The books he carried were all thick and weighty, works worthy of an intellectual leftist – H.G. Wells, Marx, Marx and Engels, George Bernard Shaw. I cannot recall exactly. Clearly, Lee wanted it known that he did not waste time on light reading.
Paul R. Gregory[i]
He was the right man, and he was prepared to do it. He was prepared to do a lot of things. It would have made no sense to contact him otherwise. His motive was bitter resentment.
Oscar Marino, Cuban Intelligence Officer
Fidel Got Kennedy First.
President Lyndon Johnson [ii]
What we see today is a kind of madness, a kind of intellectual breakdown, appearing on all sides. In Tucker Carlson’s interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., we encountered this breakdown in the unthinking conspiracism of a Democratic presidential candidate. And now, with the Republican presidential debate of last Wednesday, we saw evidence of a breakdown on the Republican side. At the same time, President Trump’s conversation with Carlson (broadcast on Wednesday) struck a different note. Trump appeared to be sharp, sane, and sensible – even though his allegations of election fraud in 2020 are believed by less than one in three voters.
Why hasn’t the U.S. Justice Department launched an official investigation? Wouldn’t that settle the matter? Why not debunk Trump’s narrative and restore public confidence? But then, whose confidence would be restored? (Trump’s voters do not matter to the system.)
It is worth noting that Biden’s main challenger for the Democratic nomination, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is the son of a famous U.S. Attorney General. Foolishly, the elder Kennedy opposed security rules that applied to appointees with communist connections. This was the first crack in the door allowing communists (after the McCarthy period) to flood back into government service in the 1960s. Of course, those mandates have further broken down, so the door has long been open to communist infiltration. And now the tables are turned. Instead of investigating communists in high places, the FBI goes after conservatives.
Signaling an ideological shift to the left, the Office of Justice Programs is now publishing pro-Marxist papers. One such paper, thought worthy of belonging on a Justice Department Website, states, “Marxism as a social theory refutes Carl Klockar’s 1979 criticisms of Marxist criminology, with particular attention to the concept of class.” The abstract goes on to emphasize Marx’s appreciation for capitalism’s “significant cultural and material achievements.” However, as Marx pointed out, capitalism needs a pool of unemployed workers to exploit. This “will increase the incidence of ordinary crime.” Capitalism then “brands the ordinary criminal as evil” with a return “to the moralistic, punitive justice model….”[iii] (You can guess where they are going with this. Not only is Sirhan Sirhan innocent. All criminals are unfairly demonized under capitalism.)
There are many other featured papers like this on Justice Department webpages. Given how crazy Marxism is, one might ask why Marxist nonsense is paraded on government websites in this way? A 2015 headline from The New York Post states, “Justice Department ‘staffed with Marxists and black radicals’: Missouri official.” The story is about Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, who “asserted that the [justice] department was ‘staffed with Marxists and black radicals’ and defended statements he had made a day earlier accusing agency officials of racism.” Lt. Gov. Kinder accused Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barrack Obama of “incitement of the mob” by encourging disorder in Ferguson, Missouri following a police shooting. Think for a moment. Trump is accused of inciting a mob on January 6, 2021. Yet Obama and Holder could easily be charged with exactly the same thing. Why did nobody think to bring charges against Holder and Obama? The answer should be obvious. It is perfectly legal to incite a leftwing mob but illegal to incite a patriotic mob. “The Justice Department,” said Lt. Gov. Kinder, “has had an interest in fanning the flames of racial division since the first day Eric Holder took office. So has this president.”[iv]
Judging by outward appearances, the Justice Department is under communist management. Perhaps Trump needs to say, up front, that the Justice Department should be lustrated (i.e., purged of communists). Is this controversial? Does anyone want communists in the Justice Department? What argument can be made for allowing it? Anyone with sense knows that communists cannot take an oath, in good faith, to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Communists do not believe in the U.S. Constitution. They are politically committed to tearing it down. But even Trump does not make this point.
Furthermore, one cannot successfully oppose communism without explaining what communism is. One needs to explain, for example, that Russia is still ruled by communists, and so is China. One needs to explain that our Justice Department, CIA and Pentagon have been infiltrated by communists. Does anyone see how dire the situation is? Is anyone willing to talk about it? Trump skirts the edges, drops a few hints here and there, and scares the communists in the process. They are so scared they are attempting to put him in jail on false charges. So what does he have to lose by talking about communism in greater detail? Or does Trump have any details?
And then there was that reference to civil war in Trump’s interview with Carlson. Speaking of his own followers, the former president said they evinced passion mixed with love. He and Carlson both agreed that this was not an altogether good mix of qualities. Come to think of it, year after year the communists have advanced dispassionately, taking over the federal government. Meanwhile, the country has preferred a quiet life of work, shopping, and entertainment. So I wonder where one might find this “passionate” America Trump is talking about?
