by Professor Revilo P. Oliver
(An censored version of this article was published in American Opinion, February 1964. Except for the correction of minor typographical errors, this is an exact transcription from Dr. Oliver’s original typescript, which was written around Christmas, 1963. — Kevin Alfred Strom)
WE ALL KNOW what happened in Dallas on the twenty-second of November. It is imperative that we understand it.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a young punk who defected to the Soviet, taking with him the operational codes of the Marine Corps and such other secrets as a fledgling traitor had been able to steal while in military service. He not only forfeited his American citizenship by his acts, but also officially repudiated it under oath in the American Embassy in Moscow. He was then trained in sabotage, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare (including accurate shooting from ambush) in the well-known school for international criminals near Minsk, and while there he married the daughter of a colonel in the Soviet military espionage system (and probably also in the secret police).* In 1962, after he had been trained for three years in Russia, the Communist agent and his Communist wife were brought to the United States, in open violation of American law, by our Communist-dominated State Department.
(* If you missed the detail about Mrs. Oswald’s father, see the Congressional Record for December 4, page 22215.)
On his arrival in this country, Oswald took up his duties as an agent of the Conspiracy, spying on anti-Communist Cuban refugees, serving as an agitator for “Fair Play for Cuba,” and participating in some of the many other forms of subversion that flourish openly in defiance of law through the connivance of the Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy. In April, 1963, he was sent to Dallas, where he tried to murder General Edwin Walker. The failure does not reflect on the assassin’s professional training: General Walker happened to turn his head at the instant the shot was fired. According to a story that has been neither confirmed nor denied officially at the time that I write, Oswald was arrested as a suspect, but was released through the personal intervention of Robert F. Kennedy, and all inquiry into the attempted assassination of a great American was halted. †
(† Reprinted in The Councilor (228 Oil & Gas Bldg., Shreveport, La.), December 20, 1963.)
In November, Oswald was sent back to Dallas, where a job in a suitably located building had been arranged for him. He shot the President of the United States from ambush, left the building undetected, and would have escaped to Mexico but for some mischance. He was stopped for questioning by a vigilant policeman, whom he killed in a moment of panic. Arrested and identified, he, despite his training, was so vain as to pose for photographs while triumphantly giving the Communists’ clenched-fist salute; he asked for a noted Communist attorney, who had been a member of the little Communist cell that included the noted traitor, Alger Hiss; and he began to tell contradictory stories. He was accordingly liquidated before he could make a complete confession.
There are many other significant data, but I have stated the essentials. They are known to you.
The fact that they are known to you should give you — if you are an American — hope and courage. You will need both.
Obviously, something went wrong in Dallas — in our favor, this time. The best-laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft a-gley — and so do schemes of Communists, sometimes. The identification of the murderer was a near-miracle. If not the result of divine intervention, it was the result of a series of coincidences of the same order as might enable a bum with a dollar in his pocket to enter a casino in Reno and emerge with a thousand.
It is highly significant that after Oswald was arrested, you learned the facts. That proves that the Communist Conspiracy’s control of the United States is not yet complete.
I firmly believe that in our nation as a whole the overwhelming majority of local policemen, whom we shamefully neglect and take for granted, are brave and honorable Americans. But I know nothing of the police in Dallas. It is quite possible that, as is usual in our large cities, they are subject to great pressures from a corrupt municipal government. I shall not be greatly astonished if, in the course of the Conspiracy’s frantic efforts to confuse us with irrelevancies, it should be disclosed that pay-offs had been made by Jakob Leon Rubenstein, alias Ruby, and other members of the underworld that panders to human vice and folly. It is by no means impossible that crypto-Communists have been planted in that police force. But paint the picture as dark as you will, it remains indisputably true that, at the very least, there were enough honest and patriotic men on that police force to bring about the arrest of Oswald, to identify him, and to prevent both his escape and his assassination “while trying to escape.” It required a gunman from outside to do the job.
