The power struggle of states is not guided by blind destiny; rather, it lays bare the reason of the world.

Eric Voegelin [i]

Destiny is linked to truth and falsehood in the following way: If we adopt truth, we tend to prosper. If our creed is a lie, we are going to suffer. If we adopt the lies of socialism and communism, which exist everywhere today under various guises (environmentalist, antiracist, feminist, etc.), there is going to be great suffering. It is a fateful choice – because those who are leading us into socialism and communism are blind; and those who fail to see this fateful choice are also blind. Therefore, if history has taken a wrong turn, it is not because destiny is blind. It is because men are blind.

Marxism-Leninism has been advancing, adapting, and reformatting itself for the past 106 years. In fact, Marxism-Leninism has artfully shapeshifted so that most people do not even recognize its continuance. Despite the legacy of Stalin and the Gulag, despite the “stagnation” under Brezhnev, despite the collapse of Soviet communism, Marxism-Leninism continues to be a power in the world. The Communist Party continues to rule China. It animates Putin’s inner circle. It is spreading across Africa and Latin America. It dominates the elite universities of the West. A disguised Marxist ethic has permeated Western culture and politics.[ii] Why? Perhaps it is, as Eric Voegelin suggested, that Marxism appeals to the self-divinizing impulses of alienated intellectuals even as it feeds the warped bloodlust of psychopaths who want to “kill for fun.”  

At its base, Marxism has always lived on theoretical fallacies. Yet, it always survives the catastrophic consequences of those fallacies. It does so through Machiavellian cunning and a readiness to retreat into more organic forms of social organization. Always the Marxist-Leninists have disguised themselves under false labels – as liberals and progressives, environmentalists and feminists, nationalists and even Christians. Whatever causes they hide behind, their special form of mischief has always been to depreciate the order of being; in other words, their mischief is to murder God by exchanging places with him. “Like the Promethean hatred of the Gods,” noted Eric Voegelin, “the murder of God is a general possibility in … response to God.”[iii]

In his memoirs, Voegelin asked why people are drawn to totalitarian ideologies. Having spent many years studying “revolutionary consciousness,” Voegelin said that ideology offers a “pseudo-identity that serves as a substitute for the human self that has been lost.”[iv] Caught in the doldrums of attenuated affect, Marxist revolutionaries find satisfaction in grandiose schemes to reorder society by robbing and killing. Marxism-Leninism amplifies this satisfaction by pretending to liberate a downtrodden multitude. About this Voegelin wrote, “In my uncivilized manner as a man who does not like to murder people for the purpose of supplying intellectuals with fun, I flatly state that Marx was consciously an intellectual swindler for the purpose of maintaining an ideology that would permit him to support violent action against human beings with a show of moral indignation.”[v]

The entire left suffers from this illness to one degree or another. They embrace a victim group, like the Palestinians, and with a show of moral indignation they egg on a greater victimization, a more gruesome violence. As they like to say, “No justice, no peace.” The world is not fair, of course. Yet every mature mind accepts the facts of life without making war on that fragile thing we call order, or civilization. Wars of this kind only extend suffering. And once you have destroyed an existing system of order, you are in the dark ages with many centuries of toil to work your way back. In life, everyone is dealt a different hand. Everyone suffers some kind of misfortune and then dies. Revolutionary action cannot change this. 

One might ask: Are the tall guilty before the short? Is intelligence guilty before stupidity? Are the rich guilty before the poor? If it is criminal to be tall, intelligent, and rich, then what punishment should we impose? Richard Weaver once observed that any attempt to redress such grievances is harmful, and “is found most often in the mouths of those engaged in artful self-promotion.” This is a clever form of self-advancement, noted Weaver, but it is “fatal to the harmony of the world.”[vi]

This is what Marxism is, in fact: A creed fatal to the harmony of the world. Only, it is not a creed. It is a call to action and a plan of action and an organization for action. If it were only a creed, who would care? But it is much more than that. It is a global movement that took over the world’s largest country (Russia) in 1917; and then it took over the world’s most populous country (China) in 1949.

It was a mistake on the part of our pundits, during the Cold War, to think of communism as an economic alternative to capitalism. Marxism-Leninism is best understood as a Machiavellian system of doing. As such it can evolve and adapt. Because it considers itself a science, and science is constantly revising its theories, Marxism has been updated and reformatted many times. Unfortunately, the non-communist world either does not notice or does not properly understand communism’s flexibility. The non-communist world thinks that communism is “going away.” We have said to ourselves that if communism is changing, then it is evolving into democracy or capitalism. Communists have been happy to play along with these more optimistic expectations of Western liberals and conservatives. Non-communists do not realize that changes in communist systems can be deceptive in that so-called “communist systems” (which never were communist in an economic sense) may “change” into capitalism or even feudalism[vii] while secret communist structures continue to operate under the surface, ready to retake society during a future crisis.  

Communism is complicated, and there are no shortcuts for understanding it. People in democratic countries often dismiss communists because communist parties are not generally good at winning elections. But then, the communists infiltrate and appropriate popular movements and non-communist parties – without parading their unpopular core ideas before the public. You can tell which parties have been taken over by communists if you study the favored catchphrases and themes used to disguise their control. Communists gravitate toward formerly oppressed groups, or people with grievances. Their stealth approach to victory leads them to campaign for things that seem quite odd (i.e., like homosexual marriage). Through these campaigns they can change our way of life, our way of thinking, and the way we use words. For example: They have turned the word “racism” into a weapon of intimidation. They have also weaponized the word “sexism.” This sort of appropriation goes on, every day, in plain sight. Yet almost nobody sees the how or why of it.[viii]

Inventing new lifestyles, or new roles for people, is another approach to advancing Marxism. You can offer people choices like gender reassignment or putting women in combat. The key idea is to break down a society’s boundaries, norms, and customs. Since politics is downstream from culture, an attack on culture is an attack on the political system. This form of attack has been credited to Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist. Although he is not the only person to have developed such ideas, Gramsci is said to have revitalized Marxist theory by “returning to the spirit of Marx himself.”[ix] Gramsci noticed that Lenin’s form of Marxism was truer. Gramsci also notice that most Marxists did not understand Marx at all. Their approach was wooden and pedantic. Lenin’s boldness of conception suggested an even more creative approach to Marxism; for Lenin realized that Marxism had become too pedantic and fatalistic. Therefore, Lenin set out to overturn what he called “legal” or “textbook” Marxism. Let those who never understood Marx argue in circles while real revolutionaries develop principles of action and organizations to overthrow capitalism. Taking this approach, Lenin achieved what bookish Marxists could have never achieved.   

Gramsci saw Lenin as an apostle of “living Marxism” as opposed to “abstract Marxism.” In this spirit, Gramsci said that the strict “reflectionist” ideas of the “abstract Marxists” were wrong. Reflectionist autonomism was antithetical to the spirit of Marx. Thus, “abstract Marxism” stood in direct contradiction to the ebb and flow of Marx’s dialectic. “Nor did Marx ever systematically advance a model of socio-political development based upon a set of scientific laws,” noted Carl Boggs; “in fact, his analysis of the passage from feudalism to capitalism was very loosely-outlined, and he never really got around to specifying the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism.”[x] The idea that Marx had solved the real problems of human emancipation was therefore mistaken. Much work, then, had to be done. And much had to be reconsidered, since Marx’s ideas had fallen into the hands of positivists whose “scientism and economic determinism” were as unimaginative as they were demotivating. This demotivation coincided with a “decline of revolutionary prospects in Western Europe,” noted Carl Boggs, especially as Marxists became reformists. Unlike Lenin, whose voluntarism called for professional revolutionaries with effective organizations, the “abstract” Marxists doted on Marx’s half-finished work. In doing this, they missed the heart of Marx’s project; namely, to replace the old Word of God with the new word of man.  

In doing this, the revolutionary’s main enemy has always been religious belief. The number of religious people must be reduced so that the Revolution does not entail killing more people than is workable. To this end, culture must become more and more secular. “Not only must the old meanings and norms of everyday life be destroyed,” wrote Boggs, “but new ones must be constructed in their place. Hence the struggle for ideological hegemony has two phases: to penetrate the false world of established appearances rooted in the dominant belief systems and to create an entirely new universe of ideas and values that would provide the basis for human liberation.”[xi] Waging a struggle for ideological hegemony was one of Gramsci’s central concepts. Religion, nationalism, the family, the individual, had to be culturally smashed or deconstructed. Gramsci realized that religion was a great obstacle for communism. People who believe in God are not likely to join a violent revolution to overthrow the existing system. His insight was that “Religious ideology performed a concrete political function in containing and distorting popular rebellion … by stressing the ‘natural’ (God-given) character of existing structures such as private property and the family….”[xii]

Marxism denies that given economic or political structures are natural or derived from God. This goes to the root of what communism is, and what it seeks to do. Consequently, whenever we see Marxists joining churches, or expressing theological interpretations, we are witnessing an infiltration/sabotage operation in progress. According to Boggs, “Gramsci was the first to insist that religion as a hegemonic ideology would have to be confronted within the context of transforming popular consciousness as both the pre-condition to abolishing capitalism and a central aspect of liberation itself.”[xiii] Like Max Weber, who wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Gramsci saw American Protestantism as integral to successful capitalism. “Gramsci observed that the Protestant ethic was more universally assimilated by the popular masses in the United States than elsewhere, owing to the absence of feudal remnants (such as an established Church) and to the more advanced levels of industrial development.” In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci said that Puritanism was the key to American industrialization and productivity. He condemned Protestantism for creating the perfect industrial animal – the “trained gorilla” who is submerged in a self-negating soup of guilt. This “gorilla” is not to seek pleasure or to cultivate critical thinking. He is to demonstrate his salvation with a willingness to work and suffer. Gramsci thus concluded that you could destroy American capitalism by destroying Protestantism.[xiv]

Here is an interesting sidenote: Marxism thinks religion has made men into monkeys, and the Marxists want to change these monkeys into gods! Here is the key to Marx and his followers. It is safe to say that their regard for man, and for themselves, fluctuates between extremes; that is, extremes of ego deflation and inflation, characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder. Marxist grandiosity refuses to accept the humiliations of mortal existence. They refuse to accept that suffering is an inescapable part of life. Through all their convoluted ideas, their underlying thought is to make heaven on earth. Then they can inflate themselves into gods. Except, the Marxists did not make the world and, therefore, they cannot remake it. This ultimate and humbling insight was epitomized by the fictional police detective “Dirty Harry” Callahan after a criminal mastermind blew himself up. Callahan said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”[xv] Those who trespass the given order, however clever they might be, are ultimately destroyed. They do not know their limitations. Marxism involves hubris because it defies the God-given. It goes against what is foreordained, leading to nemesis – which is the agent of inevitable downfall.

In The New Science of Politics, Eric Voegelin characterized modern Gnostic thought (i.e., Marxism, National Socialism, positivism, etc.) as committing the fallacy of seeking Christian transcendental fulfillment by an “immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton.”[xvi] To put this in plain terms: Heaven is not on Google Maps. You are not going to find it on a star chart.  Who has the bulldozers and the other machines needed to build heaven on a little blue ball, 93 million miles from a main sequence star on an outer spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy? Yet Marxists believe it can be done.

Here is an important point: Communists believe that man’s salvation and ultimate meaning comes through the material perfection of creaturely existence – that man’s salvation is found in things. It is found in a historical process. Yet the meaning of history, so conceived by Marxists, is an illusion. It is an illusion, said Voegelin, “created by treating a symbol of faith as if it were a proposition concerning an object of immanent experience.”[xvii] According to Voegelin, this process of immanentization began with the Florentine attempt to “regain an understanding of the divine order through a revival of neo- Platonism” in the late fifteenth century. This attempt “miscarried” because “a revival of the divine order in the cosmos in the ancient sense would have required a revival of the pagan gods; and that did not work. What was left of the intracosmic divine order … was an immanent order of reality – an immanentism which had to become secularist when, following the pagan gods, the Christian god had to be thrown out too.”[xviii]

Once you dispense with divinity what is left? Angry little thinking pygmies who want to be God. Under the heading “Machiavelli and Marx,” Gramsci explained that Machiavelli had proposed a political science that was “an autonomous activity, with its own principles and laws distinct from those of morality and religion….”[xix] Yet, how could there be “principles” and “laws” in a godless universe? Who, then, would the lawgiver be? One must break entirely with principles and laws if we are to embrace the atheistic materialism of Marx. This brings us to Ivan Karamzov’s statement in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov: “If there is no immortality, there is no virtue” – with the unstated corollary being, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” And that is what we find in Gramsci’s Machiavellian “political science.” In historical terms, this takes us to Stalin’s Gulag and Hitler’s death camps. The irony has always been, with these people, that their “science” and their “philosophy,” in all its instrumentalist glory, leads us directly to prison and death.  

