Suppose the plan is to process millions of people and at some future date trigger those minds at one time? Would we suddenly have a world of saints or a world of armed maniacs shooting at one another from bell towers?

John A. Keel[i]

One can detect signs of a suicidal impulse; one feels at times that the modern world is calling for madder music and for stronger wine, is craving some delirium which will take it completely away from reality. One is made to think of Kierkegaard’s figure of spectators in the theater, who applaud the announcement and repeated announcement that the building is on fire.

Richard M. Weaver[ii]

It is January 2023. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, with support flowing in from communist China and North Korea. On the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, Iran also supports Russia. It is no surprise, therefore, that Cuba and Venezuela are hoping for a Russian victory in Ukraine, along with the old/new President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who ambiguously supports “peace” in Eastern Europe – if only to mask his commitment to the Russia-China bloc.[iii]

Countries keep falling, one after the other, as the creeping red frontier advances. Within the U.S. Establishment everyone has eyes, but nobody sees. Everyone has ears, but nobody hears. Everyone has a brain, but nobody knows how to think. The government is sleepwalking toward an abyss. What passes for sight, and sound, and thought, is a muddled hash of unanalyzed “data.” On the right and the left, only a few glimmers of independent thought remain – bypassed by the surrounding wave of mental extinctions.

In his book, The Demon in Democracy, Polish statesman and philosopher Ryszard Legutko explained that he had encountered a curious affinity between communism and liberal democracy. Legutko realized this, back in the 1970s, the first time he “managed to get out of communist Poland to travel in the so-called West.” Legutko wrote:

To my unpleasant surprise, I discovered that many of my friends who consciously classified themselves as devoted supporters of liberal democracy – of a multiparty system, human rights, pluralism, and everything that every liberal democrat proudly listed as his acts of faith – displayed extraordinary meekness and empathy toward communism.[iv]

Legutko had imagined that Western liberals would have a visceral dislike of communism. He was surprised to find they were anti-anticommunist. During the post-Watergate era, the people who were most frequently condemned by liberals were anticommunists. That is somewhat funny, since one of the biggest liberal heroes – John F. Kennedy – was stridently anticommunist. But who dares to remember such an inconvenient fact? After Kennedy’s assassination, liberal anticommunism steadily declined. Today, liberal democrats are inclined to lump conservative anticommunists with antisemites, fascists, and Nazis. Stranger still, as the left continued down the path of anti-anticommunism after the fall of the Soviet Union, conservatives also began to evolve away from the old anticommunist way of thinking – either moving further left, or further right.

We heard so much about the “collapse of communism” back in 1991. But nobody (except a solitary KGB defector)[v] said anything at the time, or later, about the collapse of anticommunism. The collapse of anticommunism, first among liberals and then among conservatives, opened the door to a scissors strategy which might well lead to a follow-on convergence strategy – along the lines of a “red-brown” alliance. You only had to push liberals further left and conservatives further right, bringing them closer to a common revolutionary/authoritarian model. The key to this strategy of Western destruction was to enlarge the sphere of the radical left and the radical right, eliminating the tepid middle ground.

Once the Soviet Union pulled down the hammer and sickle flag, new political thinking could be promoted in the West. People who were then on the right and the left may have credited themselves as champions of freedom, but now that the burden of anti-Sovietism and anticommunism was lifted from their shoulders, they were free to gather power to themselves, without concern for the mechanisms that preserved liberty (or the principles they once espoused). The left could move further left, taking all institutions with them. Libertarians were free to reminisce about the Confederacy while praising Putin’s economic policies. The conservative right, feeling more and more alienated, would drift further into a paleo void that was, to put it mildly, full of shadows. Was the whole ideological transformation of the West, which began as the Cold War ended, a process shaped and intentionally unleashed by Moscow? The key to this question was that every side – and every shade of opinion – had to eschew genuine anticommunism (that is, an anticommunism that knew how communism worked, and how it could shapeshift by appropriating non-communist symbols and ideals). The key insight that everyone missed in 1989-1991 was that communism did not die. Instead, it went underground and put on a disguise, only to pop up on all sides, wearing several different masks (i.e., environmentalism, globalism, free trade, and conspiracism). All the new ideological innovations displaced anticommunism – which was thought to have no relevance and certainly no appeal.[vi]

According to Legutko, anti-anticommunism “was almost immediately recognized as an important component of the new political orthodoxy that was taking shape [after the fall of the Soviet Union]. Those who were anticommunists were [said to be] a threat to liberal democracy….”[vii] For many years, of course, our free institutions were held together by fear of the Soviet Union. In retrospect we can see how clever it was to remove that fear. Once removed, the hollowness of the West became apparent. Our political traditions, which traced back through Britain to Greece and Rome, were not on a solid footing because we had forgotten about Polybius. This general forgetfulness regarding the principles of “mixed government” meant that nobody understood the importance of constitutional checks and balances. It is difficult to find a politician or a political commentator, who has read Polybius’ commentary on the Roman constitution which, in fact, inspired our own constitution. They do not know the origins of the liberty they enjoy. And, not understanding anything of importance, many have shown themselves ready to toss whatever stands in the way of their ambitions. Only a few voices, on the right and the left, seem to understand this instinctually. It seems, rather, that players from both ends of the political spectrum crave a cudgel with which to persecute their political opponents.

What the former communist agent, Whittaker Chambers, once said about liberalism is now true of many right-wingers; for the ever mutating communist bloc, artfully depicting its Russian Federation structures as nationalist and Christian, has made full use of rightwing solicitudes, “and sometimes flatter them to their faces, [but] in private they treat them with that same sneering contempt that the strong and predatory almost invariably feel for victims who volunteer to help in their own victimization.”[viii]

A Plan for Civil War?

Igor Nikolaevich Panarin, born in 1958, graduated from the Higher Military School of Telecommunications of the KGB and the Division of Psychology of the Lenin Military-Political Academy (with a gold medal). In the 1990s he did strategic forecasting for Boris Yeltsin and headed the Analytical Division of the Central Election Commission of Russia. In 1998 Panarin allegedly used data from classified sources to assess American society. After careful consideration, he forecast the “probable” breakup and conquest of the United States. If his prognostications are correct, North America will eventually look something like this:

In 2008, when a global financial crisis was approaching, Panarin suggested the U.S. might break up by 2010. Notice, from the map above, that China gets the Western states while Alaska goes to Russia. According to the GRU defector Stanislav Lunev, at the end of the Cold War China and Russia negotiated a division of spoils that would occur at the conclusion of a future world war in which Chinese manpower and Russian missile-power would combine into an irresistible military combination. Lunev’s map is different, yet more believable; for Lunev does not include Japan or the European Union, or Mexico or Canada in the division of spoils. After all, if the United States actually collapsed, all these countries would find themselves in a subservient position to Moscow and Beijing. Why would these minor powers be entitled to chunks of America? But Panarin, who was then making a public presentation, had to pander. “Look,” he was cynically saying, “you will get a piece of the pie. We won’t leave you out. Don’t worry.”

Of special notice is the length of time during which Panarin’s study of a future civil war in America has been ongoing. According to Daniele Scalea, writing in Eurasia,[ix] Panarin’s study of America’s collapse into civil war was not completed in 1998. The study was a continuing project, as if Russian strategists were interested in the subject for reasons other than momentary curiosity. This, of course, makes Panarin’s study sound like an adjunct to somebody’s military planning. One might ask whether Russian and Chinese agents are presently at work, promoting American disunity, infiltrating the America left and right, using information warfare (for example, through things like the QAnon operation, through the open border policies of corrupt Democratic politicians, through the summer riots of 2020 and rising concerns about voter fraud).

Ironically, we are already awash in claims – from the right and the left – that Russia and/or China are manipulating our internal politics. So, ask yourself: What if Russia and China are playing divide and conquer ping-pong with our divided electorate? What if various American factions are being manipulated by the country they think will be their future indispensable partner? (For example, what if the right is being manipulated by Russia and the left by China?) Here is a hypothesis worth entertaining.

Some might argue that America is committing suicide without outside interference. But there is interference, and it is coming from the outside. We know that Antifa was connected to China. We know that Russia played some kind of game with us during the 2016 election. Consider the fact that America’s enemies are patient, but they are not infinitely patient. A slow and organic process might require a “good hard push” from behind. Beijing and Moscow would be remiss if they failed to take advantage. If America has become neurotic to the point of suicidal tendencies, why not exacerbate the situation? So, China and Russia do not mind if they are seen dabbling in our politics. The Russians want liberals to think conservatives are Russian puppets. The Chinese do not mind if everyone knows they have bought our “liberal” President. Do you see how this works?

At the same time, Americans are presently confused about their enemies, ideologically disoriented, and locked into various conspiracy narratives about America’s military-industrial complex, the CIA, the bankers, the Satanic baby-eaters, and the little grey molesters from Zeta Reticuli. The Dealey Lama is still under Dealey Plaza, orchestrating JFK’s firing squad. Or as QAnon used to say, “Where we go one we go all” – yes! – to the madhouse. People are now so paranoid, so distrustful, that they are open to anything – will believe in anything, however absurd. Given these circumstances, it would be child’s play for Russia and China to use information warfare to trigger a civil war between these sad disoriented people.

In an interview on RT in November 2008, Panarin made a rather remarkable admission which makes the whole civil war scenario even more alarming. Panarin said that he began writing his theory on America’s breakup in 1990, when the USSR was still intact (before the Russian and Chinese generals were meeting secretly and making agreements about the division of North America, according to Col. Lunev). It follows that Panarin’s U.S. civil war scenario was being worked on for at least eighteen years by the time of his RT interview, regardless of political changes in Russia (i.e., suggesting continuity between Soviet and Russian policy).

In the RT interview, Panarin noted the differing historical and cultural situations of America’s regions. Undoubtedly, like Ukraine, America is not a real country. It is something that can and should be eliminated and absorbed. Various states, he said, “have different levels of economic significance.” Logically, the interests of north and south are not the same. The interests of east and west are also not the same. In this 2008 interview, Panarin suggested that a “huge crisis may develop in the fall of 2009.” Panarin’s analysis is akin to Marx’s “crisis of capitalism” which, in Marxist theory, summons revolutionary forces into existence. Here is an event long anticipated by Soviet military theorists. What Panarin has done, in some sense, is recast the future collapse of capitalism as “the breakup of America,” changing out communist rhetoric about “revolution” for a divide-and-conquer narrative about civil war.   

