Moscow’s major aim at this point in history is to whitewash Communism and recycle its image in the West. The Soviet target, Western public opinion, must be made to forget that Communism and its leaders are a danger to the world.

Natalie Grant

When we look at the communist movement, and the disinformation it deploys, we should keep three things in mind: (1) There are the old communist promises of a bright socialist future, which “useful idiots” still believe in; (2) there are bogus conspiracy theories that divert attention away from the communist threat, claiming that capitalists (or Jews, or Satanists) are running the world and that communism is simply a capitalist (or Jewish) trick; and (3) there is this world of trivia, this world of secondary subjects, that could be used to blot out the sun. And there you are, sitting in the dark.

I spoke with Jimmy from Brooklyin on Saturday night. He prepared some interesting material how communists exploits the Middle East conflict and more.

Alex’s seminar on the rubes and boobs of conspiracy theory continues. In this segment we touch on Alex Jones and UFOs.

Totalitarians just love conspiracy theory….

A Conversation with Nevin Gussack: Why Communists Hate Capitalism, and How They Exploit Capitalism’s Weaknesses

Nevin and Jeff

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)


79 thoughts on “Palestine, Disinformation and Conspiracy Theory: Discussions with Jimmy, Alex, and Nevin

  1. Ukraine is confirmed to lose as the US and NATO are confirmed not to send any more aids. Israel situations will worsen into another Afghanistan War, and Israel will economically go bankrupt before ending HAMAS which is impossible. Gaza War 2014 proved it difficult to get rid of Hamas when the compromised US also supports Hamas!

    I recently talked with Taiwanese elites who are now very pro-China, and they joke to willingly surrender to China if there’s a war! If China invades Taiwan, then I think Taiwanese people will fold and absorb into China.

    So what now, Mr Nyquist? If the global communists accomplished all their goals within this decade like annexing all of Ukraine, bankrupting Israel, China’s Taiwan to blockade Japan and South Korea. What will be next? Will it be all over for the West?

    If it is really over for the West, should we start joining the winners in the future?

    1. “If it is really over for the West, should we start joining the winners in the future?”

      Joining the communists means being a slave, never being able to speak the truth, not being able to worship God according to the dictates of your conscience, having little opportunity to do good, killing your children or you parents if they demand it, etc.

      Sometimes it is better to go down with the losers than to join the winners. But we haven’t lost yet.

      1. Xeno: isn’t it presumptuous to declare the winner before the battle has been joined?

        Dwight D. Eisenhower said “Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” What is the probability that the plans of the Soviets and CCP will succeed? How good is their planning? There are plenty of examples where unexpected actions have resulted in victories instead of the planned for defeats.

        The U.S. is the #1 target to be invaded. Will the invasion succeed? If it loses, what will be the reactions inside Russia and China? Will the Chinese institute regime change with Chinese characteristics? Will the country break apart into warring factions? The CCP is widely hated. What about Russia?

        I expect that the invasion will fail, which is part of the reason that I answered as I did.

    2. When was this “confirmed?” I have not seen any such reports and have gone back through the news over the past week to see if I missed anything.

  2. Jeff,
    I finally finished listening to all the interviews from last week and the week before. I really thought your answer to Trevor Loudon’s questions were excellent, especially to his question, “What does a victory by Ukraine against Russia mean for us (USA) and the world.” That needs to be expounded upon and widely disseminated.

    Secondly, I began transcribing your 10/11 interview with Jimmy from Brooklyn. I emailed the first section to you a couple days ago. I already have corrected typos I made and will keep going if you think this could be useful. I learned so much. Thank you.

      1. I have to finish it!!! Give me a few days. It’s a tedious process even with voice-to-text.

  3. A few bits and pieces.

    I sure hope Ukrainian intelligence is right about Russia’s ballistic missiles failing.

    Below is a summary of an important article written by the commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, with a link to the original Economist article. This article and the preceding cover piece in Times Magazine by pro-Russia Simon Shuster were in the news a lot this week. I hope the Times cover is not a sign that mainstream support for Ukraine is about to turn. What are your thoughts on the Zaluzhny piece? He makes some very good points about what Ukraine needs to do/receive to win the war.

    Jeff made a very good point in the discussion with Jimmy. Stalin was thinking ahead about the next war when he restricted abortion in the Soviet Union. But being pro-family wasn’t enough to arrest the terrible demographic decline of Putin’s Russia. So Putin opened the floodgates to Central Asian immigration, which angered the more authentic Russian patriots, but in an ironic way it all worked out as now the undesirable migrants are being press-ganged into fighting Russia’s Great Patriotic War II. China’s one child policy and resulting population imbalance also worked out in that it created an excess male population that can now be used to march on America. One step forward, two steps backwards.
    David Satter – Russia’s Contempt for International Laws and Norms Went Unchallenged for Two Decades.
    Silicon Curtain Oct 23, 2023

    Satter wrote several books on the 1999 apartment bombings and Russia’s gangster capitalism of the 90’s.
    He explains that it is difficult for Westerners to comprehend how Russians can be so accepting of the high human toll of Putin’s war. Families mourn only their own relatives but care little about the huge number of men that Russia is losing in pointless meatwave attacks. On the one hand, the cult of Stalin and the Great Patriotic War has morphed into a death cult where some people almost welcome excessive death and suffering because they conflate it with moral superiority. On the other hand as Satter says, “There’s this terrible indifference in Russia towards those who have died.” He relates a story of a city in Siberia where it was discovered that a local criminal gang had kidnapped and murdered several young women. There was no reaction at all from the citizens at what had happened in their city, they went on with their daily lives the same as before.

    “What became dogma under the Soviets was the notion of the individual as raw material”.

    1. I found Satter’s comments about Russia quite striking as well. I stopped listening when he began to praise Biden’s presidency and excuse the slow walking of military aid to the inevitable sluggishness of bureaucracy. Perhaps I missed something that would redeem him on this point by turning him off. Congressman McCaul and Senator Risch demonstrated greater discernment on this and other Ukraine matters in this letter:

      1. Thank you Deborah. The letter from McCaul and Risch is excellent. They are pointing to real discrepancies between the administration’s perceived positions and real doings. The lies we are given are so many, and so confusing. My analysis is that the Biden people clearly want Ukraine to fail, and they want to blame Republicans. And some Republicans can see through this.

