The best religion is communism.

Lee Harvey Oswald [i]

Socialism is a fake, a comedy, a phantom, and a blackmail.

Benito Mussolini
Speech in Milan, 22 July 1919

Our disease is democracy. It is not the skin that festers – our very bones are carious, and their marrow blackens with gangrene.

Fisher Ames

The abnormal man, the damaged man, Lee Harvey Oswald, said, “The best religion is communism.” The disillusioned communist-turned-fascist, Benito Mussolini, said socialism “is a fake, a comedy, and a blackmail.” More than a century earlier, the great spokesman of the Federalist Party in America, Fisher Ames, said that democracy is “our disease.” All three of these quotes reflect the same problem; namely, our obsession with false ideas and false narratives. Soren Kierkegaard said that the present age began with understandings and reflections leading to a mighty leveling tendency. “In order that everything should be reduced to the same level,” he wrote, “it is first of all necessary to produce a phantom, its spirit, a monstrous abstraction, an all-embracing something which is nothing, a mirage – and that phantom is the public.”[ii]

Of course, modern politics is full of mirages and monstrous abstractions, phantoms and even specters. Marx and Engels began their Communist Manifesto by writing, “A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism.” This specter may be the most monstrous abstraction of them all, with adherents pretending to care about “the people”; especially the poor and disadvantaged. Yet, communism (as statism) is a cold altruism, bereft of real sympathy, marching from victory to victory. Why has this coldest of all cold monsters prevailed in so many countries and institutions? Kierkegaard’s answer: “It is only in an age which is without passion, yet reflective, that such a phantom can develop itself with the help of the Press which itself becomes an abstraction.”[iii] And here we have a second monster to serve the first. “The public is,” wrote Kierkegaard, “the real Leveling-Master rather than the actual leveler….” In other words, everything is done in the name of the people, or “the public.” The latest nuance, of course, is that “the public” consists of downtrodden women and minorities, homosexuals and illegal immigrants. This resonates even more, since Kierkegaard affirmed that the public is “a monstrous nothing.”

The rote formula of oppressor and oppressed relies on “unreal individuals who never are and never can be united in an actual situation or organization – and yet they are held together as a whole.”[iv] Here is a situation in which a shallow intellectuality “destroys everything concrete.” Father and mother, tribe and individual – all consigned to the flames. Even the soul has been emptied of its contents, subjected to a hollowing-out process. People no longer have souls, today. They have opinions. This is the basis of all belonging, of all group affiliation. You must adopt this or that set of group stupidities, or else. To become a monstrous nothing, one believes in nothing – in unrealities and untruths. The more one believes in untruth, the more monstrous and disfigured one becomes. And now society disfigures itself on the grandest scale imaginable. Reality is now determined, in the moment, by the public and its adjunct, the Press. “A public is everything and nothing,” wrote Kierkegaard, “the most dangerous of all powers and the most insignificant: one can speak to a whole nation in the name of the public, and still the public will be less than a single real man, however unimportant.”[v]

And here comes the politician who feeds on monstrous nothings. He is the creature of the Press and the public. He is no longer a man with serious thoughts. Inwardly hollow, he reflects and impersonates the monstrous nothingness of the thing he serves; for his ideas are without substance, his thoughts are without consistency as the world crumbles under his management. His inner world is a series of evasions and falsifications. He has been cut from his ancestors, his tribe, and his God. He is alienated from his children, who are being indoctrinated into the New Religion (the religion of mob rule, the religion of socialism). He loves humanity in general with a cold kind of love. He does not think. Instead, he repeats formulas and slogans.

And now, democracy is approaching its terminal stage where personal resentments are mixed with utopian dreams. The ruling plutocracy seeks to profit by selling cheap Chinese goods. The middle class has declined into a semi-literate rabble. The common people worship celebrities, even in politics. Ideology declines into conspiracy theory. Every major event is viewed through a paranoid schizophrenic lens. One is obligated to paint horns and a tail on history itself – on every war, on every economic downturn, on every assassination and election. Everything is reduced to an all-encompassing Devil Theory. There is no human agency in anything, and Providence has been supplanted by Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Enter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Let us take a concrete example. It is painful to watch Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. repeating one Russian lie after another during his Tucker Carlson interview. How can this be understood? Surely, Kennedy knows better. Yet, he wallows in ignorance, proving that he knows almost nothing. Armed in this fashion he goes forth to challenge that monstrous nothing of a president, Joseph Biden. In this revelatory interview with Carlson, Kennedy confuses the city of Vladivostok (in the Far East) with Sevastopol (in the Black Sea). He calls the misnamed Black Sea naval base Russia’s only warm-water port, which is one of those commonplace misunderstandings that statesmen should not indulge.[vi] Kennedy blunders through this interview from one outrageous untruth to another. What we want from Kennedy is a higher level of general knowledge. What we get is half-baked and half-digested half-truth.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a conspiratorial view.

Kennedy’s mind is in thrall to the cold altruism of the left. As such, he is a self-hating American. In large part, his ideology reduces to conspiracy theory.[vii] Perhaps he is right in his crusade against Big Pharma; yet he discredits himself in the end. His value judgments are those of a social justice warrior. His insistence that anticommunists within the CIA killed his uncle, President John Kennedy, is frightening on two counts: first, it suggests an irrational hatred of anticommunists; second, he nowhere acknowledges that communists killed his father and uncle. This is not a man of the right. This is a man of the left; for he wants to stop illegal immigration – not for the sake of preserving America, but to prevent illegal immigrants from being robbed and exploited. He has no idea that his first responsibility, as a statesman, is to his country. Kennedy shows more concern for foreigners in this presentation than for Americans. Like other liberals, his need to appear compassionate is pathological. The ideal statesman is a father of his country, not the father of poor folks everywhere. To grasp how inappropriate Mr. Kennedy’s position is, imagine a father with five children who is more concerned with the neighbor’s children than with his own. That is Kennedy.

People who do not identify with their own self, with their own family, with their own country, are not patriots. Kennedy is such a one. He prefers to identify with a broader humanity; that is, with an unreal abstraction, with the suffering masses. Kennedy’s fatherland, then, is the world’s downtrodden and oppressed. Yet these do not a nation make. His ideology derives from a perfervid guilt that rejects any identification with his own privileged position. On account of this, he feels more compassion for the murderers of his uncle and father than he feels for himself, his family, or his country. We may wonder if this compassion is a pose adopted for political advantage. Yet Kennedy does not appear cynical. He does not come off as a poseur. What is he, then?

Kennedy is an anti-anticommunist. The centerpiece of his rhetoric is a blood libel against communism’s enemies. Kennedy’s rhetoric is in keeping with his attitude towards his father’s murderer, Sirhan Sirhan. The latter asked for the death penalty during his trial and attempted to change his plea from “not guilty” to “guilty.” But Kennedy does not think Sirhan murdered his father. He does not connect that murder with the assassin’s stated ideology (communism); for Sirhan wrote in his journals, “Long live communism…. I firmly support the communist cause and its people…. American capitalism will fall and give way to the worker’s dictatorship.”[viii]

In 2018 Robert Kennedy, Jr. met with Sirhan Sirhan in prison. After a long conversation Kennedy declared Sirhan’s innocence. Yet Sirhan confessed to killing Kennedy’s father in court. His motive for the killing was freely admitted on his arrest. “I can explain it,” he said. “I did it for my country.” Sirhan’s diary contains the following entry for 18 May 1968: “My determination to eliminate R.F.K. is becoming … an unshakable obsession … Kennedy must die before June 5th.”[ix] And despite this, despite overwhelming evidence, Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes Sirhan did not kill his father. Here is a case for Kierkegaard, where the death of a beloved father becomes an abstraction (i.e., reconfigured as conspiratorial fiction). Here, concrete reality fades into the background for the sake of anti-anticommunism. When your father and uncle are murdered by communists, and you insist on blaming anticommunists, the resulting falsification of reality suggests a profound inversion of the soul.  

As Robert Kennedy, Jr. is a self-admitted liberal, Eric Voegelin’s analysis of liberalism may provide the key: “if liberalism is understood as the immanent salvation of man and society, communism certainly is its most radical expression….”[x] It is, in fact, this relationship between liberalism and communism that prevents the latter-day liberal from seeing communism for what it is. In the case of Kennedy, liberalism’s relationship to communism prevents him from holding communists accountable for murdering JFK and RFK. Kennedy shares the same basic faith as the communists; namely, the faith of perfecting society through politics. The inner logic of this situation, wrote Voegelin, is that the primary danger from communism is not Russian and Chinese armies or nukes. The West can build better weapons than the communists. But the West chooses not to build those weapons because the West’s liberals are intellectually paralyzed and morally confused in the face of an enemy they will not recognize as enemy. According to Voegelin: “The problem of Communist danger, thus, is thrown back on the problem of Western paralysis and self-destructive politics through the gnostic dream” [i.e., the dream of making heaven on earth.] Insofar as communism is a more violent and consistent form of the dream, liberalism cannot oppose communism and must secretly or openly sympathize with it. Liberalism, according to Voegelin, is right-wing communism. Liberals like Kennedy are right-wing communists. As such they are predisposed like all communists to disregard the structure of reality, ignore facts, falsify history, and irresponsibly criticize society from “sincere conviction.”[xi] The key takeaway is: They will not defend themselves or their country from communism. In the end, they will join the communists.  

“The function of Gnosticism as the civil theology of Western society,” wrote Voegelin, is all about the “destruction of the truth and the soul, and its disregard for the problem of existence….” When God affirmed that His creation was good, the communists (i.e., latter-day Gnostics) sneered. Theirs is a form of speculation that takes all grace from the world by making the Devil master and God a truant. In their system, man must become God. Catastrophe will then follow catastrophe. This is the faith and practice of Lenin, of Stalin, of Mao. Kennedy’s anti-anticommunism partakes of this same faith. This is why Kennedy sympathizes with his father’s assassin, why he declares that assassin to be innocent. Only anticommunists are guilty. Only anticommunists stand in the way of progress. Kennedy has reconfigured the world into a giant capitalist conspiracy, where government is the solution and private property the problem.

Kennedy is not alone in his views. His brand of conspiracy theory (as defined in footnote 7 below) is growing in popularity because leveling has become instinctive. As a technique for falsification, conspiracy theory enables the leveling process. Here is a vicious cycle. As the individual is reduced, he more and more becomes a creature of the state. He clings to the state because the state has reduced him. The state grows stronger as he clings to it.


Conspiracy Theory as Leveling

Let us accept, for the moment, that we are called upon to be honest in our analysis of the JFK assassination. If we are to stand for truth and the soul, we must be truthful. What does honesty require in this case? A readiness to follow the evidence wherever it leads; that is, real evidence rather than speculation or confabulation, or sensationalism for its own sake, or outright lies purporting to be evidence, or arbitrary hostility to reasonable inference. Real evidence means credible testimony backed by physical discoveries such as bullets fired as well as the weapons that fired them. Real evidence includes fingerprints and photographs, video footage and autopsies. Real evidence includes witnesses at the scene, reporting what they saw the day they saw it (not years or decades later). In evaluating the whole, one must also possess consummate common sense; that is, by avoiding the arbitrary assumption that all investigators are corrupt, that all institutions are controlled by powerful conspirators.

First point: – if anyone besides Lee Harvey Oswald was shooting at President Kennedy on 22 November 1963, no credible evidence has emerged. Out of 177 witnesses present and questioned, almost 90 percent heard only three shots fired at Kennedy. We know that Oswald fired the three shots because one witness, across the street from the shooter, saw Oswald firing from the window, and three witnesses were directly below that window, hearing everything at an ear-splitting distance. The three shots came from Oswald’s sniper’s nest, built out of books, on the sixth-floor corner window of the School Book Depository building where Oswald’s rifle was found. All attempts to concoct a second shooter by identifying other blasts, coming from other directions, have been debunked. No alternate murder weapon has been found. No witnesses claimed to see another shooter on the day of the shooting. No spent rounds or shell casings were found from a second shooter. And the area was thoroughly searched.

Second point: – In the decades following the original investigation by the police, FBI, and Secret Service, roughly 2,000 JFK conspiracy books and tracts have been written. These writings have done nothing but spread confusion, far and wide. One may untangle fifteen minutes of erroneous confabulation from a JFK assassination buff in two hours, but in the next ten minutes he will present you with even more work. The favored approach of JFK conspiracy theorists is turning honest police mistakes into proofs of conspiracy; for example, the police originally mistook Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano for a Mauser because these rifles are remarkably similar. This mistake was used to claim that a Mauser was used to kill Kennedy, then it was swapped out for Oswald’s rifle. There is no evidence for this alleged swap. Conspiracy theorists simply assert things, demanding that someone prove them wrong. They are oblivious to the larger context – to the mass of witness testimony. Their tactic is to put the investigators on trial. But there is no substantial evidence that the investigating agencies were engaged in a coverup.

Third point: – Someone needs to demolish the “epic political thriller,” JFK, written and directed by Oliver Stone. This movie is an obscenity. It lionizes a psychologically unbalanced publicity seeker named Jim Garrison – a district attorney who falsified evidence, intimidated witnesses, ruined innocent lives, and was finally rebuked by the courts. Kevin Costner may be likable in the role of Jim Garrison, but Garrison was not a good guy. Furthermore, if the JFK movie was not made as a communist active measure, it nonetheless functioned as one. We are given to believe that Kennedy was killed so that Lyndon Johnson could escalate the war in Vietnam (which was a war against communism). We are told that JFK was killed by the military-industrial complex and the CIA (since JFK supposedly wanted to disband the CIA). Many or most of these notions are seconded by Robert Kennedy, Jr. – and they are false.