Such is the nature of the people and philosophy that has plagued mankind during the past century.  The whole thing was described by Voegelin in terms of an “egophanic revolt.” Here, the epiphany of the ego is the “fundamental experience that eclipses the epiphany of God in the structure of Classic and Christian consciousness.”[xx] This egoism is best glimpsed through the lens of Nietzsche’s madness, which was clearly in evidence in his autobiography, Ecce Homo. Under the heading “Why I am a Destiny,” Nietzsche wrote, “I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous – a crisis without equal on earth….” Nietzsche feared that he would be pronounced holy. He said that he was “the first decent human being” standing in opposition to “the mendaciousness of millennia.” He further explained,

For when truth enters into a fight with the lies of millennia, we shall have upheavals, a convulsion of earthquakes, a moving of mountains and valleys, the like of which has never been dreamt of. The concept of politics will have merged entirely with a war of spirits: all power structures of the old society will have been exploded – all of them are based on lies: there will be wars the like of which have never yet been seen on earth. It is only beginning with me that the earth knows great politics. [xxi]

As Nietzsche was mentally disintegrating, he suffered the ego inflation of the schizophrenic.[xxii] Nietzsche’s burning hatred of Christianity and Socialism (i.e., the Old Religion and the New Religion) signified an attitude best characterized as “a curse on both your houses.” Nietzsche’s curse was that of the ultimate immoralist – which made him an “annihilator par excellence.” And so, he wrote, “I am no man, I am dynamite.” Here is the same destructive impulse that animated Karl Marx, except that Nietzsche’s egomania stopped short. Despite apologizing for the weather, or calling himself “the crucified one,” Nietzsche did not want to be holy. He did not want to be God. Karl Marx and his movement is all about becoming God.

Communist regimes, when not pretending to be progressive or liberal, arrest and imprison whomever they please. They behave like God at the Last Judgment. These regimes have murdered tens of millions of people. Their contempt for justice, at the same time, is intrinsic. A former Czechoslovak communist official, Jan Sejna, wrote, “I saw the cream of the Czech intelligentsia in the prisons at Jachymov, where they excavated uranium for the Soviet Union, and at Pankrac.” These people were usually charged with “crimes against the Republic.” According to Sejna, “this charge produced sentences varying from fifteen to twenty-five years for such misdemeanors as possessing an anti-Communist pamphlet – usually planted in the victim’s pocket by the Secret Police….” Sejna’s sources said that most of those arrested had either made careless remarks the regime did not like, or they were charged with economic sabotage – “scapegoats for Party officials who had failed to reach their targets.”[xxiii]

As noted at the beginning of this essay, Marxism-Leninism has been advancing, adapting, and reformatting itself for the past 106 years. In fact, Marxism-Leninism has artfully shapeshifted so that most people do not even recognize its continuance. They have been diverted into conspiracy narratives (which are discussed and analyzed in the videos below). Few realize the extent to which the communists have played a long game. Many of our “top analysts” see no communist game at all. In 1982 Jan Sejna wrote, “One of the basic problems of the West is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet ‘grand design’ at all.”[xxiv] In terms of Moscow’s ultimate objectives, Sejna explained, “Soviet ambitions toward the United States were aimed at the extinction of Capitalism and the ‘socialization’ of America, which they believed would be the last surviving dinosaur of the Capitalist system.” The intermediate goals of the communists included “the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from Europe and Asia; the removal of Latin America from the United States’ sphere of influence and its incorporation into the Socialist bloc; the destruction of the United States influence in the developing world; the reduction of American military power to a state of strategic inferiority; the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government; and the collapse of the American economy.”[xxv]

Does any of this sound familiar? Of course, this is exactly what we are contending with today. The communists are still working for these objectives. Those who do not understand what is meant by “the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government,” need to look more closely at the Biden administration. The Biden team is the thing itself. And yes, the collapse of the American economy appears to be coming.

Communism is real. The communist bloc is real. The communist movement is real. Communist subversion is real. It is not some vague thing, like “the Illuminati” or an unnamed group of Satan-worshipping cabalists. It is the biggest enemy humanity has ever had. The communists, of course, are not ten feet tall. They have problems, which will be discussed in Part III; and we need to exploit those problems. All the same, the communists have infiltrated our government, our churches, our schools and our major corporations. The World Economic Forum is almost certainly a communist front organization. The communists also have nuclear weapons. They have biological weapons. The threat of communism is not theoretical. It is existential.

Who knew?

On The Nature of Conspiracies

Daniel Natal and J.R. Nyquist Discuss Conspiracy Narratives

Fake Conspiracy Theories, With Alex Benesch

Notes and Links

[i] Eric Voegelin, The Collected Works, Vol. V, Modernity Without Restraint (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2000), p. 30.

[ii] Most analysts will dispute statement. They ought to consider the situation more carefully, however. China is openly and unapologetically a Marxist-Leninist state. Look, then, at China’s allies. Russia is led by a former KGB officer who thinks the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century was the fall of the Soviet Union. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, South Africa, Congo, Nepal – to name a few – are also under Marxists and aligned with Beijing as well as Moscow. Refusing to see this is willful blindness. Such refusal is not even intelligent.

[iii] Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1997), p. 37.

[iv] Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press), p. 46-7.

[v] Ibid, p. 48.

[vi] Richard Weaver, Ideas have Consequences (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962), p. 41.

[vii] Many communist states have capitalist and semi-feudal structures imbedded in their so-called “market socialism.”

[viii] See Tim Groseclose, Left Turn: How Liberal media Bias Distorts the American Mind (Kindle).

[ix] Carl Boggs, Gramsci’s Marxism (London: Pluto Press, 1976), p. 23.

[x] Ibid, pp. 23-24.

[xi] Ibid, p. 42.

[xii] Ibid, p. 43.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid, p. 44.

[xv] Magnum Force.

[xvi] Eric Voegelin, The Collected Works, Vol. V, Modernity Without Restraint, page 185

[xvii] Ibid, pp. 185-86.

[xviii] Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, p. 67.

[xix] Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers, 1991), p. 134.

[xx] Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, p. 67.

[xxi] All quotations from Ecce Homo are taken from, F. Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann, Basic Writings of Nietzsche (New York: Modern Library, 1968), pp. 782-783.

[xxii] “In schizophrenia, the assimilation and inflation of the Ego can be caused by the weakness of the Ego or the increase in the pressure from non-integrated complexes in the unconscious.”,integrated%20complexes%20in%20the%20unconscious.

[xxiii] Jan Sejna, We Will Bury You, p. 163.

[xxiv] Sejna, pp. 101-02. Special note: Sejna apparently knew nothing about the Sino-Soviet split being part of the long-range Plan. As I told Sejna’s friend, Joe Douglass, from the Kremlin’s standpoint Sejna had no need to know. In fact, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence staff, James Angleton, was suspicious of Sejna on this score.

[xxv] Sejna, pp. 153-54.

Quartlery Subscription (to support the website)


189 thoughts on “Totalitarian Subversion, Part II: Laying Bare the Unreason of the World {With Assorted Videos}

  1. I am about half way through the reality via Jan Kozak’s book…”and not a shot is fired”

    1. Here are two more recent Jeff Nyquist interviews. The discussion with Loudon was excellent, we can now see the pieces on the board being moved around by Russia and China.
      Jeff Nyquist: Ukraine, Israel – How Can We Stop WWIII? | The Trevor Loudon Report 10.22.23

  2. The United Nations plans to take 30% of the land in the United States and Australia for conservation, for starters. Does Russia and China control the United Nations, or will the United Nations have to fight Russia and China for possession of US and Aussie land?

    1. The United Nations has no army or nuclear weapons. They can only take what the communists give them. The UN has no secret service, no aligned mafias. In the end, the communists are just using the UN as another sabotage medium.

      1. If Russia controls the United Nations, why then did the UN reject Russia’s recent resolution of Gaza, and also Russia’s earlier complaint about US bio-weapons labs in Ukraine?

      2. I did not say Russia controls the UN, though it controls aspects of it. Some UN agencies are under Russian or Chinese influence (the WHO is thought to be dominated by China). There is the General Assembly of the UN, which votes against the US all the time (but not every time); and then there is the Security Council of the UN where the US, France and UK are permanent members with veto power over Russia and China who also have vetos.

      3. The late, Fr. Malachi Martin, PhD, Vatican adviser to the Pope, wrote in, The Keys Of This Blood, that there is a contest for World domination, between Russia, The United States, The European Union, and The Vatican. Perhaps he did not mention China, because at the time that book was written, China was not capable of being enough of a threat?

        Could it be that Russia and China are not the only contenders, and that the US, EU, and The Vatican, still have significant influence in the UN? If so, then which over riding entity would control the land donated to the UN by various countries?

      4. The UN has a lot of communist influence and very little from the Vatican. Although the Vatican appears to have been taken over by the communist bloc. At least it looks that way.

      5. The Vatican has it’s first Jesuit Pope, now. The Jesuits come out of the Bavarian ilLuminati, as does Skull & Bones. Has there been a merger of Neo Nazis and Neo Communists of late?

      6. Why if the UN is Communist why do they continually reject Russia’s motions?

      7. I’m not asking you to repeat yourself. The question is, who is going to control the land if not Russia or China? Or who else is it that thinks they are going to be the hegemon? All the World is cooperating in the depopulation agenda. If everyone has gone Commy, then who is the dog and pony show supposed to fool?

      8. You have so many preconceptions it is impossible to answer without unwinding them. Best to go back and read my books and past writings. I can on say, first off: There is not going to be any land for the UN in America unless America is taken over by the communists. For the UN to be useful to the communists you have a lot of intermediate steps and “ifs” that have to unfold, because attempts by the communists to use the UN to cripple the US go back to 1945, and none of them ever played out. The UN is just an arena for pushing various agendas that don’t go anywhere. Perhaps it will work out one day, but the US has sovereignty. Only communists taking total control here can change that. And if communists get total control here and disarm the country, the UN won’t be necessary. If the communists take America from within country they are ordered to disarm it. In that event, Russia has already agreed to give the lower 48 states to China. When the US falls — if it falls before China does — this is the planned outcome. Forget about the UN.

      9. In public kindergarten they had us duck and cover. In first grade Catechism they told us not to join the Knights Of Columbus.

      10. You don’t suppose that Biden accedes to UN agendas, and would dictate an executive order to place Federal lands under UN jurisdiction?

      11. They are beginning this process, but it is simply an excuse to take minerals and other resources out of the economy. That is all. The UN itself is only a proxy in this process. For this to succeed, the Biden Marxists would have to remain in power, and if they remain long enough, and succeed in destroying our economy, we will be catastrophically attacked by Russia and China. And as I said, UN jurisdiction is fairy tale. It is a fiction only. A tool of communist strategy.

      12. All these associations belong to the “transmission belts” of the Soviets. Very cleverly threaded

  3. Jeff, people were ragging on you last week about you disparaging Bible Prophecy. I’ve noticed that too, but you have explained that you believe as some other camp does, that Prophecy has already been fulfilled, if I read you right? Anyway, your dad was a preacher. Was that his position? Also, you seem more into philosophy than Scripture. Is that a fair observation? Do you consider the Bible more along the lines of philosophy than absolute Truth?

      1. @ Ohengineer: Tarshish and the young lions thereof in Ez 38:13 are the Anglo nations, including the US, which means we will remain allied when the time comes, but unable or unwilling to assist Israel. Also, I am certain that the one tenth part of the great city that falls in the great earthquake (political transformation) in Revelation 11 is the US, but the 17th Century Reformed writers in Europe seem mostly to have thought it referred to the UK.

    1. That was me “ragging” on Jeff… Don’t get me wrong, I regard Jeff as the most important authority on exposing the communist movement in this world and consider his work essential reading for all true conservatives (not that there are many of us left) and try to encourage people to read his works. Plus I am very fond of him because he is plainly a principled man.

      My position is that world events are going to converge on / align with certain prophecies within touching distance of the present day, and that those prophecies were not given in vain. Of course, there are many who have been crying wolf over such things for a long time and I understand the natural cynicism towards any new interpretations; but on the plus side, I am being very specific about timings: the Lord’s last faithful public ministries will be gagged by hate speech laws in 2025 in the West, and 3.5 years later they will, against all odds, recover and be invited into a role in government in a major western country (I say the US, the 17th & 18th century historicist interpreters thought the UK or France), so we don’t have long to wait and see if I am wrong. The laws for the former development are already in bill stage in every western country (the one for here in the UK is just awaiting the King’s approval) and the geopolitical ducks are lining up for the events surrounding the 3.5 years later development (which coincides with the “fire” sent by the Lord in Ezekiel 39:6)… Yes, I am predicting nuclear war in late 2028 / early 2029 based on that.

      1. Sorry, Quietman, but I don’t see any dates in the prophecies you cite. Like Jeff, I have strong doubts. I fear that we need to be ready NOW for the attack.

      2. One of the things about prophecy that stands out is the absence of anything referring to the US. Some think the US will have been destroyed or, like me, neutralized so the US has no means of influencing world events any longer. One of the things that Jeff has reported, and has been seen by others, is the large portion of those coming in as illegals are men who are fit and of military age from China, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Recall that a shipment of infantry small arms was intercepted from a shipment from China several years ago. Wanna bet there are weapons caches in the US to supply the people coming in from the places listed above?

        I’m not one to place a date on any of the prophecies in scripture. They will occur when they occur, but it is certain they will occur because they are in scripture and Bible Prophecy is always fulfilled precisely and completely. Events that set the stage have been occurring, and with increasing speed. The war with Hamas is part of setting the stage. Russia and Iran have supported Hamas, and those are two of the countries referenced as part of the coalition that will attempt to invade Israel as predicted in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39.

      3. More Chinese restaurants in the USA than McDonald’s worldwide. And everyone has male cooks. I’ll tell a story. When I was in high school I’d save my lunch money frequently and go to my local Chinese restaurant after school instead. I must have eaten there 100s of times. Several times I’d see white adult men in the back of the kitchen speaking Mandarin or Cantonese, I always thought it odd. They were not employees, not working, just talking. This was 92-96. Pre my discovery of Nyquists work. In hind site, I was thinking, Russian money laundering, or drugs, or some other nefarious thing involving Chinese restaurants all over the USA. One of my last jobs, just before Covid was as a sushi chef at a restaurant where I was the only American sushi chef with like 6 other guys- all Chinese of military age.