The old Soviet idea about the start of World War III was that capitalism would collapse and America’s wicked “military-industrial complex” would be wiped away in short order. The American “imperialists,” seeing their inevitable doom, would naturally lash out against the socialist bloc, launching a desperate nuclear salvo. Stopping this from happening, the glorious Soviet military would launch preventive nuclear strikes to stop “the aggressor.” Given the changes that were planned in the Soviet Union, this way of talking about a future world war had to be revised at some point. Panarin appears to be the man charged with the revision. We may suspect, in this context, that Panarin was tasked in 1990 with updating the rationale for invading and occupying North America. Instead of a Leninist revolutionary rationale, which was not likely to occur, Panarin envisioned a more realistic civil war scenario.

“[Eventually] the United States will be divided into six separate states,” said Panarin, organized under five foreign power bases: New York and Washington will be under London, the rest being divided between Mexico, Canada, China and Russia. “I believe that Alaska should return to Russia,” said Panarin, “and there is a very good manager, Roman Abramovich, who is been really successful at managing Chukotka [Autonomous Okrug], so I believe he will manage with ruling Alaska as well.”

What will trigger the Second American Civil War? “The dollar is not backed by gold,” noted Panarin, “and there are too many dollars.” A situation of economic collapse, leading directly to political collapse and internal warfare, is inevitable. Panarin further stated that Russia could put its currency on the gold standard and thereby become the reserve currency for Eurasia. (It may not be a coincidence that Russia has since backed its currency with gold. In fact, it is believed that Russia and China have been conspiring for many years to create a new gold-backed currency to replace the dollar worldwide.)[x]

 If we are to understand the current political situation, we need to keep Panarin’s scenario in mind. We should also look unfavorably on anyone who would divide the United States ideologically while looking to Russia as an ally. In fact, there are factions on the American right who have flirted with the so-called Russian “philosopher,” Alexander Dugin, who falsely styles himself a “Traditionalist.” I would like to close this essay with a warning to these folks by quoting from a genuine Traditionalist named Charles Upton, who wrote a brilliant book titled Dugin Against Dugin:

Man is not a function of politics; politics is a function of man. To alienate man from himself by claiming [as Dugin does] that he is a function of, a creature of, something less than himself – namely, ‘violence and legitimate power’ in the human world – is neither to liberate him nor to assign him to his true place and function in the Hierarchy of Being; it is to denature him, deconstruct him, crush him.[xi]

Notes and Links

[i] John A. Keel, Why UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse (USA: Manor Books, 1976). A more extended series of quotes from the book, dealing with UFOs and psychological warfare, is worth a footnote for the full context. Keel wrote, “The real truth is that the UFO cultists have been played for suckers for years, not by the government, but by the phenomenon.” (p. 276). Before continuing with Keel’s full argument, which is deeply nuanced and may have been calculated in its naivete, we need to consider Keel’s early career; especially, his admission that he served in the U.S. Army, during the Korean War, on the staff of the American Forces Network, located in Frankfurt, Germany. This will come into play later, as we unravel Keel’s larger argument concerning “Operation Trojan Horse.” What we have in Keel’s pulp nonfiction is a narrative nested inside other narratives, tending to a super-narrative (i.e., a cosmology). Keel offers his readers an explanation for religion, a philosophy of history that merges with demonology, and a political science of the occult which curiously mirrors Machiavelli’s famous comments regarding “spirits of the air” in The Discourses. Keel’s book is, curiously, much too sophisticated for its own genre. Given all this, what are we to think when a former Army propagandist writes, “The real truth is….”? He tells us that “Operation Trojan Horse” is the Plan of non-material demonic entities he calls “ultraterrestrials,” validated under the subheading, “UFOs and things that go bump in the night.” (p. 219) Instead of attributing “the phenomenon’s” message to human agency, to CIA or KGB spooks, Keel attributes the UFO message to real spooks. If this were all he wrote, Keel’s hints and asides would not be as intriguing as they are. In fact, he could not resist showing us more than his thesis required, explaining that the earliest UFO stories were cribbed from “fiction in cheap men’s magazines.” (As if demons would read, or pay close attention, to pulp science fiction.) If pagan and Christian poets down the centuries honored their muses’ creativity, it is strange indeed that Keel’s ultraterrestrials would plagiarize from rubbish. And then there is the clear political message at work behind the UFO phenomenon. Here we see all humanity cast suddenly as “one,” coinciding with John Lennon’s song and Vladimir Lenin’s ultimate agenda. What we see, in the literature of ET belief, is anti-capitalist, anti-government pap. When such ideas become widely accepted, who benefits? The main enemy of that government, of course. In terms of psychological warfare, revolutionary socialism is the obvious beneficiary of most ET narratives. While Keel hints at a coming revolution, which he depicts as sinister and destructive, we nonetheless find that he is, after all, a U.S. Army psychological warfare guy – a defender of order on the margins (but only on the margins). Confirming all this, he wrote, “Situations have been engineered by the phenomenon to make the UFO cultists suspicious of the government and even of one another. The in-fighting between the various groups deserves special study by itself.” Keel added, “Let’s not underestimate the skill of our intelligence organizations.” (p. 277) Clearly, he noted, U.S. intelligence has been coping with the situation all along. Oddly, Keel then refers to the rumor that he himself is a CIA agent. What follows is not a denial or an admission. He quotes the famous UFO contactee Howard Menger, who praised the CIA as playing an essential role in defending us from “these people on the outside trying to get in and conquer us.” Then Keel introduces another narrative: “It is probable that some small group within the U.S. first began to suspect the truth about UFOs during World War II. There is curious evidence that Adolf Hitler and his inner circle had some knowledge of the ultraterrestrials and may have even made an effort to communicate with them.” (p. 278) Here we get into a very curious area, where world history meets up with dark forces indeed. Keel then wrote, “No responsible government could really attempt to explain this bizarre situation to the general public. Our military establishment has therefore been forced to follow a simpler policy, denying the reality of the phenomenon without trying to explain it. If flying saucers are a cosmic hoax, then it follows naturally that many of man’s basic beliefs may be based on similar hoaxes. No government is willing to expose these beliefs or become involved in the terrible controversies that would result from such exposure.” (p. 279) Here Keel cracks open an enormous can of worms. Yet, following the government’s pattern, he dismisses the whole thing, debunks the extraterrestrial hypothesis in favor of a scientized demonology. If Keel was a military intelligence operative, this would have been his mission. During the Cold War we entered an era of unprecedented psychological warfare in which a New Religion, then advancing under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, was trying to establish its legitimacy worldwide. All existing religions were targets of the New Religion’s attack. Furthermore, being atheistic, replacing gods with spacemen would be the perfect narrative by which the new religion could unite humanity. However, the arrogance of the atheist who plays God may suffer an unexpected check from the Real Thing; for the cosmos and man’s soul was already ordered, and possessed a sense What if, in the midst of this attack, the transcendental realm did not appreciate the presumption? Would the attempt to be God result in objective consequences of the strangest kind? Of course, it is true that special psychological operations using scientific techniques can create and unravel belief systems very quickly, what if the originator(s) of the belief system exist outside physical reality and, in real time, are fighting back? After 1945, some of our intelligence analysts would have understood the threat posed by rumors of “aliens landing on earth,” especially if this phenomenon eventually devolved into “abductions” in remote areas, use of mind control drugs against unsuspecting civilians, and hypnosis. A former U.S. intelligence operative once told me, “The alien abduction phenomenon was created by Soviet intelligence as a form of false flag recruitment.” Oddly, this testimony was indirectly confirmed by Annie Jacobsen’s work on Area 51. Against howls of derision, she cited a high-level source that Stalin’s agents, operating from an airfield in Mexico, had faked at least one UFO crash in New Mexico. Even more bizarre, this claim is indirectly supported in Jacques Vallee and Paola Harris’s recent book, Trinity: The Best-Kept Secret, about a New Mexico UFO crash where a panel was taken off the object before the U.S. Army carted it away. Subjected to testing, that panel was found to be of terrestrial manufacture and was made using the metric system. Naturally, the UFO phenomenon can be traced back through many centuries; and Vallee among others lean away from the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Yet, the Third Reich, or various intelligence services after 1945, could use the phenomenon for “piggy-backing.” Keel skirts this possibility in the following passage: “Having been trained in psychological warfare during my stint as a propaganda writer for the U.S. Army, I have been particularly … concerned over the obvious hoaxes and manipulations apparently designed to foster both belief and disbelief in the reality of flying saucers. I have tried objectively to weigh all of the factors, pro and con, throughout my investigations and in this book. Frankly, I have gone through periods when I was absolutely convinced that those Trojan horses were, indeed, following a careful plan designed ultimately to conquer the human race from within. The physical Trojan horse concept seemed alarmingly valid to me for a long time.” (p. 282). Keel then explained that he turned away from this hypothesis, seeing an undefinable cosmic pattern connecting humanity to “another world.” The phenomenon is much too complicated to explain as the result of psychological warfare. Yet, whoever would engage in such warfare must know something about it, must exploit what they know, and must eventually confront – however reluctantly – what Freud called “the muck of the occult.”

[ii] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 185.

[iii] On the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Cuba announced its plans to “deepen ties with Russia.” Cuba to deepen ties with Russia as Ukraine tensions mount | Reuters. The Cubans have been openly appreciative of the support given to them by their “comrades” in Russia. Just google “Cuba thanks Russia” and you will have a full plate of reading.

[iv] Ryszard Legutko, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies (Kindle Edition), p. 1.

[v] Major Anatoliy Golitsyn.

[vi] Anyone who tried to argue for the relevance of anticommunism to the present situation was, like Diana West, attacked from the right.

[vii] Ibid, p. 2.

[viii] Whittaker Chambers, Witness (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002 – 50th Anniversary Edition), p. 202.

[ix] Panarin and the disintegration of the USA :: Daniele Scalea :: Eurasia (

[x] Russia, China may be preparing new gold-backed currency, but expert assures US dollar ‘safest’ currency today | Fox Business

[xi] Charles Uptson, Dugin Against Dugin: A Traditionalist Critique of the Fourth Political Theory (USA: Reviviscimus, 2018), p. 288.

