inverted)racism or promiscuity. Those so-called neo-marxists and liberals are bourgeois degenerates in true marxist terms. Liberalism has origins in French revolution, not in marxism. True marxist have strict morals, Marx promoted absolute monogamy.

    1. Karl Marx was a narcissist and he promoted degeneracy. Have you read Engels on the family? Engels was relying on Marx’s notes. Can’t you read?

  8. Probably those degenerates are used by true marxists to weaken capitalism, but calling them marxist is simply wrong.

      1. In addition, same housemaid, Helene Demuth, who died seven years after Karl Marx, was buried in the Marxes’ family grave at Highgate Cemetery, London!

    1. Commit, Please read The Devil and Karl Marx. Here is a brief summary from Amazon. “Far too many people separate Marx the man from the evils wrought by the oppressive ideology and theory that bears his name. That is a grave mistake. Not only did the horrific results of Marxism follow directly from Marx’s twisted ideas, but the man himself penned some downright devilish things. Well before Karl Marx was writing about the hell of communism, he was writing about hell.

      “Thus Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well,” he wrote in a poem in 1837, a decade before his Manifesto. “My soul, once true to God, is chosen for Hell.” That certainly seemed to be the perverse destiny for Marx’s ideology, which consigned to death over 100 million souls in the twentieth century alone.

      No other theory in all of history has led to the deaths of so many innocents. How could the Father of Lies not be involved?

      Professor Paul Kengor, takes a close, careful look at the diabolical side of Karl Marx, a side of a man whose fascination with the devil and his domain would echo into the twentieth century and continue to wreak havoc today. It is a tragic portrait of a man and an ideology, a chilling retrospective on an evil that should have never been let out of its pit.

      1. Marxism is a very destructive system of thought: especially in its political organization and what that organization means in practice.

      2. Ok, so Marx was an atheist Jew. You can’t consider him an authority on religion. As Jeff wrote in other comment, you can disagree on some things with a person you agree on other things.

      3. Even though Marx’s parents were originally Jews, they converted to Christianity. Consequently, Marx was raised as a Christian, not a Jew. He became an athiest in school, at university. He wrote a controversial essay in 1843, “On the Jewish Question,” which many consider to be anti-Semitic. As you know, Marx hated capitalism and basically his essay compares the faults of capitalism to those of the Jews. I therefore object to anyone who describes Marx as Jewish. He never identified himself as a Jew, and he never held Jewish beliefs. Besides, to call someone a Jewish athiest is like calling them a Christian atheist. It is descriptively nonsensical.

  9. Jeff you had said this to me in the comment section of the earlier essay on your Kincaid interview;

    ”Vladimir: A question about Russian TV. I saw the Boris Gudonov series from Russian television and I enjoyed it. I generally hate television, but this was something very different. I was intrigued by the positive portrayals of some of the Orthodox priests, and the complexity of the story-telling. There was something special about the way the producers handled this story. Nothing like this would have been possible in the West. I wondered if you had seen it and what your thoughts were.”

    I haven’t seen the series yet, although I am planning to when I have more time. And you’re right; unfortunately none of that would be possible in the West. Much of Russian television that I watch is structured similar to Latin American telenovelas, with a clear beginning and end to a series, complex and well developed characters and storylines. And the Russian movie or television shows that appear to be like those in the West are often full of sly ”tongue in cheek” moments that show the writers are not taking the Western themed material too seriously.

    I did recently watch ”Raskol” again (means ‘Schism’, ‘cleaving apart’) about the transformation in the middle to later half of the 16th century from Old Russia to the New Russia, and the persecution of the ‘Old Believers’. Every major historical figure was pictured in all their depth and complexity, just as the Godunov series you watched. History is history, and there is little of that spirit that wishes to tear down statues and remove pictures or mention a historical figure; the ”cancel culture’. This goes back to that earlier video I sent about the ‘cultural code of the Russian Civilization, the view the Russian mind has of the world and how it works. Read Dostyoevsky, with his characters with seemingly impossible Chimeric mixtures within them of Good and Evil, of contradictory opinions and beliefs held by the same person at the same time…Dostyoevsky thought of real Russian people as models for his literary characters. (As an aside; Tolstoy was a wanna-be Westerner, struggled with his Western educated brain and Russian heart all his life. Dostyoevsky had that struggle knocked out of him in one terrible moment in his youth, his famous near-execution and exile to Siberia. Don’t trust the writings of Westernized Russians-they neither understand their own people or themselves).

    In a political context, such a series as ”Boris Godunov” is a picture of life itself, the way the world is in a universal sense as believed by Russian hearts and minds. Complex and Personalist, not ”political” or Ideological.

    These differences in outlook are partly due to the over 1000 year influence of Orthodox Christian spirituality on Russia; focused on the interior life, the inner transformation of the human person and the awakening of the ”Nous”, which is an elusive thing hard to define by Anglo-Saxon categories. I guess you could call it the ”mind of the heart”, the ”heart” mentioned in Scripture. We posit a disconnect between the heart and the brain, with a semi-dormant ”Nous” which has a real but tenuous connection with God because of Sin. The Conscience and Inner Light by which we are made in the Image and Likeness of God. We are never done with our internal struggles in this life, and there are corners of darkness (or corners of light) in every human heart. The Western Anglo-Saxon mentality wants clear moral lines and entirely ”good” and ”bad” characters in a story and in life expects the same; the Russian knows that people are simply too complicated for such a story, which would be unrealistic and even perverse. This is why the West sees the Russian world (if they perceive a ”Russian Worldview at all!) as strange, alien and amoral, sinister, barbarous and frightening, while the Russian sees the Western cultural world as being ”Manichean” and rigidly Ideological, political, foolish, hypocritical and unreal, childish. There is a radical freedom that Russians love that is quite scary when seen by Westerners, seems Anarchic. Totalitarianism in any shape or form is pretty impossible in such a society or culture.

    Now, in the context of Russian television and movies, Orthodox Christians are pictured these days in a better light because Russia has shed or is shedding the burden of Western-derived Ideology on Russian civilization, all Western-derived thought that cannot fit the complex real world. Orthodox Christianity is in the cultural and spiritual DNA of Russia, in fact is that DNA.

    Look at Atheism in light of that. Russian Atheism even appears to be different than that of the Western Atheist. The Russian Atheist is often a ”God Fighter” who knows God is real, but fights Him out of some inner struggle that is expressed in their external life, a person resisting Healing from God, refusing God Personally, not so much as a Reality. More of an ”Anti-Theist” than ”Atheist”. The Western Atheist is often more foolish than tragic, an Atheist because they neither know nor care that there is a God, and such a Being (if He is seen as anything at all) is seen as a Cosmic scold, a harsh Rulemaker to be rebelled against, a fake prop of a system like that in the ”Wizard of Oz”. The West sees the inner spiritual world as a Courtroom and God as Judge and Moral Legalist, while the Orthodox view the inner spiritual world as a Hospital for the sick and God as Physician and Healer.

    This is what I have seen and know, my own experiences. As you say, such depth and complexity is impossible in the West. Not because the West lives in another universe, but because the West wishes to live as if reality is somehow different and simpler than it really is. I could blame Hollywood and the Entertainment industry, but I think it goes deeper than that.

    1. The English language has Shakespeare, of course, and Jane Austin, and Joseph Conrad (who was actually Polish), and many others. These have complex characters, to be sure. Yet there appears, as you suggest, a division between good and evil characters in most of our literature. This tendency became exaggerated with the development of Television in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Dramas were written under actual rules in which the hero had to be “good.” The Long Ranger, for example, never killed the bad guys with his gun. He shot their guns out of their hands. This is an extreme example, but American stories do indeed have a tradition of casting everything in terms of good versus evil. Aristotle’s Poetics might be blamed for this tendency, as Aristotle suggested drama might present people as they ought to be instead of as they are. Americans would tend to stop watching the story of Boris Gudonov as he tragically drifts into tyranny. There is a rejection of a good character who begins to act wickedly. It is too disturbing for those who lack insight into themselves. Jung described the inferior side of the self as “the Shadow.” The Shadow-possessed person projects his own wickedness onto others, failing to see himself at all.