      4. What would be the point of the Rapture if most all of the Christians had been killed first? Hopefully, the reason why the Unites States, the World’s greatest superpower, is conspicuous by it’s absence in the Bible, is because the Rapture will remove the majority of Americans? Who else is going to buy all that cheap, Chinese junk on credit? Who knows, maybe even Jeff might be Raptured?

      5. Apologies, I should have scepticism, not cynicism.

        Reading your article, Jeff, (which is gold, by the way), it is plain to me that communism is an instrument of Satan set up oppose the Kingdom of Christ, regardless of how Old Nick has sold it to his very own useful idiots at the helm of it. It really is biblical, Apocalyptic and… well, time will prove me right in saying that it is the scarlet system of Revelation 17.

      6. The Scarlet Whore of Babylon is the one World religion of the False Prophet (The Second Beast). When the Antichrist recovers from an apparent mortal head wound, he turns against the False Prophet and proclaims himself to be God, taking the throne in the Third Temple, the False Prophet, flees to Iraq, moving the church headquarters from Rome.

      7. When the Satanic church moves to Babylon, Iraq will become an extremely, prosperous country, until Russia invades. Consider, that the Whore must be a religion that will appease both the apostate Christians who missed out on The Rapture, as well as Muslims. Mary and Jesus are revered as Saints, in Islam. This new religion is the old religion of Babylon, based upon worship of Semiramis and her erratic son whom only she can pacify.

      8. @ JAKE P. ROSCOE: Look at Rev 3:3, which is a command to go back and look at the gains of the Reformation, including its historicist eschatology; what you are expressing is futurism and is wrong, and designed by its originators to be so, on almost every point: Rapture, Babylon, Antichrist, etc.

      9. Re:
        [ QUIETMAN says:
        November 2, 2023 at 8:02 am

        @ JAKE P. ROSCOE: Look at Rev 3:3 ]

        The letter to the Seven Churches, is coincidentally a Prophecy of the sequential ages of the Church. Guess which Church represents the Church of today?

  4. Special note: Sejna apparently knew nothing about the Sino-Soviet split being part of the long-range Plan. As I told Sejna’s friend, Joe Douglass, from the Kremlin’s standpoint Sejna had no need to know. In fact, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence staff, James Angleton, was suspicious of Sejna on this score.
    This is an excellent point – and it only shows how much of ifs and hows there are when someone wants to analyze the whole problem and decide what the truth is and what it is not.

    But at the end, the results is what matters – and in this case, Moscow wanted to keep it as much secret as possible, and to use China to destroy the capitalist West with the cheap communist slave labor, sort of fabricated bait, so that the desire of money and profit would overweight the moral principle of keeping the liberty defending states separated from the communist slave labor tyrannies, as communist states must never be trusted to be honest, nor to be accommodated in any way whatsoever.

    Of course meantime the KGB and related subordinated services plotted and executed thorough infiltration of the western intelligence services, to cripple the counter-intelligence efforts of the same, and then they orchestrated their false collapse of communism, and elevated themselves into “trustworthy people”, only to secure the ultimate subversion of the hated capitalist states, including the United States.

    What Gramsci had concocted is a communist self-serving scheme, because it preys on the weaknesses of those who are attacked by it, their moral decay, lack of professing the true religion, and of course then the protection from God is no longer there and such peoples are vulnerable the more to communist subversion and ultimately acceptance of communism as “equal”. Atheism then become the leading foundation of life of the state, and nothing can replace it anymore – the rejection of God is complete, such a country is lost to the communist Mafia already, and in advance.

    And then it was the communist – socialist asset Jimmy Carter who began the notoriously evil Department of Education, which state secular power must NEVER have, as then the predominant philosophy of the state power becomes the guiding principle for the overall curriculum foundations, and thus the perversion of morality, character of the youth, religious and political understanding and so on, is the only outcome…and when the leading principle (or philosophy) of the state is guided by communist ideological goals, the entire country’s future generations fall into the hands of their enemies the communists, by perverting their understanding that communism is intrinsically evil and can never be accepted under any pretense or promises from the communists whatsoever – and this is the most evil outcome today evident – visibly here.

    1. Departments of education, at the state and federal level, have promoted sinister curriculum changes for decades. It is a very serious problem.

    1. China won’t be too, quick to make any obvious coop. They’ll just sit back and wait for the US to spread it’s troops even thinner.

  5. QUOTE (ROSCOE): The Vatican has it’s first Jesuit Pope, now. The Jesuits come out of the Bavarian ilLuminati, as does Skull & Bones.

    A complete lie !

    The Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) were founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spain. They are the reason why all the countries of South America and Mexico etc. were all Catholic.

    On the subject of the Vatican – that is non-Catholic pro-communist sect, it is non-Catholic new religion, their ceremonies are all perverted and null, invalid, and their so called “mass” is heretical Protestant re-enactment of the Last Supper, created in 1969 AD by the enemy of the Catholic Church and excommunicated Msgr. Giovanni Bautista Montini (who was never validly elected to the Papacy as such election of a heretic by heretics is automatically null), and so this present resident in white cassock layman impostor Bergoglio is not so much as a valid priest, much less the Pope, and he has long history of communist contacts in his native Argentina, and has even met with the KGB criminal Putin inside the Vatican several times.

    The Jesuit Order no longer exists, these are all apostate sectarians and they most likely don’t even practice the religious rule of that order, as these communist agents perverted everything they laid their atheistic hands on, including the liturgy and even the Holy Scripture and so on.

    But this above quote is the kind of pro-communist propaganda disseminated today, God will repay this kind of lies (and all others remaining), when the time comes.

    Pacepa wrote about the KGB “religion directorate” concocting the entire “Liberation theology” which destroyed the Catholic Faith in South and Central America, Bergoglio was (still is) part of this heretical evil.

      1. Well, I liked him very much. If he was a Jesuit, then he was a whistle blower, extraordinaire.

      2. (ROSCOE): The Franciscan Order are the good guys. The Jesuits have always been evil.

        If you believe that about the Jesuits then you will believe anything.
        BTW, what you call Franciscan Order, they don’t exist either, as those who claim to be Franciscans are today either connected with the Novus Ordo Sect (and are therefore not Catholic), and or they are sedevacantist heretics (which is just about the same – except that they profess the Catholic religion, more of less, contrary to the Apostate Sect Novus Ordo – the one that layman communist asset Bergoglio is the head of…in the occupied Vatican).

        This what you are asserting is a sacrilegious accusation against one of the most illustrious Catholic Church orders in history of the Church. They converted millions of people to the Catholic Faith (which is nothing else but Catholic Tradition, which evidently you know nothing about as an evident heretic) – and so no true Catholic would be able to say something so directly untrue as you are asserting here about the Jesuits.

        Of course speaking about the Jesuits, what they are today, that’s not the Society of Jesus anymore, as these heretics are tied with the non-Catholic Sect Novus Ordo, and thus they don’t profess the Catholic religion but new and communist concocted neo-Protestant heretical falsehood.

        Montini had 6 Protestant minister helping him to instituted that abomination they use since 1969, which is not the Mass and never was.

        Before you assert something so untrue, learn first and don’t invent any sacrilegious falsehoods. It is a shame that people are in fact capable of these fabrications, and yes, this sounds like communist invented anti-Catholic propaganda.
        About Pacepa – he knew all this, and so when he wrote about the KGB agent Kirril (who is not the true Patriarch of Moscow, and they are Russian Orthodox schismatics since the 11th century anyway, so outside the Catholic Church for that long), so there is a video of Bergoglio hugging this KGB agent Kirril during their meeting in communist Cuba, signing some kind of (invalid and null) agreement, which of course only illustrates their communist affiliation the more.

        Here is another of their communist agents who was never valid and true Pope, but only excommunicated apostate bishop Karol Wojtyla – arriving in Castro’s Cuba, shaking hands with this communist tyrant. Wojtyla burns in Hell forever as they have no means to absolve themselves and these are excommunicated sectarians and God will not grant them the necessary grace nor do they have the true Sacrament of Penance, and of course they are not Catholic. (disregard the title Pope in regards of Wojtyla – that is of course a heretical lie and nothing else). – Bergoglio said that they talk as among (or with) brothers…with this KGB agent Kirril and the communists of the KGB run “Russian Orthodox”.

        [BTW – Wojtyla had the KGB PLO terrorist Yaser Arafat in the Vatican also, perhaps more than once, and have given him gifts etc. shaking hands and smiling at him – this is how bad this horrible Sect of Satan is.] – – Bergoglio and Kirril in Cuba

      3. Before or after, he did say some things about the LUCIFER telescope on Mt Graham

  6. Once again, thank you Jeff, plus Alex and Daniel. Informative, enlightening and thought-expanding. The format of essay plus interviews really hands off to me each ‘episode’ some great new areas of research and perspective. I so hope you can keep it coming.

    1. Putin mentioned Stalin as his hero. Jeff, would you expect Putin to use many of Stalin’s tactics (or perhaps has he already?)

      It is interesting that our first female Blue Angel demo pilot’s call sign is Stalin. I was shocked that the Navy would allow that; to me (a former cold warrior Navy pilot of same aircraft) it seemed that having a call sign of Stalin is the same or worse than having a call sign of Hitler. My objections about parading this call sign as she started her demo tour were either ignored or steamrolled. Is perhaps our own military already on board with communism, or what else would explain allowing and even parading such terms?

      1. I am surprised that a Blue Angel would use “Stalin” as a call sign. But then, the times are full of unpleasant surprises. Putin has his own unique version of Stalin’s tactics. Except for a few oligarchs, politicians, and scientists, Putin does not put on show trials. And these trials are boring. No spectacular confessions.,Everything is low key by comparison. Putin relies on assassination more than Stalin, who could have people tried and shot rather quickly — or drag it out for years. Stalin’s purges were massive. Hundreds of thousands arrested in short order. Putin picks people off. Putin is more nuanced, and rarely bumps off people from his inner circle. Actually, if we properly identify his inner circle, you could argue that he never kills those close to him. In this Putin may have a split personality in how he treats people. Are they “in the family” or not? Stalin murdered a great many of his early peers. Stalin’s second wife died under suspicious circumstances. There are many unresolved questions surrounding certain Stalin-era deaths. Did he poison Gorky? Did he kill his wife? Did he order Kirov’s murder? Tactics are a personality marker, I think. Putin was a chekist. He favors provocation. He is “the little Andropov.” He gives people rope to see if they hang themselves. He warns them, but then they fall out of windows without any rope. Stalin liked to toy with his victims. He had many tortured into confessions. He admired those who would not confess. Putin is vindictive. Stalin could admire his opponents. There is a personal element in his motivations. Stalin was more calculating, more prone to act when exasperated or threatened. Stalin had Trotsky assassinated, had Trotsky’s son assassinated. He hunted them down. Putin had Litvinenko and Politkovskaya killed. Why do I say Stalin was not as vindictive as Putin? Because he was more patient. He took his time. He was not in a hurry. Stalin laughed more than Putin and played dark jokes on people. Putin is humorless, except for a cynical and dry kind of humor — but he winks more than Stalin. What happened to the Kursk? asked Larry King. “It sank,” said Putin, with a slight smile. If seriously asked that question Stalin might have said, “Gorbachev left us a Navy, but we turned it into s—-t.” Then the admiral would have been arrested and shot, along with the entire staff of the Northern Fleet. With Stalin accountability was a real thing. With Putin, not so much.

      2. Thanks for the insightful reply, Jeff. Perhaps Putin is smarter than Stalin. I wonder if it is any coincidence if the attack on Israel happened to fall on Putin’s birthday? Was it a birthday present from Hamas? It also fell on the Roman calendar 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war, but Israel goes by a different calendar. So many coincidences!

      3. If I had to guess, I’d say it was a gift to Putin. The chosen day cannot have been an accident. As for Putin being smarter than Stalin, I do not think so. Stalin was uniquely gifted. Putin is mediocre, though he is using Stalin’s book. He could not do any of this without Stalin’s book. If he is to succeed he is going to have to purge his upper ranks, and I do not know if he could pull that off.

      4. Incredible, the dates. I’ve seen no one pick up on this. Ty. Putin vs Stalin… Stalin was an accomplished bank robber, and prison escapee, 5 or 6 times. His attendance at a theological institute is significant. The twists and turns to become the evil genius mass murderer. Putin, he’s only ALLEGEDLY been compromised as a pedophile by the KGB. Russia appears to be in a weaker state than under Stalin.

      5. Yes, the Pedophile accusation of Litvinenko against has been used to re-color Moscow’s motive for a political hit. One needs to be a bit skeptical when all these news outlets refuse to repeat Litvinenko’s more serious implied allegation; namely, that Putin was behind 9/11.

      6. Litvinenko was FSB counter terrorism, responsible for these things. I remember a Czech dissident lt. Vlamir something that was imprisoned for talking about this. You asked us to pray for him. You gave us his address in Czech prison. I actually sent him a letter. No reply. Was 8 bucks. Was not Petr Cibulka.