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)


122 thoughts on “Stoking the Fires of Civil War

  1. I hope that the translator Deepl has translated my German text understandably

    Money is a medium of exchange and not a store of value! If I get a €50 voucher as a Christmas present, it is made of paper and I can use it to shop for exactly €50. Should it then be better also covered with gold? Or even consist of gold? Then it would be hoarded and not redeemed for purchase.
    It seems so that nobody learns from the past! I would like to represent, why this is with a new gold-covered currency a completely bad trap of the Russians and Chinese.
    The serious economic crisis of 1873 had its reasons in the introduction of a gold currency, which can never be stable.
    In order to understand the causes of the economic crises of that time, which then led to the First World War, one has to deal with the fundamental flaws of a gold currency.
    Unfortunately, not everyone draws the right conclusions from the knowledge of the flawed monetary system. On the contrary, recently it has been seriously claimed that the problems could be solved by a new “gold money”. It is true, gold is always worth something. The alleged money-printing (actually bond-buying) would be prevented with a gold cover, since gold would have to be procured for each new banknote. But already simple and logical considerations show how dangerous a gold cover is. A gold money system could prove to be even more unstable than today’s debt money system. This seems illogical at first. Let us therefore first consider established facts!

    – Gold money always brought poverty
    – Gold money prevents the currency buffer between the states
    – Gold money is always interest money
    – Gold money prevents adjustment to the economy

    These individual points I will still separately explain!

    Also the world economic crisis 1929/30 had her cause in the gold cover of 1926 !!! The gold coverage has led thereupon into the world economic crisis and mega deflation. A gold standard is nothing good !!! It leads to massive crises, like the Great Depression in the 1930s. The countries that abandoned the gold standard were immediately out of the crisis, which was also the reason for the great economic boom in Germany, because in 1933 the gold standard was abandoned.

    1. How can anything be a medium of exchange if it is not also a store of value? As for WW1, all waring nations abolished the anchor to Gold because otherwise they could not finance it, as Gold is scarce, government paper is not.

      1. Conversely!!!
        Something what is store of value can never be means of exchange!
        If it lies in the safe (store of value) it cannot be means of exchange at the same time.
        That is why every gold standard without exception leads into the crisis and has never functioned
        The cause of the First World War was the deflation 19112 – (caused by the gold standard – the cause of the Second World War was the world economic crisis 1930, caused by the gold standard of 1926

      2. Gold itself is also useless if it is not backed by material output of economy. Spanish empire had plenty of gold yet its productive economy was destroyed by inflated prices.

        Gold allows you to purchase imports, the same as paper dollar does, but problem of imperialist economies is trade deficit and lack of domestic industry.

      3. There was massive gold/silver inflation in Spain during its imperial expansion because of all that was plundered or mined from the Americas.

    2. Gold standard or not, the current trap of usury is what’s causing the main imbalance.
      Manipulating interest rates, which is necessary under this model, creates uncertainty and more instability.
      The idea of paying for the privilege to use a piece of paper from a private bank is insidious and nowhere allowed in the constitution. And then there’s the personal income tax used to service the usury. And before anyone screams I’m anti bankers, or antisemitic, I’m not.
      I’m against this destructive practice. There has to be a better way.

      -Bill Freeman

      1. What people do not seem to understand about economics is the constant need for investment capital. Without that, we return to the stone age. No interest, no savings, no investment equals collapse. Sorry Bill. However you may dislike usury, our material prosperity is based on it.

      2. I’m not talking about interest paid on personal, company, bank loans. I’m talking about having to pay a fee to use a piece of paper. That’s what bothers me.

        -Bill Freeman

  2. Continued:
    Gold money always brought poverty
    History teaches: a gold currency and the gold standard do not solve problems, but create them. The problems start with the fact that most countries do not own any gold at all and for the introduction of a gold currency they would have to borrow gold from the few big gold owners in the world (today these are China and Russia) at their conditions and correspondingly high interest rates. The known burdens of interest would thus be further intensified, because the gold would have to be financed additionally. Today, an impoverished nation like Bangladesh, for example, can create its own money through paper money (money is, after all, merely a medium of exchange) with little effort, which ensures the exchange of goods in the country. What should these nations do if they needed gold to do this? The consequence would be an even greater impoverishment in the world. It is not without reason that mass poverty was always greatest in the times of gold currencies. These were the times of child labor, 16-hour workdays, low wages and mass misery. The German Bundesbank pointed out that it was precisely the phases of the gold standard in the 19th century that caused constant deflation. For example, the last quarter of the 19th century was almost entirely deflationary, attributed to the gold standard and the failure of money to adjust to increased population and higher productivity.

    Gold money prevents currency buffer between countries
    If all countries “hang on to gold,” then an adjusted monetary policy is no longer possible because the exchange rate buffers are missing. The weaker countries are literally bled dry in the process. Flexible exchange rates compensate for the different developments between countries. If these exchange rate buffers are missing, for example because different countries have a single currency, then tensions automatically arise. The results can be studied using the financial crises of recent years: The crises in Asia, Russia or Argentina started because of a lack of exchange rate buffers. Different countries need different adjusted currencies. Gold therefore brings a previously avoidable problem to the currency. And: The probably biggest task of our time, namely to redeem money from interest, becomes impossible with gold.

    Gold money is always interest money
    Interest money exponentially increases debts until they can no longer be paid. At the end debts must be made, only in order to be able to pay the interest. Who has recognized that the interest leads with mathematical security into the abyss, must also realize that just gold is no solution of the problem. For gold can be hoarded for any length of time, and no one will lend it without a “reward,” that is, interest-free. Gold money is the worst interest money! In contrast, paper money can be designed in such a way that it can be passed on voluntarily without interest and is therefore stable. Gold money is also anything but advantageous for the economy as a whole.

  3. Gold Money Prevents Adjustment to the Economy
    In a stable economy, the quantity of money in circulation must increase in parallel with rising economic output, since more goods produced also require more means of exchange. However, gold money cannot be flexibly adjusted to economic output. The prerequisite would be that gold production grows roughly in line with economic output. The friends of gold money claim that this would be the case: Higher general economic performance would also have an effect on the mines, so that more would be mined accordingly. This is what they call gold automatism. On closer examination, this proves to be an illusion. There is no solid evidence that this automatism has actually worked. However, the following process can be proven on various occasions: The economy grew, but not the amount of money in circulation. As a result, money became scarcer in relation to goods and thus more valuable. Prices fell, and deflation ensued, with the familiar vicious circle of declining corporate profits, corporate bankruptcies, unemployment, declining purchasing power, further declining corporate profits and so on. In the end, deflation led to economic crisis, ultimately to the war for gold. Not for nothing were the Spaniards in the 16th century almost forced to exterminate the Indians in America in order to get their gold. Otherwise it would not have been possible to supply the Spanish economy with fresh gold money and to prevent a deflation. A child that grows must increase its blood volume – otherwise disease and death will result. In the same way, an economy that is developing must adapt the amount of money to the economic performance – otherwise there will be crises and deflation.

    In addition, the gold stock always behaves contrary to the development of the economy: Assuming an economy is growing, there is full employment and prosperity, people use their free money to buy jewelry and precious metals. However, since most gold is used in the jewelry industry, the more gold that is made into jewelry, the less money there is. In order to maintain the gold standard, money must be confiscated, resulting in a shortage of money and a depression.
    In ancient China, with a silver currency, it was the custom to cast a silver statue of a god from the coins in good times, to thank him, for the good times. Since this was done on a large scale, there was an increasing lack of coins for the circulation of money, which is why a crisis developed immediately. It becomes clear with this example: Precious metal has nothing to do with correctly constructed money. One does not bind an economy to a metal, which has no interlocking with the same at all. The quantity of gold, which cannot be multiplied at will, should not and need not have any influence on the economic performance. For information: If one would melt the entire above-ground gold to a cube, this would have an edge length of not even 20 meters. Approximately once again so much gold is assumed in the earth. Tying money to gold is just as uncontrollable as making the money supply dependent on the level of the Donau.

    1. Very thoughtful post, Heike.

      May I offer in response, however, that during an approximately 17 year period from the late 1870’s to the mid-1890’s, there was such a deflationary period in the U.S., in which a saver could literally stash gold coins into a drawer and, removing them a few years later, could buy more goods with them than before. Not bad for the savers who had the gold.
      Although you decry such deflation, isn’t it true that the U.S. economy experienced one of its greatest periods of expansion and spreading prosperity during the last quarter of the 19th Century? e.g., railroads, steel production, factories, telephone, electricity, international trade, hydrocarbon drilling, etc.

      1. The controversy over the gold standard is has two sides, indeed. Yes, the United States was progressing rapidly during this period because deflation encourages savings and savings encourages investment, and investment brought improvements. However, many people suffered from this situation, especially indebted farmers, and this suffering became political as we see in William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech,” at the Democratic Convention of 1896 in Chicago, which ended with the following dramatic paragraph: “If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

        It is ironic of course, that the same strata of the population that then supported Bryan’s opposition to gold (i.e., the Bible Belt) is now in favor of the gold standard.

    1. Upton has written critically of Dugin’s nationalism and violent anti-Americanism. He is a Traditionalist, so he is also critical of the US Government.

  4. I may be missing something here, but if the economy doubles based upon a finite resource of Gold deposited, then the value of the currency also rises in proportion to the value of the Gold held i.e, A dollar buys you twice as much in accordance with the strength of the economy and hence the currency.
    There doesn’t seem to be any limit in reality.
    Fiat currencies and poor management of the economies can lead to poverty just as easily, just look at Zimbabwe and it’s hyper inflation for a prime example.
    Gold will always be there, paper money issued via fraudulent banking practices will always be in a state of constant decline as interest is also charged on it’s printing, its trading value based more upon perceived demand and confidence.
    The price of Jewelry has always risen and fallen based upon the current value of it’s raw ingredient.
    So, I really don’t understand the core of your argument.

    1. My core argument has nothing to do with economics, so I am baffled that you should imagine I am arguing against a gold-based currency. I am writing about strategy. The U.S. dollar is not a fiat currency in one sense. Other countries support our currency because America defends them. Once we fail to defend them our currency collapses. So our currency is not actually based on nothing. The Russians are trying to attack our currency even as they threaten our allies. This is a sensible strategy, but I would caution against trusting Russian promises regarding gold.