      1. I agree, in Western terms it’s all too easy to cast Tsar Godunov as a Russian version of Shakespeare’s ”Richard III”, right down to the mysterious death of a royal child (Tsar Ivan’s son Dimitry) in exile from the throne…Yet Shakespeare does have depth to be sure, even his Richard III gives one some serious food for thought.

        But consider what Tsar Boris Godunov had to face anyway, despite all his machinations, towards the end of his reign; a ”False Dimitry” (the runaway monk and agent of other powers, Gregory Otrepiev) who rallied people (who believed or pretended to believe that he was the lost ”rightful Tsar”) to his banner. Godunov was right in thinking-like Nixon-that ”they” really were out to get him. He just wasn’t willing to return enough to the methods of Tsar Ivan Grozny to restore political order and defeat his enemies. Tyranny of that sort isn’t the answer, obviously, and yet…

        So yes, there is an unwillingness to confront ourselves and even a willingness to externalize our inner conflict and wickedness, on a collective cultural and spiritual level. a childishness and idealistic naivete that precludes serious thinking and true political engagement.

  10. Long-winded, paranoid obsession with a phantom enemy that has defined your life and career. Nothing more. The effort it takes to stay locked in your intellectual prison is palpable in this essay.

    1. Too much reading for you? Read Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and Harry Wu’s Bitter Winds. They go on for thousands of pages describing the crimes of the Marxists. If that is not to your taste, go back to watching cartoons.

      1. Solzhenitsyn was a supporter of Putin, who according to you (I agree with you) is a marxist. He had some issues with rootless cosmopolitans among communists, not marxism in general.

  11. Dear Mr Nyquist,

    I was a Politics undergraduate in the late 1980s. I recall those of my tutors specialising in geopolitics waxing lyrical about the impending fall of communism. One of them likened the Perestroika and Glasnost reforms to a last chance saloon for the Soviet Union; failure of these reforms would result in a collapse faster than a house of cards.

    Sure enough in 1989 the Berlin Wall came down and gosh, in 1991 the USSR “collapsed”. But how myopic they all were! Not one of them discussed the impending rise of China; instead they bleated on about how the world would now become multi-polar, how South Korea would become the next economic superpower, and how nuclear weapons would become consigned to the dustbin of history. What fools!

    Thirty years later and the stark reality is that the West is sleepwalking to an abyss. Every Western country is following the same patttern: of decadence, mass multiculturalism, hollowing out manufacturing industries, gigantic indebtedness, and the worship of an ideology of political correctness (communism) that is destroying free speech in every workplace and social arena. The ongoing suspension of video clips criticising vaccines on YouTube is a case in point.

    When the wall came down commmunism marched westwards, using not tanks but ideology, subtly rebranding itself as a liberal-democratic notion of equality; whether that equality was between the races, the sexes, different social classes or one of equality of opportunity etc did not matter; it was the very notion of equality itself that became a mantra; to be believed not disbelieved; to be accepted not criticised. And therein sowed the seeds of our destruction. The West is now an absurd construct: an insane blend of supercommunism and hyper-consumerism blended together, in a racially divided melting pot.

    The Chinese and Russians have too much of a lead militarilly (and in the case of the former also economically) now. Our supine politically correct leaders in the West will kowtow to the power of the Yuan. Material comfort is so much cosier than a fight, and let’s face it, the ticking timebomb that is multiculturalism will probably explode way before any communist nukes are launched….maybe a tactical nuke? Just to frighten us into aceepting a greater co-prosperity sphere….nice Russian and Chinese soldiers being invited to our countries to keep the rabbling races apart, to enforce order and some sort of “civilisation”.

    To all those millenialls espousing equality like one of Orwell’s sheep; consider this: why is there no equality in nature? Think about it and the answer becomes obvious.


    1. Peter Hitchens has publicly stated that Russia is not a threat to us.

      He also publicly denies that Saddam Hussein had WMD, that the West is to blame. The below article is the same narrative Mr Hitchens actively pushes.

      We know that Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before.

  12. USA File: Retired, 27-year US Navy vet Jarome Bell running to represent Virginia’s 2nd congressional district, delivers “fiery” speech at Kim Klacik’s Red Renaissance event in Maryland, describes systemic vote fraud in Nov. election as “communist coup,” blames “weak ass Republicans” for disarray among patriotic forces: “What happened in 2020 is a travesty in this country . . . I did not spend almost three decades of my life [in US Navy] to turn this country over to the radical left and to these weak ass Republicans here in the United States of America. Our very way of life in this country is at stake. I’ve traveled all over this world, 27 years, I’ve been around this world more than 10 times. I’ve seen insurrections, January 6 was not an insurrec- tion. You do not perform an insurrection with no guns . . . I’ve been evacuated out when we had to leave because they were taken over by dictators”; globalist/communist forces behind Democratic Party lured patriots into Capitol Bldg. breach, tarnish MAGA supporters, Oath Keeper in DC on Jan. 6, reminds Gateway Pundit that door locks electronically controlled from security booth

    May 24, 2021

    source 1:

    source 2:

  13. I think it is useful to distinguish how Marxism looks in Russia and China from how it looks in the U.S. Western Marxists are working to destroy the West. Russian and Chinese Marxists are also working to destroy the West. Western Marxists will therefore do everything possible to demoralize the society they inhabit. Russian and Chinese Marxists will do everything possible to whip up national “patriotism” and make their aggressive (“toxically masculine”) war machinery and fighting manpower as fearful as possible. No P.C. pieties coming from that quarter. (These are reserved only as weapons directed against the West, when they can be used to expose hypocrisy, the breaching of P.C. norms, etc. Just as Satan accuses the sinner of his sins at the judgment seat of God. Check out RT; they’re masters of this technique. So is Putin.) Anyway, this is why Ted Cruz had a good laugh juxtaposing the American military recruiting video with that of the Russian training clip.

    The tyranny of political correctness has been growing for a long time, including in the military academies. James Webb’s novels reflect the taming of the warrior into a manager. A graduate of West Point, he was a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and began writing his novels during that period. The Air Force Academy, too, from which Lohmeier matriculated, is notorious for its obsequious genuflection to the P.C. proprieties. I have been well aware of it, since I live in the city that houses the Academy. In 2003, for example, the motto, “Bring Me Men” was removed from the Warrior Ramp on the Academy campus. It was replaced with the inoffensive “Integrity First. Service Before Self. Excellence in All We Do.” As anodyne and forgettable as the “learning standards” promulgated in current “character education” courses in American schools. Jeff’s point about the critical importance of language is well illustrated in this revealing detail. In another more recent bow to inclusiveness, the Academy constructed the Cadet Chapel Falcon Circle, “in response to a need among Pagan cadets,” in the words of one sympathetic account. It is impossible to imagine Russian officials in charge of military training academies either changing the motto or accommodating the pagans. They have more important business to attend to.

  14. Jeff, when Mike Adams interviewed you last year, you mentioned how Marxism represented the rise of a new religion. The thrust of the interview concerned whether or not COVID was an accidentally-on-purpose form of biological warfare, consistent with long term ChiCom strategy.

    I hope you write an essay that focuses on the religious appeal of Marxism, and how it can arouse a fervor normally associated with God-centered faiths.

    My own initial thoughts on the subject has to do with a related topic: society and the individual: in classic terms, “the brotherhood of man, and the manhood of the brother.” Culture shapes the individual and the individual shapes culture. Like the drawing that makes us alternate between seeing the face than the vase, the human experience leads some to say, “Society is an illusion” and others to claim, “The individual is an illusion.” Atomized Social Darwinists and Borg despots each use the obvious errors of the other to prop up their own folly.