    2. Laura: I should comment on Satter briefly. I watched Jonathan Fink’s interview with David Satter last week. Like many of Fink’s interviews, they are intelligently done with interesting people. Many of the journalists who went to Russia, from Paul Klebnikov and David Remnick to Luke Harding and Satter tell a similar story. It is the story of gangster capitalism taking over the Soviet Union. It is the story that Lev Timofyev tells, only Timofyev tells it with more carefully laid-out reservations. It is the story that Karen Dawisha tells in “Putin’s Kleptocracy.” If we focus on the big picture, however, this story of gangster capitalism replacing communism is a half-truth at best — a Potemkin village of Godfathers who allegedly took over the KGB, rather than being paid agents of the KGB. The idea that “the people with the most guns are in control” did not occur to our journalistic observers. The idea that the Soviet Academy of Sciences — “brainy people with huge think tanks” — engineered a new system of control, making use of criminals as allies, was entirely missed. The idea that the Soviet bureaucracy merged with the mafia, is certainly true to some extent. But who organized and directed that merger? What is the Soviet mafia? Has corruption resulted from this merger? No doubt it has. But that merger was consciously developed by the Party and KGB apparatus. We know this from defector testimony. It was orchestrated by leaders at highest levels.

      Has this derailed communist control? No. Has it caused deformations in the system? Yes. Has it hurt arms procurement? Probably. Does Leninist control over Russia have to be perfect for communism to defeat the West? No.

      One has to look at Moscow’s policies and the trajectory of those policies to see that the Marxist-Leninist machine is still directing the whole, even if the public knows nothing about it and is being motivated by nationalist slogans. Obviously, Marxist slogans are not going to motivate most people — so why use them? Even Stalin used nationalist slogans during WW2.

      Of course, the Kremlin regime is so opaque that nobody has unambiguous proof regarding the thinking of Putin and his inner circle. Everything depends on our deductive reasoning.

      It has been my approach to analyze everything from the standpoint of strategy. Here is where the Great Game comes into focus. Marxist-Leninist philosophy is clearly animating Russian policy, as it clearly animates Chinese policy. There is, indeed, a red fabric connecting all the parts to make a whole. We see this red fabric in Russia’s policy of helping every communist regime on the planet. And those regimes are, behind the scenes, helping Russia in return. Strategy is the great clarifyer here. Marxism-Leninism and its Cultural Marxist helpmates in the West, also clarifies in another sense. It shows us a kind of affliction of soul which wittingly or unwittingly, works for mankind’s destrution. This work is clearly going on — in Russia and China and in communist front organizations worldwide (like the World Economic Forum, the U.S. Democratic Party, and the environmental movement).

      The complexities here are so great, and the taboos against using the word “communism” so strong, the best we can get from mainstream analysis is what Satter has to offer. Intuitively he understands that Moscow is evil, but he is never going to see there is coordination between Western cultural Marxists and Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, or China’s threats to Taiwan. Excellent observers like Satter are going to stay away from this approach to the subject. To retain their prominent positions as analysts, they must explain everything in terms of Russian imperialism, or Putin’s authoritarianism, or fascist tendencies in the Russian psyche, etc. They are never going to say that communism is still in command of the administrative apparatus in Moscow and elsewhere. And, to be sure, we do not know what the personnel at Moscow Center really think, or how they are recruited, etc.

      Russian historian Marina Kalashnikova, who I spoke with many times, shied away from saying that the people at the top in Russia were communists, until I interviewed her on my radio show, and then — to my surprise — she blurted it out. She said that Russia was being run by communists. She was, indeed, personal friends with people at the top of the Russian adminsitrative system. She was close friends with one of Putin’s leading advisors on America, who she spoke with immediately after that advisor had spoken with Putin. So, Marina knew the people who were running Russia. She knew them personally. And she told me they were still communists. And she died of cancer not long thereafter, having been poisoned. Was she a credible witness? Yes.

      Moscow’s ultimate objective is to destroy America in league with China. The evidence for this is all around us. You just have to use your eyes. GRU defector, Colonel Stanislav Lunev, once said it did not matter how you formulated Moscow’s alliance with China and other communist countries. You could depict it as gangster capitalism if you want. He said it amounted to the same thing as saying it was all Marxist-Leninist, because the behaviors are essentially Leninist; i.e., as Lunev explained, the Marxist-Leninist system was criminal to begin with. It was the domain of political psychopaths. My disagreement with Stan on this last point would be along the lines of — OUR DOMESTIC CULTURAL MARXISTS ARE THE EFFECTIVE FIFTH COLUMN OF MOSCOW AND BEIJING. Failing to see this, we fail to see the socialist camp in full. We then underestimate the enemy’s capabilities along that broad foreign and domestic field of fight.

      In 1988-93, Gorbachev’s crew did such a brilliant job of convincing everyone that ideology was dead in Russia, that nobody remembered Marx and Lenin’s dictum that “there is no Marxist dogma,” that Marxism is “scientific socialism” as opposed to ideology. Even Vladimir Bukovsky, in his book on Marxism, failed to make this point. Those Marxists who took power in Russia back in 1917 became involved in practical “contradictions,” which were later exploited under Perestroika. Soviet “ideology” chief, Alexander Yakovlev wrote, “After Stalin’s liquidation of NEP in 1928-1929, there were virtually no political or ideological conditions for any serious discussions of the truth or fallacy of Marxism and its individual tenets. The more blood was shed in the war against the people, the more strongly official necessity dictated a blind faith in the truth and sacredness of Marxist doctrine.” Here, Yakovlev was offering what would turn out to be a deceptive mea culpa regarding the USSR. Even from the perspective of Marxism-Leninism he was technically telling the truth. At the same time, he was also lying. We have to fix our mistakes, he was saying. Marx was wrong. Lenin was wrong. We killed too many people. We have to denounce Stalin before the “world audience,” as other leading communists were saying at the time. All of Yakovlev’s minions, marching in lock step, said the same thing. Their denunciations of Marxism-Leninism were coordinated from the top (which is, in itself, a clue). Only Yakovlev took it further than anyone else. AIn fact, only someone who was under the regime’s protection would have dared to denounce Marx, Lenin and Stalin — just as nobody other than Khrushchev would have dared to denounce Stalin in 1956. Yet the trajectory of the Russian system did not change — after Khrushchev or after Yakovlev/Gorbachev. Thus, when Ukraine had a genuine anti-Leninist revolution in 2014, and all the statues of Lenin were pulled down, the Russians annexed Crimea and invaded Donbas. When that did not destroy the new regimein Kyiv, they invaded Ukraine as a whole and attempted to take Kyiv and kill the entire Ukrainian government.