    2. John and Jeff,
      If the value of money is to be arbitrarily adjusted to the stock of gold, then it might as well be left alone, because this will inevitably lead to dilution. The point is rather that a currency needs no cover at all – indeed, a cover is completely wrong.
      Money is a voucher and is only covered by the fact that it is countered by goods and labor power – further coverage by gold leads to the fact that money no longer functions as a medium of exchange.
      This is exactly what led to the Great Depression of 1930 and World War II – never in history has a gold standard worked and it never will.
      If one should be so foolish as to introduce a gold standard again, then we hand over complete control to the communist countries like China and Russia, because they have the largest gold stocks. Why should the whole world become dependent on China and Russia – who wants that?
      So those who are in favor of the gold standard are giving up our monetary sovereignty completely unnecessarily and betraying the country!

  5. “It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it.”

    – Robert E. Lee


    “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

    – William Tecumseh Sherman


    “War means fighting, and fighting means killing.”

    – Nathan Bedford Forrest

  6. There is a Youtube Channel, called “Ready to Harvest”, which offers historical and statistical data on self-described Christian denominations. A video about the so-called Mainline Churches in America explains that the multidenominational mainline umbrella is completely secularist in its aims, there is not even a pretense of trying to transmit dogmatic formulas, on the one hand, but are on the other hand very concerned with social justice endeavors such as protecting homosexuals from abuse or discrimination. In fact, that Netflix series House of Cards depicted casually some of these denominations, how you can be an active or “married” homosexual and take part in these organizations in a very ordinary and crystallized way. This looks like an advanced Frankfurt School/Marxist outlook penetration of the religious denominations.

    The mainline paradigm strangely resembles the Post-Vatican II Church policy with regard to bishops conferences.

    Martin explained in Windswept House that about May, 1991, a handful of powerful post-conciliar cardinals and bishops met in a secret meeting in Strasbourg, France, to coordinate with European and Western elite members the coming together of the Church’s outer structure and the secularist homogenizing globalist process; it was a plan to bring about a social egineering of society and a paradigm shift, in order to increase acceptance of things. A representative of the Church of England/English crown in this meeting, according to Martin, explicitly referred to the need of Rome to come together with the wider world, as it were, in acceptance of such things as divorce, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, ordination of women to the priesthood, marriage for priests and even fetal engineering.

    As Agostino Casaroli (who is called by the fictional name of Cardinal Mastroianni in Windswept House), then Vatican Secretary of State (and organizer of the Strasbourg event), explained after the date of the meeting to one representative of the Western Elite crypto potentates, the execution of the plan to secularize the overall religious landscape had to do with using each countries conferences of bishops, which were then practically a new thing as far as the Catholic organization was concerned. The collectivization of the hierarchy through regional conferences whose Secretary in practice decides everything somehow mirrored the EU collectivization, and in fact they plan was to effect both collectivizations simultaneously, the EU granting political and financial favors to the bishops through the mechanism of the collective entity, and the bishops favoring somehow the new paradigm changes taking effect in the EU.

    Klaus Schwab (under another fictional name) is one of the elite members promoting this secret pact, albeit he was not present in Strasbourg. He is described as an unequivocal satanist in the book, I don’t know what source Martin used in this instance.

    In an interview with a German magazine called Stimme des Glaubens (if I’m not mistaken that means “voice of faith”), 1980, published in October 1981, John Paul II made the following statements about the Third Secret: his Vatican predecessors believed that the publication/release of the Third Secret of Fatima (the one-page never released sheet of paper, not the four pages released in June 2000 by the Vatican), if it had been carried out, would have given occasion and/or encouragement to communism, in its international or world power, to launch coups or maneuvers.

    That is, according to this suggestion by John Paul II, the Third Secret would create against the enemies of communism; and it can be inferred that among such enemies would be included (mainly or not) the Catholic Church (or the organization taken to be the Catholic Church), on a world scale (not merely local); the Third Secret would create an appearance of disadvantage, or vulnerability, or perhaps disrepute; conducive to maneuvers to try to exacerbate this disadvantage. The Third Secret would place the Post-Conciliar Church at a serious and worrying secular disadvantage vis-à-vis the Communists, if the Communists were to rely on such disclosure.

    Malachi Martin describes, in Windswept House; cryptically but with some detail and marginal clarification; the meeting of John XXIII and high-ranking acolytes in 1960 to finally open, read and reflect on the letter with the one-page content of the Third Secret of Fatima, a letter written by Sister Lucia. The contents of the Secret shocked the cardinals and/or assistants.

    The details Martin specifies or hints at in that particular book [Windswept House] (others are given more explicitly in The Keys of This Blood) is that the Third Secret frontally denounced Russia and the role it was to play, especially in the transmission of errors. In this the Third Secret repeats the contents of the Second Secret in some way. Participants in the meeting with John XXIII, according to Martin’s account, apparently took it for granted that the release of the Third Secret would isolate Russia/the Soviets, on the one hand, and help Russia/the Soviets strategically, on the other.

    Thus, two completely different sources (Malachi Martin and John Paul II) agree [in essence] that the Third Secret contains strategically crucial and advantageous information for Russian rulers, and so crucial and advantageous [for the Russians] as not to be clearly predictable or easily believable to someone who has not read the Third Secret; that is, because it does not seem obvious that an advantage as obvious as the one alluded to is credible or feasible.

    Malachi Martin suggests in the book that the strategic and Russia-friendly information in the Third Secret that would help Russia is an information connected to the expectation that Russian troops would advance into foreign/non-Russian regions, as happened during the Spanish Civil War.

    Furthermore, in his interview with Bernard Janzen in 1992 [“Kingdom of Darkness” is the title of the interview], 1h 34 min, Malachi Martin talks about how the Third Secret contains the explicit information that the degenerative power making the Catholic Church crumble under the aspect of its secular organizational structure, this degenerative power would be in the words of the Virgin Mary “irremovable”. She is also said to have said in the Secret “Only I can save the Church”. Thus, the Russian-friendly strategic information in the Third Secret may be the idea that the Post-Conciliar Church is a kind of cancer that necessarily ends up leading the nations under its influence to dramatic degeneration; so that the Russian invasion in the name of extirpating the Post-Conciliar Church and its authorities [possibly along with the mainline protestant churches that have been highjacked by marxism] would be the only way out for the world, or would be something justifiable. In this sense, it is curious that the Russian official ideologue, Alexandr Dugin, became famous, in his debate with Olavo de Carvalho, for taking a position promoting the idea that Russia, consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Mary, would be a providential agent of sanitization against the degeneracy of the West.

    It is possible the Russians/Russian rulers have the Third Secret of Fatima and plan to release it. It is possible to see the invansion of Ukraine as a sign they’ll do it.

      1. It is not necessary, contextually, to believe in the legitimacy of the Third Secret of Fatima claims; for it to be weaponized. That is what John Paul II’s interview, and Martin’s detailed description of the John XXIII meeting to unseal and examine the secret similarly imply. If their thesis is true, and the release of the Secret represents an obvious advantage to the Russian rulers, it is clear enough they can use the eventual release in a strategic point in time in order to launch maneouvers and coups with the element of surprise. For intance, they themselves begot a corrupt clergy, so naturally they themselves can use the Secret to denounce and demoralize them. Dugin himself (the essentially official Russian ideologist), in his debate with Olavo, admitted passively the Russian Intelligence is the most powerful and daring in the world. They may have a dossier on each each post-conciliar cleric. By the way, when the USCCB general secretary, “Monsignor” Jeffrey Burrill, was exposed as an active and lavish homosexual in recent years, the most important LGBT lobbyist/promoter in the Post-Conciliar Church, James Martin, made a somewhat famous twit expressing his terrible fear that the kind of exposure in question should continue or essentially get out of control.

        It is simply a fact the commnists (as in the Chinese Cultural Revolution) know how to create an environment of Witch Hunt againt people they themselves collaborated with.

        Also, the thesis according to which not believing in the Secret’s validity means not caring whether or not it is released is challenged by the fact John XXIII cast doubts on the Secrets validity. According to Malachi Martin, who read the Secret, John XXIII’s discourse in the opening of the Council about those whom he dismissed/rejected as “prophets of doom” was a discourse about the three shepherds of Fatima and their predictions. John XXIII opted to take an optimist outlook on life, rather than heed to the Third Secret’s warning. So, he didn’t really abide by the Secret. However, he didn’t release it either, Martin said it would be a great inconvenience to his plans if he did. Likewise, the Russians may release the Secret, and still not have any religious profession of faith in their intent.

        You might find interesting that according to Martin the 1991 Strasbourg meeting had a Soviet Union representative.

    1. If I recall correctly, according to Malachi Martin during an conference in Michigan, the reason for not releasing the 3rd secret is because it would “give an edge to the Soviets that the West could not resist”.

  7. Excellent!!! But haven’t things changed as of the last few years as far as division of the U.S.? Didn’t you say that Russia wanted Alaska and part of Canada, and that China wanted the Continental U.S. as a whole? I could be mistaken. Also, have you seen the most recent interview on “Hagmann Report” with Doug interviewing Steve Quayle and Jamie Walden? They discuss the “Invasion” of the U.S. by China. Good analysis! You can find it on or on under the Hagmann Report channel.

    1. If you pay close attention to what I wrote, I did not say that Panarin’s “division of spoils” is intentionally misleading with regard to the real division which was outlined by Col. Stanislav Lunev.

  8. There’s one thing I can never understand with so-called conservatives who think Russia is the good guy. If you support Russia you’re by extension supporting North Korea, China, and Iran, since they’re all aiding Russia.

    The company we keep speaks volumes about us.

  9. Read your essay Jeff, but I dunno.

    Yes, our country has dreadful divisions that seem to be getting worse. But I think the Russian Federation is much more likely to disintegrate during the next decade from Russia’s draining kleptocracy, the Russo-centric racism, the declining ethnic Russian population versus the ascending minority populations, the country’s moral and religious degeneration, and Putin’s disastrous attempt to absorb Ukraine.

    My sense of where it’s all heading — particularly when one considers the millenials who will one day run the show — is declining nationalism and ultimately socialist, humanistic global governance premised on the new, pseudo-values of DEI. An imposed group-think.