    Look to nature: “Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve.” Successful ecosystems are an interconnected web of diversity; replanting denuded forests with only one species of tree is properly called creating ecological deserts. Think of the diverse organs making up the human body; actually, St. Paul thought about it some 2,000 years earlier to help us understand the unity-within-diversity.
    The doctrine of the Trinity (three Divine Persons, one God) suggests that the full workings of this principle may exceed our understanding.

    Humanity seems to oscillate between overemphasizing the individual and overemphasizing the society in which the individual is embedded. The current movement is a swing back to overemphasizing the collective, although even here they must pay tribute to individualism by creating an enemy Other. In a healthier society, the pendulum might swing toward stronger community organizations, churches, etc. In a society that is as deracinated and degenerate like Weimar Germany, the pendulum swings toward nightmare.

    1. Do I dare hazard a response? In my book, “The Fool and His Enemy,” I write about “the New Religion.” The New Religion signifies irrational hatred of the Old Religion and its civilization. Marxism is the mainstay of the New Religion. It is hatred disguised as “science” and “reason.” People are easily confused once they begin reasoning about complex social and spiritual questions. They often find themselves alienated by the materialism and “efficient” meaninglessness of modern life. It is best to regard with reverence things that are old, things that are sacred, things that are directly connected to us (like family). Filial piety is not nonsense, though nearly everyone present regards it as such. Great thoughts, great moments in history, great literature, and the scriptures, can reconnect us in surprising ways. The most basic social unit in society is the family. The natural head of the family is “father.” In itself the family is collectivistic, and yet it can operate well within a free market society, which people like to say is “atomized.” I would argue that civil society and individual “rights” is not the cause of atomization. Civil society gives us one level of society which is not the primary level. We are all part of a collective: Mother, Father, Child, Sibling, Cousin, etc. What Marxism and extreme rationalistic liberalism offer are arguments that break down concepts and feelings necessary to the life of the individual, to the life of the family, and the community. Imagine what it felt like to be an American in 1960. People alive today have no idea unless they were alive then. It was totally different than what we feel today. Most of these feelings, and the social sense that attended daily life, are now gone. Something grim and monstrous has taken over. What we have now is a false individuality, a false idea of family and community. The individual’s connection to God, to the Divine Principle, is simultaneously a connection to self and to others. It is integrative. Where has this gone for most people? I do not see a refined or highly developed sense of the sacred in people today. Look at the preferences in Church services for popular music over traditional sacred music. When people do not understand this difference, there is a deep problem. Here, too, we have lost touch with what we once had. Spiritual and intellectual experiences were more intense for most people, and more tangible. Today there is a numbness. There is a disconnectnedness. An intellectual and spiritual disintegration has occurred. Furthermore, each culture, in terms of traditions, has developed rituals and structures and folkways to preserve and enhance its sense of self and community, collective and individual. Rationalism — whether Marxist or liberal — tends to say that these things are irrational and should be abandoned. I agree with Edmund Burke who warned against such abandonment. What has happened during the last century is a disintegration of the individual, of the family, of the community. Ideology and false rationalistic formulas have come in their place. Our modern patterns of work and mating have contributed to this breakdown. The idea of mother and father, woman and man, has broken down. Atheism has also contributed to this breakdown. Modern ideologies of every type are very dangerous. They do not have the necessary wisdom or spiritual connectedness man needs. Our disintegration and nihilism follows from disconnectedness — intellectual and spiritual.

      1. Peter Hitchens is on the same wavelength:

        “Peter Hitchens lost faith as a teenager. But eventually finding atheism barren, he came by a logical process to his current affiliation to an un-modernised belief in Christianity.

        Hitchens describes his return from the far political left. Familiar with British left-wing politics, it was travelling in the Communist bloc that first undermined and replaced his leftism, a process virtually completed when he became a newspaper’s resident Moscow correspondent in 1990, just before the collapse of the Communist Party.”

  15. It’s already been proven that the vaccines are dangerous – the spike-protein that is produced in the human body with the mrna vaccines actually damages blood-vessels (according to this study: This would also explain the cases of blod-clots among some who had the vector-vaccines injected into the blood-stream (which is a direct dose of spike-proteins).

    1. I do not understand. THe article you site is not about the vaccine. It is about the virus and its spike proteins. Do you have an article about the vaccine producing identically damaging spike proteins?

      1. This technical scientific paper is fascinating and frightening. ADE May indeed be indicated with COVID-19. ADE is what can kill those who are vaccinated.

  16. Getting to the heart of the matter. As the essay written is called ”the Marxist takeover of America”, one has to have a working knowledge of what America is-and is not-and also what Marxism is… And is not.

    To some Americans, even Social Security is ”Marxism”, and the New Deal, a ”Communist Trojan Horse”. These people are radical individualist libertarians, at least on the internet they are, and aren’t representative of most Americans throughout American History. Ayn Rand and her Acolytes are a fringe, albeit an influential one, paralleling Marx and company interestingly enough. (could the parallel go further and thus have Randian revolutionaries in America someday, taking over? I think the question is an interesting one at least)

    I don’t know if Marxists as such are taking over America, Marxists of the doctrinaire atheistic sort, eager to implement their brand of Socialism and much more. What I do know is that there is nothing institutionally within American society or political institutions that is blocking revolutionaries from taking over America (peacefully or otherwise). Why? Because America is a revolutionary society, and the brutal logic of revolution is that revolution never stops, just because some revolutionaries look at the future stages in horror and want to stop things right where they want and no further. It just doesn’t work like that, in my opinion.

    February 1917 leads to October 1917, so July 1776 leads to October 1917 also. And thus ”we hold these truths to be self evident” leads to ”confused mentally ill story time with children hour”, and more, until maybe we have environmentalist fanatics wanting humanity to sacrifice itself for the good of ”Planet Earth”. Who knows how far it will go before it is forcefully ended?.Point being in summation, that I wouldn’t be so quick to separate the American revolution from every other that has happened. The alleged ”Right to Revolution” is an assumption, a quasi religious dogmatic belief among some.

    1. Vladimir: I have to disagree with your description of the U.S. “Revolutionary War”. It wasn’t revolutionary in the traditional sense—the traditional sense being a revolt against the ancient regime. Rather it was a conservative pushback against an increasingly immoral and unjust society that England was becoming. Yes, it was a revolt against the political regime, hence the term “revolutionary”, but it was a revolt against what a society and its political machine were becoming in order to hold on to what is good from the past. Chief among what was good from the past were the teachings and morals found in the Bible which were already under attack in England. That’s why the U.S. war for independence didn’t degenerate into chaos and dictatorship as did the French revolution of 1789.

      What the U.S. has become today are the very things that the Revolutionary War were fighting against. True, there are still people who support the goals of the Revolutionary War, but they are despised by the “intelligentsia” and elites of today, in the same way the “intelligentsia” and elites ruined England starting in the second half of the 1700s and continuing to today.

  17. “Marxism’s goal is conquest.” JR Nyquist’s goal is to write about the defeated disposition of the men, the straining to the point of shattering of the riggings, the holes in the stern, the water pouring in, the wailing of the families on shore; every last detail about the demise of the doomed ship; except how to right her. This article is entirely shameful in it’s futility…

    1. You are PATHETIC, Robert. Trying to point to the blinded and ignorant captain, the crew and a large chunk of the passengers that the ship is sinking is shameful? Twenty seven trillion dollars of the government debt is like a gigantic hole in the the ship’s side that is almost beyond repair.
      If anything her is shameful it’s your confused rants.