It is quite true that the Communist Conspiracy, through the management of great broadcasting systems and news agencies, through the many criminals lodged in the radio and press, and through many indirect pressures (such as the allocation of advertising and harassment by bureaus of the federal government), have a control over our channels of communication that seems to us, in our moments of discouragement, virtually total. As was to be expected, a few moments after the shot was fired in Dallas, the vermin, probably in obedience to general or specific orders issued in advance of the event, began to screech out their diseased hatred of the American people, and, long after the facts were known to everyone, went on mechanically repeating, like defective phonograph records, the same vicious lies about the “radical right” until fresh orders reached them from headquarters. But the significant fact is that there were enough honest American newsmen, in the United States and abroad, to make it impossible to conceal the Conspiracy’s connection with the bungled assassination. That is very encouraging.
The Show and the Sorrow
All that could be done at the moment to obscure the Communist’s mischance was to stage an elaborate spectacle with all the technical virtuosity seen in a performance of Aida in the Baths of Caracalla or the amphitheatre at Verona, supplemented with the cruder devices of Hollywood’s expert vulgarians. Every effort was made to incite an orgy of bathos and irrationality. For the most part, the good sense of the American people frustrated the efforts of the showmen. But we need to consider the facts clearly and objectively.
There are two basic reasons why the American people were shocked and grieved by the assassination. Neither has anything to do with either the personal character of the victim or the identity of the assassin.
(1) The victim was the President of the United States; he was therefore symbolically representative of the nation, and his assassination was a form of armed attack on our country. The alarm, indignation, and sorrow excited by such an attack made on American soil should have no relation to either the public or private character of the person who was President. To put the matter as clearly as possible, the crime would have been every bit as horrible and shocking, had it (per impossibilè) been absolutely certain that on the very next day the President would be impeached, tried, convicted, removed from office, and executed for his own crimes. That would be tomorrow, and would not affect today, when he is still legally invested with the dignity of his high office.
All decent men feel instinctively that the order, the stability, the preservation of civilized society requires that the officers whom that society has appointed in conformity with its own constitution be inviolate so long as they are clothed with the dignity of office, however mistaken or unfortunate their appointment may have been. So long as the officer has not outlawed himself by violent usurpation, any misuse of the powers legally bestowed upon him indicates either a defect in the constitution (which may grant excessive powers or provide inadequate checks) or the fatuity of citizens who tolerate abuses for which constitutional remedies are available. In either case, the abuse is primarily evidence of a weakness that the society must learn to correct legally. And if the society cannot learn from experience, there is no hope for it anyway.
(2) Regardless of office, political violence is always shocking and a warning of impending collapse. The Roman Republic was doomed as soon as it became clear that the wealthy and high-born renegade, Clodius, could send his gangsters into the streets with impunity; when the decent people of Rome tried to protect themselves by hiring gangsters of their own under Milo, that was not an answer: it was a confession of defeat. The assassination of Kennedy, quite apart from consideration of the office that he held, was an act of violence both deplorable and ominous — as ominous as the violence excited by the infamous Martin Luther King and other criminals engaged in inciting race war with the approval and even, it is said, the active co-operation of the White House. It was as deplorable and ominous as the violence of the uniformed goons (protected by reluctant and ashamed soldiers) whom Kennedy, in open violation of the American Constitution, sent into Oxford, Mississippi, to kick into submission American citizens, whom the late Mr. Kennedy had come to regard as his livestock.
Such lawlessness, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators or their professed motives, is as alarming as the outbreak of a fire in a house, and if not speedily extinguished, will destroy the whole social order. That is a fact that all conservatives know, for it is they who read the lessons of human history and understand how hard it is to build and how easy it is to destroy — how perishable and precious are the moral restraints and the habitual observance of them by which civilization shelters itself from the feral barbarism that is latent in all peoples. That is the very fact that “Liberal intellectuals” try to conceal with the contorted sophistries that they are perpetually devising to justify as “social good” or “progress” the murders and massacres that secretly fascinate them and excite them. That is why conservatives try to conserve what “Liberals” seek to destroy.
The foregoing are two good and sufficient reasons why Americans were shocked and grieved by the assassination in Dallas. Let them suffice us. It is imperative that we do not permit ourselves to be confused at this critical time by a twisted proverb and residual superstition.