In the Tucker Carlson interview, Robert Kennedy, Jr. alleges that the CIA’s William King Harvey was Oswald’s “handler.” Of course, this accusation is preposterous. It was originally given legs by E. Howard Hunt’s sons, who extracted a “confession” from their dying and mentally deranged father. In fact, the mother and siblings of the Hunt boys said these boys had exploited their dying father for financial gain.[xii] Since the JFK assassination, small fortunes have been made from alleged “evidence” and altered “testimony.” Greed and attention-seeking behavior is to be expected; but now, we are hearing these same false narratives repeated by Robert Kennedy, Jr., someone who ought to be sensitive to the truth. Why accuse William Harvey when there is no evidence? Harvey and Kennedy’s father hated each other, it is true. During the Cuban missile crisis Harvey angered President Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy by blaming the missile crisis on their lack of nerve during the Bay of Pigs invasion.[xiii] A guy who has the guts to tell the President off in a phone call isn’t going to sneak around and shoot him from a grassy knoll. Besides, Harvey ran OPERATION MONGOOSE along with USAF General Edward Landsdale. The operation included a plan to assassinate Fidel Castro, with oversight from Attorney General Robert Kennedy. As Joseph J. Trento tells the story in The Secret History of the CIA, “After the Bay of Pigs, John Kennedy sent his brother Robert to the CIA to punish the Agency for its failure. Like so many others before him who had arrived behind those closed doors, Robert Kennedy fell in love with the world of espionage.”[xiv] As Trento explained,

While his brother enjoyed hearing war stories from Berlin Base, Robert, always intense, became the force to oust Castro. He met with CIA officials daily. Despite the lesson he presumably learned from the Bay of Pigs, he was taken in by the illusion that the CIA understood more about the world than any other organization. [xv]

Of course, the CIA was penetrated by the KGB from the start, and Robert Kennedy was clueless. His false confidence explains why his brother’s presidency ended in rifle fire. The Kennedys had no idea that the KGB was anticipating their every move. The man that Robert Kennedy, Jr., accuses of being Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler, William King Harvey, was tasked by President Kennedy, with rebuilding everything the CIA had lost in the bungled Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. The idea was to build up the anti-Castro forces and capabilities so that by October 1962 everything would be ready for the liberation of Cuba. But the Soviets knew all about it. Khrushchev preempted MONGOOSE by placing troops and nuclear missiles in Cuba, precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. President Kennedy postponed OPERATION MONGOOSE in the face of the missile crisis. The plot against Castro’s Cuba would resume later, only Kennedy would be stopped again, permanently. How could it have turned out otherwise? There were KGB moles in the U.S. Government. They could anticipate every move the White House made. Besides the KGB’s successful penetration of the NSA at the time, John Sherwood warned his superiors at CIA that Castro had penetrated MONGOOSE “up the kazoo.”[xvi]

Related to this, a memo from General Landsdale has been found suggesting that President John Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy discussed and apparently sanctioned an assassination attempt “against Fidel Castro during a 1962 meeting in the Oval Office.”[xvii] It was, of course, related to OPERATION MONGOOSE. Several experts weighed in on this evidence, saying it “has the earmarks of an assassination plot.” A former CIA director said of the memo, “The language of the memo speaks for itself. The only thing Robert Kennedy can be referring to is the assassination of Castro. This paragraph should never have been written.”[xviii]

In 1962, when CIA Director John McCone read the Landsdale memorandum, he summoned William Harvey to his office. The CIA Director waved his copy of the memo at Harvey demanding to know who had ordered Castro’s assassination. After all, McCone was a serious Catholic who could be excommunicated if murder was done in his name.[xix] A lot of folks learned, in various ways, that the Kennedy’s had been plotting to kill Castro. Among insiders, it was an open secret. Even Vice President Lyndon Johnson, after having lunch with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in 1961, told top aid Walter Jenkins, “Bobby Kennedy has turned the damn CIA over into some Murder Incorporated.” In 1962 Johnson reportedly said the Kennedys were playing with fire. “Someone is going to try and get even.”[xx]

Part of the story of Oswald, which has not been well-covered in the media, is Oswald’s attempt to infiltrate OPERATION MONGOOSE when he went to New Orleans in April 1963. An account of this episode is related in the book, Brothers in Arms. The authors make the case that Oswald attempted to sell himself to the anti-Castro Cuban Revolutionary Committee (CRC) as an anticommunist. In other words, Oswald was trying to infiltrate the CIA’s anti-Castro operation. It is well known that Oswald wanted to immigrate to communist Cuba in 1963. If he learned something worth knowing about the anti-Castro movement, he might go to Cuba as a hero. Oswald had been disappointed after his defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 because the Russians gave him a job as a sheet metal worker. This did not accord with Oswald’s grandiose self-conception. In effect, Oswald was eager to make a name for himself as a revolutionary communist, spy, or assassin. But Oswald was an amateur. He never graduated from high school. But he was determined and persistent.

While the CIA rejected Oswald’s attempts at infiltration, the CIA’s Sam Halpern was managing a prospective Castro assassin named Rolando Cubela. Halpern was told by Cubela that the latter was in direct contact with Bobby Kennedy. “I always believed Cubela. I don’t think he ever lied to us at all. He had no reason to lie to us about Bobby’s involvement, we all believed him, and had no reason to go questioning Bobby as to why he was doing it.”[xxi] In Edward Jay Epstein’s book, Killing Castro, we read how Cubela was recruited by the CIA as the perfect assassin – appearing to be a disaffected Castro insider. But on 18 August 1962 Cubela refused to take a CIA lie detector test. This led Richard Helms, the CIA’s Director of Plans, to veto him as Castro’s assassin. Things changed, however, by September 1963. The Kennedys were putting Helms under pressure, so he reactivated Cubela. A meeting with Cubela took place in Brazil. Would Cubela assassinate Castro? Cubela had one condition: a personal meeting with a high-ranking official of the Kennedy Administration. Cubela was assured that confirmation would be provided. [xxii]  

A day or so later, Fidel Castro went to the Brazilian Embassy in Havana and talked to an AP reporter. Castro said, “If US leaders are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe. Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves since they too can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death.”[xxiii]

On 29 October 1963 Desmond FitzGerald was dispatched from the White House to meet with Cubela in Paris. According to a report from the CIA’s Inspector General, the contact plan for the Cubela meeting stated: “FitzGerald will [present] himself as personal representative of Robert F. Kennedy who traveled to [Paris] for the specific purpose of meeting AMLASH [code name of Cubela] and giving him assurances of full support….”[xxiv] During the meeting FitzGerald discussed the elimination of Castro. Cubela “asked for a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight – the same type of weapon Oswald would use 23 days later in Dallas – but FitzGerald told him the CIA would provide a safer weapon.”[xxv] The final proof of presidential support for the assassination of Castro came in the form of a coded message, inserted in a speech given by President Kennedy in Miami, on 18 November 1963. Cubela was satisfied that John Kennedy had ordered Castro’s death. But the head of the CIA’s counterintelligence staff, James Angleton, suspected that Cubela was a double agent. According to Epstein,

Angleton, as he later told me, could not accept that it was merely a coincidence that, first, AMLASH is reactivated in Brazil for a mission to assassinate Castro … and, only a day or so later, Castro goes to Brazilian territory … to tell an American AP reporter that he knew the American government was behind plots to kill him. [xxvi]

If Cubela was a double agent, then Castro knew the Kennedy’s were sending at least one assassin to kill him. How many assassins, besides Cubela, might be on their way? Perhaps Castro thought the best defense was to hit Kennedy before Kennedy could hit him. Meanwhile, Lee Harvey Oswald was a great admirer of Fidel Castro. Oswald read the newspapers every day, attentive to stories about the Cuban dictator. According to Oswald’s wife, Marina, he read Castro’s assassination warning in “the New Orleans Times-Picayune … [causing] … him to go to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico.”[xxvii] In Mexico Oswald contacted agents of Cuban and Soviet intelligence. Did they turn him away, or did they employ him?[xxviii] All we know is that Oswald shot and killed JFK on 22 November 1963.

It is no wonder, then, that Bobby Kennedy’s reaction to his brother’s death was “grief and guilt.”[xxix] Contrary to the self-serving statements of Bobby Kennedy, Jr., there never was any credible evidence against William King Harvey or the CIA or the military-industrial complex. The Kennedys had plotted Castro’s death and John Kennedy fell victim instead. Here is Russo and Molton’s account of what Robert Kennedy suffered in the wake of his brother’s death:

Bobby was so devastated after Jack’s death that he left the Justice Department to Nick Katzenbach’s care for months. When he did finally return, he was a morass of pain, his eyes perpetually red, his concentration shattered. He could barely bring himself to speak…. When he could steel himself to ask Harry [Ruiz] Williams, point-blank, what he thought about Dallas, Harry told him that he thought Castro did it. Bobby didn’t reply, but his face told Harry that he was beginning to accept it. [xxx]

Did Bobby Kennedy ultimately accept that Castro did it? Or did he blame the CIA? Russo and Molton wrote, “Had the CIA (or even a rogue element within it) been proven to have unseated a president, Bobby, or someone near him with less to lose, would not have hesitated to tell the world about it. And had anti-Castro Cuban elements been responsible, they too would have been charged.”[xxxi] In the Wake of John’s death, Jackie Kennedy tried to console her brother-in-law with books – Camus, the Greeks, Edith Hamilton. Bobby copied out a telling passage: “The gods … hated beyond all else the arrogance of power….” And, “All arrogance will reap a harvest rich in tears.” And from Camus, he copied, “I feel rather like Augustine did before becoming a Christian when he said, ‘I tried to find the source of evil and got nowhere.’”[xxxii] These lines are telling – more pregnant with true regret than the glib nonsense about a CIA plot.

The ghost of Lee Harvey Oswald cannot be happy. For all that he sacrificed, in the end, he is not fully credited with his greatest deed (i.e., great in his own mind). The nephew of his target, even now, takes away Oswald’s agency, reducing Oswald to a CIA stooge. Given this, Oswald has lost his rightful place in Hell. The death of President Kennedy was supposed to be Oswald’s story, Oswald’s achievement. But Robert Kennedy, Jr. wants to take that achievement away from the ever-downtrodden Oswald. Perhaps Kennedy has inadvertently inflicted a uniquely cruel form of revenge on the assassin.  

American politics has become ridiculous. The Carlson interview with Robert Kennedy, Jr., is a shocking disgrace. Our expectations are low, and we are not keen on holding each other to account. In his essay, “The Present Age,” Kierkegaard wrote, “A demon is called up over whom no individual has any power, and through the very abstraction of leveling gives the individual a momentary, selfish kind of enjoyment….” This enjoyment, said Kierkegaard, signifies the individual’s doom. “Enthusiasm may end in disaster,” he explained, “but leveling is eo ipso the destruction of the individual.”[xxxiii] We have sought salvation in political equality, in economic equality, in sexual equality, and more. Where has this leveling gotten us? Even the assassination of John Kennedy is part of this leveling. It is intrinsic to it. Even the career of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., follows the logic of this leveling. The right and the left follow this logic. Where will all this lead? Kierkegaard spoke of “prophecies and apocalypses.” But, he said, we are too weak for such things, preferring feeble “prognostications” instead.

“The change that will come about is this,” wrote Kierkegaard. “In the old order … the officers, generals, heroes … were recognizable, and everyone … with his little detachment … supported the whole. From now on the great man … will be without authority because he will have understood the leveling process; he will be unrecognizable; he will keep his distinction hidden like a plain-clothes policeman, and his support will only be negative, i.e., repelling people….”[xxxiv] And so, it is.

Links and Notes

[i] Gerald Posner, Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK (Audible), Chapter 2.

[ii] Soren Kierkegaard translated by Alexander Dru, The Present Age (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), p. 59.

[iii] Ibid, p. 59-60.

[iv] Ibid, p. 60.

[v] Ibid, p. 63.

[vi] The Russian ports of Murmansk, Vladivostok and Kaliningrad are all ice-free ports. For that matter, Sevastopol is not Russia’s only major port on the Black Sea. There is also Novorossiysk. All in all, Russia has year-round ice free ports opening to the world’s two largest oceans, and to three seas.

[vii] The term “conspiracy theory” refers to a routine falsification of reality by ideologists who link every major event to their Devil Theory. In doing this they have no eye for hidden enemies, real conspiracies, or real history. Thus, the most outrageous and transparent assaults can be carried out against society, but the real perpetrators are dismissed as patsies or proxies of an all-powerful and invisible cabal, vaguely drawn, conforming to a maligned and unreal stereotype (i.e., the bourgeoisie, the Jews, the Illuminati, or reptilian shapeshifters). The formula of the conspiracy theorist is an expression of paranoid ideation, alienation, and despair.

[viii][ix]Ibid.[x] Eric Vogelin, The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 5, p. 231.

[xi] Ibid, p. 233.

[xii] [xiii] Gus Russo and Stephen Molton, Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder (New York: Bloomsbury, 2008), p. 213.

[xiv] Joseph J. Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (New York: MJF Books, 2001), p. 207.

[xv] Ibid, pp. 207-8.[xvi]Ibid, p. 209.


[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Trento, p. 214.

[xx] Ibid, p. 212.

[xxi] Russo and Molton, p. 297.[xxii] Edward Jay Epstein, Killing Castro (Kindle), loc. 77.

[xxiii] AP and New Orleans Times-Picayune, September 9, 1963.