      1. One does not need to point out to the passengers and crew on a ship that they are sinking. What is required is someone to open fire on the guns trained on her and then to take all the passengers to safety. One without the other is futility and it’s not PATHETIC to point this out! If you could just turn the page and take what you know so intimately which is the history of political movements and combine it with a kinetic plan we stand a good chance. I know you have read extensively regarding the character of the colonialists and their fighting spirits. They of course went to guns simply for being taxed without representation and for their reaction to it. We have allowed the hard left to murder tens of millions of our unborn American citizens without lifting a finger. It is a pathetic state of mind that must be changed and all the well crafted intellectual reporting will amount to very little except to inform us as to why we are in concentration camps. (Sorry I can’t seem to use commas on my iPad in response nor read more than one line at a time)

      2. I will quote what Karl Kraus said to Ernst Krenek in the 1930s, frustrated with a difficult essay as Japan was smashing China: “I know that everything is futile when the house is burning. But I have to do this, as long as it is at all possible; for if those who were supposed to look after commas had always made sure they were in the right place, Shanghai would not be burning.”

    2. It is shameful to summarize what Lt. Col Lohmeier has risked his career to warn us about? Is it shameful to analyze what is happening so we can better understand where we are? I do not understand you.

      1. What I find shameful Jeff is your use of your quite large intellect to simply report on our demise, without devising one method of recovery that might make a difference. The Founding Fathers were warrior scholars, Just being a scholar will not do in the latter stages of a communist revolution on our shores. We must devise means to subjugate all hard leftists in order to neuter their ill intentions. If not you will be reporting on our fall from your jail cell.

      2. You have no right to take me to task. Everything here is prologue to what must follow. Besides respect, you need to learn proper order. Here is the horse and here is the cart. Guess which one goes first? You keep saying the cart goes first. I correct you, but you do not listen. You refuse to employ common sense. There are three things we need. Only three: (1) The truth; (2) leaders; and (3) support. This site is an attempt to find the first, encourage the second, and hope the third will arrive in time. Without all three elements no successful actions can be taken. NONE. I do not understand what you think I can do without support. And I do not think you have the throw-weight to launch me at the moon. All the elements for action are not present. You want me to be Washington, Adams and Jefferson all rolled into one — in the absence of a Continental Congress, in the absence of a shot heard round the world. Thank you for the vote of confidence, but now you have overloaded that cart you put BEFORE the horse.

      3. Reading this exchange is painful, and I am loath to stick my oar in, so to speak. I too have the urge to ‘make sure all the commas are in place’ sometimes, to write something that makes an impact in people’s minds and from minds into action. ”As a man thinketh, so is he”.

        There is no shame, in my opinion, on what you are writing and what you have written, using the light that you have to address some nagging problems and confront people with a very unpopular idea; that Communism didn’t die after all, that in fact it is positioning itself secretly to establish a world revolution via a strategic deception and demoralization campaign. Over the years people like yourself have mentioned the works of Col. Lunev, Gen. Jan Sejna, ”Anatoly Golitsyn”, ”Victor Suvorov”, John Douglass, and others. People can and do debate over what these have said, where they agree with each other and where they do not..

        Is what you have been suggesting the true reality of the situation? I won’t speak to that just yet entirely. After all, Communism being what it truly is, has the capacity over time to maybe wind up being fully destroyed in the former Soviet Union, China, and everywhere else it has ruled or rules, and yet thereafter it could be easily reborn in and conquer North America and Western Europe. While the places that the Red Plague previously held sway became immune to it and it died out. On April 22nd, old Communist pensioners lay roses at statues of Lenin, and some people remember Lenin’s birthday by going out and voluntarily clean up their neighborhoods and fill up the trash dumpsters, remember him for saying something about having clean neighborhoods…And maybe not far away from that neighborhood, and statue of Lenin, around the corner there might be a Burger King, and an Russian Orthodox Church…

        Lenin himself wanted Germany to be the center of the Revolution, of all places, and Berlin the capital of World Communism, this is the original reason why the initial Soviet flag had a Hammer (the German/World Proletariat) to go with a Sickle (Russian Peasantry). Now, people parade that flag on Victory day, as a sign of defeating the Germans, a sacred nationalist banner made so by the red blood of patriots who fought and died for their people and lands…

        Anyway, the main point of my rambling commentary is that some people want action, coming from an absolute conviction and certitude of their worldview, while the intelligent, the intellectual (maybe even the original source of ideas for the ‘men of action’…) always seem to have reasons to look again and see if maybe they need to modify their thinking. Any awakening in the minds from your work, after you have questioned the official narratives and done due diligence all this time whether right or wrong, is in God’s hands.

      4. Jeff, I understand your position but you act like we have time for this perfect confluence of events and public minds while all the time the left is closing the noose ever tighter. There is no use to the manner of leaders we have raised up in the conservative movement, None even consider kinetic action in response to the communist takeover. So as much as I enjoy your cogent writing, and respect its deep historical perspective, I still can’t find the approach at all efficacious. It seems right and especially to you but unfortunately it falls far short of a countervailing to the power of the left in today’s America. I would love to see the intellectuals in our movement gather together in secret and find how to ally with the current patriotic military leadership along with those previously ousted in order to formulate a real plan. T’here is no time to wait decades for the American mind to coalesce with our movement as we are losing both the public mind and more specifically the military and its great might that might still be utilized on the side of a counter-revolution. There is no time to wait for the perfect confluence of events and leaders. It must be forced now! Any thing less puts us in the defensive position of having our votes permanently stripped and losing our personal freedoms potentially to become so subjugated that it will take us a hundred years and millions of dead Americans before the leftist regime to come falls. Take it up a notch Jeff. You have the intellectual firepower and the deep understanding of history and our current position and its peril. Join with other intellectuals and form a brain trust that might formulate the plans that can lead us to the complete renewal of our great republic.

      5. Are you offering me the command of an Army? I understand that a howitzer costs more than a houseboat. Exactly what kind of kinetic action are you asking me to perform? Is my blog not violent enough to keep you entertained?

    3. Robert Malins, indeed, action is required and the action requires the truth being told first. We thought our nation had a real back-stop or Alamo called the US Constitution, the US Congress, the US military and US patriots and Truckers/Bikers but so far, all the talk is just that, talk and good men refuse to act. I believe what we are witnessing is combination of the normalcy bias (“it cant happen here”) and “normalization of deviance”. Both of these are strangling America into inaction.

      it could have happened when McCarthy was summarily drawn and quartered and then secretly killed. it could have happened when the Watergate was done to expose communism in the democratic party but it was turned on its head against the nation and Nixon. it could have happened with Branch Dividians murders or Randy Weaver and no one who ordered it was held responsible. it could have happened over the assassination of Ron Brown and the inviting of Russia and Chinese military tacticians to openly spy on us. it could have happened when Obama began the fundamental transformation of the nation and open season persecution on the church on lit up the WH in a gay colors. it could have happened when it was proven beyond any shadow of doubt that Obamas birth certificate was forged and when Hillary Clinton provided Russia a sizable amount of our uranium stockpile. it could have happened during George Floyd riots and capturing of America’s corporate centers by BLM. It could have happened after Nov 4 and then again after the take down of Jan 6 national patriots.

      to be honest an uprising of resistance could have occurred hundreds of times in the last 65 years. That it hasn’t shows me it probably never will happen til either America from coast to coast genuinely turns back to God in repentance, or the propped-up economy really does implode, or all guns are rounded up, or an EMP drops, or Chinese commercial planes laden with CCP military “peace keepers” land at major airports around the country.

  18. Hitchens taken in by Putin? Alas I think so:

    Comments section sums it up:

    “I looked into his soul and saw a man I could do business with…….

    We said this about Uncle Joe too.

    Mr. Hitchens, by putting Western statesmen in the same box as a KGB (or GRU, depending on who you believe) thug then you are obviously suffering from the inability to differentiate between cholera and the common cold. I just wonder if this fascination with Russia is a hang up from your student days. Or is there some pathological denial about Russia’s true nature? Or maybe you’ve just been deceived? Because in this essay you put forward the argument of the fellow traveller. It’s amazing people complain endlessly about real or perceived injustices at home yet stay silent or apologize for the actions of historical enemies.