The maxim, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, has long been a favorite dictum of Anglo-Saxons (for some reason, it is seldom cited on the continent of Europe). Reference books usually attribute it to one of the Seven Sages, Chilo, who lived in the early part of the Sixth Century B.C.; but that is a mistake. In his precepts for prudent conduct, roughly similar to Benjamin Franklin’s, Chilo urges us not to malign the dead (ton tethnekota me kakologeîn). He was interested in our own integrity, not the comfort or reputation of the deceased, and the precept is on a par with his advice that we should not utter idle threats in a quarrel because that is womanish.
Whatever the source of the phrase so glibly and frequently quoted these days, the notion that one should speak only good of the departed is compounded of various sentiments. It undoubtedly had its origin in man’s deep-seated and primitive fear of the dead — a fear lest the Manes may somehow hear what we say and, if angered, use their mysterious powers to work harm upon us. That residual awe is supplemented by our infinite pity for the dead, and our hope that after life’s fitful fever they sleep well. Pity is reinforced by the strong impulse toward generosity and kindness that, although biologically inexplicable, is found in all decent men. And that kindness is directed in part toward the living, for even the most odious and despicable beings may be survived by someone who grieves for them. Even Nero had one concubine who loved him. Acte wept for him and saw to it that his body was decently buried. And we honor her for it.
The dictum has become a fixed convention. We all know the story of the old men in a rural community who attend the funeral of one of their contemporaries. Having known the old reprobate all his life, they stand silently in a circle, tongue-tied, uneasily shuffling their feet, eyeing one another and searching their memories, until one is at last able to say, “Well, when Jake was a boy, he was mighty nigh the best speller in the sixth grade.”
As an expression of courtesy and personal kindness, the dictum is unexceptionable. In politics and history it is utter nonsense — and everyone knows that it is. Were the dictum taken seriously, history would be impossible, for no page of it can be written without recording the follies and the crimes of the dead. Not even the sentimental innocents who now, under expert stimulation, blubber over the “martyred President” believe in the dictum de mortuis — at least, I have yet to hear one of them utter a lament for Adolf Hitler, although Adolf is certainly as defunct as Jack and therefore presumably as much entitled to post-mortem consideration.
Taboos are for barbarians, who indulge in tribal howling and gashing of cheeks and breast whenever a big chief dies or an eclipse portends the end of the world. We are a civilized race.
In memoriam aeternam
Rational men will understand that, far from sobbing over the deceased or lying to placate his vengeful ghost, it behooves us to speak of him with complete candor and historical objectivity. Jack was not sanctified by a bullet.
The defunct Kennedy is the John F. Kennedy who procured his election by peddling boob-bait to the suckers, including a cynical pledge to destroy the Communist base in Cuba. He is the John F. Kennedy with whose blessing and support the Central Intelligence Agency staged a fake “invasion” of Cuba designed to strengthen our mortal enemies there and to disgrace us — disgrace us not only by ignominious failure, but by the inhuman crime of having lured brave men into a trap and sent them to suffering and death. He is the John F. Kennedy who, in close collaboration with Khrushchev, staged the phony “embargo” that was improvised both to befuddle the suckers on election day in 1962 and to provide for several months a cover for the steady and rapid transfer of Soviet troops and Soviet weapons to Cuba for eventual use against us. He is the John F. Kennedy who installed and maintained in power the unspeakable Yarmolinsky-McNamara gang in the Pentagon to demoralize and subvert our armed forces and to sabotage our military installations and equipment. He is the John F. Kennedy who, by shameless intimidation, bribery, and blackmail, induced weaklings in Congress to approve treasonable acts designed to disarm us and to make us the helpless prey of the affiliated criminals and savages of the “United Nations.”
I have mentioned but a few of the hundred reasons why we shall never forget John F. Kennedy. So long as their are Americans, his memory will be cherished with execration and loathing. If the United States is saved by the desperate exertions of patriots, we may have a future of true greatness and glory — but we will never forget how near we were to total destruction in the year 1963. And if the international vermin succeed in completing their occupation of our country, Americans will remember Kennedy while they live, and will curse him as they face the firing squads or toil in brutish degradation that leaves no hope for anything but a speedy death.