    And the cycle of serfdom, that is, utter subservience to an elitist class, will repeat itself. Whether a godless populace will ever again realize its worth and overturn the new Luciferian order is open to question.

    1. VirtualCon: Well, of course, none of us knows the future — whether Russia will collapse first, or America will collapse first. We cannot predicate our national strategy on the assumption they are incapable and will collapse first. We have to assess the situation more realistically. Wishful thinking is not strategic thinking, and ill serves those who rely on it. Russia might lose in Ukraine, and Russia may have a genuine revolution and a return to authentic faith. We should pray for this. However, we do not have long-range thinking in our government regarding Russia and/or China. We have Russian and Chinese agents inside our government and intelligence services. These are naturally egging Americans to hate other Americans. So far, they have not triggered a civil war, but they are going to keep trying. They have strategy. On our side is this confidence that our wealth and technology will save us. But our wealth and technology only protects us from economic and military attacks. We are so concrete-bound in our thinking that we do not recognize the strategic danger from within. Our national cohesion continues to break down, as you yourself have admitted. If this breakdown occurs our wealth and military power will collapse overnight. This threat is real. What Panarin’s project suggests is that the Russians are playing for this outcome. Furthermore, it is their mastery of abstractions that makes this kind of strategy deployable. On our side, we lack this mastery of abstract thinking in terms of politics and strategy. We act as though technology and wealth were the keys to everything. But this is a superficial view, and Machiavelli was right when he contradicted Cicero’s assertion that “gold is the sinews of war.” Wealth and technology can be outflanked by grit, by will power, and by psychological operations turning American against America; the manipulation of cults; the corruption of politicians; the spreading of divisive rumors, etc. Our civilization is obviously crumbling, though our wealth and technology is still effective for now. We do have a financial deficit, of course, but this is not the real problem. Our most dangerous deficits are spiritual and intellectual, and these are the worst deficits to have, because societies with these deficits generally hit the wall. Russia definitely has spiritual deficits, yet their intellectual deficit is not as great as ours. Of course, serious intellectual and spiritual problems are shared by most countries across the globe. Modernity is afflicted by a spiritual disease, and the elites in nearly all countries are the disease carriers. Yet the problem is not, as your post suggests, the existence of elites. All countries, at all times, have a ruling class. The solution is not to oppose elitism as an “original sin” –as if our salvation depends on egalitarian democracy. The solution is found in an elite animated by proper intellectual and spiritual values. Democracy is not a panacea, especially when the people are themselves corrupt. Egalitarianism will not save us either, since people are not equal. The real problem is the emergence of the “New Religion” which has two different versions animating the elites of East and West. These elites are materialist and godless. Consequently, all elites are degenerating. Russia is degenereating, China is degenerating, and America is degenerating. The collapse of intellect and spirit is global. The inversion of values is global. While the Russian and Chinese systems could collapse at any time, they are primed for a nuclear war. And they are more likely to unleash a war in their deathroes than we are. And they have mastery over strategic concepts, which does not bode well for us.

  10. Unarmed Chinese rioting in the streets, beat the crap out of abusive police, and Xi backed away from his Draconian lock-downs. What does that little experiment teach Biden about what to expect if he sends Chinese in UN blue helmets door to door in the United States, where every home has more than a few firearms and plenty of ammunition?

  11. Jeff, in regard to your reply about the “Cross of Gold” speech by Wm. Jennings Bryan in the 1896 election: wasn’t the Democrats’ solution, though, simply the expansion into bimetalism so that silver could also be exchanged for currency? Silver is another real and tangible store of value. I’m okay with that, considering that what we now have is fiat currency created at whim via collusion between the Treasury Dep’t and the Fed. It only has value because other people assume it has value and accept it in exchange for goods and services. If the music ever stops, savers of USD will hold…nothing.

    1. The US Constitution clearly states that only Gold and Silver are money. If Government ever should exercise it’s Eminent Domain to confiscate your property, demand payment in silver Dollars. Accept no substitutes.

      1. From Article I, Section 8, we read “Congress shall have Power…to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin.” And from Section 10, “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” This is all the Constitution says on the subject. Please note: It does not say the Federal Government must only use gold and silver as currency. It says “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” As for the second clause, one of the main reasons the Constitutional Convention of 1787 prepared the document was so that the federal government could assume the massive state debts. The federal government did not want to have to bail out the states over and over again, just this one time. By forcing the states to accept only gold or silver coin as payments, states had a decent chance of staying solvent. Their revenues would always be good. The Constitution therefore does not say what you think it says.

    2. With free silver one enters onto a slippery slope which leads to where we now are. Americans need to understand the present currency system gives all Americans an incredible advantage, from a hedonistic point of view. We are spoiled by this system, not robbed by it. Without this system you would have to work very hard to survive. Furthermore, we would not be able to afford a large effective military if we abandoned our currency system, and we would be exposed to destruction by our enemies. I am okay with dying, but most Americans probably are not.

      1. Doubtful that our fiat monetary system will last too many more years. Its demise will most likely be forced upon us by other nations who don’t share the same advantage.

      2. Our monetary system will probaby last as long as our alliances last. Once our alliances collapse the currency will definitely collapse. If the currency collapses first, the alliances will be attacked in short order. All fiat currencies, of course, are gradaully headed to a value of ZERO.

      3. This is why the Bible warns not to create such a financial system. The Great Tribulation could not occur without it.

      4. Congress has abdicated it’s responsibility by granting the private bank, the Federal Reserve, to print money out of nothing and charge US for the privilege of using it. As a result, we get the welfare state and soon, the social credit score.

    3. Again:
      A gold standard leads to the fact that the countries which have gathered the most gold will get the power over the world economy. These are today the communist countries China and Russia!
      Why do you want to give power to these countries with a completely unnecessary gold standard?
      Money is covered by the goods and the work facing it – a further cover is not needed.
      Or is a department store voucher worthless just because it is not made of gold or backed by gold?
      It is covered by the goods that can be obtained for it in the department store.
      Without exception, every gold standard has failed so far – see the Great Depression of 1930, which was caused by the gold standard.
      And now we should make such a mistake again and in addition make ourselves dependent on the communists in China and Russia?
      Doesn’t anyone learn anything from history?

      1. Inflation is what damages economies. Deflation, while painful, is the healing of the economy. The Great Depression lasted a long time in the USA because we went off the gold standard and continued to inflate. We legislated against companies, so they could not make money because it was imagined that money-making was the root of all evil. The Federal Reserve was thought to have caused too much pain by allowing too severe a deflation. Yes, the economy collapsed. But regulatory relief measures damaged it further. We are now dependent on fiat currency where managing the money supply prevents a total crash. If we went to gold it probably would crash, perhaps fatally. Yet, because of this, our economy never heals in the sense of returning to an honest game. This is a complex topic.

  12. If JFK was such a fervent anticommunist, then why did he try to get Alger Hiss back in the State Dept.? (See Otto Otepka’s testimony.) Why did he get the US taxpayer to pay for Lenin Steelworks?

    1. Because JFK mistakenly believed in Hiss’s innocence. He saw the anticommunism of the Republican Congress a decade before as an attack on the Democratic Party. On his side, JFK thought the Republicans were soft on communism. In truth, both sides were soft on communism when their own fat was in the fire. This is typical of partisan politics.

    2. PS — The Otto Otepka case was certainly egregious, and showed the arrogant blindness of the Kennedy brothers to the communist penetration of their own party. That does not make them pro-communist. It shows their partisan blindness. They failed to come to grips with the communist penetration problem in the CIA, and this may have been fatal to them both.

    1. Makes you wonder what’s going on there. Some say the lockdowns have compromised people’s immunesystem, thus resulting in high casualties. But if that is so, why didn’t the West suffer similar consequences when the restrictions were lifted here?

      Also, I remember the earlier reports out of China: patients being cremated alive, people dropping dead suddenly (the entire sequence conveniently recorded by some random pedestrian who just happened to be filming a random stranger). It all seems very fishy to me.

      1. SARS2 is a computer generated sequence of artificial DNA which was released by aerosol in Wuhan. It does not make most people noticeably sick. Influenza and Pneumonia, never went away, though. The PCR test is not designed for diagnosing a virus, rather it’s use is designed to identify DNA. It does produce a 99% false positive for Covids, however, so it’s useful for persecuting anyone.

        What’s making people sick and killing them is the Covid shots.

  13. Great book(s) out right now written by Whitney Webb, “A Nation Under Blackmail” Volumes 1&2. I highly recommend reading this!
    This is a well-sourced book that details the union between Intelligence and Organized Crime here in the US and abroad since World War 2 and continues even today. Volume 2 delves into the influence of Jeffrey Epstein.
    The Marxists, Globalists have slowly infiltrated our society and institutions for 75+ years and it’s culminating today. Add to this the fact that the Chinese Communists have never fired a shot but have successfully destroyed a standing military of the greatest nation on Earth today and the year of 2023, not to mention the civilian population of the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii via an experimental biological agent through fear perpetrated through our own bought and paid for media, politicians of both aisles, and medical system.

    This nation will soon fail and fall regardless of all the discussions or essays about world events today.

    1. Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” We write and reflect not because we imagine we are gods who can change the world. We examine these things because of what we learn, and what it signifies. All good things in this world ultimately flow back from this, as well. But it takes time.

      1. To fix your country would mean its destruction. Then China and Russia step in. Your long game is to hope they die first, then you die. Either way same ending.

      2. As Sir John Glubb wrote about in “The Fate of Empires” the average length of greatness is 250 years.

      3. @Jeremy – ah, you misquote the Bible (If money is the root of all evil).

        It’s the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil.

      4. I was quoting Ayn Rand, not the bible. 2000 years ago the Master saw the future of money and over turned their tables. What is the origin of the worlds monetary system? This is why humanity today is flawed.