[xxiv] Ibid, Loc. 85.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Ibid, Loc. 101.

[xxvii] Ibid, Loc. 117.

[xxviii] The subject of Oswald’s connections to Soviet and Cuban intelligence are controversial.  

[xxix] Russo and Molton, p. 388

[xxx] Ibid, p. 389.

[xxxi] Ibid, p. 390.

[xxxii] Ibid, p. 391.

[xxxiii] Kierkegaard, p. 54.

[xxxiv] Ibid, p. 80.

169 thoughts on “Monsters and Their Monstrous Nothings, Part I

  1. Excellent article again ! Off topic question, but do you plan to have a weekly appearance on Nevin Gussack’s new podcast ?

    1. Yes, I am hoping to appear on Nevin’s every week, if he is not otherwise occupied. This past two weeks I have had to work on video presentations and I am having serious technical problems with this website. They keep upgrading the technology, and it is suddenly very complicated, with computer-generated errors. I am unable to post a number of gadgets. So I apologize for the lateness of this difficult article. When you have technical issues, and you have no idea what the tutorials are even referring to, it takes a lot of time.

      1. I sympathize with you on your technical issues. One of my sisters was a guest on several podcasts recently, and we ran into one technical difficulty after another. We finally got workable solutions going, but what a headache.

        I hope you got your technical difficulties cleared up.

      2. Just a suggestion but substack may work better for you. I have been writing over there and it’s been fairly simple to use.

    2. Further down Mr Nyquist, you spoke about the failure of people to properly understand symbols and their meaning. Yes, the rift between Sign and Signifier which I believe is perhaps inevitable. What we have today in modern times is the corruption of the perception of all this great hieroglyphic forest of symbols by money, and by what Guenon and Evola and Neitzsche would have recognized as quantification and materialism over quality and spirituality. One has to have a discerning spiritual aesthetic sense, because as Dostoevsky put it: ” Beauty will save the world”.

  2. As a long time reader of your work, I have to say this essay is one of your most insightful and well written. I’ve ordered a copy of The Present Age. Many thanks.

      1. I would consider it another broadside against abstractions such as ” the public” which is easy to think up in our Modernist age. We cede responsibility to such abstractions such as ” the State” and ” the Crowd”, etc.. which are nothing more than reified aggregates composed of persons.

  3. I am not for democracy myself anymore; political parties are all corruptible and therefore corrupted. They maintain the pretence that they are “serving the people”, when in fact, they serve only themselves and the highest bidder amongst their benefactors. Accordingly, in the West, we have traditionally had government by sock puppets for the elites; in Russia and China, it’s closer to government by the elites for the elites. Either way, it’s government for the respective elites first and foremost.

    The only legitimate and liberating form of government is a biblical theocracy, made up of godly, wise, selfless men, the system of “judges” that was the biblical ideal for ancient Israel and, indeed, for the governance of all men. Its accountability is reckoned to the highly informed and refined consciences of its participants; but such a benevolent form of rule cannot happen absent a revolution in the hearts of God’s people, a quantum leap in godliness, such as that I predict (based on the historicist model of interpretation of prophecy) is coming later this decade to a major western nation (the US) in what will be the greatest political earthquake in human history.

    In the meantime, however, the red menace is only going to wax worse and worse the world over. For now, it’s all about preparing to ride out that storm and to warn as many as possible to do the same. If they won’t look at it in biblical terms, at least look at what’s openly underway: priming society for CBDCs, a social credit system based thereon, the silencing of what faithful few ministries remain through the raft of terrifyingly draconian “hate speech” laws in the bill stage across the West, and so on.

    1. Aristotle said that democracy was the worst of the simple forms of the state. Athenian democracy proved a disaster in its imperialist phase. What worked better? The Spartan system of mixed government. This is the system the Romans copied.

      Fisher Ames and the Federalists believed in the traditional mixed system of divided power, and referred to Lycurgus by name; but the anti-Federalists did not care for aristocratic or monarchical elements to check democracy. They wanted representative democracy where the will of the people prevailed. This eventually produced a breakdown of aristocratic values in politics. When Jefferson won the election of 1800, the democratic element in the constitution was strengthened (and aristocratic ideas never took hold in the North outside of the failing Federalists). After the Civil War, when the aristocratic planter class was destroyed in the South, aristocratic ideals largely disappeared from the U.S. political system. Cultured people either stayed out of politics, or weren’t welcome The dominant Republican Party drifted into plutocracy. More democracy was added as a remedy, along with anti-monopoly legislation. The whole thing evolved into the mess we have today. What holds the Union together is the remaining Federalist elements. Judicial Review from the Supreme Court, the checks and balances of states (however weakened by the Civil War), and other Constitutional barriers to tyrannical power. Congress has become a weak institution, unable to properly supervise the expansion of the Federal Government during the Great Depression. It has simply deferred to the Executive, along with the unconstitutional practice of administrative law judges (and other judges) determining the legal tangles arising from all our new “rights” — like welfare, unemployment insurance, and no-fault divorce. So far the tyrannical power of this system has not been fully exploited, but the left is pushing hard.

      For myself, I do not believe in theocratic oligarchy. Without checks and balances, your Holy Men would become an Unholy mafia using God’s name to justify their abuses. Human nature is going to assert itself if there is no check on it. People who speak for God, and hold unlimited political power, are quickly corrupted. History is full of examples of holy people with too much power. They become the worst of oppressors. Power does tend to corrupt.

      1. I agree with you that it could not work at present, because the few faithful Christians are still in a cold, backward, dead “Sardian”, non-Philadelphian state and are not equipped to rule as yet.

        But I am asserting that the “Second Reformation” that the 17th Century English Puritans* spoke of will, along with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit, transform the Lord’s cause and make them fit for this role in which they will be motivated by selfless benevolence, service to the Word and not financial interest.

        The ungodly, on the other hand, are unfit to rule a henhouse and are just getting worse and worse, making ever more ludicrous decisions that go against common sense and the national interest of every country.

        * Any time I refer to Puritans, it is the 17th Century English variety I mean, not the New England witch-burners.

      2. Jacob Burckhardt saw civilization divided into three powers: The Church, the State, and the Culture. He said that successful civilizations find a balance between the spiritualizing function, the defense function, and the economic/cultural function. If the spiritualizing function takes over the state, it corrupts itself and the state function. If the spiritualizing function enters culture, it may suppress cultural and scientific achievements. Each sphere is important to man, but each sphere needs to perform its role without interference from the other two. Our present imbalance is in the fact that the culture has colonized the state and church. Each reflect the culture more than they reflect their given functions. This has resulted in a decline in real spirituality and our defensive function. We no longer defend. There is something to Burckhardt’s typology here, though it is reductionist and limited, it reflects actual realities in the larger sense.

      3. Quietman: The mission of the Church is not to rule. The mission of the Church is to make disciples. Once Christ closes the doors to the Church, then the mission will change and ruling will be done under Jesus Christ.

        The Christians I know are faithful, and they are doing to job they are supposed to be doing. Many call themselves Christian, who are anything but. Barna did a study in the late 80s, early 90s that showed that on the order of 80%+ of the US population claimed to be Christian, but only for 4-6% did it really matter. Even so, that is a small part of Evangelicals.

        As far as influence in the world is concerned, the Church, as always, has been almost entirely without influence.

      4. Such has become of the mullahs in Iran—from reports that I hear, they are widely hated because of their corruption.

        Both a theocracy and a state church foster corruption. They must be kept separate. That does not mean that there should be a wall between them, for the church has the obligation to be a conscience against state corruption, but not a ruler.

      5. In my opinion, this is one thing that will serve to outlive Leftism, this kind of ” theocratic Oligarchy” as you say. Some Western and some Non Western religions or sects thereof have went through the crisis of the Cold War functionally immune to Communism but offer a danger even greater in my opinion. But this has more to do with the true crisis of Modernism of which Marxism is just one revolutionary wave of several. Some sects of persons fully absorbed the contents of Modernity and are functionally indistinct from it. Others retreated into a position of just not dealing with the issues of Modernity and are fully reactive, not giving (at least formally) any credence to these forces of upheaval. Others ( examples would be debatable and perhaps beyond the scope of this commentary) have offered answers that while they are not necessarily the correct ones, are creative responses to Modernity that enable their believers the power to meet the Modernists head on a mass earthly scale, at least potentially, and become the new Modernity, changing it’s trajectory.

      6. One of the problems of modernity is the loss of meaning through decay of language or symols, which includes the failure to understand symbols used to refer to specific spiritual experiences. People without those spiritual experiences are prone to use the symbols incorrectly. When the incorrect usage become entrenched and dominant, the spiritual teaching is corrupted.

      1. @ OHENGINEER: There is no biblical prohibition on the church transcendent bearing rule; T Loudon has spoken well on this in the past year or so in his YT clips.

        “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” 2 Samuel 23:3.

        “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: But when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Proverbs 29:2.

        We have had thousands of years of the wicked bearing rule; now it would be nice to have the extraordinarily godly bear rule so that we can rejoice instead of mourning.

        The mission of Christians is not just to advance the Kingdom of Christ through preaching the Gospel of grace, but also by living exemplary lives (as far as grace from God is given) and exercising temporal power with great respect and conscientiousness towards the rod of iron that is the Word of God, so that justice is really done (for a change) and conditions established that conduce to the success of the Gospel.

        But as I said before, the church (i.e. the body of true believers, not any specific denomination) is not yet sanctified enough to assume this role, but shall become so in the very near future in the wake of the quarrel that the scarlet beast system is picking with it to justify silencing it for a few years; that quarrel is, I believe, the LGBT issue, which shall also form the bedrock of the coming social credit tyranny throughout the West.

      2. Quietman: Christians as individuals who really understand and live the Bible make the best rulers. Churches as institutions not so. Churches as institutions suffer from the same fate as political parties—where there is authority, the dregs of society conspire to take it over. Therefore it’s best to keep the organized churches powerless.

  4. It is conceivable that perhaps some of the Kennedy’s family have been already compromised, and that the KGB penetration of the US intelligence and military and overall the Democrat Party as a whole is a matter of historical and present fact.

    That the difference is that JFK and his brother were both Catholic, and that the Catholic Church was being attacked at the same time by communist penetration (1962 was the year when all the communist instigated far reaching heretical evils took place), so then the difference between those Kennedy’s back then and what the family looks like today (and the case of communist detente and cooperation with Moscow, of the Chappaquiddick “swimmer” alerts to), it is evident that what this above article documents is just yet another point in the long-standing lack of proper foreign policy of the state towards the danger of communism – because to allow the danger of communist subversion of the free government to remain unchecked means that those who permitted it are equally guilty of achieving that disastrous result as the communists are.

    But to put it in context of the time – it was too late even back then to obtain any substantial results in the fight against Russian communist strategy of worldwide takeover – because the help of God was already lost, and so to divert the blame away from the (Russian etc.) communists is the overall objective, even today.

    There is no surprise that Robert Kennedy Jr. is so scandalously misinformed, because there is an evident intent, by the results that are accomplished by these conspiracy theories, and that to make communism and its rule more so acceptable to the unwitting young generation, to make more fanatics for the cause and less opposition, when the horrific truth about the communist atrocities and murderous history and present evil results (Russians in Ukraine, CCP in China, Venezuela, communists in Cuba of course etc.) remain obscured by such communist organized “self-pity” scheme which wrongly points at the victims instead of the communist culprits (which means the Kremlin first and foremost).

    Anyone still associated with the Democrat Party today should be under suspicion of being either a communist or communist agent, as the Party has been subverted into the Moscow (KGB/GRU) AGENCY long time ago, so today when such people claim to be Democrats, it should be remembered that their KGB bona fide(s) are safely in the Kremlin’s files and that, accordingly and as the communist cause and discipline requires, all commands and directives come from their and must be obeyed without any exception.

    Gen. Sejna wrote about it, various defectors confirmed it, this is nothing new – there is no such thing as individual objective liberty of deciding the strategy of communist operations, but only strict discipline to carry them out and those who disobey know that their one way cemetery visit, in the state of bodily corps, is the only way out.

    In regards to Catholic moral theology – to assassinate a communist leader using the authority of the state is not altogether forbidden, as long as it is part of the active warfare against the communist evil itself, using the authority of the state in self-defense military operation, and this because there is very little hope of the communist leader’s true conversion, restraining him from purporting greater evils by eliminating him from life, provided these points are followed, must be considered as an administration of justice against those who do not in any way possess any authority of the state power, i.e. the communist countries are all illegitimate tyrannical regimes that cannot be tolerated nor recognized.

    It is of course too late today to engage in any sufficient and successful self-defense, as these atheistic communist enemies of God nearly control the whole world.

    Look at the FBI murderous recent history and the answer is obvious…there is no more substantial safeguards for justice to prevail.

      1. Blackrock owns China and Havvai’ian Electric. The fires were caused by deliberate negligence of Havvai’ian Electric. The police detained a long line of cars from evacuating Lahaina. The cop said he was following orders. The Chief is the same criminal who covered up the Mandela Bay Massacre. Governor Green is liable pursuant to the principal of Command Responsibility, even though he was out of the State. He’s a medical doctor who pressured people to get the C19 mRNA lethal injections. You think he didn’t know what would happen by Trump dropping the FDA protocols of testing for safety and efficacy? Green demonstrates a continuing pattern of abuse. The Emergency Kahuna on Maui failed to alert the public. Why didn’t the police and firemen drive around evacuating people over bullhorns? The water department Kahuna, deliberately refused to release water. How many coincidences can be accidental? When Greg Reesse invokes, ‘We The People’, he means that we won’t tolerate Blackrock taking what the now deceased Republican business owners refused to sell. Even non essential business owners hurting economically under Covid restrictions, wouldn’t sell their realty for twenty million dollars.