      Words are only words. As good as Yakovlev and Gorbachev sounded, there was no change of heart. There was no real change of trajectory.

      People like Satter were very impressed by Yakovlev. This left an indelible impression on them. Do they now understand they were being lied to? At this late hour, what value do they place on Yakovlev’s denunciations of Marx, Lenin and Stalin? Before he played this strange role of Communist Party ideology chief, Yakovlev had been Soviet Ambassador to Canada, and was best friends with Candian Premier Pierre Trudeau whose son is premier of Canada today, and is rumored to be Fidel Castro’s love child! Looking at the younger Trudeau’s policies today, is he not a creature of totalitarian socialist thought? Well? What, then, was Yakovlev’s mission in Canada during the 1970s? And what was Yakovlev’s mission under Gorbachev in the 1980s and 90s? Where is the change in trajectory? The subversion of the West continued unabated, and new classes of nuclear missiles are now being tested in Russia and China while America is relying on the obsolete Minuteman III system. Do we imagine this was not the intended outcome when Yakovlev denounced Marx?

      Solid experts like Fink and Satter are not going to rethink the Gorbachev period because Yakovlev and his team did such a good job misleading everyone. Yakovlev told everyone that the USSR was no longer guided “ideologically” by true-believing totalitarians or Marxists in any sense. And Yakovlev was the guy charged with this very “guidance” — which is pretty crazy.

      Yakovlev even denounced the “early Marx,” He said that Western Marxists’ flirtations with the early Marx vs. the later Marx, did not really eliminate “dogmatic Marxism,” but created a new version of dogmatic Marxism. And this was perfectly true! He was right! But in saying this he was preaching to the West’s conservative leaders, convincing them that the changes in the USSR were sincere. So important was the nuclear disarmament of the West by way of ending the Cold War, Yakovlev could not allow any shred of evidence to appear that he was attempting to preserve totalitarian socialism in any way. If anyone else had denounced communism as he did, they would have gone to jail. In fact, many of the dissidents released from the gulag under the Soviet Union, were not actually released. In 1998 I met a member of the EU delegation sent to Moscow with the lists of those to be released. After arriving in Moscow they cooled their heels hearing excuses. One by one they trickled home without proof that the listed dissidents had been allowed back into society. Yet the papers in the West announced that all the political prisoners in the USSR had been freed.

      If Marx was “betrayed by his hastiness,” as Yakovlev claimed in his writings, then the West, eager to claim victory in the Cold War, was also betrayed by hastiness. Yakovlev’s writings and statements were so sensational, nobody dared suggested he was simply lying. It would be like the Pope denouncing Catholic theology from Rome. How coud that happen? How could the ruling CPSU have tolerated Yakovloev? If they kept all those dissidents in jail, while the biggest dissident was speaking for the Communist Party, there is a contradiction; but it is not one of Marx’s antagonistic contradictions. Rather, Yakovlev pronounced certain “truths” so he could advance New Lies For Old. Thirty years later we can see how this played out. Russia and China are forming their one clenched fist as we reel from lack of preparedness, three of our last six ICBM tests having failed.

      That leads to one last remark about the Kyiv Independent’s cliams regarding the recent Russian missile tests. The U.S. Minuteman III test definitely failed. They destructed the missile in mid-flight. The recent Russian test in the White Sea was, according to Moscow, a success. The missile did hit the test range in Kamchatka. Whether it was on target or not is unknown. Ukraine is claiming the test failed, but this cannot be confirmed as the article admits. However, we know from the war in Ukraine that Russian missiles need to be guided to their target by spies, using special equipment. That suggests Russia lacks precision munitions capability. Does this apply to their ICBMs?

      It is an interesting question.

      1. “To retain their prominent positions as analysts, they must explain everything in terms of Russian imperialism, or Putin’s authoritarianism, or fascist tendencies in the Russian psyche, etc. They are never going to say that communism is still in command of the administrative apparatus in Moscow and elsewhere.”

        The Nuremberg Trials paved the way for the ‘Mcarthyism’ myth, to the point of pearl clutching at the Ukrainian veteran in Canada present for Zelensky’s speech for having served in a unit cleared of wrongdoings by said proceedings (his crime? nationalism); this is in the context of centuries of ethnic cleansing in the region by Moscow, and the man witnessing Holomodor and Cheka depredations following the October Revolution. The Castro’s mamzer could have given him a medal and nothing would change over satanist NATO ukronazis.

        The situation will not improve until Red extrajudicial murders dwarfing the Germans they themselves summoned into being are subjected to the same rigorous judicial process. Meanwhile The Holocaust narrative runs stolen valor interference for ever addressing the international socialist elephant in the room because resisting communism IS performative ‘fascism’, ‘antisemitism’ ect. The public cannot become educated on the threat because inquiry is systematically ignored, pathologized, or simply outlawed.

        Confronted by this radicalized ignorance, words and talking points must consciously abjure concepts immanent to the enemy’s narrative(s): Moscow & Beijing in their own minds fought ‘fascism’ and ‘nazism’, ipso facto calling them anything other than Authoritarian or Communists will not stick; even ‘imperialist’ asks too much of historical memory and conjures up marxoid heuristics.

        “Soviet Diehards”, “Lenin worshippers in the Kremlin”, “communists in Orthodox drag”– anything is preferable to the milquetoast equivocations of a Vlad Vexler’s unironic “fascistic tendencies of Putin” diagnoses that would be laughed out of a robust and sane, self-confident society as pure cant. The issue must be pared down to its quintessence for easy digestion because it flies in the face of every miseducated preconception of the current domestic and geopolitical state of play which they will psychologically resist acknowledging being a duped rube in collective mortal peril.