Kierkegaard wrote that a “passionate tumultuous age will overthrow everything, pull everything down; but a revolutionary age, that is at the same time reflective and passionless, transforms that expression of strength into a feat of dialectics: it leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance.”[v] And so, having bypassed a revolution of tumultuous passion, we go along with a hollowing-out process. What is lost in this process, Kierkegaard anticipated, is character. From character comes passion which leads to morality and renewal. Men who are characterless, noted Kierkegaard, lack passion. They cannot renew anything. In fact, they do not know what evil is, enervated as they are by “a superficial, superior and theoretical knowledge of evil, and by a supercilious cleverness which is aware that goodness is neither appreciated nor worthwhile in this world, that it is tantamount to stupidity.”[vi]
Let us hope there are passionate people, and loving people, out there. Why would we want passionless, empty, people? Are we that addicted to our stuff, to the mirage of our prosperity? While Trump comes closest to saying what the problems are, he has yet to offer a comprehensive narrative that counters the enemy. Of course, that is not an easy thing to do. The communists have think tanks to work out their narratives. Trump is one man. Is he sophisticated enough to beat the communists at the narrative game?
In fact, the communists are trying to draw “conservatives” into their class-based narratives. And so, even Tucker Carlson, who has done good work in other areas, has latched onto such narratives. And in this battle of narratives, the JFK assassination is an important one for the communists. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as an advocate and victim of such narratives, has been seconded by Carlson. As noted in Part One of this series, he has not come to terms with Lee Harvey Oswald’s role in his uncle’s death. He thinks Oswald was a CIA operative and not a communist.
Kierkegaard referred to a time in which, “All inwardness is lost … or else forms a colorless cohesion.” Walter Kaufmann, referring to Kierkegaard’s characterization, called it “the Age of Judas” where betrayal does not take place with a kiss – but with an interpretation. In this age there is no longer a difference between the creature and the Creator, the worshipper and God, the admirer and the admired, or the subject and his king. Everyone is a “polite equal.” Here is leveling at its most basic, where the hierarchical context of universal being has been lost entirely. According to Kierkegaard, “A father no longer curses his son in anger … nor does a son defy his father … [but] their relationship is irreproachable, for it is really in the process of ceasing to exist, since they are no longer related to one another….”[vii] One might say, in the case of Robert Kennedy, Jr., that a father cannot rely on his son to avenge his murder, or to hold his murderer responsible. Instead, the son evades responsibility by declaring the father’s most intimate associates guilty. This betrayal by way of interpretation, is Kennedy’s way out. He does not have to face assassination in turn if he refrains from confronting the real assassins – who might then come after him.
And so, we see, in miniature, how this Age of Judas involves betrayal – not with a kiss, but – with an interpretation. Thus, the assassination of JFK has become an interpretation-as-betrayal for the entire country. Here we find the nephew of the fallen president front and center. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is an example of what Kierkegaard was talking about. Kennedy has become an apologist for assassins whose passionless course was the cold-blooded killing of John and Robert Kennedy. The nephew and son goes along with the present age, as a Judas in an age of Judases. If this sounds harsh, then I ask: What more can be said of someone who exonerates his father’s murderer while declaring the innocence of the guilty and the guilt of the innocent? To lay murder on the innocent is itself a crime, especially as anticommunists now stand in place of those accused, ready to be accused again.
Do you want communism to rule in this country, Mr. Kennedy? Then why don’t you speak out against it – against Antifa and Black Lives Matter, Red China, North Korea, and the KGB-man in the Kremlin? Why take up their favored narratives? (Especially when touching on your own father’s death?)