    1. We the people? Which people? In a few years “the people” will be on the left. In fact, the right is mostly on the left already. Read what you wrote. You are against hierarchy, against wealth, against the elite and for the average guy. This is class warfare, only you pretend to do it from some kind of traditionalist position.

    2. Buying a beachhead & listening post with impunity sends signal the Imperial Japanese Navy could only have dreamed of.

  5. The voting machines are rigged, but who is there to vote for, anyway?

    The Bible doesn’t say to vote for the biggest ego maniac who wants to be dictator. It says to find the best Man for the job, and to press him into service. The most Democratic process advocated in the Bible, is punishment by Stoning. One thrown rock isn’t likely to kill anybody, but if a significant number of people participate, there is a general condenses.

      1. Since there was a update to WordPress, everythng went awry on the site, including notices. Half my buttons do not work. I apologize these problems. They keep adding bells and whistles, and I tried to fix the problems and only made it worse. Will be getting assistance tomorrow on fixes.

    1. Russia is the beneficiary only if Russia wins the war. This nonsense that Tucker puts out is the exact same nonsense we were subjected to during the Vietnam War. We won all the battles, but lost the war when Congress pulled the rug out from under the Army of the Republic of Vietnam.

      1. Peter Zeihan let his opinion of Carlson be known quite pointedly, saying “Carlson is a lying sack of ****.” Given the nonsense and Putinist lies Carlson has spewed, I am compelled to agree with the thrust, if not the language, of Zeihan.

        Carlson is simply one of several prominent men that are part of Putin’s propaganda network. Larry Johnson, and retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor are both people that should know better, but still spew Putin’s lies for him. Johnson is a regular on The Gateway Pundit and has made TGP untrustworthy in all it publishes.

  6. He lost me with his comments around Ashkenazi Jews and the covid virus which sounded very similar to the poisoned well theories put forward during the black plague. I started doing some more research into the anti-vaxxers and they are getting into anti-judaism and blaming the jews.

    1. Stew Peters makes unqualified anti Semitic remarks. It’s as if everybody has at least one, fatal flaw. The gravest error is replacement theology, whereby some supposed Christians believe that the Church replaces Jews as God’s Chosen People. A man can joke about his own wife, but if you insult her he’ll kick your pettubie. The Jews are God’s Chosen People, and if they need disciplining, He will be the one to do it, as always.

    2. Interesting. I was just thinking. If Lee Harvey Oswald had lived, he would be a big left-wing celebrity today, and most of the country would believe he was innocent, and he would have gotten a retrial. He probably would have hosted a successful television show. And Robert Kennedy, Jr. would be his buddy. Except, a Jewish guy named Jack Ruby, with a hairtrigger temper, saw that cat-who-ate-the-canary smirk on Oswald’s face, pulled out his Colt revolver and shot him. In Ruby’s apartment was an article he had read that morning, saying that Jackie Kennedy would have to return to Dallas for Oswald’s trial. Ruby was enraged by the thought of it. Judging by Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s regard for Sirhan Sirhan, you can just imagine what Oswald’s retrial would have looked like.

      1. I was watching TV with my dad, and my mother’s brothers and father, at my grandparents farm when Ruby assassinated Oswald. My dad exclaimed; “He shot the son of a bitch.” Dad turned to ask his brothers in law and father in law. “Did you see that; he shot him!” Then my dad turned to me with a look of concern. “Are you okay?” I said, we sit here every weekend and watch Westerns. I see that all the time. I guess it didn’t make any difference if it were real life or, ‘Have Gun Will Travel’?

      2. A big celebrity like other murderers (Angela Davis, Governor Brown, helter skelter race war Charles Manson even).

    3. You are correct to point out the weird anti-Semitism of anti-Covid vaccine/anti-modern medicine sites like Natural News and Health Impact News.
      HIN had a lot of good news stories on Covid and the vaccines but when you scrolled to the bottom of the articles there were these permanent links:

      Brian Shilhavy, the author of HIN, seems to subscribe to a form of replacement theology. There are almost no true Jews in the ethnic sense (ie people descended from Abraham) surviving today, most of the people who call themselves Jewish are descendants of fake Khazarian/Ashkenazi Jews (Palestinian Arabs are probably more pure Semites than Israelis) and the word “Jewish” used in the Bible means only the followers of Jesus Christ regardless of ethnic background. And all present-day Jewish elites in Israel and other Western countries are Satanic Jews who do the will of Satan. This partition of of fake Ashkenazi Jews and true Semitic Jews sounds similar to the things Steve Ben-Nun often says on the John Moore Show. I think it’s a more nuanced form of anti-Semitism for the 21st century. The extreme Hitlerite form of anti-Semitism which condemned all Jews to death based on bloodlines and race is a non-starter in the post WWII era, but a conspiracy theory that pits Good Jews against Bad Jews has some promise. I remember reading an article once that said this Good Jews vs Bad Jews idea started or was promoted in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

      1. Hi Jeff. Could you change the name at the top of the post to “Laura1986”? I made a mistake when posting, I’d rather not have my full name displayed on a public forum. You can delete this post too once it’s done.

      2. Laura: I have heard people talk of this Australian musician. I have kept an open mind for many years on this sort of thing, and who can say? So many people have invented stories about occult “conspiracies” and secret societies. But are such organizations actually effective? Can they even defend themselves against communists or Nazis?

        Think of the groups that play the secret society game: the various groups within continental masonry, the Freemasons in the UK, the occult revival groups like the Gold Dawn, or the Vrill Society in Germany, the Church of Satan in California, pagans of various types — wiccans, Crowliests, seekers after the Babylonian mysteries, etc. One madman says, “My coven controls the world.” The the other madman says, “My lodge controls the world!” What if God is in control? In that case, one should not believe what various madmen say.

        The most effective secret society or group, are the Leninists. They control whole countries, political parties — openly and underground. Their doctrines are taught in all our leading universities. What chance do the poor masons have against the KGB? We have documented evidence suggesting that Masons do not do well against communists. As Stephen Knight has documented, in his book, “The Brotherhood,” the KGB infiltrated masonic Lodge P2 in Italy, which was incredibly influential in Italian politics and the military. Western intelligence detected the KGB infiltration at a very late stage. The masons turned out to be pretty dim. Knight explained: “From the beginning, Lodge P2 was a KGB-sponsored programme aimed at destabilizing Italy, weakening NATO’s southern flank, sweeping the Communits into power in Italy and sending resultant shock waves throughout the western world. It achieved its first aim, partially succeeded in its second, came close to realizing the third, and all but failed in the fourth.” (p. 281).

        Contrary to that Australian musician, history suggests that the Masons are not so clever. In 1943 SS Reichsfurher Heinrich Himmler gathered an enormous archive on all the masonic lodges in Europe. The famous Italian occultist, Julia Evola, helped the SS in this project when it was based in Vienna, Austria. But, in 1945 the Red Army captured the archive and the project. All that intelligence on the Masons was shipped to Moscow. The KGB would have targeted the most important lodges for infiltration. Given how silly Masons are, how hard could it be for the KGB? If masonry is a club which successfully dominates certain countries, what better path could there be to taking over those countries? It is not that communists are tools of the Masons. Rather, the communists are better at this kind of game than anyone else. Look at the situation today. We have a communist in the Vatican — as Pope. We have a communist shill in the White House. Look at the President of France! We must realize who plays the game best.

        If new information shows otherwise, I am ready to change my opinion.

        PS — Senior officers of British intelligence in the late 1960s did not think masonry was the biggest conspiracy in the world. In fact, MI6 and MI5 believed that the KGB was the biggest conspiracy in the world. And it is widely believed by experts today that the head of MI5 during the sixties (Sir Roger Hollis) was an agent of Soviet intelligence (see the Spy Catcher scandal). Which underscores the point nicely.

      3. Thanks for changing the name. I don’t know much about early 20th century occultists and secret societies, but if the Soviets took an interest in something it’s worth learning about. Clearly, they played the West’s old boys’ clubs like a fiddle. Given the direction our culture is heading freaky occultist societies probably serve as a good way to brainwash and cause further disfunction in our younger generations. Maybe all these threads will eventually converge with the UFO/alien/maybe-Soviet phenomenon if your speculations are correct.

        For a different kind of ‘out there’ theory which I think you may have mentioned before, there were serious inconsistencies with the bodies identified as those of Hitler and Eva Braun by the Soviets. Here is a series of videos by British historian Mark Felton that outline the known history. There will be more videos to follow.

        Find the Führer: The Secret Soviet Investigation (Episode 1)

        Find the Führer: The Secret Soviet Investigation – Episode 2: The ‘Eva Braun’ Corpse

      4. The data of the results of the Covid vaxx is quite anti-vaxx. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the vaxx is dangerous and ineffective. Almost all new cases and deaths from covid are among the vaccinated. Too many have suffered the results. Myocarditis is quite common among the vaccinated, and many I know, that took the vaxx, are suffering from it.

    4. The orthodox Jewish population of New York City was open in sharing the negative effects the covid vaccine was having on their population. They were clear about the reproductive effects on women and birth defects in new babies from very early on.

    5. No, not all anti- vaxxers are anti-judaism and are blaming the jews. Some, like me, have done our research and have found that vaccines are not necessarily. I am a 60 year old granny and nobody has to protect me from a virus and certainly not with a “warp speed” vaccine. I am also not a Bobby Kennedy supporter.

  7. As it can’t be presented often enough, Germany’s ARD television aired on January 6, 2006 a 90-minute documentary titled, “Rendezvous With Death: Why John F. Kennedy Had To Die”. Filmmaker Wilfried Huismann (* 1951), together with Gus Russo, had put three years of intense research into this project, that took him to Mexico City, Havana (interviewing intelligence boss Fabián Escalante in person!) and to the United States. The film pulverises all the fancy, but flawed theories that share one common theme, and one theme only, in that they distract from the real perpetrators behind Lee Harvey Oswald: Cuba and the USSR. Tellingly, the German Left went berserk over the film and tried everything in their power to discredit it. What a tragedy it is that JFK and RFK’s younger brother Ted was such a leftist and that their nephew and son, respectively, cannot see – or refuses to see – what actually happened! What utter betrayal of their immediate relatives who were butchered by communism in two of the most prominent political assassinations of the 20th century!

    CIA official Sam Halpern is also interviewed in this documentary. His ironic summary at the end of the film is both disturbing and ominous:

    “Fidel is a nice guy, by the way. I met him two years ago in Havana. He is a smart man. He is still where he is. And he has outlived how many Presidents now? I forget it, nine or ten. We ate together. We broke bread together. I said, you know, ‘I’m a professional, you’re a professional. We are just talking business.’ And that’s the way it was. It was fun. – He beat us. He bested us. He came out on top. And we lost.”

    1. This is of course the English version. Again, highly recommended.

  8. RFK knew who killed his brother, that is why he had to be also killed. You have zero insider information yet you pretend to know all.

      1. Unlike Nyquist I don’t pretend to know. Probably a conspiracy of top bourgeoise families (Rockefellers), Zionists, Masons (Johnson was a freemason), Mafia and some elements inside the CIA. They all gained, even more after Watergate.

  9. Great essay. The “economy” is arguably another big abstraction. They trot this word out as justification to do anything now, trade w China, print money, bail out friends, bring in foreigners, pass any law and so on, but it really refers to no one in particular and is just a made up magical word, in my opinion. Also completely agree about how superficial even our supposedly brightest people are. One can read them for a couple days, maybe learn something, maybe not, then after that the absolute lack of depth and breadth in learning becomes painfully clear.

  10. Years ago, I read Posner’s “Case Closed” and closed the book with few answers. The Warren Commission was not established to get answers, but to cover them up. Some of the conclusions of the commission, such as the “magic bullet” theory, are clearly absurd. Such conclusions call into question everything they published.

    I have no use for Garrison, and I think we can agree that was is a malicious idiot. Stone is no better.

    1. No answers from “Case Closed”? But he answered everything, with a fine toothed comb. And rifle bullets are made to do exactly the kind of damage done by the bullet that struck Kennedy and Conally — to pass through one body with enough momentum to hit another body. There’s no magic, just the rhetoric of a conspiracy theorist mocking the possibility that a bullet can pass through Kennedy into Gov. Conally. What’s so magical about that?

      1. Have you ever observed what happens to bullets when fired into ballistic gel? Now multiply what happens to soft lead bullets when they hit bone, as this one supposedly did. Now do you see why this one is called “magic bullet”?

      2. Seconds
        Song by the Human League
        (About Oswald’s shooting of Kennedy)

        All day
        Hiding from the sun
        Waiting for the golden one
        Waiting for your fame
        After the parade has gone

        Outside was a happy place
        Every face had a smile like the golden face
        For a second
        Your knuckles white as your fingers curl
        The shot that was heard around the world
        For a second

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        It took seconds

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        It took seconds

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        It took seconds of your time to take his life

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        It took seconds

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        It took seconds

        For a second

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        It took seconds

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        It took seconds

        For a second

        It took seconds of your time to take his life
        Seconds of your time to take his life
        For a second
        For a second
        For a second

      3. I have not been following the conspiracy theories, I read a little bit on them in the past but gave it up as unfruitful, but none that I knew of said that it was undamaged. I have seen photographs of that bullet, and the amount of damage on it is a fraction of the damage on bullets that have gone through flesh and especially bone. Even bullets fired into ballistic gel usually show more damage than that. That’s why it is called the “magic bullet”.