        “The U.S. Minuteman III test definitely failed. They destructed the missile in mid-flight.”

        They are supposed to be good with modernization efforts through 2030. In the event satellites are successfully downed it is on the nuclear submarines to secure deterrence, but with production not quite keeping apace of decomissionings there may be a conceivable MAD gap between the silos and 2035. The channels Sub Brief and H.I. Sutton are the best public facing active channels on all things naval as regards readiness on the USN side of the strategic weapons equation.

  4. I have a follow-up question on Leszek Kołakowski’s postulation that Marxism is primarily concerned with reconciling the enduring and the changing. By the end of the Colld War Francis Fukuyama hailed as it were the “end of history”. Part of what this ideal meant was seemingly an appeal for man to live in the “here and now” and not be mindful of other historical realities and possibilities. Itnwas an offshoot of Russia’s political shift. So by ending the Cold War Russia essentially capitalized on inducing the West to forget or not be mindful of that vigilance by which one conciliates the here and now and the ever (ever here meaning any one time).

    There is an artistic expression of this Cold War dynamic in a 2000 movie called Cast Away, starring Tom Hanks. In the narrative the protagonist is an American from Memphis, Tennessee, called Chuck Noland, who works for Fedex. He conducts employees training and operations all over the world, and in the movie’s beginning he is conducting a training in Russia, and even walks by a statue of Lenin in a major public square. He later suffers a plane accident and become stranded on an island as a cast away.

    Chuck Noland’s busy schedules and work contrast with the deserted island’s seeming time freezing. So the symbolic here and now to the detriment of the ever offered by Russia with the end of history’s turn of event gives way (in the carefully crafted and packed symbolism of the movie) to a dramatic appreciation of the ever. In Noland’s exile he seemingly learned like never before to be mindful of what is not right in front of him, of the conciliation of the ever and the here and now. It is a spiritual experience he revisits a considerable time after he left the island and returned to America, as depicted in the final scene of the movie.

    The point of this is communism knows a false or unhealthy relationship with time on the part of the West is something important as a deception and diversion. And they take care, seemingly, to make sure the people supposed to be stranded on an island figuratively (which would be priests and religious life people) have their lifestyle completely subverted, so that the larger public doesn’t get exposed as much to an appreciation of the connection between here and now and ever. This is all the more important as currently very here and now minded people become influencers on social media.

    This deception is part of the process Bezmenov would describe as demoralization.

    1. I do not know where you are getting this idea that Kołakowski says Marxism is “primarily” concerned with reconciling the enduring and the changing? In Marx we have the negation of the negation, signifying the idea that every social system is becoming another social system. Is that what you mean? Marx says that man is not doomed to a contingent existence, but can realize Absolute Being through the final stage — communism. Are you asking me to comment on this aspect of Marxism? Perhaps you could direct me to a passage in Kołakowski that baffles you? I think you may have misunderstood what is being said in Kołakowski’s book. It is not an easy topic.

      1. Leszek Kołakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, volume 1, Oxford University Press, 1978, page 27: “In seeking to avoid both these nihilistic extremes [namely ahistoric categories, on the one hand, and purely historically bound categories of thought on the other] it is the purpose of this inquiry [Main Currents of Marxism] to understand Marx’s basic thoughts as answers to questions that have long exercised the minds of philosophers, but at the same time to comprehend them in their uniqueness both as emanations of Marx’s genius and as phenomena of a particular age.”

        So Leszek Kołakowski understood Marx’s work as an answer to questions from a perspective of “ever” and at the same time from a perspective of “here and now”. The way he articulated it shows, howsoever subtly, this is important both to him Leszek Kołakowski, and to Marx. It is connected to how Marx tackled things; and it is something Kołakowski chose to emphasize.

        It is not exactly a question of my being baffled by this question, as much as my being interested in expanding this idea and applying it, for example, to the timeline of Golitsyn’s interpretations.

        This idea of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” is very interesting, because the sense of a historical fulfillment, like he seemed to have articulated, is tied somewhat to this ideal attributed to Marx by Kołakowski of one’s being able to speak or purporting to speak on behalf of “ever” and “here and now”.

        If this ideal is seen by Marxists as a fulfillment; provided it can be seen as achievable, it can be also presented as a temptation. The Cold War end/the end of history seems in this way to have been presented to the West by Russia like the serpent presented Eve with the apple. They were offering this apple at the same time they communists/Russians were subverting in an unprecedented way the religious life connection to the “ever”. A best-selling novel like Windswept House (by Malachi Martin) documents this. The novel depicts the most important clergyman in America during the Cold War end, which would correspond to Joseph Bernardin of the Diocese of Chicago, as a dangerous satanist and pedophile part of a worldwide network of like-minded predators. Only decades after the novel came out this information about Bernardin started to surface by whistleblowers and documents discussed in news outlets.

        My idea was to try and apply this Kołakowski thesis to a more immediate sign in the larger frame of current communist politics.

      2. This is the exact edition of Kołakowski I am holding in my hand, Oxford 1978, and it does not have your quote on page 27. On that page we read about the fall of man in the context of a theological discussion of good and evil in history and its relation to dialectics. Could it be you are quoting from someone who footnoted the wrong page number? All I can say, is I do not recognize your interpretation of Kołakowski as valid. His stated thesis was to follow the evolution of Marx’s thought and inquire how Marx attempted to avoid the dilemma of utopianism versus historical fatalism. Going from memory, Kołakowsk makes the point elsewhere in this volume, that the transition from Feudalism to capitalism did not require a revolutionary self-conscious bourgeoisie led by a vanguard party having a theory like that of Marx. The process was entirely determined by unconscious historical forces. So, why would anyone need to organize a workers’ revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism? Naturally, you must see the contradiction. The Revolution will happen automatically, right? So why did Marx even worry about creating a Marxist movement? Why write the Communist Manifesto? In effect, Kołakowski is subtly showing the intellectual absurdity of Marx’s philosophy while meticulously avoiding the claim that Marx inspired actual regimes that kill people. Many of the theoretical questions raised about Marx’s philosophy by Kołakowski are rhetorical stabs to the gut. A philosophically serious person must not take Marx’s “laws of historical development” seriously. The whole political philosophy of Marx can be freely recast or interpretted by practitioners in any way they please. Although I cannot remember Kołakowski explicitly saying this, he seems to be saying that all of Marx’s suggestions were tailored to a siezer of power without checks and balances. In other words, it was a self-serving formula at its foundation; that is, an argument for extreme despotism. Like Schumpeter’s backhanded praise for Marx, Kołakowski is basically blasting Marx as a fraud without flaunting what he must consider to be crude anticommunist charges. I cannot relate to your claim that Kołakowsk primarily understood Marx as answering questions from a perspective of “ever.” You must be taking hold of a small point or step in his analysis, and by a process of misunderstanding, turning it into the primary point. The fulfillment in Marx is found in absolute political power, not in some airy fairy speaking for all time. As Voegelin and Kołakowski pointed out, it is absurd for a materialist to say that he can reconcile contingent human existence with Absolute Being. And Francis Fukuyama’s idea of the “End of History,” as Fukuyama disguistingly admits in his discussion of Nietzsche’s last man, is nothing more than the wish fantasy of liberals who are too weak to accept the bloody realities of history and the inevitability of another war.