Why was Kennedy murdered by the young Bolshevik? With a little imagination, it is easy to excogitate numerous explanations that are not absolutely impossible. For example: (a) Oswald was a “madman” who acted all alone just to get his name in the papers; (b) Oswald was a poor shot who was really trying to kill Governor Connally or Mrs. Kennedy and hit the President by mistake; (c) the person killed was not Kennedy but a double, and the real Kennedy is now a guest aboard a “flying saucer” on which he is heroically negotiating with Martians or Saturnians to Save the World. With a little time and a fairly wide reading in romantic fiction, anyone can think of sixty or seventy fantasies as good or better than those I have mentioned.
On the evidence, however, and with consideration of human probabilities, there are only three explanations that are not preposterous, viz.:
(1) That Kennedy was executed by the Communist Conspiracy because he was planning to turn American. For this comforting hypothesis there is no evidence now known. Ever since January, 1961, some hopeful Americans have maintained that Jack was a conservative at heart, that he deliberately packed his administration with Schlesingers, Rostows, and Yarmolinskis so that these would bring our nation so near to disaster that even the stupidest “Liberal,” not in the employ of the Conspiracy, could not overlook the obvious, and that when an unmistakable crisis at last made it politically feasible, Kennedy would carry out a sudden and dramatic volte-face, sweep the scum out of Washington, and rally the forces of the great majority of loyal and patriotic Americans.
I wish I could believe that. It is true that the late Senator McCarthy praised young Kennedy, but although the Senator was a great American whose memory we must all revere, he was not preternaturally gifted: he could have been either deceived by a smooth-talking hypocrite (as have been greater men than he in the past) or mistaken in his estimate of a person who, although then sincere in his allegiance to what then seemed to be the winning side, later thought it expedient to change sides. It is also true that Kennedy said some fine things in speeches delivered just before his death, but those statements did not significantly differ from the pro-American flourishes normally used as seasoning in the boob-bait manufactured by Salinger’s technicians during the past three years.
If Kennedy did entertain laudable designs, he cannot have kept them entirely in petto; he must have disclosed them to a few persons, perhaps including his father, in whom he had confidence. And if he did, the time for those persons to give evidence is now, while there is still a chance to clear the reputation of the deceased.
(2) That the assassination was a result of one of the rifts that not infrequently occur within the management of the Communist Conspiracy, whose satraps sometimes liquidate one another without defecting from the Conspiracy, just as Persian satraps, such as Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, made war on one another without revolting or intending to revolt against the King of Kings.
Now it was generally known for some time before the assassination that Khrushchev and Kennedy were planning to stage another show to bamboozle the American suckers just before the election next November. According to this plan, a fake “revolt” against Castro would be enacted by the Communist second team, which has long been kept in reserve for such an eventuality. (Cf. American Opinion, March, 1962, p.33.) The “democratic revolution” was to be headed by a Communist agent who differed from Fidel only in being less hairy and less well known to Americans, so that the New York Times, the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and our other domestic enemies could swear once again that the vicious criminal was an “agrarian reformer,” and “anti-Communist,” and the “George Washington of Cuba.” (It is confidently believed in conspiratorial circles that the dumb brutes in the United States will never learn — until it is much too late.)
What is not certain is the script for the third act of the comedy. Most (but not all) informed observers believe that this performance in Cuba was to accomplish two things: (a) the re-election of Kennedy and most of his stooges in Congress, which would, of course, be impossible without some seasonably contrived and major “crisis”; and (b) the endlessly repeated and trite device of making the tax-paying serfs in the United States, who have financed every important Communist conquest since 1917, work to provision and fortify another conquest under the pretext that by so doing they in some mysterious way “fight Communism.”
Now, if those observers are correct in their projections, the scenario called for the “success” of the “democratic revolution.” And that would involve, if the play was to be convincing, the liquidation of Fidel and a few of his more notorious accomplices. And that, as is well known to everyone who has made even the slightest study of Communism, would be merely commonplace and normal.