      7. I sent this These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

      8. The call signs of navy Pilots are rarely chosen by the pilot themselves, but is awarded by more senior pilots. Ward Carroll, for example, got the call sign “Mooch” because he was assigned a squadron that shipped out to soon for him to prepare and he had to borrow things he normally would not have had to ask for. A friend got the call sign “Dyslexic” because he went to his first operational squadron meeting with his name plate over his left breast pocket and his wings over the right – the opposite of what they should be. “Dyslexic” morphed to just “Lex” over the years, and he had that call sign until his death in March 2012 at Fallon.

        I’m not certain what would have precipitated her call sign, “Stalin,” but I’m sure she didn’t make it up herself. She might have been a bit bossy.

      9. OK. Who in that squad gave her that name? “Man of Steal”. Is shim a man? Do any 🇺🇸 fighter pilots like what Stalin did? Is there so many Russian Americans in the USAF that this ok?

      10. Putin has been called cunning, but not very smart. Seeing what we have in Ukraine, however, I’m not willing to say he is even cunning.

  7. Ultimately, in order to destroy western civilization, the communists must destroy trust in the message of the Bible. It is from a literal reading of the Bible that we got modern science, the Protestant work ethic, equal justice for all, including government, under the law, capitalism, true tolerance among other benefits. Unfortunately, non-Christians in our society who don’t trust the Bible’s message have perverted these blessings. This perversion started already in the 1800s.

    To give an example of one way the Bible is being attacked, a while back Jeff mentioned some guy named Bart Ehrman. I didn’t recognize the name. I looked him up. I learned that he teaches the same tired Kwatsch that was already old when Albert Schweitzer was at the university. It’s a teaching that has its historical roots in evolution, the superiority of the Germanic races, antisemitism and hatred of Christianity. Hatred of Christianity is the reason to keep teaching it. While communists didn’t invent this teaching, you can bet that they push it because of its usefulness.

    Another angle of attack against the Bible’s message came from a fellow named Eric Voegelin. Well, time to look up him too. I’m _not_ impressed. He spins some impressionistic stories inspired by but otherwise divorced from the text of the Bible, from what the Biblical text actually says. “…it was clear that Voegelin was not a Christian in anything like the usual sense of the term. … The 1974 volume contained a chapter on “The Pauline Vision of the Resurrected” in which Voegelin made it clear that he did not accept Christ as his personal savior and that he blamed St. Paul for laying the groundwork for gnosticism through his teaching that “we shall all be changed” at the Second Coming (I Corinthians 15:51-52). “As far as Paul is concerned,” Voegelin wrote, “the vision of the Resurrected assured him that the transfiguration of reality had actually begun and would soon be completed by the Second Coming.” (He completely misread the passage because he didn’t believe in the literal, historical second coming of Christ.) Eric Voegelin’s mysticism is a type of Gnosticism in the traditional meaning of the term. (cf. )

    The above is not a critique of his political analysis. But his mysticism facilitates the very totalitarianism which he decries.

    As a Biblical literalist, what the Biblical text actually says is important. “The devil is in the details.” A careful analysis based on using a study of the original languages is required for a proper understanding of what the Bible actually teaches. (I oppose Dispensationalism because its stories, especially those of the future, are like Voegelin’s with no solid anchors in the text of the Bible.)

    Concerning Biblical prophecy, one must be very careful. For example, an analysis in Hebrew of Daniel 9:27 reveals details accurately unique to the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt 66–73 AD and to no other event. It was written centuries earlier. Likewise the details mentioned in Ezekiel 38–39 are unique to no event that has happened in the past.

    While my main study was in science, I dabbled in philosophy and comparative religions. I got bored with philosophy. I recognized the same patterns beneath differences in terminology used over and over again. Philosophers spill rivers of ink when somebody uses a different term than what others had previously used for the same concept, but I shake my head when I see no significant difference in the ideas presented. Basically, I think like a scientist, not a philosopher.

    1. Voegelin was baptized and confirmed as a Lutheran. He was buried as a Lutheran. His political analysis is consistent with Christianity, though he used Greek philosophy to critique modern philosophic approaches. Voegelin was not a Gnostic. His writings are actually opposed to Gnosticism. Calling him a totalitarian is odd, since his writings were dedicated to dissecting totalitarianism, which he strongly disliked. It is an analysis that explains, in essence, the nature of today’s Satanic inversion. And before you can have science there must be a philosophy of science, there must be epistemology and proper method.

      1. At one time “Lutheran” meant a particular set of teachings. But already by the 1840s Lutherans fled persecution by the state Lutheran church that no longer taught those teachings. Today “Lutheran” is an undefined term meaning nothing. Those organizations using the term “Lutheran” use it in the same way as a store calling itself “Fry’s”.

        Yes Voegelin opposed gnosticism according to his idiosyncratic use of “gnostic”. But we are not Humpty Dumpty in ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’ making up our own uses of words divorced from how words are used in normal communication. “Gnostic” in normal use includes the mysticism that Voegelin practiced. Hence Voegelin was a Glostic. He was not a Christian according to how Christianity is described in the New Testament. Like “Lutheran” above, “Christian” and “Christianity” are undefined terms meaning nothing except when tied to a literal reading of the New Testament.

        I didn’t call Voegelin a totalitarian. All I note is that totalitarianism has its roots in Gnosticism, including the gnosticism that Voegelin practiced.

        I haven’t studied on what basis Voegelin opposed totalitarianism, so I don’t comment on that.

        Early modern scientists took the epistemology found in a literal reading of the Bible to develop the scientific method. In the process, they utterly rejected the teachings from ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. Once the method was developed, people who don’t believe the Bible can use the method.

      2. Mr. R.O: I have asked you to stop this theologizing. Your course is quite destructive. You have just insulted a large number of readers, namely Lutherans, and perhaps many other Christians. How is this helpful to our country’s cause? How does it serve Christ, for that matter? You claim to know many things. Perhaps you are right, but I have doubts about you. And so, I am going to spell them out.

        There are 44,000 different Protestant denominations, and if all of these interpret the Bible differently, then we have at least 44,000 arguments about the meaning of various scriptural passages. Who is right and who is wrong? You call yourself a “literalist.” I’ll bet that everyone who calls themselves a literalist does not agree on what this means. You have already admitted that Christ is not literally a lamb. So, not everything in the Bible is literal. Right? So How are you a “literalist”? This makes no sense. And we have this problem of distinguishing what is to be taken literally, and how it is to be understood when it is not literal. I submit that this is not an easy problem.

        I have said again and again, this site is not for theological disputation. So I am not goint to dispute theology with you. I am going to explain why we cannot admit such disputations into our politics, and why I try to keep things on a philosophic level.

        But you insist that yours is a scientific theological perspective while my philosophic approach is unscientific and even anti-Christian. This argument, for me, is a non sequitur. I cannot make sense of it. I doubt that you know what you are talking about. Naturally, you are terribly insulted. In retaliation you hurtle the gravest insults at me — and on and on it goes.

        If you are right, we will know soon enough. But from everything I know, your interpretation is not in accordance with Russian intentions. That’s all I’m saying. Destroying Isreal is not the focus of Russian strategy. Destroying America is.

        There is, to the bargain, this nasty animus you have against anyone who derives insights from Aristotle or Plato. Have you read Aquinas or Augustine? You accused Voegelin of not being Chritsian, yet you linked to an article about Voegelin being a Christian! The author of the article you cited describes Voegelin in glowing terms as an intellectual defender of the faith. What was the point of that? Were you making my argument for me?

        Voegelin was a non-denominational defender of Christian civilization. Why did he take this approach? Because he was carefully stepping over the many dead bodies left by the Wars of Religion. He did not want to divide the West; so he carefully used Greek terms, sidestepping those modern words that are, in essence, “fighting words.” After all, Germany was Voegelin’s fatherland, and Germany was the country of the Thirty Years’ War — a war in which Christian murdered Christian decade after decade. Have we learned anything from this tragic episode? Have we enough humility to admit that such fighting is a bad idea? And here you are, picking up where that war left off. Only you would unite the Lutherans and Catholics, as they are both apparently your enemies!

        The Founding Fathers put the separation of Church and State in our Constitution because they had the Wars of Religion in their rear view mirror (as it were). In Oliver Cromwell’s day, you had people who thought the Millennium was about to unfold. These people also interpretted the Bible literally. And there was this bloody civil war in England, which spread to Scotland and Ireland. Is this our future? Is this the future you want for us? We have to agree with you or we’re enemies of God? In other words, you know God’s mind? That seems to be what you are insisting on. But I say that God is a mystery. And that means we should not presume to understand HIM out of turn. Of course, you can sneer and call me a “mystic.” And you can misunderstand “mystic” as a synomym for “Gnostic” if you want. But that still does not get you out of your impertinence. You are claiming to know what is hidden, to have the key, which you call a “literal” key; and that, sir, is Gnostic. You then insinuate that Voegelin is an Antichrist, a Gnostic. You know what the right interpretation of a prophecy is, and if I doubt YOU, I am an apostate.

        In all this I fear that you are unmaking Christians faster than you are making them — and unmaking yourself in the process. For if Christianity is your way or the highway, then you may be the only Christian left in the entire world. And when you expire, only heathens will remain.

        Your first post on this thread incited religious animus against this website, You did this very slyly. I had to delete a posting from someone who, in response to what you wrote, rudely suggested I was not spanked enough as a child; for if I had been spanked harder, I would have turned out better. Such was the vomit your missives have inspired. I have you to thank for that, and for all the people you have taught to hate me, and to hate Lutherans and Presbyterians and Catholics; for that appears to be the purpose of your coming here. Whereas, I want people to see their enemies more clearly, you want people to see me as their enemy.

        One last thing. Your bizarre claims about modern science coming out of Biblical literalism are baffling. What history of science are you reading? In Adam Smith’s “History of Astronomy” and his “History of Ancient Physics,” there is nothing about Biblical literalism that I can recall. Smith suggested, rather, that the origins of modern science were pagan. But not only pagan. Will you admit that science was revived within the Catholic Universities of the Middle Ages, or in the Italian Renaissance? Where is the Biblical literalism in that? Will you deny that science was revived on account of interest in ancient learning, partly owing to the fall of Byzantium, and the arrival in Italy of manuscripts rescued from Constantinople? And I cannot find a history that says Galileo and Copernicus were brought to their observations by a literal reading of the Bible. So I’m just baffled. What modern scientists are you talking about?

        In writing this, you are either a genius far out of my league or you are simply mistaken. Perhaps you should be writing books of your own instead of rubbing my nose in the fact that I do not understand these things.

        I am baffled by your assertion that “early modern scientists took the epistemology found in a literal reading of the Bible to develop the scientific method.” What epistemology?! You mean Francis Bacon was a Biblical literalist? I do not see how that is possible. Which early modern scientists are you talking about? Do you meant Newton? Wasn’t Newton obsessed with astrology? Do you mean political scientists like Thomas Hobbes? But Hobbes was inspired by Thucydides, and by Galileo. You say the early scientists rejected the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers. Yet, in the writings of Leonardo da Vinci there are no refutations of Plato or Aristotle. There are, instead, references to the fact da Vinci had read them, that he knew their texts. So again, you may call Voegelin idiosyncratic, but Voegelin is actually using Greek philosophy and Christian thinking synthetically, showing in what way they have been merged in our civilization, in traditional Christian thinking, and how that thinking led to the political institutions of the West (i.e., freedom and scientific understanding).

        Of course, you hate the ancients, and you hate this long history of Western culture, which looks to Athens and to Jerusalem. You apparently hate everything that science was actually based on. Clearly, you have not read Augustine or Aquinas. Okay. So you reject this heritage. Congratulations, Mr. Modern Man. Your alternative is to rationalize on the basis of Biblical literalism. But where does it say in the Bible that rationalizing on a literalist understanding of scripture is the correct way to proceed? A Catholic theologian would point out that Biblical literalism is not itself Biblical. So it seems to me you are going backward into unreason, toward Christian burning Christian at the stake. So forgive me for doubting your “methodology.”

      3. P.S. Ellis Sandoz, who knew Voegelin and helped with his memoirs, wrote that Voegelin picked two scriptural texts to be read at his funeral service: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die, it brings forth much fruit. He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.”

        And, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If anyman love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever….”

        Voegelin told his wife that this second scripture was chosen “for repentence,” which is understandable given the way he couched some of his earlier political analysis.

        Voegelin was constantly pestered by sectarians who wanted to “classify” him. “When somebody wants me to be a Catholic or a Protestant,” he wrote to John East, “I tell him that I am a ‘pre-Reformation Christian.’ If he wants to nail me down as a Thomist or Augustinian, I tell him I am a ‘pre-Nicene Christian.’ And if he wants to nail me down earlier, I tell him that even Mary the Virgin was not a member of the Catholic Church.” Voegelin had a number of these stock evasions, which were then the subject of gossip as to what he was. In this way he avoided taking a theological side. As a political scientist, he did not want to compromise his neutrality. Privately, he was Protestant. Yet, he wanted to avoid sectarian battles.

      4. “All I note is that totalitarianism has its roots in Gnosticism, …” Totalitarianism has roots that go back to the creation of man. If you believe in God, even the fallen angels had this deliusion, beyond time and space. I think it’s intrinsic, meta human.

      5. Let’s not exaggerate. The Scientific Method is pretty simple and straight forward. While a theory might require the compilation of complicated details, and the means of testing an hypothesis to prove the theory to be true or false, might be difficult to concoct, the theory and the testable component thereof, must be clear. Furthermore, those results must be replaceable by qualified peers.