      3. My analysis of Marx is more forthrightly anticommunist. I am not afraid to be crude in debunking Marx or Lenin et alia. Marx’s reconciliation of contingent human existence and Absolute Being is through the magic of siezing power. Aggrandize yourselves, comrades! It really is that simple in my opinion. The problem with most people who analyze Marx, is getting lost in the Marxist weeds.

      4. It was not page 27, but 11. I made a mistake because I’m reading some online version and the platform details confused me.

      5. The quote I gave (it was page 11, I stand corrected) explicitly shows the purpose of the author was to understand Marx’s thought as answers from questions of philosophers of generations apart from Marx’s (sometimes quite apart), but also to understand Marx’s thought as answers connnected to a unique time and place etc. By trying to bring up of how Marxist thought tackles the subject of the roughly speaking categories of “ever” and “here and now”, and these categories articulation; I don’t see how I can possibly be straying from the book’s main subject/discussion; if I am strictly discussing what the author stated is the focus of his study, the author’s stated purpose.

        I did not intend to attribute to Kołakowski the claim that Marx achieved an intellectual state of perfect realization of the “ever” understood as an enlightenment. This to me never seemed manifest, among others because Kołakowski in some respects seems to adopt the language of a philosophical skeptic and of an outsider regarding metaphysical doctrine. I rather sugggested this articulation between outlooks from long cumulated questions of other generations, and from the outlook of Marx’s own time and person, is being presented as some kind of important worry or ideal (howsoever subliminal) in Marx’s thought and in its study. I did not intend this ideal should not be seen as pejorative.

        I think you made it clear I am simply losing my time by trying to study the author the way I do, and I am not understanding it. You expressed distaste for engaging in this study. I understand that and will not bring this study before you again.

      6. The irony of Marxism is that they say religion is the opiate of the masses, and yet their doctrine is some of the most zealous and cringe-worthy mystical of all, with its grand prophecies of world peace, grandiose perceptions of self as righteous warriors, it’s frothing denunciation of absolute evil, etc.. absolutely absurd of any Marxists to look down on religion at all, considering they’re the biggest adherents.

    1. The CFE Treaty was not observed for a long time, and I am not sure it was entirely followed. But it probably was at one point. Yet, if Russia wants to threaten Europe, this is the way forward.

  5. Mr. Nyquist, I’d like to ask you something but not about Israel or Palestine. Recently I read a very intriguing text about the administration of Volodymir Zelensky. There were a lot of revelations by former official of Zelensky administration which surprised me – for example, why the war is so long, why does it look like this (WW1 type war) and why Putin actually wasn’t interested in taking over Ukraine for 3 days. This former official (who obviously decided to be anonymous) revealed that Zelensky administration is corrupted and he criticized Putin, Biden and Zelensky for different reasons. This official likes America but not Biden. I’ve never liked Zelensky and this text only confirmed my reasons to be disgusted by him. By the way, the official revealed how Zelensky received (and still receives money from Russia). I actually can believe it because there was a real censorship in the news that Zelensky received 200 000 dollars four years ago for his presidential campaign. I will send you a link. Would you tell me what do you think about this article?

  6. First time commenting here.

    When I was younger back in 2016, I was a teenager and that year was memorable, we were going through a presidential impeachment, Brexit, Trump’s election and the Olympics took on a very political connotation since we were the host country.

    One thing led to another and that led me to awaken to the danger of communism and at first I didn’t know how much deeper the problem was. I joined the monarchist movement because I was completely disillusioned with the success of the republican system in Brazil (we have had six constitutions since 1891 and none of them lasted more than 40 years). However, over time I began to realize that this movement was taking an unpleasant path. Everything bad was the fault of some absurd conspiracy. They started saying some things about Freemasonry, then they blamed the US for the 1889 coup that overthrew the monarchy, then some nonsense about “how the Protestant Reformation was to blame for Communism” or something like that. In the end I ended up completely abandoning the idea around 2020 and since then I’ve learned a lot.

    What I want to say is that it dawned on me how disinformation operations have come to affect even the smallest political movements within the right.

    1. Absolutely right. If you are dealing with republics where elections are held, disinformation that confuses and diverts the public is an effective strategy.

    2. Once you notice communist propaganda campaigns, you see them everywhere. The additional brilliance of their methodology is that they can get unwitting actors to propagandize others without having the faintest clue.

  7. Jeff touched on something which is rarely discussed: I have long suspected that Marx began with his end goal in mind, a complete dictatorship of absolute power, and then worked backwards building the logic and theories necessary to reach there. He knew he would need to advocate for open insurrection, so he realized he would need a moral reason. He knew in order to deceive millions into achieving the dictatorship, he would need to incite hate. He skillfully used history to create broad generalizations and stereotypes which could then be incited against.

    Mostly, he realized that the moral force is the greatest force in the world. In order to trick dupes into dying for their own enslavement, he had to create a false religion. And that’s what he did, creating a religion disguised as an economic theory. The giveaway is that there is a clear moral component to Marxism; it declares certain people evil and others righteous. No neutral economic analysis does that. It is a moral framework, aka a religion, hiding under an economic theory.