    Do you seriously believe that the Western elites, led by a rabble of weak, self-serving narcissists actually want to go to war with Russia, whether cold or not? What exactly are the West’s war preparations Mr. Hitchens?

    No, I suspect that some of our more sensible politicians and military figures are finally asking the following. Why is our friend and “strategic partner” arming Iran and behind the main source of its “civilian” nuclear technology? Why are they sending arms to Syria who in turn sends them to Hezbollah? Why are Russian nuclear and missile specialists helping North Korea with their nuclear weapons programme? Why are they arming terrorists (via Viktor Bout and third party countries)? Why is the number of Russian spies in the USA surpassing Cold War levels? Why are they testing our air defences with long range bombers? Why are they hacking into the Pentagon and the US electrical grid? Why the huge military build-up and increase in military spending? Why all the recent (huge) military and nuclear war exercises sometimes carried out with China? The political assassinations? The Red Mafiya’s links to the FSB? The hostile rhetoric blaming the West for all the world’s ills? Or maybe the Russian links to Al Qaeda’s current boss and 9/11 mastermind becoming apparent due to Litvinenko?

    Even though a collective yawn can be heard around the room this is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s all pretty simple when looked at in a historical perspective. Golitsyn was right.”

    1. “Golitsyn was right.”

      He was right, and it should be EFFing obvious by now.

  19. I comment on Vladimir’s text that America is revolutionary. According to Olavo de Carvalho (he did the survey but did not publish the book on the subject), revolution in the Marxist sense has 3 essential characteristics: inversion of time, inversion of morality and inversion of the subject-object. So, strictly speaking, America is not revolutionary.

    1. Yes. The American Revolution was a war of independence. It was not a war for “the rights of man.” The colonies enjoyed all the liberties of Englishmen for more than 150 years before the revolution. The revolutionary war was triggered by an attempt to impose certain changes by parliament and the crown. The colonies had their own militia by which they had always defended themselves from the French and Indians. Actual fighting in the American Revolution began when a British commander tried to disarm part of that militia. Edmund Burke made a speech warning Parliament that they were misgoverning the colonies and risked losing them. First, he said, Parliament controls America’s trade, which gives Britain a rich revenue; but now, Burke added, Parliament has started to tax the Americans in addition to controlling their trade. Burke said that no self-respecting Englishman, having no representation in parliament, would accept this on principle. It was actually a question of adhering to English traditions and folkways. This fact is often obscured by the confused rhetoric of radicals. George Washington was not a radical.

      1. Thank you for writing this comment. To put Washington and Lenin in the same category is….how can I put it nicely, wrong in the extreme.

    2. Mao, I seem to recall, once said that the essence of Communism is that it is ”justified to Rebel”. I take him at his word that he knows the essential meaning of his Ideology. Look at the beginnings of the American Revolution against the Monarchy and the rhetoric of the founding fathers; the rejection of the crown in itself was profoundly revolutionary, men having violated not only their oaths to the crown they made in previous and current services, but the very concept of the Monarchy itself. This is a radical move. And what about God, Who commands obedience to all legitimate earthly rulers? The foundational documents of the American Revolution are entirely secular, or deistic at best.

      Sure, the less radical American founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and so forth, they were actively involved in the French Revolution…) were appalled at the next iteration of revolution, in France, but the inspiration came from them, as with all other future revolutions. As i’ve said before, ”conservatives” conserve nothing, they are just yesterday’s radicals who want to stop the revolution at a certain phase and keep it there.

      To strike at Communism or any even more radical iteration of Revolution, one must strike at the root, the idea in men’s minds that there is a right to revolution, a right to rebel.

      1. I think that your reply come from a particularly Russian conception of the state. I don’t consider this view inherently evil, but I don’t think it should be universalized either. East and West can both criticize each other but neither is totally good or bad. The western ideal of justified rebellion against illegitimate authority could be traced back to the rebellion of Brutus (not Caesar’s assassin), against the tyrannical Tarquín family, which resulted in the formation of the Roman Republic. I am not sure if there is anything like this in Russian history, though I am certainly not an expert. The rebellion of our ancestors who founded the American Republic could also be justified on the grounds that the king of Britain was not treating them like his true subjects, but rather as colonials whose existence was directed primarily towards the economic goals of Britain. A successful war of secession in the colonies is quite different from a revolutionary war on British soil resulting in regicide. That being said, I think that America has in some ways been tainted by revolutionary philosophy. I just disagree that that taint goes all the way to the root.

      2. You have to remember that a British general marched against the people of the Massachusetts colony and a battle took place. Nobody broke any oath at that point. But blood was spilt. The battle which grew out of General Thomas Gage’s attack on the Massachusetts colony presented the American colonists — self-governing for over a century — with a dilemma. Do the colonies submit as if they were a conquered people or do they stand up for their inherited rights as Englishmen? Do they come to the aid of Massachusetts or turn their back on their fellow colonists? English history is not Russian history. America was self governing in all its colonies from the start. The Western peoples, Germanic and Celtic, have longstanding collegial traditions where kingship is not absolute. The same is true for the Latins and Greeks. Go as far back as you like, from Brutus throwing the Tarquins out of Rome in the sixth century BC to the adoption of “mixed monarchy” during the Middle Ages (see Thomas Aquinas). The West is not the East. Mixed institutions are very traditional in the West, going back to Lycurgus in Sparta (not an absolute monarchy). We have such traditions going back 2,700 years. You might say it is in our blood. To confound those traditions with the disintegrative rationalism and Marxism of modernity might make sense from the standpoint of Eastern Orthodoxy, but we have a complex set of experiences and traditions of our own. Why is it right for Russia to hold onto its traditions and wrong for us to have ours? Must we all be Russians? The world is big enough for each people to have its lands and traditions. Please leave us to ours. We have no other traditions to go by and are not free to adopt your traditions. Edmund Burke was the best defender of our English tradition. He spoke in favor of the American cause and against the French Revolution. If you want to understand us, read him. Read the life of Washington and the life of Wellington. There you will find the best that we have been.

  20. Thank you for this wide ranging and thought provoking article. We are facing a tsunami of threats from every side.

  21. Sure, Luke, there is every justification for ”rebelling against illegitimate authority”, because ”illegitimate authority” is no real authority at all, so that it is not ”rebellion” or ”revolution” to go against them. The Grand Dukes of Moscow liberated Russia from the Mongol/Tatar Yoke of the Golden Horde when it was the right time, precisely because it was not right that this paying of tribute and all that to a foreign enemy should go on.

    But it is precisely this determination of ”legitimate” or ”illegitimate” authority where it can get tricky in specific cases. And who determines?

  22. Went to see the first movie in a year; Wrath Of Man. Guy Ritchie delivers solid features. This one is no exception. One distributing aspect, though, was that the first act is filled with homosexual innuendo; foreshadowing which thankfully, however, never pays off.

    The implication is that a former team of soldiers are homosexual. High concept features, nowadays, will not get made, without concessions to the homosexual lobby which has subverted and perverted, Hollywood. Furthermore, all financing comes from China, who also must approve. Maybe China thinks that their population expulsion can be curbed with homosexuality?

    Now, I’m not sure if the gay producers were satisfied, thinking that the audience will believe that top soldiers can be homo, or if the gay producers believe that soldiers will resent being portrayed as gay, without forum for counterpoint.

  23. Mr. Nyquist, it is something of a misunderstanding that the Slavic peoples, particularly the Russians, have no experience with a collegial government under their Monarchies. The Slavs in general were cited by Procopius in the 6th century as being the ”most democratic and freedom loving of peoples”. The Cossacks had a long tradition of self government in their assemblies, with elected Hetmans. The Novgorod Republic was much the same, with representatives of all classes in society and an elected Prince. Even in Moscovy, the Boyars checked the power of the Tsars and vice versa, with some instability. It was with the coming of the Romanov dynasty, with Serfdom and the centralization of power under Tsar Peter the Great, that you had absolutism and un-freedom. Even after the Romanovs took over, you had the revolts of Stenka Razin and Pugachev in reaction to their tyranny. The Old Believers have a long tradition out of their necessity of self government and autonomy.