        The trend nowadays has been given the slogan, ‘Evidence Based Science,’ which isn’t Science, at all. Science is not where a group of supposed scientists attend a conference in the tropics, and vote while guzzling Mai Tais, on which half baked hypothesis is most likely to one day magically acquire a testable component that will somehow manage to be proven true.

        It’s similar to how civil litigation must be proven by a preponderance of evidence, whereas a criminal case must be proven to a higher standard; beyond all reasonable doubt.

        The so-called, social sciences, rely upon debunking of subjects prejudicially dismissed without testing for veracity. Social science is pseudo science.

      6. The last traditional Protestant Church was the, Lutheran Missouri Synod, but alas, it too seems to have fallen into apostasy.

      7. “I had to delete a posting from someone who, in response to what you wrote, rudely suggested I was not spanked enough as a child; for if I had been spanked harder, I would have turned out better.”

        I didn’t say ‘harder,’ I said “more”. Ultimately, perhaps this explains why you get spanked so much, now, here?

      8. Helmut the Anonymous: I am trying to warn you about what is coming. If you succeed in harming me, or discrediting me in the eyes of other Americans, you actually help the people who want to murder you, your friends and your family. That makes you a special kind of stupid.

      9. Re:
        [ bedlamsbard1 says:
        October 31, 2023 at 12:08 pm

        Hugh Ross argues that scientific method comes from the Bible.

        reasons. org/explore/publications/articles/interpreting-creation-part-3-the-scientific-method ]

        This is interesting. Does Ross believe that “evolution” merits testing? It originally was called, Natural Selection. Then Darwinism. Latter it became the, Theory of Evolution, but that lacked any testable component to qualify as a theory. Now it’s referred to as Evolution, as if it’s a foregone conclusion.

        I say fine and dandy, but the fact is that Darwin’s hypothesis has evolved into a belief system which can’t even be proven true, without an controlled experiment which would take eons to conduct and conclude.

      10. No he doesn’t believe evolution explains origin of man or first life, or Avalon, Cambrian and other explosions of life after major extinguishment events. Hes a Phd astrophysicist old Earth creationist Christian apologist.

      11. Jeff, the street goes both ways.

        I fully expect that we will be subject to a Red Dawn attack on U.S. soil. I expect that between a few months to maybe a year or two. In that attack, all I ask of the person sharing the foxhole with me is that he shoot straight. He could be a Rastafarian with dread locks, for all I care, I just want someone who is trustworthy to have my back. I am partially disabled, therefore was not allowed to join that little dustup in southeast Asia when I was young. But now I’m an old codger and the war is coming to me. I need to be ready, physically as well as mentally.

        I’m a member of another discussion group where many people, in worse physical shapes than I, are prepared to die at their doorways while taking out as many of the foes as they can.

        But before the bullets fly …

        The street goes both ways. How is it not offensive to hear of someone who opposed what Luther taught be called a “Lutheran”? How is it not offensive when someone claims to be a “Christian” when he clearly is a Gnostic in his teachings opposing what the Bible teaches? You ask us not to take offense? Even when we are presented such offenses almost daily?

        How does it serve Christ not to be offended by and oppose such falsehoods?

        You have spoken out against dispensationalism and condemned it. In particular you have opposed their view of eschatology. Are you wrong in your theologizing? Will you take your own advice? Like you, I see their teaching as weakening our defense against the coming assault. But we should not speak out against it?

        There are 44,000 different Protestant denominations. Many if not most of them try to teach the Bible literally. In fact, that is the reason for their existence apart from other denominations. How do you not offend them when you present someone who clearly opposed Biblical literalism as one of them? How is your theologizing not offensive to them?

        At the time of the Reformation, the question of Biblical literalism was not disputed as both sides claimed that the Bible is literally true. It was that belief in Biblical literalism that defined European society. It gave the anchor to oppose Islam by both Protestants and Catholics. Even though Protestantism was the crucible that birthed modern science, Catholics were quick to join them. Looking back over history, the “religious” wars tended to be more based on nationalism than religion. An example being that Catholic France funded Lutheran Sweden to defeat the Holy Roman Empire during the 30 years war.

        What the communists are doing is removing that anchor that gave backbone to western society. Their efforts are especially noteworthy here in the U.S., as Europe has already fallen. That anchor is the Bible read literally. Part of that literalism is that Biblical thinking is functional, not formal. An example of functional thinking is that Jesus was the lamb of God in that he functioned as the sacrifice in our place. All the denominations that try to teach the Bible literally agree to that. This is not an issue in dispute.

        Philosophy is a subset of religion. This is a statement based on functional thinking, not formal thinking.

        You are taking offense where no offense is intended. I insult you? Where? How? All I try to do is to lay out facts and let the facts speak for themselves.

        Do you confuse me with dispensationalists when I discuss Moscow’s goals?

        It’s not in dispute that Voegelin was not personally a Christian as Christianity is defined in the New Testament. Even his admirers admit to that. Only by treating “Christian” as an undefined term can anyone, no matter what he believes and teaches, can call himself a “Christian”.

        The millennium is an early gnostic teaching that doesn’t take the Bible literally, because it is part of a vision of symbols.

        If everyone followed the literal teachings of the Bible, there would be no wars of religion. There would be no state churches. Disputes would be verbal only. Converts are to be convinced through teaching only, not the sword.

        You make so many charges and assumptions that I can’t answer them all. Nothing that I say is hidden, which is gnosticism, rather is in black and white in the Bible. I don’t know God’s mind, but I know what he communicated to us.

        The history of modern science contrasted with medieval science

        I must have touched a raw nerve. You fulminate all sorts of false charges against me.

      12. Jake P. Roscoe says: “The last traditional Protestant Church was the, Lutheran Missouri Synod, but alas, it too seems to have fallen into apostasy.”

        I’m afraid you’re right. I have contacts within the group. The firebrands that saved the church a half century ago are mostly dead or retired. A few of the younger laity who have spoken up have been targeted for re-education or expulsion. Some of the clergy have spoken out, but have been largely silenced. Unlike a half-century ago, there’s no organized resistance to the slide down into apostasy.

      13. Thanks for the concern. I’m quite healthy.

        I just have some permanent physical injuries that prevented me from becoming cannon fodder when I was young, but won’t spare me this time when the invasion comes.


    “Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” G.K.Chesterton
    This is a short essay about Chesterton’s book “What’s Wrong with the World ,” written over 100 years ago, that could have been written yesterday.

    1. Mr. Nyquist, in your opinion, is it possible for a nuclear offensive to occur initially, either directly through a military attack or indirectly through a terrorist attack, targeting Poland instead of another country? Can you identify any strategic rationale for this hypothesis?

      1. You are probably referring to Yuri Felshtinsky’s predictions about a nuclear attack on Poland, which did play out. It seems that Yuri may have been fed this idea by Russian disinformation specialists with the intention of scaring Poland. So, Poland apparently got scared and voted for a government that will take a less provocative approach to Russia. This is an interpretation we must consider. For it does not make sense to use nuclear weapons on Poland or Lithuania alone. This is not consistent with past Soviet and Russian military education. To cross the nuclear threshold is so dangerous as to require the neutralization of America beforehand.

  9. Mr. Nyquist, I was meaning to inquire for some time whether you would be willing to regularly help me with input or insight on a study of Leszek Kołakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism. I figured I could perhaps formulate questions or thoughts about his work and get your brief take on it in this platform/on a weekly basis. How does that sound?

    1. Adam Smith warned people the one activity people shouldn’t expect to end up profitting from is philosophy (or words to that effect); so it goes without saying this would have purely academic goals.

      1. Smith was simply reiterating what Plato and Aristotle taught. Philosophic knowledge is an end in itself. It is higher, and above “profit” in the material sense. It offers more than any material science.

    2. Science fiction author, L Ron Hubbard, spoke at a convention of fellow sci-fi writers. He got up and said something to the effect: ‘You guys are all wasting your time. If you want to get rich, start a religion.’

    3. Pedro: I have not read all of Kołakowski, but I would not mind going through it entirely. It’s probably well worth doing. I believe his writings contains many valuable insights. I am not sure I can teach you anything. Perhaps simply disucssing it would be useful for everyone here.

      1. Thank you, I appreciate your generosity. I will try my best to promote this study in a becoming way.

        It has been some time since I took up Main Currents of Marxism, I perused only a few dozens of pages on volume 1. Just for the sake of a illustrative start; there is an inquiry that occurs to me or stuck with me somehow: Kołakowski postulates the Marxist theory is concerned in an essential way with the idea of solving the problem of temporal universality vs temporal non-universality. To speak more plainly, he suggested Marx was concerned with whether or not one holds to an outlook that is free from supersticions begotten by time and place or created by the mirage of each time and place, as opposed to the outlook whose validity endures for all time. This is somehow visible in the Marxist portrayal of class ideology as a veil blinding or as it were corrupting political agents and taking away from their assessment objectivity and universality. The question occurs to me: What would you reckon is the case today regarding the constancy in today’s marxists outlook, in minding the need to solve the tension between the here and now, on the one end, and the ever, on the other?

        An example of this playing out in recent politics news would be that Russian President Vladimir Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping shared one final exchange before the Chinese leader left Moscow [I believe this was in March, 2023].

        The two men spoke using a translator, where Xi tells Putin that “change is coming that hasn’t happened in 100 years”.

        He follows up by saying “and we are driving this change together”.

        Putin swiftly agrees. I took this report from The Telegraph. The fact Xi and Putin talked about a 100 years time span suggests their way of thinking as related to solving the tension between the here and now and the ever, in other words this worry is constantly in their minds.

      2. Here’s a revised version of my question, I got it with the help of an AI, it maintains the main points while being more engaging and clear:

        There’s an intriguing idea proposed by Kołakowski in his work “Main Currents of Marxism” suggesting that Marxist theory wrestles fundamentally with the conflict between temporal universality and non-universality. In simpler terms, Kołakowski implies that Marx was deeply concerned with distinguishing between worldviews free from the superstitions tied to specific times and places and those that transcend these limitations, holding true for all time.

        Now, the pressing question is: How do today’s Marxists grapple with this same tension between the immediate and the enduring? In recent political events, we’ve seen an interesting example of this debate playing out. Russian President Vladimir Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping had a significant conversation just before Xi left Moscow, which was reported in March 2023. During this exchange, using a translator, Xi mentioned to Putin that they were witnessing a change that hadn’t occurred in a century. This indicates that the concerns about the interplay between the immediate and the long-term are always present in the minds of these influential leaders.

      3. The Marxists I knew in graduate school sneered at the idea of anything enduring. Everything is becoming, they said, everything is changing, “You cannot walk into the same river twice.” Change is all there is. Therefore, properly trained Marxist dialecticians are cynical about static definitions or relative permanence. They will say that you cannot define a thing by what it appears to be. You must think in terms of what it is becoming. Here the law of change is Dialectical, involving forces rising up and colliding with each other to make something new. In theory, real Marxists make no distinction between the changing/ephemeral and the unchanging/eternal. They are materialists! There is only the material and ever-changing. Even their “enduring” realm of fully realized communism is in the material realm. This is what it means to immanentize the Gnostic eschaton. The changing/ephemeral coincides with the material and this is all that exists for them. Their heaven has to be on earth. For dialectical materialists there is no spiritual realm or God that coincides with the unchanging/eternal. In Marxism the unchanging/eternal may only be attained in material reality, by man — and only through a Revolution which brings about communism, which is the end state of the historical dialectic. How does this happen, exactly? Voegelin mockingly called it “magic.” The Marxist parousia and apocalypse is the Revolution. Translation: You murder your way into Heaven. Therefore, Marxism is best described as a metastatic faith; that is, a crazy belief in a saving transformation that will free humanity from the grinding wheel of worldly oppression. This is completely absurd, of course. The blessed, the eternal, the spiritual, cannot exist at all in a universe solely made up of ever-changing and ever-agitated material particles. What, then, is a self-respecting materialist to do? If he examines the question too closely he is going to end up sounding like Martin Heidegger on acid. If this problem is examined too closely, thinkers might stop being Marxists and cease working for “revolutionary change.” So the Marxists need to stick with their classics. In Mao’s famous essay “On Contradiction,” he said existence is made up of constant transformation and contradiction. Different historical periods may be characterized by specific contradictions. When China’s President Xi talks of changes not seen in a hundred years, he is probably thinking in terms of the October Revolution of 1917, which happened a little over 100 years ago. He is probably suggesting it is time for the World October Revolution; that is, the thermonuclear fireworks display that brings on the Great and Final Change. I cannot imagine it being anything else. These fools have been chattering about this, dreaming about this, for a long time.

      4. The conversation between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin in March 2023 seems to align with a political concept highlighted by Golitsyn known as the World October Revolution.

        Despite Marxism’s inclination toward change, when comparing it to historical events like the Statement of 81 Communist and Workers Parties Meeting in 1960 (where Golitsyn had an insider perspective), and contrasting it with more recent campaigns like Vivek Ramaswamy’s social media video calling for the dissolution of the Russia-China political-military partnership, there’s a stark difference in temporal perspectives.

        The disparity in time horizon between these political outlooks becomes apparent—while the Communist perspective has an enduring outlook consistent with historical events dating back decades, Vivek’s campaign appears more short-term and immediate, possibly focusing on events as recent as February 2022. The difference seems striking and has implications, hinting at contrasting viewpoints on the longevity of global political alliances.

        It’s possible that communist agents have found a way to view endurance and change as perspectives that don’t necessarily oppose each other.