    2. When I tell people that not 1 Chinese soldier has had an MRNA shot they look lost

  14. Veteran War Correspondent Michael Yon interviewed by Del Bigtree on The Highwire starting at the 1 hr 13 min mark expounds on how America’s foremost and pre-eminent Information Warfare enemies ie. The Chinese Communist Party and Russia… have orchestrated the Authorized illegal alien invasion of the U.S. and a prearranged fertilizer scarcity induced famine for the purpose of causing famine induced plague as well as a general break down in law and order thereby Stoking the Fires of Civil War. Please; When you have the opportunity Mr. Nyquist please comment on Michael Yon’s observations. The Title of the Entire Podcast is EPISODE 301: Pandemicology

    1. I watched more than half an hour of this man, Michael Yon, and I am very frustrated. He talks about an attack against mankind by some unnamed mysterious force. Maybe he mentions Russia and China by name after the half hour mark. But I do not care to hear him bragging about getting along with farmers and how starving people are susceptible to typhus from lice. I read the history of the Russian Revolution. It’s all in there. Mass death through starvation, disease and war. All I want to know is who behind this, and what they expect to get out of it. If it’s Klaus Schwab, then he needs to explain how some oddball little Professor can be orchestrating the FOUR horseman of the Apocalypse. Does Yon say how many thousands of intelligence operatives work for Klaus? How does Klaus train them, pay them, and come up with the strategy? If Klaus is not the mastermind, then who gives Klaus his marching orders?If I’m told someone is trying to murder me I have one burning question: WHO is trying to kill me and why are they after me? I don’t care about the effects of starvation or an open border. I pretty much know what happens when nobody has food and a society is overrun by hordes of desperate people. Yes. I am watching this unfold. But I want to know WHO my prospective murderer is. And for 35 years I have been trying to tell people who intends to murder them. But nobody really believes our Cold War enemy is still prosecuting the Cold War — attacking us in every way imaginable. The KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn warned us in 1984, that Russia and China would combine into “one clenched fist” after we were weakened by the aftermath of the controlled liberalization in the Soviet Union. He warned us that anticommunism would be neutralized, that we would be subject to infiltration by Russian agents. I now see General Flynn openly disparaging Ukraine in videos with Steve Bannon. It makes me sick. Golitsyn said “beware the weapons of the block, oil and grain.” And now we see an attack on our food and energy. It is very obvious — plainly obvious. The communists are doing all this.

      1. Ephesians 6: 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
        13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.


      2. Thank you Mr. Nyquist for your pointed, penetrating, and perceptive analysis of Michael Yon’s jellyfish jello, Foghorn Leghorn like, self centered, direct answer avoiding viewpoints. You have made it clear that, for some reason, Michael Yon is Unwilling, or Unable to call a Spade a Spade and Plainly State that “The COMMUNISTS are DOING ALL THIS”

      3. Yon sounds like an excitable tourist who knows he is visiting a battleground, but lacks the general knowledge to know anything important about it.

      4. “I read the history of the Russian Revolution.” – but most people haven’t. Michael talks about the effects of famine because he is trying to motivate people to prepare and to give them an idea of what they are preparing for.

      5. Is this serious? Or is it entertainment? A modern city dweller preparing for all his neighbors starving to death? Tens of millions starving? Where does he imagine the strategy of the attacker will go next? Military operations? Nuclear strikes? Biological attacks? All the above. If I tell you that you have a cough, and I leave out that you have lung cancer, I have not given you relief. Not really.

      6. Klaus Schwab expressed disappointment in Xi Jinping. Xi then vanished from public eye, and a 150 mile long procession of black limousines went for a ride. Xi reappeard reelected, then resumed the lock downs of welding shut doors of high rise apartment buildings. That was the last straw. Unarmed Chinese rioted in the streets, attacking brutal police. Xi backed down. Biden then punished Xi by mandating restrictions against visitors to the US from China. Klaus Schwab is a protege of Henry Kissinger. After Putin activated Dead Hand, Kissinger called for peace talks. Putin then said it’s too, late. Biden sent Patriot missiles to Ukraine, then Putin eliminated them in transit.

        Seems to me that China is a puppet of Biden and Kissinger. If Russia is part of this, there would seem to be a contest for leadership.

      7. This is the first time someone has ever seriously suggested Biden is a puppet-master, or that the senile hair-sniffer — subject to Chinese bribery and blackmail — can “punish” his blackmailer. You are a real contortionist, Petunia,

      8. I don’t suggest that Biden or Kissinger are the puppetmasters. Even Hitler was a front man for some other nefarious overlord. I just can’t identify the source beyond the obvious.

        Jeff, how do you reconcile Biden supporting Ukraine against Russia, if Russia is calling the shots? It seems to me that the confrontation is a bit too, extreme to be good cop/bad cop.

      9. Petunia: Like other famous Democratic politicians, Biden has postured as anti-Russian. That’s an alibi, if you haven’t caught on. After accusing Trump of being a Russian puppet, Biden cannot act like a Russian puppet himself. He therefore has to support Ukraine. But notice that he is slow-walking his support for that battered country. Almost nobody expected Ukraine to last this long, so it should not have been a problem. But Ukraine held on.

        For obvious reasons, Russia’s most important little helpers have to protect themselves. To the Russians they will make the following excuse: “Look, we took your money, but there is only so much we can do. You should not have invaded Ukraine.” You can hear this plea in Biden’s voice, in his pre-invasion press conference where he said if Moscow only committed a “minor incursion” there would be no problem. But an all-out invasion of Ukraine was not something Biden could cover for. The whole world was outraged by it. So Biden must be outraged, too. Pretending is what he does, after all. And besides that, Biden has his own skin to think about. He cannot do everything Russia wants.

        People are a very hard commodity to control. Try controlling someone in your immediate family. Furthermore, people who are bribed do not always stay bribed. The old gripe is, “You didn’t pay me enough FOR THAT!”

        There are all these nuances to reckon with, so that “a KGB colonel’s lot is not a happy one.” But of course, you are a conspiracy theorist whose paranoid ideations have become sensory organs. You imagine an all powerful unnamed THEM behind everything. Instead of faith in God, you have faith in an omnipotent, omnipresent evil SOMEBODY who lurks EVERYWHERE. And this is, essentially, the Gnostic standpoint denounced by Eric Voegelin.

        You beleive that an evil demon controls the world. You just know it is there. “I just can’t identify the source,” you say. “Hitler was a front man,” you say. ‘HE HAD AN OVERLORD.” Oh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? By studying Hitler’s life? How many scholarly works on Hitler did you study? Can you cite your sources?

        I think not. Read ten PROPER biographies on Hitler and no evidence of an EVIL OVERLORD will appear. Read the memoirs of Christa Schroder, Hitler’s senior secretary, or read the vivid reflections of his valet. NOTHING ABOUT A SECRET OVERLORD WILL YOU FIND. But when a well-documented conspiracy against our country is referred to (i.e., the communist conspiracy), you get hot under the collar. You want to deny the evidence; or failing that, you want to ignore the testimony of dozens of defectors and former communist party officials. “No,” you say. “I believe in the invisible overlords.”

        Why don’t you believe in the visible overlords? — Xi and Putin!

        Yours, in fact, is a very irrational reason for dismissing a mountain of evidence and testimony about the communist movement and its conspiratorial methods, outlined by Vladimir Lenin himself! Think of the voluminous writings of former communists like Whittaker Chambers, Bella Dodd, Louis Budenz, Elizabeth Bentley and more. At least two communist spy rings were operating in Washington, reporting to Moscow, in the 1940s. The White House, State Department, Agriculture Department, and Treasury Department were all penetrated. Spies who participated in these penetrations testified in open court, in the U.S. Senate, in the House, etc.

        With all the Marxist professors we have today, and the anti-Americanism of right and left, don’t you think the communist penetration of our Government is worse than ever? If they were in the White House, manipulating our foreign policy in 1944, you can bet they are inspiring policies today — policies like our open border and those related to climate change. (Sabotage, sabotage, sabotage — always sabotage.)

        My dear Petunia, you have to put your thinking cap on. Context is everything, and I am giving you the context you’ve been missing.

        Regarding Mr. Biden, we know that Armand Hammer, the KGB agent, promoted Biden’s career (see Edward Jay Epstein’s work on this). And Biden was always friendly to Moscow, always ready to give help. Have you seen Vladimir Bukovsky’s documents regarding Biden’s trip to Moscow during the Cold War, in 1979?

        It was KGB agent Hammer who promoted Joseph Biden as a politician. You don’t suppose Moscow has forgotten all that, do you? Hammer also promoted Al Gore, Sr. and Al Gore, Jr. — of Earth in the Balance fame.

        Do some homework. Put the pieces together in a responsible, intelligent, way.

      10. I have in front of me, downloaded from Scribd, an essay by Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilev with the title “Biden’s Secret Diplomacy,” published by on 14 October 2008. “Here before us is a Soviet archival document,” wrote Bukovsky, “a top secret report by a communist apparatchik who had received a delegation of US Senators led by Joseph Biden in 1979. After describing routine arms control discussions, it quotes Biden as telling the Soviets off-record that he did not really care about the persecution of Russian dissidents. He and other Senators might raise human rights issues with their Soviet counterparts, but only to be seen by the public as defenders of human rights, not to have those problems really solved.” THIS IS THE SAME AS BIDEN’S UKRAINE POLICY TODAY. HE ONLY SUPPORTS UKRAINE SO HE CAN BE SEEN AS A DEFENDER OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

        It is worth adding Bukovsky’s comment on whether US Senators of Biden’s stripe were vulnerable to Soviet recruitment. He wrote, “There was more to it than simply the betrayal of dissidents; for this involved the question of the Senators’ own independence. Indeed, they should have known that every Soviet official who dealt with high-ranking foreigners would see them not as partners, but as potential targets for recruitment, potential collaborators or fellow-travelers. On such occasions, the Soviets always searched for a way to corrupt you. The worst thing you could do was to show the enemy that you depend on him in any way. For any Western politician, telling the Soviets that his public image depends on their good will was [taking] the first step to becoming an agent of influence, de facto if not de jure.”

        So much for Mr. Biden’s anti-Russian stance of the hour.

      11. Yes, it’s glaringly obvious , for those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. Thank you for your discernment in these matters.
        I have been troubled by much of these things for several years now. At times I will
        remind my spouse “Hey, remember when you told me I was crazy, and that will never happen? They just look at me with a blank stare. Am I a prophet? Are you a prophet? , God forbid! But those who see down the line, can see what is coming.