    Mostly, Marx perfected the use of hiding behind abstractions, using linguistic trickery, and exploiting people to disguise his naked ambition for power.

    Even now, if you talk to someone about Marxism, they say it’s an economic theory. They say it just didn’t work. And that’s the point. The genius of Marx is that you could waste hours just tearing away the obfuscation to get to the actual mechanism underneath. Everything is hidden behind a separate pretext. He began his deception at the earliest point in our consciousness, where we name things, which means in order to correctly combat him, you have to begin contesting the very terms we all use. Even the word communist is a completely fake, meaningless term and abstraction, yet we use it, if for no other reason than we need some common term to identify them. But they don’t stand for community. They don’t care about the community at all. It is the linguistic manipulation that is Marx’s greatest genius – even we, who know what these demons are – often speak in muddled terms because to merely discuss their various strategems means deconstructing a million fake descriptors they’ve invented to hide the truth.

    All that to say, the idea that Marx consciously invented an elaborate ideology to morally justify the creation of a rabid, zealous army of psychopaths who could establish horrific dictatorships needs much more attention. It goes to the heart of any time a communist speaks; are they simply wrong or are they intentionally manipulating language to achieve an evil outcome?

    1. Just a note: Marx was trained as a philosopher, and did not have the right philosophy with which to attempt economics. Of course, Adam Smith, author of the “Wealth of Nations,” had also been a professor of philosophy (he held the chair in “moral philosophy” at Glasgow). Marx’s attempt at economics came after the “Communist Manifesto,” which he wrote with Engels. Marx’s economic theory was something of an attempt at social science in which he used the same intellectual trickery he had used in building up his philosophic ideas. Marx’s economic errors were outlined in 1896 by the Austrian economist Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, in a book titled, “Karl Marx and the Close of His System.” Bohm-Bawerk ironically wrote, “As an author Karl Marx was enviably fortunate. No one will affirm that his work can be classed among the books which are easy to read or easy to understand. most other books would have found their way to popularity hopelessly barred if they had labored under an even lighter ballast of hard dialectic and wearisom mathemathical deduction. But Marx, in spite of all this, has become the apostle of wide circles of readers, including many who are not as a rule given to the reading of difficult books. Moreover, the force and clearness of his reasoning were not such as to compel assent. On the contrary, men who are classed among the most earnest and most valued thinkers of our science [economics] … had contended from the first, by arguments that it was impossible to ignore, that the Marxian teaching was charged from top to bottom with every kind of contradiction both of logic and of fact. It could easily have happened, therefore, that Marx’s work might have found no favor with any part of the public — not with the general public because it could not understand his difficult dialectic, and not with the specialists because they understood it and its weaknesses only too well. As a matter of fact, it has happened otherwise.” (P. 3, Kelley 1975 Edition)

      Of course, the secret of Marx’s success was that he made big promises. He offered man the hope that paradise could be established on earth. As Voegelin said, Marx was a swindler.

      1. Jeff, is it your belief that Marx began with what he wanted to establish, the overthrow of all governments and the establishment of world-wide dictatorship, and then worked backwards to work out the logic? Even in anti-communist circles, this is not a consensus. And this divergence of opinions leads to drastically different interpretations of communist actions.

        The question of whether Marxism is intentionally a bad-faith doctrine or a well-intentioned-gone-awry theory seems to me one of the principal questions for the anti-communist movement to resolve among themselves.

      2. I do not know what Marx’s initial intentions were in such exact terms as you lay out. Marx biographer Robert Payne said Marx dreamed initially of being dictator of Germany. Overthrow of all governments? I do not think so. His theories were ever more grandiose. Marx envied God, according to his youthful poetry. He thought in terms of destroying creation. It seems to be a syndrome.

  8. Another of Marx’s powerful techniques was using an invented abstraction to disguise his attacks on the state. Instead of openly calling for the overthrow of the King, or the Parliament, he attacked a “system”, an abstraction which he could savage and attack in theory as much as he wanted, and then at any time place his enemies inside the abstraction. This technique allowed him to openly foment hate and violence while disguising his incitement as “systemic analysis”, “economic analysis”, etc.. This use of abstractions like “bourgeousie” and “proletariat”, to name just one example, was brilliant.

    “White supremacy” is an example of today’s abstraction. “Imperialism” was another. As was “colonialism”. This allows the inciter to speak in a code of sorts; in public, he can merely criticize the abstraction, in private, he can make the term and the enemy the same. The Democrats have utilized this to great effect; they’ve spent billions in PR efforts inciting tremendous hatred against the abstraction of “white supremacy”; the final step is then to place your enemy inside of it and all of the hatred transfers to him.

    “Bourgeousie” was the first example of this, and a quite successful one at that.

    1. Of course, Marx could not live in Germany. He was kicked out of France and Belgium too, if memory serves. He had to live in London, England. He is buried in Highgate Cemetery, London.

  9. In your discussion with Alex, he briefly mentioned the “Carbonari” as some weird masonic sect. I am myself agnostic in religious and in conspiratorial matters, but for all the nonsense that seems being spread about Freemasons, the documents of the Carbonari Lodge “Alta Vendita” wanting to infiltrate the Catholic Church are actually legitimate (unlike the Pike-Mazzini-letters etc), aren`t they?
    My personal impression/suspicion is, that the Communists infiltrated pretty much everything (lodges, Bilderbergers etc) after WW2, when they had all the archives and infos, but I have no proof.

    1. In the case of the Catholic Church, the Masonic infiltration of the 19th century resulted in a movement of heretics, which created the error known as Modernism. This group was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in the famous encyclical PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS at the beginning of the 20th century. But despite the efforts of this holy pontiff to eradicate this heresy, it never truly disappeared. On the contrary, it evolved into the Liberation Theology after the infiltration of communists. If you want to learn more, I recommend the works of Julio Loredo de Izcue, a specialist on this metter, and a member of the Italian TFP.