      5. PS – there is no disparity in outlook between communism’s different deception operations. All are accomplished within the context of the same Marxist-Leninist philosophy.

      6. I didn’t mean to suggest that Vivek is a communist agent. My point was about Vivek’s perspective compared to the Xi and Putin meeting in March 2023. Vivek seems focused on the perceived political distance between Russia and China before February 2022, but there’s a documented history of their strategic partnership. On the other hand, Xi and Putin’s thoughts seem linked to a goal they partnered to achieve at least sixty years ago during the 1960 Statement of 81 Communist and Workers Parties Meeting. While Vivek talks about reviving the 1776 American Revolution, I suspect he may not consider the broader historical perspective beyond American boundaries or even the form of the developments throughout recent decades in America. On the contrary, it’s arguably unlikely that Xi and Putin are overlooking this larger historical context; they seem acutely aware of it. I might revisit your initial response, as it seems some of the ideas need further thought.

      7. I had a few other thoughts on the matter: Marxism, despite championing change, seems intertwined with traditions in a somewhat paradoxical way. Let’s break this down with a few examples:

        Otto Maria Carpeaux, an Austrian-Brazilian literary critic, shifted towards left-leaning ideas upon arriving in Brazil during the 1930s. Despite his previous association with right-wing views in Austria, he emphasized the importance of traditions. He pointed out that even Lenin, known for his revolutionary beliefs, recognized Marxism as a fusion of three bourgeois traditions: “German philosophy, English political economy, and 18th-century French materialism.” This suggests that even within revolutionary thinking, elements of established traditions could hold significant value.

        In “To the Finland Station,” Edmund Wilson discusses Friedrich Engels’ critique of an idea proposed by Eugen Dühring. Dühring suggested replacing traditional literature with a wholly new, revolutionary framework. Engels responded ironically, highlighting the enormity of such a task—essentially saying, “If you want to change all literature, go ahead, redo all literature! Hurry up!” Engels recognized the deep entrenchment of traditional literature within society, suggesting that revolutionizing it wasn’t a priority.

        Thinker Olavo de Carvalho suggested that leftists and communists inherit political techniques from a tradition dating back to the French Revolution. He likened this to a painter knowing various techniques, even if they don’t always apply them. For the left, the technique involves for example keeping momentum in their movement. While not always actively used, being aware of these techniques is crucial for those partaking in the leftist tradition.

        These examples echo Leszek Kołakowski’s thesis, highlighting a tension between change and tradition in Marxist theory. Marxism seemingly leans more towards change, yet these connections to tradition persist.

        In essence, these instances reflect the nuanced relationship Marxism holds with tradition. While it’s fundamentally about change, it’s not entirely detached from established traditions, suggesting a more complex interplay between the two within the Marxist framework.

      8. Pedro: I would not call French 18th century materialism “traditional” thought. I would also refrain from saying that the discipline of economics is “traditional.” Opposing usury has been a traditional teaching within the Catholic Church; but economics breaks with tradition in saying borrowing at interest is a positive thing. And if Marx adulterated Hegel — which he did — and wrote in the spirit of French materialism (which is not German), in what sense has he “fused” two traditions? I do not regard French materialism or German philosophy as traditional forms of thought. Surely, all philosophers borrow from the past. That does not make them traditionalists or their thinking “traditional.” Most of them represent a break with tradition. These thinkers have asked inappropriate questions to get inappropriate answers. The difference between modern and ancient thinking, between the traditional and the modern, might be the difference between those who believe in progress and those who do not. One might also say, with some justice, that tradition is the thing that modernity is in the process of eradicating. Change has accelerated for us. And change, in this sense, leads away from agreement, away from the possiblity of forming a unified whole or “tradition.” Why do you want to divide everything between change and tradition (by which you mean non-change)? Are you engaged in some kind of Hegelian operation? The distinctions of Voegelin are more sensible. He is not concerned about the differences between change and tradition. He was attempting to understand modern ideologies and why they are so pernicious. Voegelin rejects the Hegelian approach you seem to be applying, and attacks Hegel as a “magician,” as a metastatic thinker. To explain modern Gnosticism, Voegelin looked back to the ancient Greeks, to the Fathers of the Church, and the Old Testament prophets. One might say he looked back on Western tradition to see where we went wrong.

      9. I didn’t mean to imply that Marxist tradition is anything but a pejorative mirror-image of tradition. As a metter of fact, the point you brought up (at least as it seems to me you did) about “tradition” being relative to a sacredness one should not take lightly or underestimate, but on the contrary is beyond in scope what modernity operated tentatively; is to me evocative of Guénon’s very postulation on this issue, postulation I agreed with for long. I did not mean to imply the Marxist attempted conciliation between the induring and the changing was anything but pejorative. As a matter of fact, even before my last reply the Carpeaux point and the other points I made about Marxism trying to associate itself with some kind of tradition, reminded me of a quote I read once about a Brazilian spiritualist doctrinaire, called Bezerra de Menezes, who claimed the spiritist doctrine as he had just come upon it, seemed continuous with every religious doctrine of ages long past he had previously known; albeit this isn’t really possible, the spiritualist doctrine being quite new. As a matter of fact, René Guénon demonstrated in great detail, or at least gave proofs and rhetorical stances to that effect, something like “reincarnation” as understood in the Western modern spiritualist trend, was simply unknown absolutely to ancient Eastern and Western civilizations. The point being that “the traditional” as understood in a profane/secular sense can be weaponized or made use of by new outlooks intent on feeding off of it. The spiritualist example being all the more interesting, since there are definitely historical connections between socialist circles in the 19th century and spiritualist séance circles. This connection is suggested by several sources: Guénon, Olavo de Carvalho, Edmund Wilson.

        As for the political economy school being deemed traditional, a young Brazilian politician known for his scholarly and conservative-leaning stances on many issues, his name is Paulo Kogos, has made the claim that Adam Smith’s economic work is really a watered-down borrowing from the Salamanca School/academia on economy, namely the Spanish renaissance generation of scholars, who were known for having held the bag, to some extent, of preserving a traditional outlook. So there is in the literature appreciated by early Marxists a purported pattern of predilection for a watered-down version of earlier notions, which by the way is part of the context of Leszek Kołakowski’s early discussion of Marxism’s forerunning (Main Currents of Marxism, volume 1). He begins talking about neoPlatonists influence on Marxism, thus albeit Kołakowski’s seeming lacking in much spiritual depth, is to a degree/almost as far as Voegelin went historically.

        I did not intend to use the terms “enduring” and “changing” or the like as a Hegelian articulation of the issue; I have very surface or limited familiriarity with Hegel’s works anyway. I was simply drawing from memory and dialectics in an Aristotelian sense in order to better grasp Leszek Kołakowski’s point about Marxism being concerned in a very primary way with reconciling the enduring and the changing. This is important to do insofar as if the author doesn’t give much further explanation, you don’t know what he might be referring to. An attempt has to be made to unpack an author’s postulation, if it is deemed too condensed. I was not intent on “divide everything between change and tradition”. I suspect by giving it a Hegelian turn you meant to treat this dichotomy as something operating ontologically with a hypnotic independece from the one thinking these terms. This was not in my thoughts, really. It seems I am having difficulty communicating, which is understandable, the subject isn’t very easy to articulate.

  10. Excommunicated sectarian Apostate and NEVER valid Pope but only no good bishop Karol Wojtyla inviting the KGB agent PLO terrorist Yaser Arafat into the Vatican. Wojtyla was the one who kissed the Muslim Koran and had the inter-religious abomination gathering in Assisi.

    His “successor”, yet another evident long-term communist asset Ratzinger, who was never valid Pope (as an election of a heretic by heretic and in the Novus Ordo apostate Sect which professes a false and non-Catholic religion, is automatically by Church Law NULL), Ratzinger visited the communist dictator Fidel Castro in Cuba, so did Wojtyla (who invited Castro inside the Vatican BTW). Bergoglio visited Castro also in Cuba.

    And this is a classic – the communist asset Bergoglio signs a “document” with the KGB agent Kirril in Cuba (2016) – the “agreement” is of course absolutely invalid and not in the name nor authority of the Catholic Church. Russian Orthodox are schismatics since the 11th century, they are separated from the Catholic Church for that long, and since the Bolshevik revolution they have been taken over (gradually) by the NKVD-KGB etc.

    That’s why the Pacepa’s publication is so important. BTW Kirril was a secretary to another KGB agent Nikodim, his “predecessor”, who was involved in sending the KGB agents into Vatican during 1962 for the “council”.
    (A quote from ROSCOE): The Franciscan Order are the good guys. The Jesuits have always been evil.
    You have hard time to recognize the truth or are you really this dishonest that at random you publish these outrageous sacrilegious accusations without any factual proof (a proof you cannot possibly have)?

    The Society of Jesus converted millions of South American Indians into the Catholic Faith, they are one of the most illustrious Catholic Church missionary Orders.

    They do not exist today, as those as the layman impostor Bergoglio, they don’t belong to the Jesuit Order as that Order does not allow nor practice non-Catholic religion which these Novus Ordo Apostates as Bergoglio etc. practice.

    They, the Novus Ordo Sect, ever since 1969 AD when their excommunicated leader Msgr. Giovanni B. Montini had 6 Protestant ministers to substituted the Mass with the Protestant heretical re-enactment of the Last Supper – Montini, as Pius XII found out when Montini was still Under-Secretary of State in the Vatican, he had secret communications with Stalin and the NKVD, so they were already plotting these heretical changes to attempt the destruction of the Catholic Church.

    On the subject of Fr. Malachi Martin – he was part of the Novus Ordo Sect, so he was excommunicated, and at the end of his life he even asked to be defrocked, he knew the 3rd Secret of Fatima, he read it, but didn’t reveal anything, even though he knew that it is all about them the Novus Ordo Sect. He has written true things, but also he purposely withheld the whole truth about this horrible Sect, and the KGB etc. involvement in these communist operations against the Vatican. And he was not true Jesuit, as by then they were all under the Novus Ordo Sect, and thus not Catholic. He is paying for his failures and heretical beliefs in Hell – they cannot absolve themselves as they are excommunicated automatically (Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law).

  11. In this context, it seems to me that a developing country, such as Brazil, is left with choosing the lesser evil, foreign policy weise, i.e, the globalists, on the one hand, and the chinese russian block on the other. And one cannot forget the islamic world too. Am I right Mr. Nyquist?

    1. No. There are only two blocs because only massed nuclear and biological weaponry counts. The two blocs are the same as in the Cold War. This has not changed. There is the socialist camp, and the capitalist camp. The Islamic world is either with one or the other. The Islamic world does not have the weapons of mass destruction to compete. Biological and nuclear weapons signify the possiblity of doing away with a billion people. Nobody quite understand this. So if you are not in the WMD game, you are not in THE GAME. You cannot retaliate and you do not have the technology to defend. When China and Russia decide, they will exterminate Islam. But Islam is not a priority now. Islam is an afterdinner mint. They will use education, coercion, murder to rid the world of Islam. But most of all, they will use biological weapons. America comes first, however. as for a developing country, like Brazil, which is not a nuclear power, and which allowed itself to become infiltrated by communists, there is only the experience of being digested — like Venezuela. Unless you stand up for Constitutional Government, and freedom, you are digested. As Olava said, maybe in fifty years you will be able to revolt. Even this, however, is optimistic. All those who think the U.S. is a stronghold against communism have been mistaken. Reagan was the poster boy for conservative self-deception. He understood who the enemy was, but he really did not know that enemy. So he was fooled. They are always fooled. The United States has been infiltrated just like Brazil; only the plan for the United States is total destruction. We are the first on the list to exterminate. We are irredeemably bourgeois. And this is what will happen if Russia and China can achieve all their mid-leve objectives. So far they have stumbled. But they have time. And we have idiots. The only question is whether their stumbles get them before our idiots get us.

      1. How have Russian and China stumbled. This is the most hopeful statement I’ve ever heard you make, other than that we should steal fighter jets and hide them in barns.

      2. Jake, you have not been listening to my interviews. I have said this over and over again: Russia stumbled in Ukraine. China’s economy is spluttering. These are stumbles. Now it is confirmed that the Chinese built a trap for American submarines in the Yellow Sea and one of their own submarines fell into it. As many as 55 Chinese sailors may be dead. This is what I mean by stumbles. And there is more, on the clandestine side, that we can only guess at. They are digging their way out of this mess they have made, and my guess is that they might succeed in choking off supplies to Ukraine. If they manage to do that, Ukraine could fall next year and the war could come to Europe. Or, they could rest their forces for a few years. But then, China wants world war sooner rather than later. China is pushing this because their rotten economy is running out of options.

      3. The out of the way war in Ukraine is like MMA cage fighting. Anyone who participates is required by the rules to take great punishment, while not allowed to effectively defend themselves by killing the enemy in three moves or less. It’s not a real war; it’s merely, sport. China could invade Taiwan anytime they want; but they don’t.

        These stumbles to which you allude, are part of the depopulation agenda, that Russia, China, and The United States are all cooperating together to achieve, while coercing most other countries in the World, to join in on. Kill off all the generals and only the most elite remain with none to threaten their positions. A World populated by only a few rich snobs, and robots that will never work as planned.

        How many fighter jets do you think we can steal? There’s a lot of old barns for sale in Maine, at bargain prices, however.