      12. Too many Christians say that they believe in God, yet they don’t believe in the Devil.


        Nazi Party funds

        While hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic had crippled the German economy and plunged millions of German workers into unemployment, Hitler and his party received lavish donations from wealthy benefactors at home and abroad.[7] The iconic American car maker and anti-Semite Henry Ford was reported to be one of the foreign supporters.[7] Edwin and Helene Bechstein, part of a rich aristocratic family who sold pianos, supported Hitler financially.[7] The Ruhr steel barons Fritz Thyssen and Gustav Krupp donated almost five million Reichsmarks to the Nazi Party over the course of the war.[7]

        The Berghof, Hitler’s private retreat, was renovated at a massive cost, all of it paid for with Nazi Party donations

        Much of the party’s income from donations was used to pay for Hitler’s private projects, such as the Berghof and Eagle’s Nest.[7] He caused a minor controversy within leading elements of the party when he, in 1925, purchased a luxury Mercedes-Benz and a chauffeur to drive it for a total expenditure of 20,000 ℛℳ.[7] After examining Hitler’s tax records from the Bavarian State Archives in Munich, economics journalist Wolfgang Zdral said, “He’s driving a Mercedes, which cost incredible amounts of money at the time, can afford to go on travels and has enough money to finance his propaganda appearances. All of this is financed through a system of slush-funds, essentially the donation of larger and smaller benefactors”.[7]

        en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_wealth_and_income#Nazi_Party_funds


        Helene Capito was born in Düsseldorf in 1876.[citation needed] Helene married Edwin Bechstein, the son of Carl Bechstein, the owner of the C. Bechstein piano factory.[3] In 1923, following C. Bechstein becoming a limited company, Helene and Carl started buying the majority of shares with Helene speaking in public on the company’s behalf.[2] At numerous events, she was heard making antisemitic comments, which led to a number of high-profile musicians boycotting C. Bechstein pianos. In 1934, the company was restructured so that Helene became the majority shareholder. To help raise capital, she sold company property to Hermann Göring through his capacity as Minister President of Prussia.[2]

        en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Helene_Bechstein

        The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

        theguardian . com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

        It is known that “Old Man Trump,” the appellation given him by folk singer Woody Guthrie in a 1950 song by the same title, continued his racist ways after the war. Guthrie, who had the misfortune of renting a unit in the Trump-owned Beach Haven Apartments in Brooklyn, penned the following lyric: “Beach Haven is Trump’s Tower. Where no black folks come to roam. No, no, Old Man Trump! Old Beach Haven ain’t my home!” It is also interesting that after the war, Trump insisted that he was of Swedish descent. In fact, Old Man Trump’s father, Frederick Trump, was an immigrant from Kallstadt, Bavaria. It was famed aviator Charles Lindbergh, a Nazi sympathizer, who stressed his Swedish descent to defend against charges that he was a supporter of Hitler. However, in both cases – Old Man Trump and Lindbergh – there was no question of their sympathies to the racial policies of Hitler and the “New Germany.”

        Old Man Trump’s home and businesses sat in the midst of Bund activities and businesses that supported the Bund. One of the most popular newspapers among the German American community in New York and New Jersey was the Bund’s “The Free American and Deutscher Weckruf,” published from 1935 to 1941 in both English and German. . nz/stories/HL1910/S00036/the-america-of-trumps-father.htm

        To make matters even more intriguing, legend has it that the grave-robbing posse included Prescott Bush, father of George H.W. and grandfather of George W.

        npr . org/2009/03/09/101626709/mystery-of-the-bones-geronimos-missing-skull

  15. I wonder what conservatives have to say about Poland now. Only a few years ago Poland, along with Russia and Hungary, was being held up by conservatives and traditionalists as an example to follow. The Poles were praised for their show of national sovereignty against Merkel’s attempt to force thousands of Muslim refugees on EU countries that never asked for them. Now that Poland supports Ukraine in its resistance against the Russian invasion, does that mean Poland is no longer conservative? Is it a Nazi country working for the globalists? Have conservatives even attempted to reconcile this contradiction, or has support for Russia, or for policies that benefit Russia, become the only litmus test for being considered “on the right side of history”?

    That’s apparently the case, even when Russia is not mentioned. Below is an example of the sad decline of a podcast I used to like. The podcaster, Daniel Horowitz, is a conservative religious Jew. In defaming Ukrainians as Nazis, he invites on his show a one-time CBS reporter who has appeared on a QAnon-linked show and often repeats antisemitic conspiracy theories involving the Rothschilds. One would think a person like him would be more sensitive to the well-worn trope of a totalitarian state demonizing an entire people to justify their destruction (and if the West were to withdraw all support and treat Ukraine like the pariah that the word “Nazi” entails that would be the case). But no. Since Russia has been trying to turn entire cities into rubble, one can’t argue they are only hunting a Nazi minority, they mean to destroy a large swathe of the population and anyone who repeats Russia’s justifications is implicitly agreeing there is no meaningful distinction between Nazis and ordinary Ukrainians. Within a week at the start of the invasion, he went from decrying Russia’s aggression to repeating the full panoply of Russian propaganda on Ukraine. That was quick. But as Jeff notes in the article, the seeds of seeing the U.S. government and everything the government does (or did) as the embodiment of all evil were planted long before in the minds of conservatives. The U.S. government is so evil, it is no longer human… it is transhuman. How can the ordinary governments of Russia and China compete for the world’s attention against an evil so vast? (tongue in cheek)

    Even more ironic is that Horowitz seemed to be a genuinely independent conservative. He was mistrustful of Russia and once noted the danger of America falling behind in the arms race. He eschewed the conservative media echo chamber and on policy issues he always tried to do his own research (on immigration, Covid, healthcare etc). That’s why his listenership grew a lot during Covid. Now I fear that audience is being led astray on Ukraine/Russia since he only accepts the research done by pro-Russian propagandists (early in the war he had on the Bulgarian reporter who was spreading the Ukraine bio-weapons story). I think the problem is that as smart and good as he is at studying data and numbers, he lacks a well-rounded philosophical education like Jeff has, and so in the end could not see past the tropes and symbols that were being appropriated by Russia for ulterior motives. It seems like Tucker’s vague smears of the CIA are bearing fruit, and there is no longer any distinction being made between government agencies and enemy double-agents who infiltrated those agencies. As 2021 wore on, it felt like he was becoming possessed by an all-consuming anger. The government and the media were behaving like fascists and demonizing conservatives as Nazis (note the irony). But that righteous anger went past the point of being healthy and became a black hole. Then once the U.S. started supporting Ukraine, that anger exploded and all sense of proportion went out the window.

    (Based on the title, I couldn’t listen to this podcast. But if anyone has the stomach please give us the highlights.)
    Conservative Review – The CIA’s Dark Past with Nazi Support and How It Fuels Our Ukraine Policy | Guest: Lara Logan | 12/16/22
    “In today’s season finale of the “Conservative Review” podcast, we are joined by former CBS war correspondent Lara Logan to discuss the truth about the Ukraine war and how our government has been on the wrong side of morality for a while. She explains that whether we like it or not, the problem with Nazis in Ukraine is real and our government has been supporting them for years. … Ultimately, this is not even about conservative vs. liberal, but about humanity vs. the transhumanists who seek to control and remold humanity into their perverted image.”

    1. Thank you Laura. Excellent post. I had to stop listening because Logan’s little history lesson leaves out Stalin and his Holodomor against the Ukrainians even as she repeats Soviet propaganda about the CIA and Moscow’s current propaganda about the Azov Battalion, etc. I wonder who has influenced her, or has she always been pro-Russian? And is she now a hater of Poland? Has she ever studied the history of the Azov movement? — that it comes out of Kharkiv, being started by a Russian? And did she know that the battalion itself does not consist of ideological Nazis? Just the two founders of the battalion had these views — recruiting a combat unit, not a right wing political organization. There is no ideological requirement to join that unit and no indoctrination. And their “Nazi” symbol consists of two Ukrainian letters superimposed on each other — removed from the alphabet by Stalin. And the man whose money financed many of the Ukrainian volunteer battalions that fought in Donbas was a devout Jew who built many synagogues. So even if Azov has a Nazi taint, the whole Ukrainian Army should not be smeared with it — as she smears the CIA. And then Ukraine has a Jewish president who had relatives killed in the Holocaust. Is he a Nazi, too? So who is Lara Logan? — a historical illiterate?

      1. This is Lara Logan’s wiki page. She wasn’t always a Russian shill and she mostly covered the Middle East. She was most famous for being the Western female who was almost raped by a mob during the 2011 Egyptian revolution, before being rescued by Egyptian soldiers. Maybe that experience changed her.

        Good point about how the Gnostic viewpoint is essentially a break with reality. Even when the unseen THEM are identified as a specific entity (the U.S. government or the globalists, etc), it is still Gnosticism because one is attributing an all-powerful and omnipresent power to those entities that goes way beyond human capability. When conservatives feel the walls closing in around them, usually triggered by leftist extremism/totalitarianism in a particular area (elections, immigration, Covid, crime), they have a choice to either embrace the despair that is presented to them as the only ‘true’ reality, and thus forego all other knowledge, or stand back and try to systematically figure out the truth behind all those myriad events. So far, many have failed at this because they think they know all they need to know (ie. the U.S. government is evil), and there are few people who are trying to delve deeper.

      2. Three final points about Horowitz. He mentioned a couple of times that his wife had family members who died in the Holocaust, so I never would have expected this kind of tripe coming from him. Also, the way he often discussed the American War of Independence and the U.S. constitution, I never would have thought he was a historical illiterate; but I suppose if one’s knowledge of history is limited to one subject, then that’s possible. On economics he struck me as being a free market fundamentalist, although he drew a line at high immigration levels, and actually criticized Trump when he tried to put tariffs on Chinese steel. If outsourcing leads to higher profits and cheaper goods for American consumers then that’s the best policy; maybe the U.S. should not have opened up trade with China 30 years ago, but now that it has it should continue because it would cause too much economic discomfort to turn back now. Thinking back to what Jeff has been saying about Communist infiltration and elite capture, cutting off all immigration from China without the economic decoupling would not solve the problem of Western elites being bought off and influenced by China to do great harm to their countries (see Fauci and the Wuhan lab), so this idea we hear from some conservatives is driven more by ideology rather than by sound strategic analysis.

  16. Someone should convince some youths of America that it is not ______, or _______, or______, to be “cool” “chill” “hang-out”.