The rabid rats of Bolshevism devour one another — and no one knows that better than the rats themselves. Almost all of the Conspiracy’s most famous murderers — Trotsky, Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kirov (Kostrikov), Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Yezhov, Beria, and a hundred others, possibly including Stalin — were murdered by their insatiably blood-thirsty confederates. Indeed, it is a general rule that only accident or disease can save a Communist “leader” from assassination or execution by other Communists as soon as his usefulness to the Conspiracy is ended or his liquidation will provide an opportunity for useful propaganda.
Cornered rats will fight for their lives. Castro, of course, knew of the planned “revolution,” and if the dénouement was correctly foreseen by American observers, he also knew that, whatever solemn pledges may have been given him by his superiors, he would not survive. It is possible, therefore, that Fidel arranged the assassination of Jack in the hope of averting, or at least postponing, his own. Now that Oswald is silenced and superiors who gave him his orders are unidentified, it may never be possible completely to disprove that hypothesis, although there are a number of considerations that weigh against it.
We should note, also, that a few American observers believed that the Communist scenario had a different third act. According to their forecast, the Communist second-team was to stage an indecisive “revolt” against the first team. Jack, pretending to carry out after four years the pledge that he made to get himself elected, would commit the United States to support the second team. At the scheduled moment on the eve of elections Nick would intervene and yell about a “nuclear holocaust,” thus producing a “crisis” which would call for a “bipartisan” cancellation of the election. The gang in the Pentagon, hypocritically wringing its greasy hands, would claim that we were even weaker than its concerted sabotage of our defenses had in fact made us by that time. That would suffice to set craven “intellectuals” and neurotic females to running through our streets howling for “peace” and the “United Nations.” After much tension, a great “statesmanlike solution” would be found, surrender of our sovereignty and weapons to an “international” body, with the Russians agreeing to do likewise. Then the savages in the “international police force” would move in, and the glorious and long-awaited butchery of the American boobs would get under way.
Those who make this prognosis support it by pointing out that the Conspiracy has already fallen far behind its schedule for the United States, and that the slow but ever increasing awakening of the American people from their hypnotic lethargy makes it necessary for the Conspiracy to adopt drastic and precipitate measures now, if it is not to fail utterly. If those observers are right, then interference by Castro is excluded, for the plan itself would guarantee his safety until the United States had been abolished.
(3) That the Conspiracy ordered the assassination as part of systematic preparation for a domestic take-over. If so, the plan, of course, was to place the blame on the “right-wing extremists” (if I may use the Bolshevik’s code-word for informed and loyal Americans), and we may be sure that a whole train of “clues” had been carefully planted to lead or point in that direction as soon as Oswald was safe in Mexico. These preparations were rendered useless when Oswald was, through some mischance, arrested — probably in consequence of of some slip-up of which we as yet know nothing. He may, for example, have missed connections with some agent of the Conspiracy who was to transport him to the airport, and it may be significant that, when observed on the street, he was walking directly toward the apartment of the Jakob Rubenstein (alias Jack Ruby) who later silenced him.
Two objections to this explanation are commonly raised, but neither is cogent.
The first is the assumption that if the International Conspiracy had planned the assassination, there would have been no slip-up. That is absurd. The degenerates are not Supermen. Their agents make blunders all the time — blunders that could destroy whole segments of the apparatus, if the Conspiracy did not have so many criminals planted in communications and politics to cover up the blunders and to paralyze the normal reactions of a healthy society. It would take pages even to list the mistakes that the Conspiracy’s agents, including their branch manager, Castro, have made in the course of the Cuban operation. For that matter, a potentially serious and quite unnecessary mistake was made when the Communist Party’s official publication, the Worker, yelled for the appointment of Earl Warren to investigate the assassination before the appointment was made — or at least, before the appointment was disclosed to the public. Nothing was gained by that mistake in timing, which serves only to give away the whole show.
The second argument is that the Conspiracy could not have wanted to eliminate Kennedy, who was doing so much for it. But that is a miscalculation. For one thing, the job was not being done on schedule. A few measures had been forced through Congress, but not, for example, what is called “Civil Rights,” a very vital part of the vermin’s preparations for the final take-over. Virtually nothing was done to speed up national bankruptcy and the total economic collapse that is doubtless scheduled to accompany the subjugation of the American people. The Congress was, on the whole, the most American Congress that we have had for many years, and it blocked the measures most cunningly designed to destroy the nation. It was not the fault of any one man, to be sure, but the record for 1963 was, for all practical purposes, a stalemate. Our “Liberals,” always impatient for open dictatorship and terrorism, were beginning to feel frustrated; some of them were screeching in our more prominent daily, weekly, and monthly liepapers about the “standpatism” of Congress and hinting that that nasty relic of the Constitution must be abolished in the interests of “effective democracy.” Others were beginning to lose confidence.