  12. “I want to say in connection with this that when I was in the national training school of the Communist Party, one of my instructors was J. Peters, who was head of the Communist Party underground and the Communist Party espionage apparatus, and he informed us that all publications of all Communist-front organizations are sent to the Soviet Union for study and evaluation; two, that contacts made by the Communist Party, whether directly or through front organizations, are to be used to supply information of value to the Communist Party. This information given by these individual workers from these plants is sent in turn to the Soviet Union. The individual locally is contacted. He is eventually recruited into the Communist Party or in the Soviet espionage apparatus.” – Manning Johnson, testimony.

      1. Jeff, out of all the former members I’ve read, he is perhaps the most perceptive I’ve seen as far as understanding how the mechanism works. Whittaker Chambers is perhaps second.

        The thing that always strikes me and that I think deserves much more attention is this: to be in the Communist Party, you had to swear unflinching obedience to every command. You had to swear total fealty and commit to doing anything asked of you. In other words, the people at the bottom were simply obeying what their superiors commanded, and those people were simply obeying what their bosses commanded, and so on and on until you got to the National Committee in the US.

        And the National Committee was subordinate to the Comintern, and they had a Russian representative who communicated the orders from Moscow. The National Committee members were required to obey the commands from Russia. So in other words, the entire organization was one big massive hierarchy of mindless slaves obeying completely every command coming out of Russia. I do not think people fully grasp just how much of a mindless puppets these people were. This is also as pure of a slave system or a control communication system as you can get. Manning Johnson said the requirement to be in Comintern was pledging allegiance to Russia. So Russia had created a massive organization inside the US that did LITERALLY their exact commands. I don’t think people understand just how unprecedented, not to mention powerful, this is.

        My question is, since this structure existed which was quite literally thousands of puppets for the Russian dictatorship, did they really just destroy that entire thing? We know they had legal and illegal branches; they were mandatory. We know from Manning that they had underground leaders if the above ground ones were arrested.

        Where is that structure now? Do they still have 100% obedience, just using different terms? Does that whole party still exist, just using different names? I find it so hard to believe they would just dissolve such a powerful structure. If Russia controlled it directly then, why can they not be controlling it now? Do you know how their structure and command system works now?

        Btw, I would recommend everyone read Manning Johnson’s testimony. His is the best I’ve ever read that exposes that it is a true, conscious con. That once you reach the National Committee, all the people at that level are cynical ghouls, and they know FULLY WELL that they are exploiting people. They talk about creating martyrs. Bella Dodd had a similar experience. But these “aha” moments only occurred for them once they reached the highest level. Before that, they believed the con because many people below it believe the con. It confirmed what I suspected, which is that at some level at the top, there is a tiny group that knows that it’s all BS.

      2. The communist party in the US has pretended to dissolve or “split” on more than one occasion. In 1943 Stalin dissolved the Comintern, promising to stop communist subversion in America. The communists in America pretended to disband, but the Communist Party USA remained in place through its clubs. They kept their membership going. This same Party has been emptied out since the Cold War. But is it really empty? They simply joined the DSA and the Democratic Party along with other socialist or communist groups. The communists know how to feign weakness when they are actually growing.

  13. Happy Halloween.

    I love Halloween. It seems to be the only holiday left where whole families come out in the streets and socialize. I enjoy the conversations and the community, if even for a fleeting evening in the twilight zone of this bizzaro-world.

    The first part…


    -Bill Freeman

  14. “The line comes down from Moscow to the Politburo of the National Committee of the Communist Party and from the Politburo of the National Committee of the Communist Party it goes down to the Communist Party fraction in the many front organizations of the solar system of organizations of the Communist Party and the Communist fraction inside of each of these organizations carries out the line. That is how the line comes down from Moscow to the lowest organization of the Communist Party.” – Manning Johnson, testimony.

  15. “Well, I sat in on meetings of the national committee of the Communist Party in New York City. These were meetings of the national committee at which were discussed the formation of the American League Against War and Fascism. The substance of these discussions was that the Communist International had formed an organization known as the World Congress Against War. The head of that organization was Henri Barbusse, H-e-n-r-i B-a-r- b-u-s-s-e, a leader of the Communist Party of France and a confidante of Joseph Stalin.
    The American party was instructed by the Communist International to form the American League Against War and Fascism. This organization was officially set up at the first United States Congress Against War, held in New York City in 1933. At that congress was Henri Barbusse, whom I have formerly mentioned, who directed and assisted in the setting up of this congress and this organization.” – Manning Johnson

  16. Jan Jekielek from the Epoch Times just did a good interview with a couple from Utah. It is about the Chinese subversion going on in that state. Kids from the Utah elementary schools are writing letters to Xi Jinping telling him that he is like a cool grandfather. He wrote them back and the letter was praised throughout school district. Great interviews, I really like the ones with Alex.p

  17. How cowardly and deceptive.

    Is China Rewriting the Bible?

    This is akin to the narcissistic child that kicks the game board over because they can’t win honestly.

    I may not agree with the Christian bible/worldview but I don’t feel threatened by it.
    The Chinese seem threatened by it enough to attempt to rewrite it.
    If so, the Chinese have a weak hand indeed.

    Them stooping to such a low level actually gives me hope they will eventually collapse under the weight of their own paranoid insecurities.

    -Bill Freeman

    1. Bill: This gives you hope? But empires have always attempted to alter and absorb hostile ideas by altering these ideas. Look how we handled the killer bees. We could not stop them from migrating out of Central America to the USA, so we sent benign bees down to breed with them. By the time these bees reached us, they were supposed to be genetically changed. In theory, no more killer bees. The same thing can be done to a religion that threatens communist rule. They try and communize it. This is not a sign that China has a weak hand. It is a sign that China knows how to control their information space. The communists are pretty good at manipulating our information space.

      1. I had seen that. She is working with domestic hives that have become Africanized. There are too many wild hives, however, for that to work over the invaded range. Killer Bees are still very dangerous.

    2. There are already millions of Chinese in China who have read standard Bibles. Chinese citizens are familiar with what China garnered from Orwell. Whenever the CCP replaces an old law, the Chinese Government says that’s the way the law has always been written. The new Bible will fool no one, and nobody will read it.

      1. Christians are persecuted in China, and the CCP forces them to register their churches. They have to do what the CCP says. If they do not, they are arrested. The persecution is real and devastating to the individuals who suffer.

      2. Yet despite the potential for persecution and the actual persecution of many if not most, Christians remain in China and they still have their Bibles to read. Just as in the United States and every other country, people can’t be bothered to go looking for the rules. When the law is pointed out to them, they just agree to whatever, then continue doing as they please.

    3. This is horrifying and must be taken seriously, especially with respect to the next generations. Rewriting history and humanity’s most important, enduring texts, is a real threat in our digital future. Everything can be revised in real-time. We protect our hardcopies and say it won’t work, but it absolutely can work.

      I do believe that truth never can be extinguished entirely. But man, can it get really dark.

    4. It’s not stooping, they don’t feel “threatened”, religion provides people a loyalty option that is not them, therefore they must remove or pervert it. It’s not more complex than that. The Party must be God, the State must be God, and therefore all alternatives must be eliminated. Chi Haotian said as much in his speech. Religion also provides a foundation for morality, which is also an enemy of atheistic, cynical, soulless Communism. Everything they do is fairly rational, within the context of their evil perspective.

    5. Bill, when I was in China, I never heard the Lord’s Prayer. I came to realize that the communists didn’t want to hear the closing “for yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever” which comes out stronger in Chinese as “because the kingship, authority, glory, all of this is yours, until eternity”. They allowed the Apostles’ Creed, but they changed the beginning of the second section to “I believe the Lord Jesus Christ…” making “Lord” sound like a human title, whereas the original “I believe Jesus Christ, God’s only born son, our Lord.” is not said.

      So it is no surprise that they want to change the whole Bible. They want to be gods, therefore don’t want any challenges to their deities. Not even in the words that people say in church.

      I was allowed to visit Three Self Churches, not underground churches. The underground churches are heavily persecuted, but that doesn’t stop them.

      The communists can’t stop Bibles being electronically available, so they have turned to having their Bibles on line. But people don’t trust those Bibles.

  18. Thank you for the very interesting text.
    I am disgusted by the falsehood and mendacity of this Guterres. He is not upset about the Russians destroying Ukraine and killing thousands of people there. But he constantly admonishes Israel. He sees the international law in Gaza endangered, and what about the international law in Ukraine! But what do you expect from the
    Secretary General of the United Nations, who was president of the Socialist International. Communist to the marrow of his bones.

  19. Isn’t it obvious that they’re setting up the possibility of incidents inside the US? They establish the pretext with the Hamas attack, run an incitement campaign with Israel’s response, and now FBI Director Chris Wray and members of Congress are saying there’s a likelihood of events inside the US. Doesn’t anyone else see this? Meanwhile, we hear that Hezbollah has given Israel a deadline of Friday at 3 to stop, which they obviously won’t, which means they already have something planned and are simply waiting till then to implement it. Meanwhile, Yemen randomly joins the fray and is firing rockets from 1,000 miles away, and we hear if Israel responds, Yemen could target Saudi Arabian oil fields. This is all so obviously coordinated. I assume everyone else sees this?

      1. Yeah. They’ve been warned for years, but did nothing about the illegals coming in over the borders. Now they warn about the possibility of Hamas strikes. It’s a bit late, but they will still do nothing. The neutralization of the US proceeds apace.

  20. Re this idea: “Through these campaigns they can change our way of life, our way of thinking, and the way we use words. For example: They have turned the word “racism” into a weapon of intimidation. They have also weaponized the word “sexism.” This sort of appropriation goes on, every day, in plain sight. Yet almost nobody sees the how or why of it.”

    A Gen X liberal, Naomi Wolf, just wrote about this and worth a read:

    She (like me) maybe should’ve seen this was happening sooner … though it has gotten more dramatic and systemic post-2016 IMO. What I like about her essay is she uses the academic/intellectual tools we learned in critical theory to reveal a Totalitarian power play in real-time – what I always thought we were being trained to do. I left the field of study because I did see it was being weaponized in a destructive and intellectually dishonest way. I didn’t understand back then I was seeing Marxism in action. I am glad that Wolf – an old-school second wave feminist! – is calling the dynamic what it is – Marxism – without caveat or qualification. We need more like her coming from the left and particularly from those of us who studied this stuff enough to grasp the insights while recoiling from the Marxist purposes underlying it.

    1. A natural side effect of cynically exploiting good people’s desire to do good and channel it into evil ends is that eventually, some of those good people wake up and become bitter enemies. These types of “awakenings” are constantly happening and are a logical outcome of Communist strategy. Think about Brandon Straka’s “walking away”. Dave Rubin. Naomi Wolf realized the jab was suspect, encountered the machine underneath, and had her own awakening. Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson did as well. Anthony Bryant did. So did Whittaker Chambers. The real tragedy is that nobody has figured out the commonality among all these people and attempted to organize them, at least the current iteration of them.

      1. Yep, it all started unraveling for me back in summer 2016 when seemingly out of nowhere Clinton and her campaign – under fire about wikileaks dump exposing the DNC — first started calling Bernie Sanders a Russian stooge or co-conspirator, and then Donald Trump. It was so bizarre (remember the last time we lefties thought about Russia, Obama was telling Romney the “80s wants its foreign policy back” and now we had Clinton hissing about other candidates being in on a Russian conspiracy). So I started scratching the surface and soon enough – the Awakening. So yeah, what you’re saying is true. Naomi Wolf is a good writer and communicator and hasn’t been shy to be linked with “deplorables.” Like others of all political stripes, we don’t get everything all at once but the drive for what’s true is there. It’s why I often encourage the right wing not to totally give up on everyone on the left….. sometimes it’s just a matter of finally seeing the strings (or glimpsing the Matrix, haha), and then even those of us who drank a lot of koolaid will work to catch up quickly.

  21. Mr. Nyquist I really appreciate the time you take to present these treatises on Marxism/Communism. I studied Western philosophy/religion (“Continental philosophy” or “thought” as we often called it…) and I feel as though I am getting a second education, because there were so many gaps and outright misrepresentations. It also helps me sort through how to think about “critical theory” because there *are* some key insights in the field, but it has been weaponized and misused. That is actually the main reason I left, because I thought, “where does this go, if not entirely or perpetually destructive?” I mean, in its purest form it’s literally called “deconstruction” – that’s the whole ball game.

    1. Here’s one, watermelons. 🍉 green for the planet, bloody communist inside.

  22. Amazing article Jeff!
    Human nature has always been the same since the beginning of time-always trying to find something to bring them happiness other than having to obey God. Happiness is a by-product of obedience. They want to be god just like Lucifer did, God promises us that never works out for anyone in the long run.

    Jesus rebuked the religious leaders more than anyone else. Religion is replacing God with man made rules, regulations, traditions and rituals. Refusal to obey God and instead obey man is the root of every one of our problems. The Bible needs to be mandatory reading, everyone needs to be able to allow God, the spirit of truth, to teach them the truth personally, so they are kept from counterfeit falsehoods ( 1 John 2:26-27). If everyone knew the truth they would be able to discern between the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood, deception and error…no lying leader would have a chance.
    The spirit of truth is far stronger than any power in the world (1 John 4:4-6 ).
    They have to take God out of everything, use fake science, manipulation, lies, promote materialism, and greed, make all sorts of fake ways for us to try and reach happiness and satisfaction apart from God…that just causes mental illness. Apart from God we can do nothing, it’s all pointless.