  11. Maybe I’m a foolish woman, but I can’t help but think human nature will reassert itself when things are at their worst, and the thin paper of this leveling will be torn and someone strong will emerge to lead us out of this disaster. I found accounts of the seige of Sarajevo to be interesting in this way. All manifestations of feminism were completely discarded within family groups and men took complete charge of the situation when times became dangerous. In the descriptions I read, it was like the flicking on of a biological switch. I guess in the meantime, ordinary people can present themselves publicly as people worth leading. There is a lot of online chatter about the return of covid restrictions in the fall. Maybe we will soon have a chance to show ourselves as such.

  12. It would be important task to estimate the number, even percentage-wise, of the CPUSA members today, how many such communist fanatics are active today, and where they are located, inside which positions of influence and state (local, state, federal) authority.

    That would be a priceless information. It doesn’t matter too much if they are not openly communists, or communist agents, but so long as they follow their orders from their communist superiors and are even willing to commit crimes in the name of such false and fanatical obedience to the cause, they are equally responsible for the evil results.

    So then there were some who ended up in Soviet Union and learned first hand that the whole idea is a complete fraud and they realized that they were deceived into landing their aid to its implementation, and some of them even wrote about it and warned others about it.

    It is the unwillingness of most of the comfortable populus to continue being vigilant (or learning it for the first time in life), when it comes to the dangers of communist slavery.

    The worst kind of systematic abuse of authority on part of the communist agents who gained access to the high places in the government is to further the policies of the Communist Party and camouflage them as the policies of the Democrat etc. (communist infiltrated) political party and of the government agencies and branches of the government.

    So then when those who are members of the targeted political party are not willing to cooperate in the communist operations, which includes secret communist subversion of the entire government (executive, military, police, judicial and legislative, down to the local levels), then such people are dealt with by the communists, using any and all means necessary…those are the communist ends that (to this atheistic communist criminal Mafia) justify the means…any means that is.

    In regards to the Hawaii situation – perhaps testing the means how to cause these kind of destabilizing evils all over the country, and elsewhere in the world, in order to destabilize the country without being noticed behind it, to make it look like an accident or at most as incompetence, but never as strategic intent of the communists…and of course, it is all part of the most important demoralization strategy, they want people to become truly scared of the government, without revealing that the government is already penetrated and run by the communists themselves, them fully subordinated to Moscow and Beijing.

    It is a truly horrible and most evil diabolically driven criminal Mafia, there is no compromise possible with it, and only thing these criminals understand is force, nothing less, as otherwise they will lie and cheat and deceive, all in the name of their diabolical cause…at the end these servants of Satan will regret the day they were born, ultimately in Hell.

  13. Hello Jeff :

    Great essay. I don’t understand why people can’t get it that the Cubans ( and the Russians ) had JFK – and also RFK – assassinated. It is good that you go over some of the details for people that may still have lingering doubts or are susceptible to some of the conspiracy theories.

    On another point, I would disagree about assassinating foreign leaders. I think it is a matter of prudence, not morality. When dealing with an implacable, savage enemy one needs to defeat the enemy, period. Some things, such as actual torture should be off the table. And assassinations should not be on the top of the list. But I didn’t get the memo – would the enemy somehow take killing our leaders out of consideration if we did so ? Do they fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules of war ?

    And in the case of the hit on Suleimani of Iran’s IRGC, I totally support that hit. The U.S. State Department went to great lengths to show that the IRGC ( of which Suleimani was the kingpin ) operates as a terrorist organization. From what I know about the IRGC I would also agree with that assessment.

    But in the case of the Kennedy’s they should have known that getting Castro was not possible and could backfire. And with Saddam it was a fiasco when they tried an inside plot ( under Clinton ) to get him. But when the war against Saddam’s government was able to get him and his sons and his Baathist government destroyed, I would say that it succeeded. I don’t hear of any assassination attempts on our presidents coming ffrom the current Iraqi government. As happened under Saddam. We spoke in a language they could understand. And I think many of them understood.

    That’s my 2 cents anyway.

    1. And if the Iranians retaliate and kill an American president will you still think it a good practice to assassinate enemy leaders going to a parlay?


      2. Re:
        [ WADE QUEEN says:
        AUGUST 21, 2023 AT 12:35 PM
        …END FATE… ]

        They finally drew blood from Rushdie, but he’s still standing. Trump as Jeff suggests, might well be considered by the Left to be their lightening rod. I would go further and say that he’s controlled opposition.

        As for General Suleimani, he wasn’t head of state, and he was definitely asking for it. Suleimani was a soldier, and he had the audacity to get off a plane on US occupied territory. Sour grapes is that he probably had cancer and wanted to die a martyr.

  14. Assassinations are never a good practice. But the IRGC was trying to assassinate Trump. And Pompeo. And Blinken. I saw Blinken state that in a news conference. If I knew the IRGC was trying to kill me I would try to get them before they could get me. So it’s not a question of retaliation. They were already attempting to kill our government officials. A lot of what these evil governments do does not depend on our actions. They follow their own schedule according to their own goals.

    The Biden administration is soft as heck when negotiating with Iran. But maybe they don’t like being assassinated.

    Or maybe I’m a hot head who should never work for the government.

    1. The IRGC was reportedly trying to assassinate Trump and other leaders after Trump ordered Suliemani assassinated. Where is the proof of such activity beforehand? Links?

  15. That communism is atheistic heresy and anti-Catholic evil is a known fact. Under communism the Church cannot function and must hide from the communist persecution, thus the peril of eternal perdition is immense for those who are thus bared from receiving the true Sacraments, including Sacrament of Penance.

    Summa Theologie, 2, 2, Question 108 – whether vengeance is lawful

    St. Thomas Aquinas:

    I answer that, Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.”

    If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.

    Reply to Objection 1. He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins.

    Reply to Objection 2. The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Chrysostom…says: “It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked.”

    ALL communist governments are illegitimate, they do not possess the secular authority of the state, including even the potentiality that the people may be voting for the Communist Party in the elections and thus legally elect the communists – this is of course hypothetical and highly unlikely (this is why the communists cheat in elections while they are still free somewhat, as otherwise it is improbable they will win with the communist policies as such).

    But their evil system of government prevents the ultimate end of man’s life to be realized – eternal salvation of the soul, as the essential liberty of conscience is ALWAYS suppressed by the communist tyrants, as history of communism teaches clearly.

    Thus they (communists) war against God and against those who want to save their souls for all eternity. Thus it is fully justified to fight against the communists, including organized assassinations, in self-defense of these sacred principles, to restrain the evil tyrants from inflicting even more evils than they already have…but it has to have the authority of the justified entity behind it, any individual attempt without it is wrong.

    This was the case, for example, of the Irish War for Independence, and the shameful British atrocities in Ireland in the early 1900s. It had the backing of the Papal decree dating all the way back to the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, when the Pope decreed that the Irish people do NOT owe allegiance nor obedience to the tyrannical heretic English monarchs, and this for the protection of the Catholic religion.


    In his Encyclical Diuturnum Illud (On the origins of civil power) 29 June 1881 AD, Pope Leo XIII wrote:

    #15) “…if the will of the rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, when where is no justice, is null…”

    It means that the established (communist etc.) tyranny is the terminating factor of the secular power’s authority, and so then all necessary justified means to restrain or eliminate such tyranny are possible to be contemplated, provided they are within bounds of the just authority that is engaged in them.

    The secular sword to punish evils is not granted by God to tyrants, in fact God expects them to be punished by organized effort to restrain them and bring them to justice, provided this is possible to be done…which, with His help, all things are possible, using the equivalent means of resistance, never excessive means.

    1. Assassination of leaders is a vile practice. Nearly all codes of chivalry and war are against it, and for very solid reasons. Once you descend to such a practice you destroy any chance of peace with any and all enemies, for all will expect you to dispatch assassins to kill then. Therefore, they will dispatch assassins. As this practice spreads, all relations become more violent and unstable. You get a world where leaders are continually being murdered. It’s no good, and it’s quite mad. Furthermore, this personalizes conflict while turning leaders into murderers. What possible good can come from such a practice?

      1. And yet, it does have Biblical Warrant. Ehud took out Eglon, and Moab collapsed. When you have an enemy, who is ruling over and oppressing your people, and you can end their oppression and collapse their country by killing their leader, it seems an effective strategy of war. You see it in OT warfare, where there was clearly a strategy in war to take out the king, as the one behind whom the people rallied.
        I don’t think it’s an inherently evil tactic, if one’s war is just.

      2. Jon Noel: The sixth commandment, which forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful, does not contain an exception. The key definition of assassination is “a murder committed treacherously, or by stealth or surprise or by laying in wait.”

        Perhaps more relevant, Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 11905 and 12333, prohibiting assassinations on behalf of the U.S. Government. The principle of no assassinations was wisely affirmed by these two presidents.

        The 1956 Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, which was completed in 2019, prohibits assassination. A memo written by Hays Parks, Chief of the International Affairs Division of the Judge Advocate General, is considered a classic comment on assassinations. The memo can be found here:

        It states, in part, “…the killing of Martin Luther King and Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy generally are regarded as assassination because each involved the mruder of a public figure or national leader for political purposes accomplished through a surprise attack.”

        He points out that U.S. Army General Orders No. 100 (1863), paragraph 148 states, “Assassination. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an invididual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trail by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such an outrage….”

        Parks points out that this U.S. Army General Order, issued in the midst of the rebellion know as the American Civil War, was “consistent with the earlier writings of Hugo Grotius, [and] … has been continued in U.S. Army Field Manuel 27-10.

        Furthermore, Article 23b, Annex to the Hague Convention IV, 1907, “is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy ‘dead or alive.'”

        Parks’s summary states, “Assassination constitutes an act of murder that is prohibited by international law and Executive Order 12333. The purpose of Executive Order 12333 and its predecessors was to preclude unilateral actions by individual agents or agencies against selected foreign public officials and to establish beyond any doubt that the United states does not condone assassination as an instrument of national policy. Its intent was not to limit lawful self defense options against legitimate threats to the national security….”

        The prohibition on murder, stretching back to the Ten Commandments, is very old and has been affirmed by philosophers and legal authorities for hundreds of years. All serious thinkers agree that assassination is murder. The taking of a life by treahcerous violence is dishonorable on its face. To be sure, few have regard for honor today — which is one of our core problems.

        If assassination involves “political killing,” so much the worse; for the political motive is one that should be imbued with a sense of honor.

        It is ironic that readers, who believe political assassinations are perfectly fine if directed against the right enemy, are so unable to keep their eyes on the story presented in the article. John and Bobby Kennedy plotted to kill Castro. The plot boomeranged on them, and they were killed. If this is not an object lesson for Americans, I do not know what is. How can you read the story and not grasp one of the main points?

      3. It’s very simple what they are hiding. They are hiding evidence of the wider communist involvement in the Kennedy assassination — hiding the DGI’s involvement with Oswald.

        President Johnson once said the reason to cover up the truth about Oswald’s connections with communist Cubawas that a right wing reaction would happen in America, and the Democratic Party would be locked out of power for two generations.

        Johnson was a smart liberal.

  16. Communists have no legitimate government authority and active warfare against these atheistic tyrants is permissible, provided those who resist the communists do so with the means equivalent to those used by the communists.

    So there is nothing wrong nor vile about it.

    If there was active resistance against the communists in the countries that were brought under the Bolshevik yoke, then the communists wouldn’t be able to flourish nor succeed at all.

    There were in times past assassinations ordered by legitimate governments, as for example the successful assassination of SS Reinhard Heydrich, which was carried out under orders from the exiled Czechoslovak government in England in 1942 or so, by Czech paratroopers.

    Heydrich as the Reich’s Protector in Boehmen und Moeren, was the 2nd most powerful man in Germany, after Hitler. The operation was called Andropoid, there were at least 3 movies made about it, one worse than the other.

    Heydrich had a plan to resettle the whole of what is today Czech Republic, some were to be killed, some removed into different countries, some sterilized, children brought into Germany for re-education.

    There was a military assassination attempt on the life of general De Gaule in France, because he had given up Algeria, which was before French colony…it was unsuccessful.

    It is certain that Moscow today has almost the same plan.

    By assassinating Heydrich the Germans were restrained and have given up this evil plan.

    Not always it is permissible to do this, but the authority of the state does NOT belong to those who use it for installing tyranny, which means that active resistance to it, including assassinating the so called leader (in this case a member of the Russian and Chinese communist criminal Mafia) is not forbidden, provided it can be done with the subsequent removal of the rest of the tyrants as well – this is not the case today, so this option is not even possible, the question is about whether this is morally permissible – yes, it is, as quoted above in the previous post.

    If this was not permissible then Europe would have been left to the tyrants and the US wouldn’t have perhaps even existed, nay, the children of Israel would have been overrun by the Assyrians if Judith didn’t cut off the head of general Holofernes…

    So it is morally permissible to assassinate the evil leaders, provided the justified act is for the purpose of securing justice and defending the honor of God.

    Biblical reference:

    And she struck twice upon his neck, and cut off his head, and took off his canopy from the pillars, and rolled away his headless body. [Judith 13:10]

    1. I do not say there is anything wrong with making war against communists. Please do not misunderstand. Assassination of leaders is not war. It is, legally, murder.