That is what the Conspiracy cannot afford. It is already sadly behind schedule. Of course, its secret plans, like the identity of its master strategists, are undisclosed, but at the end of 1958 some competent observers, after the most careful and painstaking study of all available indications, concluded that the year 1963 was the year scheduled for the effective capture of the United States. And those analysts — without exception, so far as I know — still believe that they were right; they believe that the Communist schedule was retarded and partly disrupted by the awakening of the American people and their growing awareness of the Communist Conspiracy and its designs. It is known from past operations that the Conspiracy’s plans always call for constantly accelerated subversion in the final phase of a conquest, and so even a stalemate is, from the standpoint of our enemies, an alarming tactical failure. They cannot afford many more without suffering total defeat.
The Conspiracy, we must remember, does not have the resilience of a nation at war, which, unless thoroughly rotted, can rely on the powerful cohesive force of patriotism. To be sure, a frenzied hatred of mankind and human civilization is an even more powerful cohesive force among the born Bolsheviks who direct and manage the Conspiracy, and it has been able to excite race hatred among certain “minorities” and so acquire some fanatical shock-troops, but for a very large part of the work of subversion it must rely on low-grade criminals, opportunistic collaborators, and stupid employees. And its power of discipline over those groups largely depends on their complete confidence that the Conspiracy’s triumph is inevitable.
Careful observers were aware of the feeling of crisis in conspiratorial circles before the assassination. In June, 1963, an experience American military man made a careful analysis of the situation at that time, and in his highly confidential report concluded, on the basis of indications in Communist and crypto-Communist sources, that the Conspiracy’s schedule called for a major incident to create national shock before Thanksgiving. Taylor Caldwell, who combines feminine sensitivity with artistic perception, sensed in the tone of Communist and “Liberal” publications a direction that made the assassination of Kennedy “very probable” — and she said so in an explicit warning published on October 31 and written about a week earlier. Other observers, who saw that Communist plans called for some sensational act of violence in the United States naturally considered the assassination of Kennedy (possibly in a crash of his airplane so arranged as to show unmistakable sabotage) as one of the expedients that the Conspiracy might adopt, although they did not, so far as I know, regard it as the most likely at the present juncture.
But, aside from the Conspiracy’s obvious need for some drastic means of checking the growth of American patriotism, there is the consideration that Kennedy was rapidly becoming a political liability. Despite the best efforts of the lie-machines, it was clear that his popularity was diminishing so rapidly that some observers doubted that even the most cunningly contrived and timed “crisis” could procure his re-election. His conduct was exciting ever increasing disgust even among the credulous, and what was worse, the vast cesspool in Washington was beginning to leak badly.
The bandits of the New Frontier, of whom Billie Sol Estes was but a puny specimen, had operated a little too openly. It had not been possible entirely to conceal the theft of wheat worth $32,000,000 in a single raid or the probable “disappearance” of another $109,000,000 in the same way. It had not been possible completely to suppress the TFX scandal, which would incense the entire nation if it were really exposed; it had not been possible to prevent the public from finding out something about little Bobby Baker; and a hundred other boils of corruption (including, it is rumored, some murders thus far successfully disguised as “accidental deaths”) are ready to burst at the slightest pressure. Only the most desperate exertions, involving the personal intervention of two of the most prominent members of the Administration, has kept the lid — precariously and temporarily — on the modernized badger game that is operated (at the taxpayers’ expense and partly on government property) to entrap and subject to blackmail members of Congress not responsive to bribery and other routine pressures from the Administration. There are rumors that an even more filthy scandal, involving both sadistic sexual perversions and the use of governmental powers for the importation and distribution of hallucinatory narcotics, is simmering dangerously near to the surface. I am told that documentary evidence of secret shipments of secret munitions of war to the Soviet by the Administration in treasonable defiance of the law is available in a place in which it is secure from both burglary and bribery. Even so minor a matter as the recent exposure of “scientists” in the employ of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as having forged spectrographic data for use in a smear-job on an American physician disquieted some theretofore complacent and somnolent citizens. For aught I know to the contrary, the assassination of Kennedy may have been necessary as the only means of avoiding, or even long deferring, national scandals so flagrant as to shock the whole of our brainwashed and hypnotized population back to sanity.