  17. It’s definitely true that Tucker has recently gone off the deep end. As a right leaning libertarian I’m skeptical of what most progressives have to say as they seem to be delusional and definitely influence by some whacky communist BS. On the right, I am flabbergasted by the smooth-brained who have fallen for the obvious BS that Putin is a defender of christian conservative values. How to bring us all together though and wake up to the issue that Russia is influencing the right and China is influencing the left to the detriment of us all?

  18. “antisemitic conspiracy theories involving the Rothschilds”

    Both (modern) Antisemitism and Zionism were invented by Rothschilds who desired to prevent assimilation of Jews.

  19. Please explain why gold is valuable? Or a standard or asset? You can turn lead into gold if you talk to the right people. Eggs cheese bread tomatoes. Gold?????

    1. Lead may be turned into gold, water into to hydrogen, and sand into diamond. However, the efficiencies are often negative at best. Gold today is a desirable asset for its innate properties that lend itself to manufacturing and industrial processes, many of which are used to make food.

      1. Pure gold does not rust or tarnish. It is an inert and noble metal. Therefore it has spiritual significance, because truth is also eternal, God is eternal. Gold therefore becomes a metaphor for things of higher or lasting value. The human mind cannot escape meanings which are inherent in things. Consequently, we have the legend of “the Golden Age,” and Hesiod’s allegory of the Four Ages: (1) the Golden Age; (2) the Silver Age; (3) the Bronze Age; (4) the Iron Age.

        A version of this symbolic representation is found in Daniel 2:31-35: “Thus, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.”

        Daniel continues two verses down: “This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.”

        Each of the metals represents a kingdom which might well be associated with an age. The basest metal, iron, is the least spiritual and carries with it a sinister importance; that is, of an impending dark age which is hinted at by the introduction of clay into the feet. In Scandinavian lore this dark age is called the “Age of the Wolf.”

        Note: What could be more ominous than clay mixed with iron? One takes the strongest metal and weakens it with basest thing of all (clay). Whatever value the iron has, in terms of strength, is vitiated by the clay.

  20. Enjoyed the blog. I wish you wrote more often….

    Regarding the earlier discussion on money, that was so interesting. I also found this which might be helpful on the history of money and gold vs currency.

    On Biden, I have been doing my own research on his early involvement with Moscow. His first trip there was in 1973, soon after he was elected and not long after his first wife died. I have yet to find anything on the internet about his 1973 trip. It appears to have been scrubbed. A CNN story with a link to 1973 and a Russian article with a link to the same both take you to and linke to a 2011 speech Biden made in Moscow. Here are the links.

    CNN ran a story on June 16, 2021
    Headline: Biden’s experience with Russia, in key moments from 1973 to now
    Author: Christopher Hickey
    Under 1973 trip, when you click the hyperlink on “Biden makes his first visit to Moscow,” that link takes you to and his 2011 Moscow speech.

    Russia Beyond ran a story on Nov 20, 2020
    Headline: Joe Biden’s long history with Moscow
    Author: Nikolay Shevchenko
    When you read his first trip to Moscow happened in 1973, 1973 is hyperlinked and when you click on it, that link takes you to and Biden’s 2011 Moscow speech.

    I read on this blog many moons ago, that Biden spent his honeymoon in Moscow. I cannot verify that. His honeymoon with Jill was spent in Soviet-controlled Hungary, and he did meet with officials while there. I can find no record of a honeymoon with Naellia. He was still in law school when they married. So, perhaps that comment was an error.

    If Jeff or anyone else has an insight to this, I would be appreciative.

    KeyWiki has a bunch of information about the Council for a Liveable World and links directly to Al Gore, Senior who was their chairman and to Senator Joe Biden. I think Biden’s voting record clearly shows he supported the CLW agenda to reduce USA’s strategic defense program and other military spending consistently which would be in further support of Jeff’s information here. Here is the KeyWiki link.

    1. Last time I checked our policy is a cross between “wait and see, maybe it was an accident,” and launch on warning (retaliation). But I suspect, in practice, it will be “wait and see if they really meant to wipe us out.” We wouldn’t want to retaliate on someone who didn’t really mean it.

  21. Lady from Liberty: Sorry about it not posting immediately. Anything with more than one link has to be approved manually, and I am only checking at intervals. And now the darn thing will not post when I tell it to. Buggy!

      1. Yes. It posted after I rebooted my computer for some strange reason. One link at a time is easier for the coding system to process. Your long comment is just above us in the postings.

  22. Hello everyone,

    I’m getting a first hand look at the protests here in Peru.
    Had to stay off the streets for a few days, but now things have
    moved to a more peaceful demeanor, for now.

    Already, Castillo is blaming CIA. I know, sounds like a B-movie, but here it is.

    Castillo is a communist puppet controlled by regional communists powers advising Vladimir Cherron.ón

    And it’s backed by this story making the rounds on alternative ‘news’ sites

    Peru Coup: CIA Agent Turned US Ambassador Met with Defense Minister Day Before President Overthrown

    In fact if you plop that headline into search it comes up a lot, and basically it’s a list of communist agenda propaganda websites, and there are many planting their demon seeds into the minds of the gullible.

    Castillo’s family fleeing to communist Mexico and Mexico granting Castillo asylum says a lot.

    -Bill Freeman

    1. Hi Bill. Having trouble today posting multiple links. About Peru. I spoke with a Peruvian expert on Friday. He said that Evo Morales has been shuttling between Peru and Boliva during this crisis, mobilizing his base in the south of the country. The communists are not content to let this stand. They want to subjugate Peru and Bolivia entirely, and this may be coming. Be careful out there.

  23. So Mr. Nyquist, did you get a chance to sample any of Andrei Tarkovsky’s movies?

      1. My recommendations would be three, in order of relevant importance: ” the passion according to Andrei”, ” Stalker”, and ” Solaris”. Particularly the first mentioned if none other. Yesterday was Orthodox Christmas, I would have posted earlier as, like you, to me there is something diabolical about certain ultra terrestrial phenomena. ” Prelest”, spiritual deception, is always a possibility. As for other elements that you speak about, you would think I’m more inclined to Ivan Ilyin, Dostoyevsky, Konstantin Leontiev, and Danielevsky with the other Slavophiles, Nicholai Gogol, Nicholas Roerich. Not the Westerners like the Bolsheviks, doctrinaire Marxists. Or Dugin

      1. Mr Nyquist, regarding the use of ” Westerners”, or rather: ” Westernizers” versus ” destructionist”, I have to say that these are identical. Or perhaps we can agree that elites around the world chose the fatal trajectory of the West and called it Progress and Science and Humanism? Modernism? It began in Europe, how could we avoid the intellectual fad of Marxism? Sure, it began to come to Russia with Tsars Alexei and Peter, and Patriarch Nikon. Is Lenin their child or Marx’s? What I am saying is that this isn’t Russian, hell, it’s not even human. It’s Babylon versus Belvodye, Kitezh versus Sodom and Gomorrah.

      2. The Southern Agrarian thinker, Richard Weaver traced the error back to nominalism. Voegelin traced the derailment to rising Gnostic currents lying dormant within Christianity — East and West.

  24. Mr. Nyquist, of course Agrarianism is close to my heart: we have lost contact with the Land. I owe too much of my thinking to St. Dionysius the Areopagite to fall for the Prison of Gnosticism: life and humanity and mankind, while flawed because of evil, are not evil insofar as they exist, as Ideas universally and as particulars. But Nominalism reduces everything to the incidentals, the particulars. This came from William of Ockham. We must see with the Nous, the eyes of the Heart, not these petrified and artificial categories.

    1. Yes. William if Ockham is the guy who got this ball rolling. Weaver’s book on this is a classic critique of the West following the Second World War. Nominalism is a common modernist error.

  25. For the Youtube search field, highlight then copy and paste.

    Das boot – Klaus Doldinger Soundtrack[HD]

    ( A second-hand taste of adventure, not a political posting)

  26. Here’s a blast from the past. Apparently former British PM Tony Blair was into Putin before it was cool, that is, before the 9/11 attacks. While other Western leaders were warier of him because of Russia’s brutal war against Chechnya, Blair wasn’t bothered too much. Interesting given how supportive Blair was of the invasion of Iraq, which turned out to be a geopolitical and national security blunder for the U.S. He also exploded Britain’s immigration levels and presided over a period when London was being rapidly colonized by Russian oligarchs, mafia types, and everyone in between.
    Former PM was keen to reach out to the Russian president and give him a seat at the top table, newly released archives show
    “Official accounts of the first Nato-Russia summit in Rome in 2002 show how keen George W Bush, then the US president, was to move on from Cold War-era concerns, such as nuclear disarmament, to focus on the War on Terror.
    During a lunch session at the summit, Mr Bush told Putin and other leaders that they “shared a common threat” and “must forge common tools to fight it”.”

    Russia got the perfect alibi after the crime. They went from being seen as butchers to visionaries for being the first European country to make war on Islamic terrorism. Conservatives hate George W Bush with a passion now, but the idea that began under his administration is still an unexamined article of faith on the right, even though Islamic terrorism has taken a backseat to other more pressing problems.

    As for the earlier comment about Marxism, it may have originated in the West but it built a large home with deep foundations in Russia. That says something.

    On the topic of this article, I wonder how many mainstream conservative opinion-makers, not just those on the paleo fringe who have already been named here, are really stealth agents working for Russia. As Jeff has written, an effective scissor strategy requires agents in key positions placed in all the groups that Russia wants to control. It would be remiss of them not to have any trusted agents within the large mainstream American conservative movement. These agents would work within the movement, building a large audience and cultural-political influence by propagating established talking points, but at the same time moving gradually to the right, even achieving some convergence with the paleo view, with the goal of discrediting moderates and eventually the whole leftist-controlled American government. Once the last part is achieved, it becomes politically permissible for those agents to openly support Russia and repeat some of the most counter-factual pieces of Russian propaganda on national TV (eg all the recent hit jobs on the CIA). And from that point it’s a downstream effect on the rest of movement. So it’s worth considering that the sudden turn of conservatives towards Russia was not entirely organic, in the sense of being just an automatic reaction to the left. Not wishing to leave anything to chance, Kremlin’s agents not only led the horse to water but they gave him a push to make sure he drank. Hence the flurry of pro-Russian content on alt-right and mainstream media (notably Tucker) since February, because the high-level planners judged that conservatism had reached the necessary stage of development for the next turn of the ideological screw. It remains to be seen whether they overshot the mark.

Comments are now closed.