Meet the Oswalds
For those who knew Lee and Marina Oswald in the summer of 1962, the truth could not be more obvious. Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy. “Oswald’s biography reveals that he was a violent person,” wrote Paul Gregory, a friend of the Oswalds. As a child Lee and his mother “were expelled from his half-brother’s home because of his violent threats. His brother Robert Oswald noted a sadistic streak in twelve-year-old Lee when he took him rabbit hunting outside of Fort Worth.”[viii] When Lee’s first shot killed a rabbit outright, he pumped shot after shot into the dead rabbit. Robert began to worry about his brother’s mental state. He later told investigators, “I should have seen it coming.”[ix]
And what of Lee’s wife, Marina Oswald? “I have recollections of bruises on Marina’s face,” wrote Gregory. “Later, Marina said openly to her Dallas Russian friends that Lee was an abusive husband.” She tried to mitigate this abuse in her testimony to the Warren Commission, saying she sometimes deserved the beatings for making Lee jealous.[x]
One afternoon Gregory was visiting Marina when Lee came in carrying an armload of library books. They were leftist books, some of them by Karl Marx. Why did Oswald read such books? And why did Oswald keep a rifle in Ruth Paine’s garage? For what reason did Lee come to Ruth Paine’s home on a Thursday night, November 21 – the night before the assassination of JFK? It was a weeknight (which was not his pattern), and he came for one last visit with his wife, as if he knew it would be their last, at the house where he kept his rifle. Oh, how he needed that rifle. And why, that morning, did Lee Oswald leave his wedding ring in a bowl for Marina to discover? And why did he take his rifle to work, disassembled in a brown paper bag? Oh yes, on that fateful morning, people saw that bag. When asked, he told his ride to work it was “curtain rods.” And later that day, on hearing someone had shot the president from Lee’s place of work, Marina went to the garage and checked. No doubt, her heart skipped a beat when she found that Lee’s rifle was not in its place. Later she would even tell her children that their father – Lee Harvey Oswald – was guilty of assassinating President Kennedy. Would a wife and mother do that, if she truly thought her husband was innocent?
Another witness who knew the Oswalds was Ruth Paine, mentioned above. She took Marina Oswald into her home even as Oswald stashed his rifle in her garage (unbeknownst to her). Ruth Paine’s testimony before the Warren Commission was extensive. A few years ago, she was interviewed about her relationship with Marina and Lee.[xi] Ruth was asked if Oswald hated John Kennedy? No, said Ruth. Her recollection was that Lee thought Kennedy was “best president” in his lifetime. “I don’t think he was shooting at Kennedy,” said Ruth. “He was shooting at the office.”
Ruth broke down talking about Kennedy’s death. This was no play-acting. She felt badly. She was, after all, a clueless bystander who inadvertently helped an assassin store his murder weapon. Why was Ruth clueless? A better question might be, why was a young housewife, separated from her husband, helping a Soviet defector and his Russian wife? Ostensibly because Ruth wanted to learn Russian; because she dreamt of peace between the United States and Soviet Union. After the assassination, Lee Oswald’s brother Robert wrote negatively about Ruth. He did not like her because, “For a straightlaced ex-Marine (i.e., Robert), Ruth was too much of a hippie activist for his taste. He would later forbid Marina from moving back in with Ruth.”[xii]
Post Kennedy assassination, Ruth was dragged into prosecutor Jim Garrison’s office, when the New Orleans DA was trying to prove an assassination conspiracy theory. About her visit in Garrison’s office Ruth said, “There was a guy from Ramparts…” (A leftwing magazine that David Horowitz was co-editor of). To her credit, Ruth said the people in Garrison’s office were “nuts.” And what was her opinion of the Oliver Stone film about Garrison, titled JFK? “Garbage, pure garbage…. Terrible, terrible film,” she said.
It is interesting that Marina Oswald saw Lee only once after the Kennedy assassination. According to Gregory, who was present, “Lee warned Marina what not to tell the police. He professed his innocence, and assured Marina everything would be okay. His shaking voice told her otherwise.” Gregory says that Marina left the jail thinking Lee was guilty.[xiii]
The Cuban Connection
Was Lee Oswald part of a larger communist plot? Of course, we are supposed to laugh at anyone who places the word “communist” in front of the word “plot.” But is it laughable? According to Pedro Roig, “Oswald [first] made contact with Cuban intelligence officers while stationed at ‘El Toro’ Marine Air Base in Santa Ana, California.”[xiv] Nelson Delgado, a U.S. Marine friend of Oswald, testified that Oswald had admitted to receiving mail from Cubans and had developed contact with Cuban government officials in Los Angeles. This was prior to Oswald’s defection to the Soviet Union on 16 October 1959.
While in the Soviet Union, Oswald worked in the city of Minsk. Even if the KGB considered Oswald “mentally unstable,” he was nonetheless directed to enroll in Minsk’s Foreign Language School on Ulyanov Street.” This school was next to the KGB Academy in Minsk. Later, Oswald’s wife admitted that Oswald had “gotten close to some of the Cubans who were attending the KGB Academy.” Marina Oswald recalled that the Cubans “were outgoing and joyful…. Often played the guitar … danced so well. They were such fun.”[xv]
Among the Cubans who met Oswald in the Soviet Union, was Fabian Escalante (who later became a Major General of the Cuban Ministry of Interior). According to CIA investigators, in the early morning hours of 22 November 1963, Fabian Escalante flew from Havana to Mexico where he boarded a plane for Dallas, Texas. Later that same evening, Escalante returned to Mexico on that same plane, then flew back to Havana.[xvi] This was a detail the Warren Commission missed. But then, Lyndon Johnson wanted this sort of thing kept out of the record. He said so as he coaxed Earl Warren to head up the investigation of Kennedy’s murder. He told Warren that if things weren’t handled right, the country could end up at war with the Soviet Union. Of course, the real reason Johnson wanted to cover up the Cuban connection to Oswald was political. If the American people knew Kennedy was killed on orders of Castro, a strident anticommunist like Barry Goldwater might have been elected president in 1964.