    2. PS — About Heydrich. I do not know where you are getting this story about Heydrich moving the Czechs out of Czechia. I have never heard of this and it is not likely to be true. (Is there a link?) The Czech’s produced a lot of German weapons during the war, by special agreement with Hitler. Their factories were very important, and without Czech skilled workers German war production would have fallen short. It seems to me that Heydrich’s assassination is rather an example of why assassinations are a bad idea; for SS Gen. Walter Schellenberg and others relate in their memoirs that Heydrich’s successor, SS Gen. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, was more brutal and wicked than Heydrich. Tragically, the Germans retaliated on an entire innocent Czech town in the wake of Heydrich’s murder — causing innocent men to die. So, what was accomplished by this British assassination plot? Was there any good result? I do not think so. Kaltenbrunner managed plenty of atrocities in the years that followed; and Heydrich, who was said to be part Jewish, privately thought the persecution of the Jews was senseless — though his ruthless ambition led him to follow every order given by Hitler. Would Heydrich have later joined Schellenberg’s scheme to depose Hitler via Himmler? However unlikely, we will never know because the assassination of Heydrich took that possibility out of the equation. Furthermore, if assassination in this case was worthwhile, why didn’t the Allies assassinate Kaltenbrunner? Or did they learn a lesson from the Heydrich plot? In the end, Kaltenbrunner was hanged after being tried for his crimes. Would you have forgone that trial and simply shot him in the head? Then you would have committed an act of judicial murder. On principle, it’s not a good idea to assassinate enemy leaders. Blood is then on your hands. Someone in another country might then consider you to be a criminal, and if that is the way civilized people are allowed act, you might yourself be on somebody else’s list for liquidation. That you hate your enemy is understandable, yet God says we should not hate — and besides this, hatred is father to many bad judgments. Killing your enemy on the battlefield is right and proper. But assassinating him while he is riding to work, or to a parlay, or engaged in some activity off the battlefield, is traditionally regarded as a criminal practice. Have governments engaged in assassination? Shamefully, yes. The British have a very bad record in this regard, during the twentieth century. American leaders also approved assassinations, and it was wrong. Look at what happened to the Diem brothers in Vietnam. This destabilized Vietnam, leading to a massive American intervention. Many have laid the guilt for that on JFK, though his nephew covers all this with obfuscatory narratives, blaming anticommunists. Do you imagine there is a practical benefit to assassinating an evil leader? What benefit? Evil leaders come out of larger evil system. Kill one and another takes his place. We do not possess magical powers of foreknowledge by which we know whether an assassination will produce a good outcome. It is hubris to guide history by way of murder. Such a practice places the practitioner above Providence. If God moves you, by some Divine grace, to cut someone’s head off, then it’s a special dispensation — an exception to the rule. I am pointing here to right principle. Can’t you see it? I am sad to say that our confused anti-traditional mentality, with its moral nihilism, embraces assassination readily. And I am perplexed that people today see no evil in it. Worse yet, assassination has practical drawbacks. The ancient Romans plotted to assassinate Attila the Hun. Did it save the Roman Empire from eventual collapse? No. It was a sign of Rome’s decline. I fear this lack of scruples, regarding enemies, is a symptom of our own degeneracy.

      1. It is the confusion of the temporal and the spiritual realms that was signified by the Donation of Pepin, that is the root sickness of the West, and thus why there is such dishonorable things and such misunderstanding.

  17. IMO, eating meat and eating dairy are one of the few pleasures of life. Being a vegan would be a form of torture for me, personally.

    I guess that it’s true–these so-called ‘elites’ want us to starve to death! Unbelievable–and so cruel, so inhumane. So, we’ll starve to death while living in cramped, dark apartments that either overheat or freeze, depending on the season. Or maybe they’re hoping that we’ll just kill ourselves in despair.

      1. Kellogg wanted adolescent boys to eat corn flakes instead of animal foods to reduce their hormonal drives. I think he was religious.

        Vegans probably all vote Democrat today. To me that’s commie–maybe unwitting. I’ve followed diet issues since 1970 and I think the early vegans were mainly concerned about animal cruelty.

      2. I have been around some vegans and vegetarians, and done some skimming on the thing, there is some overlap between communists and vegans, and one thing that jumps at me is that there’s some intense, deep-seated misanthropy that comes from vegan groups, people who will openly say that mankind is some sort of disease that is always torturing the animals, the vegan misanthropy is a common talking point around the web, not that every vegan is that way, but the whole vegan environment seems to promote this idea that if you’re not in tune with their plight, that you’re some sort of soulless monster. There is a strange form of animal worship going on in those circles, the whole inversion of values does really ring a bell with the revolutionary inversion. It’s not uncommon for people involved with those vegan movements, those activists to also join ranks with the Climate Alarmism crowd, their discourses align rather well, I have also seen some of those folk advocating Antinatalism, how every man should get a vasectomy, and this goes with their angle that mankind itself is a problem that has to be contained or eradicated. The whole vegan business sure is a good avenue to attack big capitalists involved with livestock as heartless monsters who profit purely from animal suffering.

      3. I don’t think former vegan/feminist Lierre Keith (The Vegetarian Myth) would be offended if I characterized her as left-wing. She steadfastly resisted eating animal foods for the longest time even as she noticed her soy-girl/boy friends losing their memories and suffering, herself, from a degenerating spine.

        When she addressed a vegan group in San Francisco about abandoning veganism, they became very abusive and pelted her with foodstuffs. Her health improved, but the spinal problem was irreversible–the last I heard. She also stopped gathering up her garden snails for safe transport to nearby natural areas.

    1. But look on the bright side. Our Despair is their Joy!

      Chriss Street, a California economist, just laughs when someone asks him about the globalists and their radical designs. He says they failed in the ’70s and they’ll fail now. I intend to do my part to make him right.


    Despite public displays of goodwill towards the populace, privately Heydrich was very clear about his eventual goal: “This entire area will one day be definitely German, and the Czechs have nothing to expect here.” Eventually up to two-thirds of the populace were to be either removed to regions of Russia or exterminated after Nazi Germany won the war. Bohemia and Moravia faced annexation directly into the German Reich.

    Heydrich came to Prague to enforce policy, fight resistance to the Nazi regime, and keep up production quotas of Czech motors and arms that were “extremely important to the German war effort”.[2] He viewed the area as a bulwark of Germandom and condemned the Czech resistance’s “stabs in the back”.

    In the furtherance of his goals, Heydrich decreed racial classification of those who could and could not be Germanized. He explained: “Making this Czech garbage into Germans must yield to methods based on racist thought.”[4] Racial surveys, conducted under the pretext of tuberculosis prevention, found the Czechs to be more Nordic than the Sudeten Germans, East Prussians, and many Austrians and Bavarians. These results were kept secret.[5] In 1940 Hitler agreed that around half of the Czech population were suitable for Germanization, while the “mongoloid types” and the Czech intelligentsia were not to be Germanized and were to be “deprived of [their] power, eliminated, and shipped out of the country by all sorts of methods.

    Under Generalplan Ost, the Nazis had intended to displace the un-Germanizable population to Siberia. However, due to the war effort’s need for labor, this plan was never implemented.[9]

    There is the difference between active military warfare and political assassination, for the purpose to alter the political landscape of the targeted country. The 2nd is never permitted, yes, that would be a murder then. The first may even be necessary and is fully justified, by laws of charity and military warfare, and those countries that are not Catholic will never understand this moral theology.

    (The arch-heretic Luther was evidently discouraging his followers to fight against the Turks…so it was left to the European Catholics to win the fights, including that of Lepanto…otherwise Europe would be Muslim and perhaps the USA would not be existing as such…)

    WW2 was fought, Heydrich was the NAZI enemy and with evil plans, Germans were the unjust occupants of entire countries and therefore, morally, the assassination of Heydrich was not wrong at all, and even beneficial, because of his evil plans. There are more indications in the archives that he would have gone even further with his evils if he was permitted to continue.

    BUT the question was whether this is permissible – and that was explained – when governments abuse justice and install tyranny instead, the population has the necessary duty to actively resist with equal means, so when the tyrants begin to murder people and execute them, then active measures of equal means are justified, because the evil government has abused authority and has therefore no longer any just claim to it.

    In case of what the Kennedys were planning for Castro, it was connected with the plan to liberate the Cuban people from the yoke of communist tyranny, which is an act of charity, not of evil.

    It is a honorable deed to fight the enemies of God and even required, as for example the victory against Russian Bolsheviks and their Spanish communist government in Spain (1939 AD), AFTER the Papal blessing of Pope Pius XI for the Holy Crusade of Gen. Franco was obtained.

    There is no difference between the direct Divine command and help to kill the leader of evil forces and what needs to be done such evil forces try to destroy the existing order established by God and His Laws, and this means active warfare and active resistance, including means as assassination of leaders, when and if that becomes viable and necessary…and it is not a murder, it is defense of justice, when done by organized and well morally established effort, and with only honorable and just ends as the guiding principle.

    1. Castro should have been defeated — of course. But a report existed which was written during the Kennedy Administration, showing that Castro’s assassination would not have caused the fall of the regime. This report should have been used to influence the Kennedys. Perhaps, in that event, the Kennedys might have lived long enough to defeat Castro without assassination plots.

      As for the plan of moving the Czechs to Siberia, it was all conditional on Germany conquering Siberia. And it did not depend on Heydrich. General Kaltenbrunner could have carried this out. All the same, it was a kind of fantasy which Heydrich’s assassination did nothing to prevent. The Red Army prevented it. Hitler planned to kill all sorts of people had he won the war. He was a maniac. For example, he wanted to wipe out the entire German aristocracy. Certainly, the Nazis were evil. And making war on them was the right thing to do. But I do not see assassination as effective or honorable. War should be waged honorably — for our own sake, and for the sake of the peace that follows. It was a great Spanish cleric and thinker who said, “Never fight with poison weapons.” Here is the principle of honor expressed in a different way. And to your point, it is not a matter of what your enemy would do. Moral authority does not correspond with such methods.

      1. With all the assassinations of Putin’s enemies? Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Berezovsky, Nemtsov, and the poisoning of Navalny. Putin is the biggest user of assassins out there. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt on some of the murders, he most certainly ordered many of them). It’s a regime of murder. Look at all the oligarchs falling out of windows and dying in “suicides.”

      2. Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Berezovsky, Nemtsov, and Navalny were never heads of state, and neither was Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri.

      3. Berezovsky is the guy who brought Putin in the Kremlin. Putin has been ungrateful towards him

      4. It was very clever to get everyone to think Berezovsky brought Putin into the Kremlin, but Putin was already inside the Presidential Administration before he was appointed head of the FSB. I think we have to be careful about believing these set piece narratives.

  19. “Why people think this photo of JFK’s killer is fake”…

    1. As if it all hinges on this image? Then why are there thousands of pages of documents not being released? If Castro turned the tables on an unsubstantiated claim that the Kennedy brothers had plotted a hit on him, then why not release the files?

      1. Do you think those leftists that control the government want the country to see Kennedy as the victim as the victim of a crazed communist paid by Castro? Of course they have to hide the truth. Anticommunism might stage a comeback if the truth came out. And read the freaking article. The claim that the Kennedy brothers plotted to kill Castro is not an unsubstantiated claim. The Landsdale memo proves it. Al Haig’s testimony in the linked documentary proves it. The Johnson tapes prove it. Show some respect for the facts.

      2. Once again Jeff, your circular reasoning gaslights us. As if the evidence can’t be revealed because it proves your out of context assertions. Since the facts are not in evidence, that supposedly makes your unproven case. Prove that the withheld documents don’t show that the CIA killed the Kennedys in collaboration with the KGB.

      3. THE: Your posts are always lazily insolent. And you never effectively explain why you think my arguments are wrong. You use the word “evidence” without referring to any evidence. You use the word “context” without telling us what the context ought to be. You write as if my inference about the hidden aspects of the Kennedy assassination are not perfectly clear. There is nothing circular in my argument. All these insiders — including President Johnson and Al Haig and Nixon, etc., believed that the Kennedys were trying to kill Castro. The Landsdale memo proves it! And Oswald was pro-Castro, as anyone who studies the case will see. Are you incapable of seeing a logical inference without it biting you in the eyeball? Since you are so dense, let me spell it out: Oswald killed Kennedy because (1) he was a communist who thought killing Kennedy would put him in good standing with Fidel Castro, whose approval he craved; (2) the political establishment did not want Oswald’s motives and links to Cuba known, especially because anticommunism would likely become domestically powerful again, hurting the liberals in the Democratic Party (who would have been ruined); (3) therefore, president Johnson told the Warren Commission they did not want the public to think the USSR or Cuba had any involvement in Kennedy’s death; and (4) they did not want Americans to know their leaders plotted to assassinate foreign leaders, since that was not publicly accepted practice back then (and would have scandalized us in front of the entire world). Obviously, President Johnson believed Castro was behind JFK’s murder. That’s a fact we all learned when Johnson’s White House tapes were release in the late 1990s. And I have quotes from leading players to show Johnson was not alone in his opinion. Where’s your quotes? How do you support your opinion? You just accused me of lying — of using a fallacious form of argument. But everything you write is fallacious and dishonestly argued. And you do this under the cover of anonymity!

      4. Re:
        [ JEFF NYQUIST says:
        AUGUST 22, 2023 AT 5:02 PM

        “…President Johnson and Al Haig and Nixon, etc., believed that the Kennedys were trying to kill Castro.” ]

        Why do they believe that? Who are the first hand witnesses that over heard the Kennedy brothers plotting it? When did that discovery occur?

  20. Today we see the CIA training and arming NAZIS while Russia depopulates ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Who are the majority shareholders of Blackrock? Bearer shares.