      1. There have been serious scandals in Italy involving Masonic groups engaged in corruption. One reason to have a secret group is to advance the members of the group into positions of influence. In France between the world wars, there was a small conspiratorial group of young technocrats called the Synarchy, which was started by Jean Coutrot. His goal was to take over France. The complete name of his movement was Mouvement Synarchique d’Empire. Most of this group ended up collaborating with the Nazis in World War II, and when the Nazis lost they were discredited. Some members of the group joined the Allies. This is a problem, always, with genuine conspiratorial groups. Their members disagree with each other, there is infighting, the group splits apart and dissolves within a generation. This French group would even assassinate members who knew too much and were considered unreliable.

    2. The Soviet Union automatically infiltrates all organizations of significance with the objective of controlling those organizations from the top. This is standard practice.

  10. Well, I thought this column was supposed to revolve around the current Mideast situation, but like with so many others, the discussion seems so readily to wander off-track, in this case one heavy treatise on Marxism-Leninism after another, so let’s get back to the subject ostensibly at hand. All sorts of speculation everywhere about drawing Iran into this conflict, including whether the United States actually angling towards that? Maybe, maybe not. But the real underlying question is: if the U.S. does somehow slide itself into actual shooting conflict with Iran within another year, *will it actually seek outright victory*, or will the objective and outcomes align more with the Vietnam/Afghan experiences, only on a more intense level? In other words, if the U.S. really ‘goes in’, *will it really mean it?* Or will a drawn-out slugfest actually be the desire of the broad ‘establishment’, for reasons that we will not really know? One might think such would be the last thing the current administration would want going into an election year. It will not be beneficial for the Democratic Party to commit to a conflict with an opponent that would certainly be much more militant and wild-eyed ornery than, say, Iraq. For if Iraq was a pissed-off racoon by the tail, Iran will be more of a gaggle of mightily mad Tasmanian devils in the same context, and the U.S. certainly should not want their yowling business-ends swinging on around to inflict some serious damage, however so. The administration would have to find some way of settling them down and making nice, or else hand them over to say, a second Trump administration to deal with. In a way they might actually prefer that, for once they did they will say it is no longer their problem, ditching all responsibility for the action as readily as they can, as they did with Afghanistan. Except in Afghanistan’s case, they blamed the Trump administration that came *before* them. They’d still blame a follow-on Trump Presidential return just as readily, and do so from the standpoint of blaming him, believe it or not, for somehow starting the dust-up to begin with. And using that as a campaign theme also. Not good in any case.

    1. If you want 24/7 coverage of the diversion in the Middle East go to the mainstream media. They are not interested in anything else. Over and over again, every day — Hamas and Israel. This website’s focus is the communist movement, not the Middle East.

      1. H.R. Holm: As was brought out in comments from last week’s blog, the communist movement is about the Middle East. Documentation was cited that shows that the KGB/communists captured and control the “Islamists” in the Middle East. So if you want to know the background of the Middle East, look to the communist movement.

      2. The communist movement is not “about the Middle East.” The communist movement is a worldwide movement. It is about World Revolution. It’s activities in the Middle East are only a small part of its operations. And one should also be careful about saying the KGB/communists have captured and control the “Islamists.” Not all Islamists are under communist control. Some Mujahideen groups in Afghanistan were not under Moscow’s control. Those formations that later joined the Northern Alliance most certainly under Moscow’s control or influence. Not all Islamist Chechen fighters were under Moscow’s control. Saudi Arabia can be considered Islamist and has been aligned with America until recently (i.e., a shift toward China and Russia may be underway). It’s best not to overstate the case.

  11. What a huge disappointment the govenors race was here in Kentucky. I moved down here from the communist cancer that was spreading in Michigan thinking that their Democrat governor was just a one off and that surely they would come to their senses after living through the Covid event and seeing the Marxist agenda exposed. Well, it looks like both the mountain people and the city folk like the pro abortion, pro transgender, socialist welfare system. It is getting very hard to hang on to some hope for this country.

    1. I am personally skeptical that any of these are genuine results. They could be, but who really knows. It’s not as if anyone is really allowed to investigate.

      1. While election integrity is a concern, people on the right need to realize that the left has perfected the indoctrination of children in our schools. Look at the polls. We are not creating a generation of conservatives in this country. The institutions are reeducating the public. Watch TV and see it. These election outcomes should not be a surprise, actually.

      2. I don’t think that it was election interference. The poor and the drug addicted are well taken care of here, the cities are full of progressive leftist and even down here in conservative south central Kentucky I have seen my share of young transgender and gender binary people.

    1. Thanks. Good catch.
      If a regional war breaks out over this, you can bet a flood of refugees and weapons will come north.

      -Bill Freeman

    1. Bill: You have touched on some of the details in Part III of this series. China’s economy is in serious trouble. I have been told that China is suffering a very serious, even catastrophic, economic setback. Their banking system is a house of cards. They have invested in the wrong things. Their system is beginning to crash. The Chinese communists are going to ask us to rescue them, even while they threaten us. Isn’t that charming? They certainly have a lot of nerve.

      1. Hi Jeff,

        Yes, their economy certainly is a house of cards on thin ice.

        This two-face action of the communist Chinese suggests there’s probably a power struggle or internal infighting if the severity of the situation is as catastrophic as you suggest.

        It is hopeful, for without China, Russia will back down, especially with Israel on a war footing buzzing like a hornet’s nest.

        At the moment, it’s looking like the end of Reservoir Dogs.

        For those that haven’t seen Reservoir dogs, I wont spoil it for you,
        but the current world situation reminds me of the end of that movie.

        -Bill Freeman

      2. This situation is dangerous because Chinese and Russian planners might consider a nuclear option as “the great equalizer.” If our economies are failing, we can guarantee that your economies fail. And then the playing field is even. That is a pretty crazy rationale. Of course, the people at the top in Russia, China, and Iran are working from a different set of premises than people in the West.

  12. Jeff Nyquist, i really like your essays. Especially how you try to explain socialism / communism from a philosophical point of view. Personally i have to say that i find this part even more interesting than the part of Golytsin. You gave me a lot of insights!
    You summarize difficult topics, you are the perfect teacher, people in Europe and the US should read your essays. Really, many, many thanks!

  13. Why is the picture of President Clinton always posted at the bottom?
    I appreciate your work, Jeff. I was sort of drifting in the Q anon direction when I really started following you. Through your work and other things I have begun to realize how the conspiracy media was leading me to become alienated and self absorbed. I still do think there is something to the conspiracy media that is valid, although exaggerated or sensationalized but can’t quite put my finger on it. Fascinating time to be alive.