    Recall that strictly speaking, even a Monarchy can, and even should be, a Republic; for ”Res Publica”, or ”the Common Good”.

    I’m not attacking that in the West, just the secularized and rationalistic modern State which is now everywhere. Those revolutionary republics

    1. I understand, of course. This is the problem of all “modernizing” countries, Russia too. Here is “the crisis of modernity” in which universal rationalization destroys meaning and overturns essential points of reference for man. It is not just a western problem. Russia has its nihilists just as the West. As for anti-autocratic institutions in Kievan Rus: My Ukrainian friends talk about Cossack traditions. Yes. Of course, Tsarism was the most successful and unique form of Christian autocracy. There was unique role of the Orthodox Church itself. Some see Moscow as a long-standing problem. Others see Russia’s troubled geography. The soil is often poor. It is not happily situated. One may say that Tsarist autocracy is an adaptation to unique conditions of threat. No country has been threatened as Russia. It is said that Rome and Prussia became dedicated warrior states because of attacks and threats (Rome was burnt down by the Gauls in the 4rth century BC). Russia has an even more difficult history.

      1. Thank you. For me as a Russian Orthodox Christian, and being of a rather traditional sort personally, Russia has a certain ‘vocation’ ordained of God, just as all other nations in fact. Whether they are true to that vocation or not is another question. Russia’s vocation (or the vocation of Russia’s Christians) is that of the famous ”Third Rome”, or Third Roman and Christian Empire, to provide the model of Christian society in the World and defend the Orthodox Faith from Antichrist, from the forces of darkness. It is possible that she fell from this vocation in 1653 AD, and most certainly in 1917 AD, and it is not absolute that she can recover that vocation in a national sense, I hope so. Because when Russia is finally removed out of the way as an obstacle to his coming, Antichrist will then come to deceive many.

      2. I like your use of the word “vocation.” Every nation has a vocation under God. All nations suffer lessons and losses as part of this vocation. America may soon pass through something as bad as the things Russia has already suffered. Maybe it is worse for us because we remain with the illusion of prosperity under extreme spiritual poverty. One more decade of prosperity and we will be unable to recover at all. Dostoyevsky thought that Christ would return in Russia. Perhaps Antichrist had to come first. Certainly we find the Antichrist spirit rising in America — on every side.

    2. Were the common people in Russia allowed to be landowners? Were immigrants allowed to own land and start businesses? Was there freedom of religion? I know next to nothing about Russian history, so we are on somewhat equal footing, as you seem to know very little of American history..

      1. Without doxxing myself in some way, I think it’s safe to say that (without bragging) my knowledge of American history is fairly good. Name just about anything; Jamestown, Bacon’s Rebellion, the Nez Perce War, Gold Rush in California, Plymouth Settlement, Bull Connor, American Civil War, whatever. Disagreement doesn’t mean one or both sides are somehow ignorant, not always.

        In answer to your questions about Russian history;

        ”Were the common people in Russia allowed to be landowners?” Depends on the time period as to how many were landowners, but there has almost always been some degree of land ownership. From roughly 1612 AD to 1861 AD, about 80% of the common people were forced into Serfdom, pretty much slaves of the large landowners and landlords, with about 15-20 % as free farmers, peasants, business people. Before and after that time period, it was a different story. Many Serfs fled or revolted, many who fled joined the Cossacks as free men.

        ”Were immigrants allowed to own land and start businesses?” Yes, immigrants were very extremely favored during that same time frame I mentioned earlier, in fact immigrants were favored quite better than actual common Russians and often comprised a significant percentage of the Romanov dynasty’s military service nobility; Scottish, Swedish, German, Italian, etc…. In fact, Napoleon while still a young junior artillery officer in France was offered a commission in the Russian military during the reign of Tsarina Catherine (who was German). John Paul Jones was in the Russian navy during that same time period. Ironically, the persecuted Russians who held to the traditional Russian Orthodox Christian beliefs and ways of Old Russia, the so-called ”Old Believers”, prospered in spite of that persecution as Russia’s native class of Capitalists.

        ”Was there freedom of religion?” again, depends on the time period. The native Old Believers had no civil or religious rights whatsoever from about 1653 AD when the Raskol began, to 1905 AD. Almost anybody else had it better especially within the ”official” state Church up until 1917. But there was no real efforts made to force anyone (except Old Believers) into the official Church; Russia had and has a lot of Muslims, Buddhists, and Pagans also.

  24. Forgot to add the actual video source of this, which is a video from an obviously leftwing YouTube channel. It contains solely the second half of the whole of Gorbachev’s speech, which according to a streamlined print version published on the website of the Hanns Seidel Foundation is the real explosive part. The television recording is for some mysterious reason flipped left to right and colour contrast absurdly increased. But look at the time mark of 19:28, mere five seconds after Gorbachev’s brutal remark about whether Germany will have enough bratwursts and pork knuckles for the following year’s New Year’s Eve: The camera pans over to Bavarian Prime Minister of the day, Horst Seehofer: His face is visibly frozen in shock! (The German-to-English translation was done by myself,)

  25. Jeff, does the Russian “post”-KGB use any high special brainwashing technique in the US?

    …Because most Americans do not know that RUSSIA IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES and the free world, …and that all the negative events in the United States (international terrorism, international drug trafficking, US military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, BLM, Antifa, Marxism in schools, leftist nonsenses, Hollywood trash production, demoralization, decomposition of values, etc…and also what you write about in this article) have been planned in THE MOSCOW.

    Furthermore, many Americans think that American Marxists, Leftists and Communists work independently of coordination from the enemy. As if no one knows the old saying: THERE ARE NO COMMANDS WITHOUT HEADQUARTERS.

    Finally, few people know that China is absolutely subordinate to Moscow because there was a coup in China (by the KGB) and top Chinese Communist Party leaders studied in Moscow in the past (Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Li Peng, etc).

    Yes, I know that Russia and China have tens of thousands of professional misinformers on all social networks and in the mass media around the world (apropos: the Russians slander Americans the most around the world and portray the United States as the center of all evil)…. but how do you explain the abnormal shift in the thinking of all Americans who side with Russia, the Russians, and Putin today?

    1. I don’t know if comments on this article are closed or not. I think you’ve answered your own question. Have you heard of Yuri Bezmenov? Cultural subversion takes a few decades. According to him it all makes sense. Never read any of his books but youtube has hours of him speaking about intellectual subversion operations.

      1. Yes, you are right, Bezmenov talked about it in 1984.
        But I want to specify more the current massive manipulations on social networks. Tens of thousands of hostile professional misinformers manipulate and demoralize the thinking of young generations, and no one does anything about it. It’s as if honest people have connected their computers to criminals and fraudsters from prison.

        Here is a video with Bezmenov:

        I’d give you a Like, but I don’t have an account here.

    2. Aside from the paranoiac ranting in all caps, what basis in reality do you have for some of the specific allegations you make, like a Russian coup ”in China by the KGB”?

      1. A few months after the failed assassination of Mao Zedong in September 1971 (see: “Lin Biao” and “Project 571”), Mao was paralyzed by poison (stroke).
        Near the end of Mao’s life, a power struggle occurred between the Gang of Four and the alliance of Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai, and Ye Jianying. After Mao Zedong’s death, Deng Xiaoping’s group took power.
        Deng Xiaoping was a KGB agent, trained in the USSR.
        It was a clear KGB-led coup, followed by the normalization and consolidation of KGB power in China.