In summary, then, there is not a single indication that the Conspiracy did not plan and carry out the assassination of Kennedy. On the other hand, there is evidence which very strongly suggests that it did.
First of all, there is the suspicious celerity with which the broadcasting agency sardonically called Voice of America, Tass in Moscow, Earl Warren, and many publicists and politicians noted for their services to the Conspiracy in the past, began to screech that the murder was the work of “right-wing extremists” almost as soon as the shot was fired. One is justified in asking whether the leaders of this chorus went into action as soon as they received news that they were expecting. Or, if they did not know the precise moment, were they not prepared in advance for news of that kind? Is it conceivable that the same story would have occurred independently to so many different persons, however intense their hatred of the American people, or that they would have dared to announce as fact a malicious conjecture, if they had no assurance that their statements would be confirmed by “evidence” to be discovered subsequently? Not even the most addle-pated emulator of Sherlock Holmes would pretend to identify a murderer without a single clue. But the screechers went much farther than that: what they said was the precise opposite of what was suggested by the first indications available (the arrest of a negro, reported on the radio while the Presidential automobile was starting for the hospital) — an indication which, although it later proved to be wrong, no prudent person could have disregarded at the time, unless he had assurance, from some source that he trusted, that contrary indications would soon be produced.
Persons whose business it is to tamper with the news are naturally accustomed to lying, but even they do not lightly take the risk of being caught promptly in a particularly improbable and offensive lie. The case of Earl Warren is even more puzzling. No one would suspect him of concern for truth, but surely the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be shrewd enough not to make allegations without some reason to believe that he will be able to produce some shreds of “evidence” to support them.
It seems that preparations had been made for rioting and murder throughout the country. Americans known to be opponents of the Conspiracy, including General Walker, prominent members of the John Birch Society, and leaders of other conservative organizations, began to receive threats of death by telephone from creatures who somehow knew that Kennedy was dead before he reached the hospital. In many communities, mobs composed of the dregs of humanity and openly proposing to burn the homes and murder the families of known conservatives, began to form in the evening, as though in obedience to orders that had not been countermanded to all sectors. I do not suggest that the local vermin were entrusted with a foreknowledge of precisely what was to happen in Dallas, but it seems very likely that they had been prepared to respond to a signal and told what to do when the signal came.
It is easy to see what could have happened, had everything gone smoothly in Dallas. There could have been a complete break-down of law and order everywhere. The numerous vermin that have been living for years in ill-concealed anticipation of the glorious day when they will be able to hack Americans to pieces and drag bodies through the streets, could have “spontaneously” started looting, burning, and murdering. In many places they could have mustered strength beyond the control of the police, and even if checked and arrested, they could have claimed, like Rubenstein, that they had been “crazed” by “sorrow” for martyred Jack, and, of course, unlimited funds would have been available for legal defence. What is more, the great nest of traitors in Washington could have begun a pseudo-legal reign of terror, for which the infamous “Sedition Trial” in Washington in 1944 was obviously a small-scale and premature pilot-study. In an atmosphere of hysteria, maintained by the anti-American television, radio, and press, all the leading American patriots could have been dragged in chains to Washington. The “Federal Marshals,” fresh from Alcatraz and the like, whom the juvenile Czar had used for his invasion of Mississippi, could have been counted on to beat some of them to death or murder them while “trying to escape.” The sadists whom we have imported as “mental health experts” could have tortured others into fake “confessions” or have destroyed their minds with drugs. There could have been a national Saturnalia of legalized violence under cover of which the International Conspiracy could have gained a control of the whole nation that could not subsequently have been broken.