    1. I didn’t know that the CIA is training and arming the Wagner Group, the largest NAZI group in the world today. Where is your evidence?

      1. PS – Anything inconsistent with your preconcieved conspiracy beliefs is dismissed as part of the conspiracy. That’s the sickness of it.

  21. It is called manifest intentions – which then guide those who detect them and when they are evil and cause tyranny and injustice, and it is possible to pass (authoritative) judgment on them – and so to have the history of being a criminal and a member of a criminal organization or political party that espouses evil ideology, like National Socialism or Communism in any form, then when these intentions are manifest by criminal plans, crimes already committed and so on, even public statements backed by already proclaimed policy of the state (Nazis, Communist), then all such efforts to restrain or to minimize or totally hamper such evil plans are justified, provided such efforts are not unjust or evil in their outcome.

    Yes, of course, there are limits to what can be done justly, but the question was whether it is morally permitted to be done, and so the answer is yes, under these strict circumstances.

    The Czechoslovak government in UK had no way of knowing how the war will continue in 1942, but Heydrich had already many people executed (they were even using the guillotine, if the memory serves), and so these plans of his (and he was in change then), were the cause of the operation to take him out, and also the British had interest in it because Heydrich may have had some intelligence data on Canaris, who was British agent, and so to eliminate Heydrich would have protected Canaris from being uncovered, which served the British war effort as well…but this is only sort of speculation at this point as there is no time to research this more thoroughly now and the memory only vaguely registered that something of a kind was the probability.

    The communist criminal Castro has terrorized the whole island of Cuba, had people murdered, and even spread communist mayhem into Angola etc., supported the ANC communist terrorist Mandela and so on, as did the Kremlin. Castro is paying for his evils in Hell, so justice is served by God upon him.

    Yes, it would have been better to attack Cuba and eliminate the whole communist government, but then such like operations require firm anti-communist determination, and that is missing, and many are there who are friendly to communism, namely the whole leadership of the Democrat Party then and today even more…and what about the KGB etc, communist spies inside the US government…that of itself may have played the factor too, as well.

    The best ideal way is when there are no enemies of God and no evils in this world, but that would require that the father of all evils the devil wouldn’t exist, which is not the case.

    Evil times are here and so part of the task is to prevent the evil of communism to take over the whole world, and if it means to resist the communist tyrannical government and eliminate its leaders (not just one but the leadership as a whole), then that is no forbidden and it is not morally wrong.

    1. Yes, it is true that Heydrich was onto Admiral Canaris (who as head of German military intelligence was helping the British). And had Heydrich lived Canaris would have been arrested earlier than he was. The Third Reich was a very tangled web.

    2. “provided such efforts are not unjust or evil in their outcome.” This is an ends justifies the means argument. Therefore, any evil is allowed, as long as it gives good ends.

      I don’t buy that. We are not to do immoral activities. Period.

      However, there are times when we wrestle as to what is moral. For example, executing a murderer is killing, but is it murder and immoral? God himself commands that sort of killing. What about killing in war? Is the enemy commander on the battlefield a legitimate target? How far does it go? I see there’s disagreement in this discussion, but the first step is to agree that we are not to do wicked and immoral actions.

      1. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil [Romans 13 : 3 – 4]
        The secular state power, if legitimate, has the authority to execute criminals, even by putting them to death, and also has the duty to administer justice when that is required by law, or in military defense of the country, by killing the enemy on the battle field (or by assassination operation which is part of that warfare). As the quote from the Holy Scripture shows, it is the ordinance of God, and it was always understood that way.

        The communists of course would like to pervert this so that pacifism and such like perversions would be the outcome, when it comes to active resistance to the communist tyranny, but they will not get anywhere with it because those who understand this point and after the communist brutal atrocities are apparent (and they will be), there will be then very little hesitation left to defend one”s liberty of conscience…based on the actual circumstances and the true well organized anti-communist resistance…

        Did Nosenko say anything about the JFK assassination ? (this was outside the realm of justice, as communists lack any authority of the secular sword to do it…as they are the enemies of God and illegitimate governments…usually stolen by communist election fraud).

      2. Nosenko allegedly had control of the Oswald file in Moscow. He claimed that Oswald had no relationship with the KGB. This is doubtful, especially when we look at his trip to Mexico. It appears the KGB had Oswald under close observation in the USSR and after his return to the USA, and they passed him off to the Cuban secret service. This is controversial, of course.

  22. Mr Nyquist, you asked me what the confusion of the spiritual and the temporal and secular entailed, as to its roots. I had mentioned the Donation of Pepin( in 789 AD I believe )as the beginning of this confusion, because the Bishop of Old Rome received the secular administration and personal property of most of central Italy, the future ” Papal States”, to govern that was a gift of the Franks after they defeated the Lombards. This confusion of roles led to the Schism between West and East and everything else that followed. Church and State should be in harmony and compliment, protect and inform one another, not have all Authority and Sovereignty in one person.

      1. Well, there’s still a Vatican City State, right? It’s all falling apart, but I’ve noticed signs of curious but interesting revival elsewhere , writing as an outside observer. Still, the confusion remains; modern people make religion a secular concern, and/or try to make a religion out of political positions, creating the Modernist political ideologies. Eventually one person will take all the Authority and Sovereignty both spiritual and temporal, to ” solve” the problem.

  23. P.S. Nosenko

    This just gives the more credit to Golitsyn who explained correctly that Nosenko was a KGB plant to discredit him.

    It would have been more surprising if Nosenko actually said that the KGB was behind it, it is amazing that when they are in the corner they always follow the Party line and lie the more.

    There is simply no way that when the Soviet Visa is obtained that they didn’t check who that is and how that could serve their communist cause (i.e. recruitment, or blackmail ops, or both).

    Since Oswald was already communist there is no doubt that the KGB made use of him, so when Nosenko claimed otherwise, no wonder Angleton didn’t believe him – how could that even be conceivable that a committed communist wouldn’t be willing to help his masters to further the cause ?

    Anyway, this is extremely important information which just adds to the whole picture who these enemies of God truly are. It seems like the KGB moles inside the CIA had it ready to get rid of Angleton because of Nosenko’s affair, it looks like it was orchestrated for that purpose, so that the US counter-intelligence apparatus would be totally crippled since then.

    1. Angleton lost his position as head of the CIA Counterintelligence Staff after an article by Seymour Hersh targeted him in December 1974 (going by memory). Some believe that CIA Director Colby provided the information to Hersh that caused Angleton’s departure from CIA. The information was about an FBI program for opening the mail (illegally) of American citizens sending and receiving mail from the Soviet Union. Angleton was supposedly involved with this illegal FBI project.

      1. It is the flexibility of the communist operations which makes it the more dangerous, as they are capable of adapting to any and nearly all situations, and they were able to use the existing legal system for their own advantage.

        Well, if the security of the state requires it, to read mail of foreign nationals which comes from communist countries is sometimes even necessary, if they are persons of interest as they are called. Of course it is wrong to spy on the country’s own citizens, unless they are involved in helping the enemies, as traitors.

        Well, but this seems as self-destructive mentality what happened to Angleton, perhaps the KGB was afraid that he as an experienced intelligence officer would have hampered their strategy much more than anybody else.

        One of the failures of the whole era is to continue, after so many proofs of evil from the Bolsheviks, to have diplomatic and other ties with them, and to continue recognizing them as legitimate government, which they are not and never will be.

  24. For some reason WordPress never sent me an email notification about this post, so I’m only just now going to start reading this! Glad I discovered it while the commenting was still open.

    The reason I checked the site was because I saw this in the news this morning…

    “The State Department, in its warning, encouraged Americans still in Belarus to depart the country immediately and categorized the country as a Level 4 risk, the highest security warning….”

    I wonder if they have more intel along the lines of what Felshtinsky has been saying:

  25. Jeff, oh I wish you hadn’t expounded on the topic of the Kennedy assassination. At the very least, not gone beyond criticizing Robert Kennedy’s statements concerning it.

    I don’t have a horse in this race, nothing to prove, I go only on the solid evidence that I know, and that isn’t very much. I expect that I will go to my grave not knowing what really happened that day.

    Yours is the best conspiracy theory that I have seen. It ties up loose ends where I didn’t know there were loose ends. You have solid information of the involvement of Castro and the KGB in that assassination. Your information based on evidence even shows motive for the assassination. But yours is still a conspiracy theory because it is a theory about a conspiracy.

    Having said the above, I have yet to see solid evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald fired a single shot that day. We have video evidence that the secret service officers were ordered off the presidential limousine as it entered Dealey Plaza. The Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a bullet in his throat before another from in front blew his brains out. Numerous people immediately afterwards acted on the belief that they heard at least one shot come from the grassy knoll. The doctors at the hospital, who were well trained and experienced trauma doctors, reported that they found two entrance wounds on the front of the body—one at the base of the throat (covered by JFK’s hands in the Zapruder film) and the second at the upper right forehead at the hairline. I saw at least one video of a doctor making that claim. Except for additional minor pieces of evidence, this was all the information that I had, not enough to weave into a conspiracy theory but enough to falsify the Warren Report.

    Speculation wastes time and gets nowhere. Most of the conspiracy theories that I have seen were so full of speculation that they were useless, which is why I stopped looking at the JFK assassination. Looking for solid information in those conspiracy theories was like searching for needles in a haystack. That is until you, Jeff, brought in information that I hadn’t appreciated before—the infiltration of the CIA by the KGB and solid evidence of Castro’s involvement. I find it hard to believe that the KGB would be so sloppy as to entrust such an important assassination to a single, unstable man as was Lee Harvey Oswald.

    I did see a video featuring a Mafia hit man, a lifer in prison, who claimed that he was the one who fired the fatal shot to the forehead, shooting from the direction of the grassy knoll He claimed that he was hired by the CIA (KGB mole ?) for the shot. He provided information that JFK was shot in the back a split second before his shot, as evidenced by JFK’s body being slightly jerked forward in the frame of the Zapruder film that also shows the head shot. He claimed that another Mafia hit man killed a policeman the same day. I don’t know if that Mafia hit man told the truth, but his testimony fits the evidence and eyewitnesses.

    So what actually happened that day? I can understand Robert Kennedy’s claims, but I don’t trust them. I read his book on Fauci (which I believe was mostly written by ghostwriters) but the interview shows a different man who doesn’t know what he talks about. Even Tucker Carlson couldn’t suppress a laugh at some of what Kennedy said. This is good information in deciding whether or not this is a person fit to be elected as president.

    Thanks for posting the interview.

    1. The fatal shot on Kennedy came from behind, and that was proven by two large and intensive investigations. Please study both of these carefully. Do not go by what you think bullets do when they enter someone’s skull. Read the science.

      1. I’ve been to Dealey Plaza and the Schoolbook Depository in Dallas: and I noted then that Oswald could not have failed in his task. Everything else is obfuscation. Nobody wanted an ” Archduke Ferdinand in Serajevo” situation and so time went on it’s present course.

      2. The experiments that have been videoed that I have seen, including those that you recommended, back up what is expected from simple Newtonian physics, namely that the killing shot came from in front. That’s science. You don’t believe the science? Or have you been fooled by demonstrations designed to gaslight the scientifically illiterate?

        And what about the physicians in the operating room who tried to save JFK’s life testimony that they found two entrance wounds on the front of the body?

      3. No, no, no. You are terribly mistaken. The killing shot came from behind. Both the Warren Commission and the major Congressional investigation more than a decade later, scientifically confirmed it. A bullet enters the brain and makes a narrow entry wounded, exploding out the other side. The major damage to the brain occurs nearest the exit wound. The exit explosion is what propels the head backward. On CBS news in the 1970s they did the experiment firing at a pumpkin. THAT IS SCIENCE. THAT IS HOW BULLETS EFFECT that kind of target. All the scientific experts employed by two very large investigations saw from the ex-rays and photographs of the wounds, the entry wounds were all from behind. Also, entry wounds have a specific kind of burn. You have to read the investigative literature and not simply imagine that your expectations about such things are accurate. I do not know what physicians you are are referring to. Multiple experts on entry wounds confirmed that all Kennedy’s wounds came from behind. Both major investigations confirmed this. Please please do not read Mr. KOOKY’s conspiracy book analysis, drawing in the Dealey Lama and all the false, confused, mistaken-in-the-moment nonsense.

      4. Jeff: let’s look at the evidence, quoting your message:

        “A bullet enters the brain and makes a narrow entry wounded, exploding out the other side. The major damage to the brain occurs nearest the exit wound.” The doctors identified an entrance wound at the hairline right forehead, exploding out the back as a massive wound.

        “On CBS news in the 1970s they did the experiment firing at a pumpkin.” I saw that, it was a very flawed experiment that “succeeded” only by omitting the effects of the rest of the body on the pumpkin. Experiments that took into account the rest of the body gave very different results. It was a demonstration designed to fool the scientifically ignorant.

        “All the scientific experts employed by two very large investigations saw from the ex-rays and photographs of the wounds, the entry wounds were all from behind.” Where was the entrance wound for the massive blow-out wound on the back of the head, if shot from behind? Don’t you see how this contradicts what you wrote above? How long after the event were these investigations made? Were these investigations designed to get to the truth, or to fine-tune the cover-up of the Castro/KGB connection that you documented?

        “I do not know what physicians you are are referring to.” As I have repeatedly said, these were the physicians who were in the operating room trying to save JFK’s life. They were identified by name in the reports that I saw decades ago, but as I have not been keeping up with the conspiracy theories, nor have I collected documentation about the JFK assassination, I no longer remember their names.