    1. Excuse me? I do not make anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic statements. I have opposed anti-Semitism whenever I encounter it. I have deleted antisemitic remarks from this thread. I do not appreciate being accused of making such statements.


      2. What I said was, Ukraine is a passageway for Russian forces to reach and threaten America’s allies in Europe. This is why Ukraine is an important country for us to support. Israel is not a passageway in the same sense. Furthermore, I have said that Israel is a nuclear power with a strong air force. It has powerful means of self-defense. Ergo, we do not need to save Israel. Anyone who threatens Israel’s destruction will face nuclear attack. Ukraine, however, has no nuclear weapons or powerful air force. Ukraine can only survive being attacked by Russia, if we support Ukraine with supplies and weapons. I make this point because our mainstream pundits are promoting strategically incorrect notions; namely, that Ukraine is not important for us and should be abandoned in favor of Israel. Many are ready to sacrifice Ukraine to save Israel when Israel does not need to be saved. There is no need to choose between one country or the other. Israel is not destroyed if we help Ukraine. In response to this, you have made the unwelcomed suggestion that I wish to sacrifice Israel and am antisemitic. Please do not post here again. Your statement misrepresents my position and undermines me. None of my enemies have ever suggested that I am antisemitic. Only you are suggesting it.

  15. I listened some of Alex Benesch videos, and he talked about Climate Science having military background, and how most of it comes from US and UK. This reminded me how some people talk about Operation Warp Speed having military connection, so there seem to be connections between US military and vaccines.

    Now if climate science and mrna-vaccines really are something that are to damage the western world, it does not sound so good that there are military connections. Military should be there to protect the people. And now there is a risk of major war, so it does not sound so good. Jeff, what do you think about these? Is there reason to worry?

    1. We have to consider the possibility that our enemies, who have infiltrated our institutions, are trying to use our own biological warfare defense as an attack vector. And our weather people, having been indoctrinated in school, may be approaching the weather with the wrong premises.

  16. Hi Jeff, What’s your take on Turkey’s latest?

    Erdogan to declare Israel ‘war criminals’ as Turkey rallies behind Hamas terrorists

    Erdogan flips and flops like bacon in a frying pan.

    I wonder if he’s tasked with starting the break up of NATO, by withdrawing Turkey. Is that why he gave in and flip-flopped on Sweden’s NATO bid? Maybe he figured it didn’t really matter if NATO was soon to be finished anyway. Maybe that’s why he stalled on making a decision. Buying some time.

    Just some musings

    -Bill Freeman

    1. Turkey is a serious regional power. In playing the power game, Turkey’s leader presents his policy ambiguously — as a “romantic” partner for all respective suitors. This is a dangerous game to play, according to Machiavelli, who said the best policy was to pick a side and stick with it. In other words, be loyal to one side. Erdogan has not apparently read “The Prince.” There is a sense in which Erdogan may be a student of Bismarck, whose policies were outwardly inconsistent yet intuitively consistent. To reestablish the Turkish Empire and unite the Muslim Middle East is a pretty crazy thing to attempt — more crazy than uniting the patchwork of German states consolidated by Bismarck after the fall of Napoleon III. Bismarck had something Erdogan does not: The German patchwork had the genius of Metternich in its design — based on a politics of sympathy. The current Middle East patchwork, however, emerged from a politics of antipathy through the bungled policy of that “sheep in sheep’s clothing,” British Prime Minister Clement Attlee. Dream as Erdogan might, Turkey cannot replicate the Franco Prussian War (which led to empire) because Netanyahu is not Napoleon III and has nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no real love in Turkey for Arabs. Erdogan is, more likely, playing the role of Napoleon III himself (that is, the role of the prospective big loser). Bismarck may have seemed incoherent, but he was incredibly farsighted in the end while Erdogan is nearsighted. Besides this, Erdogan’s policy toward the Turkish Army suggests there will be no Moltke for him. If he wages war he will just be killing soldiers to no purpose. Turkey is caught in a trick box of its own design.

  17. This would be a good time (better late than never) to end ALL technology transfers to ANYBODY. Not just to obvious commie enemies but also to “allies” who might give/sell the tech to enemies of the US.

    I’m 67 and retired so I can use my real name with relative impunity. Nobody lives forever.

  18. Jeff, Jimmy from Brooklyn really needs to write down all his thoughts, insights, and information on Communism and it’s creep into our society here since the 40’s and 50’s.
    That guy is so valuable (as you are) in teaching the average ‘Joe Shmo’ here in America what has transpired “right under our noses”. Homosexuality and its forced acceptance, Prayer outta schools…any item pertaining to good moral values and decency within our Judeo Christian foundations has been affected here by these murderous Marxist thugs and their influence via our asshat politicians.
    In my opinion, all of our politicians and so called “elected leaders” are absolutely clueless or “on the take” regardless of political affiliation.

    My wife asked me if I was going to listen to the recent Republican debate (after I got up to leave the living room after hearing Tim Scott say we should attack Iran… and then fat ass Chris Christy gets up to bloviate….” No thank you. I’ve heard enough.

    Our country is doomed and sadly a few of us will end up paying the ultimate sacrifice very soon in defending our own private property and rights under the Constitution.

    My kids generation will gladly welcome Socialism and Communist dictatorship here in the USSA very soon.

    1. Our elected leaders do not seem as knowledgeable as they should, and there is a lack of philosophic wisdom, a lack of historical perspective. Attacking a country the size of Iran, with so many missiles aimed at oil rigs, is a very bad idea.

  19. Tonight’s Nightly News via NBC….
    LGBTQ Veterans Denied V.A. Benefits

    Another example of the Communist influence of our society today…
    Do you think the Chinese Communist Party’s military or the Soviet military have “issues” with homosexuals or lesbian “rights” in their ranks? Mmmmm, I’m pretty sure they’d be shot if any individual said anything. And yet, here we are in America, the supposedly most free nation on the planet (sarcasm) and our elected officials have no clue or the balls regarding the creep of cultural Marxism, ie, political correctness…much less morals and a value system.

Comments are now closed.