      2. That is an interesting theory. There is strong evidence that Mao was always collaborating with Moscow. Nevin has published a book on this. “Was Golitsyn Right?”

    3. I have no knowledge of a KGB coup in China. Communism is an international movement in which the Russian and Chinese Marxists were the best organized and able to support other Marxist-Leninist groups around the world. This made them more important. There is theoretical equality between communist groups today, which the CPSU formally announced many years ago; whereas Stalin previously tried to dominate and dictate to all parties (which caused friction). With Khrushchev there was a return to Lenin’s ways, with collective leadership and evidence of a division of labor between Russia and Chinese communists; but the exact agreements between groups being secret, we do not know very much except from defectors.

      1. I relate viewing geopolitical reality sometimes metaphorically to people on a beach watching sea creatures under the waves fight and cavort about; we see very little but the tumult of the waters, possibly a flipper or fin or tentacle break water, but little else. Of course under the waves much more might be clear, but so too would be either the danger, or perhaps, the disappointment of something not being as great as it seems.

      2. Jeff, I appreciate your knowledge, but I believe that Communism is just a surrogate camouflage ideology of the Russians / Soviets, to cover up their hellish extreme desire for absolute power in the world.
        The Fatima prophecy about Russia and its devilish mentality is true.
        The Russian mentality is really terrible. For example, I read testimonies from a Europeans who said:
        It is Russian nature to lie, cheat, and slander, just as it is natural for Americans to desire freedom, justice, and good.”
        Jeff, if you ever have time, try to study the work and texts of the Polish writer Ludwik Mierosławski, who in 1856 warned against Russian subversion.
        But I have no doubt that the KGB carefully hid his writings from the world, so it will be difficult to find in the archives. He is a valuable source of testimony to Russian imperialism and subversion.

      3. The Soviet Union was communist, and the thieves who stole everything in the Bolshevik Revolution have yet to give anything back.

    4. Enlightening, Revealing, and Illuminating documentaries.

      These films show the value of applying the dictum: Know Your Enemy. It is of utmost importance to familiarize oneself with The Methods and Operations of International Communism.

      The Communists love to use their Standard Playbook.

  26. God help you ”Steven P”, that you have opened the door to absolute lunacy in demonizing the entire Russian people, with your rabid Ultramontane Papism and ”Greater Polish Commonwealth” views, to justify more war and suffering using the fig leaf of Satanic false prophesies and apparitions. You exhibit everything that I have written to Mr. Nyquist about in my concerns, with your ethno-religious hatreds which cling to his ideas like barnacle. Shame on you, I’ve no doubt that you flirt with Fascism too…

    1. You are a very suspicious character. Why exactly are you here? I think you are an infiltrator. Your carefully written reply shows a hatred for the Catholic Church. For me, just this one reply, you have given yourself away.

      1. I am a ”suspicious character” for what reason? Because I speak up against the demonization of an entire people and culture, which demonization has nothing to do with Anti-Communism?

        You think I’m an ”infiltrator”? Of whom exactly? Mr. Nyquist and I have intelligent conversations, you should try it sometime.

        You said; ”your carefully written reply shows a hatred for the Catholic Church”. On the contrary, I love the true ‘Catholic Church’, because we Orthodox Christians believe that we are the ones who are truly faithful to and indeed are the Church established by God for the salvation of mankind. You may differ from that idea, I understand, but differences should not lead to the demonization of the persons who have different ideas.

        Lose the paranoia and the religion-based hatreds. Subscribe to the ideas of Mr. Nyquist and others IF they conform with reality, not because some belief impels you to hate a nation that does not conform to a certain religious belief. Russia will never convert to the Latin belief, and this will be as true centuries from now when the Communist period is about as historically relevant to that future as the Mongol Yoke period is now.

        God be with you and I both, for I am a chief among sinners.

  27. VLADIMIR says:
    “…because we Orthodox Christians believe that we are the ones who are truly faithful to and indeed are the Church established by God for the salvation of mankind.”

    You don’t mean that! How much vodka did you drink today? You are faithful only to the KGB.

    The extremely atheist USSR was the greatest destroyer of Christianity in the 20th century. There is even a suspicion that the KGB killed Pope Pius XII and John Paul I. The NKVD/NKGB/KGB infiltrated all Christian churches in the world. When Stalin gained control of the former Soviet Union in the early 1920s, he set about plans to cripple the influence of the Catholic Church in the West, if not completely destroy the Church.
    A key component of the plans involved infiltrating seminaries with young men who would work to undermine the Church’s teaching in the area of morality.
    Former Communist agent Bella Dodd spoke on the Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church. Stating that the Communist infiltration was so extensive that in the future “you will not recognize the Catholic Church,” Dodd testified before the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). She said, “In the 1930s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within. The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops.”

    In communist-dominated states, thousands of true priests were arrested and executed.
    Even barbarians in the Middle Ages did not do such cynical destruction of the Western Churches.

      1. Unfortunately, because he’s the type of person attracted to your views that we’ve talked about, who doesn’t need a reason, so much as a rationalization, to indulge in his deeper fears and hatreds. There is a pathology that results in Communism. But there’s pathologies that wear the disguise of ”anti-communism” too. I’m a wretch enough without being accused falsely, glory to God in all things!

      2. I have been participating in discussions on discussion platforms in the USA and Europe for several years. I have experience with Russian disinformers, and I know their tactics. I noticed that there are at least three Russians on your blog. They complement each other according to psychological tactics: Good cop / bad cop. – “VLADIMIR” as “a Good” and “12356” as ” a Bad”.
        I think they want to break up the discussion under your blog. They relativize the crimes of the KGB.
        Your blog is one of the last places where the reality of this world is truly described. That is why they have increased their activity here.

      3. Several trolls have come here, it is true. I do not know why you include Vladimír with the trolls. His Christian Orthodoxy is exactly the same in temperament as my other Orthodox friends. Fr. James Thornton, who wrote the introduction to the “Origins of the Fourth World War,” was then serving in the Russian Orthodox Church (abroad) in Los Angeles. This church was not then in communion with the Moscow Patriarchy. As noted in the writings of Constantine Preobrazhenskiy, the Russian Orthodox Church is governed by agents of the Russian special services. It has played a critical role in a number of operations in support of global communism. The subversion of the Orthodox church by the communists does not make traditional Orthodox believers into KGB agents any more than the present leftist (or communist) Pope makes Catholics into KGB agents. Anyone posting here might work for an intelligence agency. It would be difficult to prove, after all, who is secretly doing secret things, especially if all the person does is express traditional beliefs and his own opinion. If we can have a civil, intelligent, discussion, why not have it? People with serious ideas and beliefs are rather rare. Reading Vladimír I do not detect any communist beliefs. I do not know what he thinks about the machinations of Kremlin agents inside the Church. Perhaps he will speak to this.

    1. I’ll just quote from St. Gregory the Great, Gregory the Dialogist, Orthodox Father and Pope of Old Rome;

      ”Dico quod non dubius dixerim, qui Se ipsum designat tamquam ‘Universalis Episcopi’ et petit hoc titulam, est ab ipsius superbia praecursorem Antichristi; quia sicut exaltantur maligno voluerunt homines quasi Deus voluerit ita dici solus nosti episcopatum non extollitur… prae fratre quia non est sermo in titulus de synodici decreti Chalcedonensis universalis episcopi, in hac apostolica vide ego sum rei, per voluntatem Dei, et servum? Atqui nemo titulum dari permisit eum titulum nemo audet indiderat ne si egregiam hanc dignitatem episcopatus negare omnes fratres facere videamur.”


      ”I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others….You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of ‘universal’ upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.”

      There’s been a problem in the West for a long time. A problem that requires healing.

      And also you’re quite wrong about Kyrill and his mentor and late superior Nikodim for that matter, among a number of other things. They were agents, but they weren’t the KGB’s agents. You simply know very little of what you speak, and your vicious calumny of me proves it. I forgive you for your insult, may God enlighten you, because i’d rather be lost myself than be the occasion of the ruin of another.