On Friday morning, 22 November 1963 Florentine Aspillaga, an agent of Cuban intelligence, was engaged in monitoring American radio communications. On that morning he was given the following instructions from Havana: “The leadership wants you to stop all your CIA work … and listen to communications from Texas. He picked up amateur radio bands reporting the assassination of President Kennedy around 1:30 Havana time. According to Aspillaga, “It is evidence that Cuba had advanced notice that Kennedy would be shot.”[xvii] How did Havana know? Consider the following documentary, Rendezvous With Death, in which a former Cuban intelligence operative, Oscar Marino, tells his story:
And here is my latest video discussing this subject with Nevin Gussack:
Links and Notes
[i] Paul R. Gregory, The Oswalds (USA: Diversion Books, 2022), p. 87.
[ii] https://cubanstudiesinstitute.us/principal/president-johnson-fidel-castro-got-kennedy-first/
[iii] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/marxism-and-criminal-justice-policy
[iv] https://nypost.com/2015/03/18/justice-department-staffed-with-marxists-and-black-radicals-missouri-official/
[v] Kierkegaard, The Present Age, p. 42.
[vi] Ibid, p. 43.
[vii] Ibid, p. 43-45.
[viii] Gregory, p. 250.
[ix]Ibid.
[x]Ibid, p. 251.
[xi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypq5Fs_5PE
[xii] Gregory, p. 180.
[xiii] Ibid, p. 181-2.
[xiv] https://www.cubacenter.org/archives/2020/11/25/cubabrief-fidel-castro-died-four-years-ago-on-november-25-2016-and-john-f-kennedy-was-killed-57-years-ago-when-the-cuban-dictator-got-him-first
[xv]Ibid.
[xvi]Ibid.
[xvii]Ibid.
171 responses to “Monsters and their Monstrous Nothings, Part II”
They’re all one and the same no matter the name. Just like in the days of Noah…is there even one righteous man that is not compromised?
The only leader we need is one who will secede from these murderers day one.
This has been going on since the 1940’s that we know of and everyone is still acting like an election will change things?
God help us!
Thanks Jeff
Just another piece of the puzzle – https://t.co/uFbjogxfte
———–
Watters: Do you think the mugshot (of Trump) appeals to a Democrat base in any way?
RFK Jr: I had a mugshot when I was arrested in Puerto Rico when I was doing a protest against the Navy..
———-
He said he sued the Navy and won. Why would anybody trying to hamper the US military in their mission and file a lawsuit against them ?
Now it makes even more sense why he is still a Democrat and why he is saying the things accusing the CIA instead of the KGB etc. of murdering his uncle and father.
He was saving Flipper from the evil USN.
Sounds like the environmental leftist activist, which is a communist front scheme.
He shouldn’t be supported for president, and most likely he will not even get anywhere close to the nomination, that is probably reserved for higher positioned cadres.
It is this association of his and the connections to such people, his willingness to attack the government when it is not necessary, for the leftist causes, and the lies about the CIA and so on. Either he is compromised or he is in on it.
I’d like to think Kennedy simply has this philosophy, this point of view, which is off kilter. It is good to fight corruption, and sometimes big corporations are doing the wrong thing. And sometimes corporations sign on with communists and socialists. But Kennedy is attacking capitalism from the left. He is an anti-anticommunist. And that’s a problem.
Just to ask – so he was objecting to the USN training dolphins for sea warfare – planting magnetic mines on bottom of enemy vessels for example ? Was this the case ?
If yes, this may be of great significance, because then it would serve Russian and Chinese military espionage as well as any war effort or conflict, as then there would be no trained dolphins to accomplish this task – there was a documentary on this type of warfare, but memory doesn’t serve well to remember the details.
It is true that Russian were (are) using merchant marine vessels for spying and perhaps sabotage as well, or to unload Spetznaz commandos for various ops, if necessary, so this way such ops would be more secure, as to intercept a specially trained dolphin carrying a magnetic mine is more difficult, specially at night.
Is this possible, was this the case why Kennedy was suing the Navy ? It may be this is very important detail about him how it would help Russian and Chinese warfare against the US.
If I recall correctly, Kennedy does not like some of the things the Navy has for tracking enemy submarines. Sonor can supposedly hurt dolphins and whales, because it messes with their hearing (which is a kind of sonar in its own right). I do not know if it really is a serious issue or not.