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?
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 (veteransfamiliesunited.org)): “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 (lifesitenews.com)
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.)
NOTE – French 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.