      God is merciful and loves mankind!

      1. A quote from Richard Weaver: “Now Plato was disturbed by written discourse because it has ‘no reticences or proprieties toward different classes of persons’ and because, if an individual goes to it with a question in his mind, it ‘always gives one unvarying answer.’” Here is the sin of writing, and of trying to give unvarying answers in a written format. There is always the danger of saying what you did not mean because you did not frame everything for the consideration of a whole class of persons. In truth, a flexible and nuanced mind sees more angles and possibilities than he can express in writing; and cannot encompass them all because he is thematically compelled by the structure of the written form itself.

  28. From the first post, I use expressive writing (capital letters) because I want to emphasize the crimes of the KGB. I didn’t change my writing style. I will not switch to an insincere and purposely adaptive style, as VLADIMIR does.
    The psychological tricks used by Russian misinformers on social networks are not so easily defeated. However, every sincere person should try to defeat these lying snakes. It is about the survival of the West.

      1. “I do not know why you include Vladimír with the trolls.”

        The Russian trolls control the psychology of the group. VLADIMIR distracts from the facts written above. In addition, he gradually forces you to conspire with him. I know their psychological tricks … although VlADIMIR is a very cunning snake.

        “His Christian Orthodoxy is exactly the same in temperament as my other Orthodox friends.”

        It’s just his words. He only plays an acting role. He wants to give the impression that Russia is a conservative and Christian state fighting against the “decadent West.”
        How could the West not be decadent when the KGB is morally devastating him?

        “If we can have a civil, intelligent, discussion, why not have it?”

        I gave many links and arguments, he did not submit anything, because the Soviets do not have true arguments – They have nothing to refer to. All they have are lies, slander, and false anti-Western conspiracy theories.

        “I do not know what he thinks about the machinations of Kremlin agents inside the Church. Perhaps he will speak to this.”

        Let him say what he thinks of Putin :-))))))

        Jeff, seriously, I’m just having a good time watching his pretense. He thinks he got me into defense.
        They can’t do anything against the truth. All they can do is divert attention from the truth by lying.

      2. PS — I do not know that anyone here has been persuaded by Vladimir to believe that Russia is led by religious conservatives. I do not remember him saying this about Putin, who is by no means a sincere Orthodox believer. If Vladimir made such a claim I missed it.

  29. In response to your post Mr. Nyquist (as the other in the exchange cannot be reasoned with; having already made up his mind, and probably long before he ever heard of your work), it is then incumbent upon the producer and writer of ideas to actually be right.

    1. If I have injured someone by writing about them it is a very serious mistake. If I have stated as fact something that is untrue, how do i amend it? Concern for the truth is critical. Great care is required to reach the smallest truth — by asking the right questions. On an anonymous forum we can only address what is actually said by those who post here. We can only infer from what is said, and inferences are tricky. After a long discussion we might learn something about the person we are engaged with. Sometimes we simply never know who someone is. According to some philosophers, we do not even know ourselves.

      1. Indeed. Let’s go back then to what I said before about our discussion on Western, and particularly American moral dualism, a secularized ”Manicheanism”. In the West people want simple narratives and stark absolutes presented to them, and especially if in such narratives one person or group of persons can be blamed. Not much room left there for introspection and reflection, is there? And that is precisely the narrative purpose in the West, to deflect an internal problem on some external and environmental scapegoat. That’s why, when there’s an inference of internal subversion of a society at work, the blame is still often laid at the feet of some earthly external enemy.

        Is the ”Goltsyn Thesis” and it’s iterations sufficiently ”Manichean” in this sense, palatable for a Western narrative? Perhaps. And the fact that every major modern nation seems to have some form of ”Deep State” at general odds with both God and man seems to lend some credence to the idea. It resembles the ”Synarchism” of previous Right-Wing thinkers, with the exception that with Synarchy, secrecy of the Elites is posited as a kind of an end unto itself, because the Elites are personally criminals out for personal gain, running the State as their own Mafia. The ”Golitsyn Thesis” on the other hand suggests that the secrecy of the ”Elites” is not an end unto itself, but for ideological goals, secrecy for strategic purposes familiar to any student of Communism and Revolution.

        I think the truth of the matter is a bit more complicated than even this scenario, far more. I say this because I know what I know, and have lived and experienced certain things. The truth always comes to light, and secret things are always revealed, in time.

  30. Jeff, in indirect response to the other gentleman we’re having a discussion with (”after two warnings, such a one avoid”) but to satisfy curiousity I’ll give an answer to ”what I think of Putin” (and other leaders),

    It may come as a surprise that I have no personal opinion on the rulers of nations; good or evil or a mixture of both, they come and go. They are to be prayed for in life (they of all people need it most!) and also after death. And all legitimate rulers are to be obeyed in their commands as one would obey God Himself, obeyed in all things except a command to sin. Illegitimate ”rulers” are of course not to be followed at all. This is the opposite of Lucifer’s ”I will not serve”, and negates the power of the Prince of this World to do evil.

    The true Warrior against evil is motivated by humility, not pride. by love and not will to power. If one must fight, one must fight with minimal and scientifically applied physical and other pressures, to minimize damage to one’s opponent while absolutely rendering their power to inflict evil upon themselves or others into impotence. One’s obedience may cost one’s life, becoming a martyr, but that’s the way it is. One must be prepared to fight for one’s family and friends and for God Himself, and how to do that I will not judge specifically for others. One must be a good person and fight one’s vices; pride, greed, vanity, desperation, and so forth, and have the honesty that one is a sinner who must repent and call upon the Lord continually; ”Lord Jesus Christ, Only Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner”.

    It is not my place to judge others spiritual state, for one thing as long as there is life there is hope for spiritual regeneration, and one may actually be in a better state in the process, in the journey, than myself. I am convinced that if there are any such men anywhere (one, three-handred, or a million!), with God’s help and the intercessional prayers of the All-Pure Mother of God and all the Orthodox Saints, God will set at naught the feeble audacity of the demons, and grant victory to His Orthodox armies over enemies, and by the power of His Cross preserve His Commonwealth.

    1. Now I must also say that as far as what I might personally wish for my Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters, that would have to be the true restoration of Righteous Orthodox Kings and Queens to their thrones. That kind of leaves out the Modern political systems and ideologies, does it not? And if these Kings and Queens do not come forth anointed of God, then I know that we are closer to the times of Antichrist and the Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

      1. And in response to your comment about what I think of Soviet agents in the Church, I presume that you mean the Orthodoxy…

        First, I am no Sergianist, although I am forgiving of clergy who have erred. All men have erred. Flat-out Agents were usually involved in other and even deeper intrigues, and with the Latin Parasynogogue (a technical theological term among the Orthodox) they have had a common spiritual feeling for temporal power and worldly glory, such that if they aided in infiltrating it, they find themselves right at home, driving it more along the course of trajectory it has already developed since the ”Donation of Pepin” of 756 AD, and then the unfortunate 1054 AD Schism.

        I in fact am very much in sympathies and relation to the Starovery, the so-called ”Old Believer” Orthodox Christians of the ”Raskol”. Tsar Nicholas said that of all his subjects, they would be most appalled at his impossible abdication (a forgery, in fact), and his very last guard before that surrender were Cossacks of the Old Belief, more faithful to him and the idea of the Tsar than he was…

        If Soviet Communist Atheists tried to infiltrate them, they’d quite literally go mad, as Old Belief is a whole way of traditional Orthodox Christian life, and true Christians would find them out very quickly. Of course, Saul can become St. Paul.

        So not just Sergius, but also Nikon from the 1600’s, fall under my suspicion, as modernist innovators. But I will not judge them personally, God judges, whether by Holy Spirit through the Synods of His Church, or otherwise in some other way.

Comments are now closed.