        You recommended that I watch a video that tried to replicate a massive head wound on the back of the head from a shot fired from behind. That video showed the head moving forward under the impact of the bullet, as predicted also by Newtonian physics. Based also on the above, how is that not case closed?

        It has been documented that the Warren Commission lied to cover-up the Castro/KGB connection. You covered much of that documentation. Where else did they lie? How can they be considered a trustworthy source? What about the later “investigations”? Were they also under the same pressure to lie? Or were they designed to give predetermined results that supported Warren Commission lies?

        The picture I now have is that the Kennedys conspired to assassinate Castro. Castro got wind of this conspiracy and did in the Kennedys. Castro did so with the help of KGB moles in the U.S. government. There were a few, not one, shooters to make sure that JFK died. Numerous eye witnesses at the time identified that there was at least one shot, maybe more, from what was located as a grassy knoll in front of JFK. The killing shot made a narrow entrance wound in the front, at the hairline right forehead, to explode out into a massive wound in the back. Much of the kinetic energy of the bullet was transferred to the head, causing it to snap backwards. According to Occam’s razor, this is the simplest explanation that fits all the physical and eyewitness data.

        This all happened six decades ago. The only reason it is relevant today is because of RFK-Jr and his running for president, and his espousal of conspiracy theories with no evidence in fact.

      5. I do not know what “physicians” you are quoting from. The science is very clear. Kennedy was shot from behind. Read the Congressional report and the Commission report.

  26. Heydrich and the St. Venceslaus Royal Crown

    An old Czech legend says that any usurper who places the crown on his head is doomed to die a violent death within a year, as the Crown is the personal property of St. Wenceslas and may only be worn by a rightful Bohemian king during his coronation. During World War II, Reinhard Heydrich, the Deputy Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, is said to have secretly crowned himself while inspecting St. Vitus’ Cathedral, and was assassinated less than a year later by the Czech resistance. Although there is no evidence proving that Heydrich did so, the legend is widely believed.[3]

    The crown suppose to have a relic in one of the top stones – the actual thorn from the Crown of Thorn Christ our Lord was forced to wear during His passion.

    The crown was forbidden to wear by the rule of the Holy See by anybody who was not rightful Czech King. That Heydrich died before the year’s end since he put the Crown on his head is just another proof directly from God that when those who reach the limit of their evils, which God sets to all, will be punished by Him.

  27. Robert Kennedy Jr advocated parole of Sirhan, because he believes that Sirhan was brainwashed by the CIA under MK Ultra.

    In the book, Sharon Tate: A Life, it is shown that Sirhan associated with the Manson Family. That connects the murders of Sharon Tate to the Kennedys and Marilyn Monroe, along with Bruce Lee, Brandon Lee, and David Carradine.

    Bruce Lee’s autopsy by the coroner in Hong Kong was a cover up, so the coroner to the stars, who performed autopsies on Brian Jones, Jim Morrison, and Jimi Hendrix, was brought in from London. He dispelled the lie that Lee died from ingesting raw hashish leaves, of which there is no such thing, citing that Cannabis is non toxic. Thing is, Lee didn’t die of an allergic reaction to Equagesic and Aspirin, either. His pain medicine was adulterated with chalk, causing Led poisoning.

    Point is that Great Britain was complicit, along with China, Hollywood, and Tate’s spouse. Bruce Lee inspired nationalism in the Chinese people. England didn’t want any social unrest in China, any more than Mao did.

    There are relevant implications from this, today.

  28. Off topic, but you once answered me that you had sources inside of Russia who noticed Sakharov’s “strange” relations with the Soviet authorities. Could you please explain what those sources told you about Sakharov ? I think that it will be very hard to expose the Sino-Soviet split as fake because very few people know about it (only very top CPC and Russian leaders), but Sakharov’s fake dissent could be exposed more “easily”.

    1. It is probably not correct to call a controlled liberation (that partly went awry) a “fake.” One has to be careful to define things properly. Look, I have spoken to many Soviet citizens, including former GRU and KGB officers. There are people who will tell you of KGB-controlled dissidents in the USSR, including Soviets who noticed the strategic importance of Sakharov’s 1960s writings on East/West convergence. Golitsyn wrote about this. A couple who knew Sakharov once expressed their suspicions to a Russian friend of mine. They thought Sakharov was guilty regarding the hydrogen bomb and this was his way of dealing with the guilt (that is, helping out the KGB with convergence). Many of my East European friends have talked of secret police control of dissident groups — like Charter 77 and Solidarity after communists were instructed to join these movements. I’ve talked to a lot of people, absorbed a lot of stories. Many close to the security services — like Victor and Marina Kalashnikov — who both told me the changes in Russia were “under control” of the KGB and GRU.


    Oliver Anthony – Rich Men North Of Richmond


    Oliver Anthony Music’s ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Debuts at No. 1 on Billboard Hot 100

    “The hopelessness and frustration of our times resonate in the response to this song,” the singer-songwriter tells Billboard exclusively.

    Oliver Anthony Music’s breakout viral hit “Rich Men North of Richmond” debuts at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 songs chart. Among other chart achievements for the singer-songwriter, he’s the first artist ever to launch atop the list with no prior chart history in any form.

    1. I saw the song and have mixed feelings. On the one hand, the song is true. On the other hand, the left will use it to reinforce the rights as an arm of the proletariat. Remember, the communists want the working class to make the revolution, and view women and minorities as a makeshift substitute for a revolutionary class.

      1. Few know the Proletariat/Lumpenproletariat distinction. Marxists actually place the Lumpenproletariat in an innately Reactionary category, and they are right in the Neitzschean sense of the ” Last Man/Mass Man” ontological division being essentially a synonym of Lumpenproletariat. Too clever to starve but too weak and stupid to live well and virtuously, they pull society down out of collective envy and resentiment. Not that they are innate Socialists, oh no: they want a Billionaire lifestyle without the intelligence or ruthlessness to build or maintain a fortune.


    Oliver Anthony’s Viral Country Song ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Is Controversial and Topping Charts:
    The song, which has been embraced by the right, debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.

    Controversial country song Rich Men North of Richmond makes US chart history:
    Oliver Anthony becomes first artist to debut at top of Billboard Hot 100 despite having no prior chart history, with a song that has drawn backlash for its stereotypes of welfare recipients.


    The New York Times
    How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts
    21 hours ago

    Rolling Stone
    Oliver Anthony’s ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Is the Number One Song in the Country
    1 day ago

    A virtually unknown conservative singer just rocketed to the top of the charts. Here’s why it won’t be the last time
    2 hours ago

    Oliver Anthony’s ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Is an Instant Smash Among Conservatives, While Progressives Wonder if He’s a ‘Plant’
    1 week ago

    Louis Chilton
    The Independent

    Do Republican anthems have to be quite so terrible as Rich Men North of Richmond?
    The pointed protest song has become a No 1 hit, aided by endorsements from Joe Rogan and a host of prominent American conservatives.
    .4 hours ago

    Kenan Malik
    The Guardian

    The protest song that’s taken America by storm hits too many false notes
    Rich Men North of Richmond represents the poor but lets the wealthy off the hook.
    .2 days ago

    Eric Levitz
    New York Magazine

    Oliver Anthony and the Incoherence of Right-Wing Populism
    Oliver Anthony’s protest song, “Rich Men North of Richmond” struck a chord with American politics. But its right-wing populist politics are…
    .5 days ago

    Jay Caspian Kang
    The New Yorker

    A Close Listen to “Rich Men North of Richmond”
    The viral country song by Oliver Anthony has been embraced by right-wing pundits.
    .6 days ago

    Conor Friedersdorf
    The Atlantic

    The Misguided Debate Over ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’
    Welcome to Up for Debate. Each week, Conor Friedersdorf rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one…
    .4 days ago

    Jamelle Bouie
    The New York Times

    Opinion | The Irony in the ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’
    You may have heard about Oliver Anthony, a Virginia-based folk singer who has become a conservative folk hero on account of his populist…
    .3 days ago

    Nicole Russell
    Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    Washington deserves every bit of the scorn it gets in ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ | Opinion
    Oliver Anthony’s viral country hit is an anthem for people suffering from inflation, lamenting welfare and out-of-touch politicians.
    .1 day ago

    Paul Waldman

    Oliver Anthony YouTube video ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ is all anger, no analysis
    Oliver Anthony’s MAGA hit song “Rich Men North of Richmond” has 15 million views on YouTube, but is it the next Jason Aldean “Try That in a…
    .5 days ago

    Mark Tooley
    Juicy Ecumenism

    Resenting Rich Men North of Richmond
    Few willingly relinquish power, but power inevitably recedes, writes Institute on Religion and Democracy President Mark Tooley.
    .12 hours ago

    Dace Potas
    USA Today

    Country hit ‘Rich Men’ speaks to forgotten Americans. GOP must listen
    Telling working-class Americans that their concerns don’t matter is what led us to being stuck with Donald Trump as president.
    .2 days ago

    Greg Sargent
    Washington Post

    Opinion | Republicans love Oliver Anthony for ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ – The Washington Post
    Ever since video of Oliver Anthony belting out his latest song went viral, Republican politicians have hailed it as a cry of protest from…
    .4 days ago

    Cameron Smith
    The Tennessean

    Oliver Anthony’s ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ resonates with Americans
    It’s a tall order for a song to change much of anything. For those of us who agree with Oliver Anthony, what do we plan to do about it?
    .3 days ago

    Controversial country song Rich Men North of Richmond …

    The Guardian › music › aug › rich-me…
    24 hours ago — Oliver Anthony’s Rich Men North of Richmond, the out-of-nowhere country song that went viral earlier this month, has debuted at number 1 on …

    How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Topped the Charts

    The New York Times › Arts › Music
    22 hours ago — “Rich Men North of Richmond” sold 147,000 downloads in its first week, more than 10 times the sales of Mr. Combs’s “Fast Car,” the No. 2 song on …

    Rich Men North of Richmond: Do Republican anthems …

    The Independent › … › Music › Features
    5 hours ago — “Livin’ in the new world / With an old soul / These rich men north of Richmond / Lord knows they all just wanna have total control,” he sings.

    Oliver Anthony’s ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Is an Instant …

    Variety Magazine › music › news › oliver-anthony-ri…
    8 days ago — Oliver Anthony’s ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ is a fave of Kari Lake and Marjorie Taylor Greene; progressive roots music fans, not so much.

    A Close Listen to “Rich Men North of Richmond”

    The New Yorker › News › Country Music
    7 days ago — “Rich Men North of Richmond,” an overnight viral hit by an unknown country singer named Oliver Anthony, is the rare popular song that actually …

    What people are getting wrong about ‘Rich Men North of …

    New York Post › 2023/08/20 › what-people-are-ge…
    2 days ago — Oliver Anthony, the songwriter behind the viral hit “Rich Men North of Richmond,” didn’t even finish high school.

    Rich Men North of Richmond: The hit song that has divided …

    BBC › culture › article › 20230818-ri…
    4 days ago — Oliver Anthony’s Rich Men North of Richmond has become a huge viral hit, and the latest in a series of cultural flashpoints that reflect a …

    Louis Chilton
    The Independent

    Do Republican anthems have to be quite so terrible as Rich Men North of Richmond?
    The pointed protest song has become a No 1 hit, aided by endorsements from Joe Rogan and a host of prominent American conservatives.
    .4 hours ago

    Kenan Malik
    The Guardian

    The protest song that’s taken America by storm hits too many false notes
    Rich Men North of Richmond represents the poor but lets the wealthy off the hook.
    .2 days ago

  32. Breaking News: Ukraine’s forces and firepower are misallocated, U.S. officials say:

    The New York Times

    Ukraine’s counteroffensive is struggling because it has too many troops in the wrong places, U.S. and other Western officials told The Times.
    Tuesday, August 22, 2023 1:51 PM ET

    The main goal of the counteroffensive is to cut off Russian supply lines in southern Ukraine. But instead of focusing on that, Ukrainian commanders have divided troops roughly equally between the east and the south, the U.S. officials said.

    American strategists say Ukraine’s troops are too spread out and need to concentrate along the counteroffensive’s main front in the south.

    1. The New York Times is probably wrong, and so are those American strategists — who all said Kiev was going to fall back in February-March 2022.

  33. Did you read the books of Dostoevskij? He wrote a lot about socialism and i think that he was really able to explain some concepts such as the alienation (expressed also by Voegelin) or human nature.

  34. Jeff :

    When I heard that RFK jr. thinks that the CIA killed his father, I thought of Ramzan Kadyrov.
    Is that a fair comparison ? ( Not that RFK jr. is violent or a brutal warlord ). In both cases the Russians ( for the Kennedy’s it would be the Russians / Cubans ) killed their father. But for some reason they think it was someone else.

    Or is Kadyrov different entirely ? Is he deathly afraid of Russia and a puppet ? Is he acting compliant but looking for an opportunity to strike against the Kremlin ? In that case perhaps the Russians have a tiger by the tail. From what I know the Chechnyan attitude is very warlike and independent.

    I am actually baffled by both cases. Any theories or ideas to explain their statements and apparent actions ?

      1. Only because why would they deny who the obvious culprits are ?
        Who and how were their brains worked over to have them not see the obvious ?
        If this is a dumb line of discussion feel free to delete or not respond.

      2. Kadyrov is holding down Chechnya for Putin. It is a peculiar relationship. Did Putin kill his father, or was it a Chechen who saw his father as a turncoat working for Moscow. I do not know, so it is hard to comment.

Comments are now closed.