    There is only one way to heaven on earth and that is through a personal relationship with Jesus and living a life filled with His Holy Spirit of Truth. The kingdom of Heaven is a kingdom that resides inside us, it is a mindset and attitude like Christs, this produces righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit-quite heavenly. This also makes weak men bold and strong, the fearless courageous, the depressed hopeful, the sick healed, the blind to see. He needs to be at the forefront of our mind at all times not just once a week for an hour at church.

    The whole government needs to go, go find another job or leave the country. We will never trust any of you again. We now know what we know, we can’t trust them with our air, food, water, medicine, schools, children, hospitals, doctors, our stores and streets- all poisoned and corrupted. They destroyed our grandparents lives, our parents lives, our lives and now our children’s? So we have 106 years of them creating problems and making solutions that don’t work, just to create more problems and false solutions and become more and more enslaved, no one has done anything to stop it? It is unbelievable the lengths people will go to waiting on God to do it for us. It’s like God giving us a shovel to throw the crap out and we use it to lean on and wait for God to pick up the mess.

    God created the earth for us to enjoy and he provided everything we need in the earth. We have wood, minerals, oil, water, food, gold, silver, animals. It’s enough for 16 billion let alone 8 billion. But demons must obey their master Satan and kill, steal, destroy and all that is good-until they are thrown out.

    You say there is nothing we can do Jeff? Don’t limit what people can do with God and truth on our side. There is a reason they have to work so hard to keep people from Gods power source. He gave us authority over evil but we have to use it.

    Thank you so very much! Have a blessed holiday season.
    God help us!
    God Bless America!

    1. Well said Mary.
      I love how you point us to God without engaging in religious disputations.
      PS – I don’t think Jeff ever said there’s nothing we can do about the onslaught of Marxism.

  23. RE: “Laying Bare the Unreason of the World”

    And WHY is there this “Unreason”?

    A coherent answer has been provided — humans have a lethal disease called Soullessness Spectrum Disorder —

    “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic.” — Dresden James

  24. If destroying religion is their first goal, they sure did a good job going “peace”meal with the jewish people. I cannot help but realize that the current crop of left wing “antisemites” are not killing jews apparently for the same reason Hitler did, but their reasons are not better nor less intense.

    Yet, to wit, equating capitalists to monkeys really hails from a “common core” mentality of viewing the “progressed modern human” as advanced and devoid of fault compared to animals, or, could one say, “inferior races”. Freud himself faulted childish and animal thinking for sexual perversion, when chimps do not molest their little ones the way socially disoriented and technically oriented man can justify it!! “Makes absolutely no difference” is what a soviet thing once kept repeating to me in Germany.

    This is where Che, Marxists and other liberals screaming “it is the year 2020, we are not backwards and we have sophisticated advanced ‘lifestyles’ accepted”, just as the Nazis would call their predecessors and other religious “sorts” monkeys the same, starting with naturally devout jews.

    I want to add another note, the French communist song (as the French invented everything communism), “L’interntionale”, starts with the words “It is the final struggle”, but catching oneself in the more important revealing sound, it sounds more like “it is the final road [to hell]”. Basically these fools only read the words and not the rythm and sound in accompaniment, and this one is more revealing. What did Mao say: “the people think” hmmm…. No, the people sing! And they do not know what they thing and what words these notes mean.

    How could one be against a communist “system” or “regime”, when it literally is a “highway to hell” to side step…

    1. Examples of blindness JRN speaks above in terms of “road to hell” abound:

      Russian behavior toward the Ukrainian meat grinder and yet European nations still Finlandized and not increasing their military budget. Nato aggression? Give me a break. Russia is hook in jaw inside Europe, further pushing West.

      Muslims all over the world chanting, again, songs that do not have the words that they ascribe to those sounds. Choosing lyriks is indeed the epitomy of islamic ridiculous preferential treatment hell, in terms of chosen people of God or of the Kahlif.

      A House of Congress which wants to link, as blackmail like untenable evil bad language, funding to defend Israel and Ukraine, while the Senate Republicans who could jump on the occasion and point at Russia being behind all this Iran/Hamas/Syria to Ukraine bargaining, instead choose their own highway to hell of wanting to separate the two fundings as separate conversations as if they have nothing to do with it… good grief.

      And everyday more “road to hell” language is being ignored and chanted, from the absurd Queers for Palestine to rich Qataris hosting a bunch of rif raff which would love nothing less than grab all the Qatari oli money, and not just its funding of Palestinians, and dump the Palestinians into the sea after that…

      1. Which defector said that Soviet leaders lamented not being on Israel side since the 50s. Senna I think. I had I longer post that got gobbled up.

  25. Medical Murder is the number one cause of death in the US, people are just too expensive for bankrupt countries. War helps distract and kill people and gives Governments more money and power.
    If we put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, in five years there would be a sand shortage and the sand left would be poisoned and we would need the sand vaccine. They would have to tax us on the sand in our nails and up our nose hairs…Same old story different day.

    Disease and disorders are up by the thousands in percentages.
    Our schools and colleges are indoctrination camps.
    We have an open border with 83 billion worth of weapons left in Afghanistan and billions given to Iran, a country that wants to wipe us off the map.
    They took out Maui and what about Acapulco? I don’t even hear Crickets anymore.
    So Acapulco will now be a perfect place for the invasion of all sorts of military and weaponry. (Had a dream last night of this).
    Men will never give us the best advice. God knows what tomorrow brings not man. King David and Moses, relied on God and listened to Him for guidance alone, that is why they were successful. Listening to man can be a very dangerous trap.
    Thank you dear one Jeff!

  26. I see communism everywhere. It is in my small town, my family, all across America and the world. Mitch McConnell once said that he searched all of China’s dark corners but couldn’t find any signs of communism. I am trying to find a dark corner here in the United States to escape it. It has been both a blessing and a curse discovering and following Jeff. I say that with the utmost respect.

    1. Yes, he’s a good one. Alas, it has caused a multitude of problems as well. No prophet is honored in his own country. People want to have their ears tickled so they can think all is well and things will continue as they are.

    1. Yup. Would like an interview with the deceased Mr. Pry. God rest his soul. Maybe Jeff has another nuclear war expert with as much background he can talk with and share? Our own Generals have been saying before open Congress, for 5+ years that our ICBMS are of questionable use. And Pry said that our nuke manufacturering capability was seriously degraded from Cold War Era. I distctintcly remember an interview about 3-4, years ago where Pry said that the USA, at that time, had less nuclear warhead manufacturering capability than Pakistan. Our best nuclear weapons engineers are dead, our testing is only theoretical. Our nuclear labs have Federation of Russia Scientists members on Staff at at least one of the three. There is pervasive “woke” seminars on these facilities, etc. I’ll try to dig up the interview. It was not an interview with Jeff, if you are trying to find it with me

  27. Is this true? I saw a report that Israel activated additional naval forces to the Red Sea in response to the Houthis Military Group in Yemen (backed by Iran) and we have more forces on heightened alert?

  28. Material infrastructure is not there anymore, take years to rebuild the intellectual capital,The scientists that actually made our current warheads and some missiles are dead. Can’t actually test them, etc. Congress HOWEVER has already approved a new tactical SRBM, to fielded in the next few years, and reported building a new warhead for B2s B1s …

  29. We asked him about his faith 20 years ago, on his page even before Ezboard and the other TFP boards. He’s consistently Christian. Presbyterian of some denomination. God bless him. We gotta come together ❤

  30. From Jeffs book, OOTFWW. How think cannot be taught its a innate disposition to truth. Predisposition in favor of logic

  31. Bedlamsbard1: Please don’t bring in theology. Jeff has shown that he is largely ignorant on theology. A person can’t be an expert in everything. In fact, it probably would be best not even to bring in theological language. I’ll mention just a few to show why not to use theological language:

    What is meant by “Christian”? The teaching found in the New Testament? The medieval practice? The teaching found in the United Presbyterian Church today? What about “Lutheran”? What Luther taught? What the 19th century Germans taught? What about the “Lutheran church” at the top of the hill in San Francisco where they worship the goddess? I could go on with more examples. These uses of the terms are contradictory and incompatible. Therefore using theological terms confuses rather than communicates.

    I “dabbled” in philosophy means that I took several philosophy courses at the university.

    The Bible is not part of the western philosophic tradition. While Jeff was analyzing communism, its tactics, interviewing defectors, reading documents; I was analyzing the Bible, its languages, how it differs from western philosophy. I didn’t realize how little Jeff knows of theology until just recently. And I have learned more about communism than I realized before, thanks to Jeff.

    This is Jeff’s blog. I now recommend not using theological terms at all. If anyone persists in pushing his theology, ignore him (I already ignore many of the more outrageous examples).

  32. I want to take this opportunity to thank FABIOBOSSI for the video link he provided on the previous post regarding the author of Comrade Ayatollah. His life story is remarkable. In the interview, dated 2015, he says that an English translation will be coming out “soon.” It appears that this never happened, and it also appears that the book is unavailable, even in Farsi; apparently it was very popular in Iran. I have found, however, that there are youtube links to what appears to be an audio version of the book.

    This is a book that needs to be translated.

  33. On now –

    Dr. Alexander Dugin Goes One On One With Stew Peters On Declining U.S. Hegemony

    Aleksandr Dugin
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Aleksandr[a] Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Александр Гельевич Дугин; born 7 January 1962) is a Russian far-right political philosopher.[5]

    Born into a military intelligence family, Dugin was an anti-communist dissident during the 1980s.[6] Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Dugin co-founded the National Bolshevik Party with Eduard Limonov, a party which espoused National Bolshevism, which he later left.[7]

    In 1997, he published Foundations of Geopolitics, in which he outlined his worldview, calling for Russia to rebuild its influence through alliances and conquest, and to challenge the rival Atlanticist empire led by the United States.

    [8][9][10][11] Dugin continued to further develop his ideology of neo-Eurasianism, founding the Eurasia Party in 2002 and writing further books including The Fourth Political Theory (2009).[8][6] His political views have been characterized as fascist or neo-fascist.[12][13]

    1. Dr Dugan is saying that Putin started out working with Bush against Islam, yet now despite himself, is against such globalism.

      1. Dugan talks as if his anti American rhetoric is nothing against the United States.

      2. He doesn’t want to hurt Americans, he just wants to destroy America. That’s all. He’s magician whose fingers never leave his hands.

      3. Oh, I thought his name sounded familiar. It was his daughter Darya who got killed.

        Darya Dugina
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Dugina was killed on 20 August 2022, when her car exploded on Mozhayskoye Highway in the settlement of Bolshiye Vyazyomy outside Moscow around 9:45 p.m. local time.[2][30] She was driving to Moscow after attending the annual festival “Tradition,” which describes itself as a family festival for art lovers.[2]

        The “Tradition” festival is held at the Zakharovo estate,[2] approximately 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) north of Bolshiye Vyazyomy. Investigators said an explosive device was attached to the underside of the car.[31] It is unclear whether she was targeted deliberately, or whether her father, who had been expected to travel with her but switched to another car at the last minute, was the intended target,[2] or whether the intention might have been to kill both.[32]

      4. Dugin is a peculiar figure. His biographer makes the case that he was recruited by the KGB in the late 1980s. He bears all the marks of being an agent. The Ukrainians hate him and may have attempted to assassinate him. Another theory is that he was too critical of Putin. Another theory is that his daughter was sacrificed so that Russian public opinion would be further hardned in favor of war.

      5. Why is “Tradition” in quotation marks? Is that significant, so as to suggest that the festival for art lovers, is deceptive in some way? I don’t find any other articles about it at all. Probably all in Russian if any.

  34. What if the russians just pretend to be weak? At the end they are achieving all their goals. Europe is running out of munitions, we are going to face a big economic crisis ( driven by green energy, wrong Central Bank decisions etc) thousands of young immigrants enter every day in our countries. Today Saluschnij confirmed that the counter offensive was a failure. The conflict in the middles east could not only produce an oil/gas embargo (and therefore high prices) but also split the US in more fronts.

    China, i am not sure they are facing a big economic crisis. They are preparing for war, they stockpil commodities and gold. Please consider that they never had boom/bust cycles as the US or Europe (caused by our central banks). They do not have a financial bubble (as we have, Nasdaq, Dow, Cryptos etc), beacause it was their CB banking policy to expand lending from the beginning (70-80) only for productive purposes(this is one of the key factors that led to their economic success). Of course you can argue they have a big housing bubble, but you can fix it, it is definitley not a problem, they know how to do it (Look at the FED 2008-2009 they adopted the right decisions) . What is really interesting is that credit growth is shrinking and personally i think they are doing it because they simply are not longer interested in high growth rates, they are returning back to the soviet model (before Xiaoping) because they are preparing for war.

    1. Communist countries also have boom and bust cycles because all communist countries operate under a state capitalist model, with varying degrees of small business operators permitted, or a black market. China’s financial system is a house of cards. They know this. The decision for war is going to make things worse for China, but once you are at war the economy no longer matters. People are prompted to act according to the necessities of war. The weaknesses of Russia and China are many; but so are their strengths. Every complex power has strengths and weaknesses. Russia is weak when it comes to conventional warfare. But Russia is strong in its ability to manipulate decisions made in Washington and elsewhere. Today the manipulation is going to give them the conventional war victory. This seems clear now. Ukraine is being cut off. Washington will not support Kyiv. Many European countries will adopt America’s attitude. The Kremlin has persevered. Barring some unforeseen disaster, Ukraine cannot support this war on its own.

Comments are now closed.