You, who read these lines, may owe your life or at least your liberty to the vigilance and sagacity of J. D. Tippit, the policeman who stopped Oswald on the street and was murdered by the Conspiracy’s well trained but not infallible agent.
There is other evidence, including definite indications that certain persons, whom observers have long regarded as members or at least auxiliaries of the Conspiracy, knew days in advance that something was going to happen to Kennedy in Dallas. But when one considers the enormous gains that the Conspiracy could have reaped from the assassination, had it been carried out without mishap, and when one remembers that the Conspiracy had an urgent and even desperate need of precisely such an event, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the weight of probability lies overwhelmingly on the side of the view that the murder was arranged by the Conspiracy as a strategic operation.
Be Ye Not Comforted
Many Americans, while giving thanks for their deliverance, strangely assume that the Communists’ mishap in Dallas will give us a respite from danger of at least several months. On the contrary, the danger is greater than ever, for the partial failure merely augments the criminals’ need for some signal victory over Americans to preserve enthusiasm in their own ranks. As I write, shortly before Christmas, it does not seem that that victory can be attained before the New Year, but we may be sure that every effort will be made to attain it as soon as possible thereafter.
The first expedient was primarily defensive. In a hasty and thus far successful attempt to thwart an investigation by legally constituted authorities, i.e. the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security and the Attorney General of the State of Texas, both of whom had already announced their determination to conduct an impartial inquiry, an illegal and unconstitutional “special commission” was improvised with the obvious hope that it could be turned into a Soviet-style kangaroo court. The best-known members of this packed “commission” are:
(1) Earl Warren, so notorious as chief of the quasi-judicial gang engaged in subverting the Constitution of the United States that many thousands of the finest and most prominent American citizens have for two years been demanding with increasing insistence his impeachment and trial. A favorite subject of speculation and debate among informed observers is whether Warren, if brought to trial, would try to dodge behind the Fifth Amendment or would take it on the lam and disappear behind the Iron Curtain. Warren, who spends his vacations with Little Comrade Tito in Yugoslavia or with Big Comrade Khrushchev in the Crimea, began to traduce and defame all loyal and informed Americans minutes after the murder in Dallas, and it is easy to see why the Communist Party, through some indiscretion or mis-timing, officially nominated him as head of the “special commission” two days before his appointment was announced in Washington.
(2) T. Hale Boggs, the loud-mouthed agitator who disgraces the State of Louisiana in Congress. The Councilor has reproduced a press photograph which shows young Boggs in the act of giving the Communist clenched-fist salute while he was head of the Communist-front “American Student Union” in Tulane University, ridiculing our army, and urging young men not to fight for their country. The same publication reports that it has indisputable evidence that Boggs “served three years before entering Congress” as chairman of a Communist-front “Peace Drive,” and reports that he is a member of the “Interparliamentary Union,” a sinister gang which meets annually in some city abroad to plot the liquidation of the United States. As promptly as Warren, Boggs began to yell that the “right wing” (as he and his kind call Americans who don’t want to be liquidated) was guilty of having shot Master Jack.
(3) Allen W. Dulles, one of the founders of the malodorous Council on Foreign Relations and currently its Director. Dulles was the head of an American spy ring in Switzerland during the Second World War and is said to have done a fairly good job, although it was believed at the time that his organization was infested with double agents who were really in the employ of the Soviet — and even more serious implications can be drawn from the testimony given in Karlsruhe last July by Heinz Felfe, a Soviet agent who had been Mr. Dulles’ German counterpart and supposed competitor in Switzerland.
Our Central Intelligence Agency, although it was infected from the very beginning by the incorporation of scum from the notorious O.S.S., was still an American agency while it was under the command of Admiral Hillenkoetter. Under Mr. Dulles it was transformed into the bizarre gang of seventeen thousand or more secret and faceless agents, some of them expert assassins so recently imported into the United States that they cannot speak English — the gang that helped Castro attain power in Cuba, staged the fake “invasion” to destroy anti-Communist organizations in Cuba, recently carried out (in close cooperation with the Soviet Secret Police) the murders in South Vietnam as a prelude to complete and open Communist occupation, and is known to have served the Soviet in many other ways, while, so far as is known, it has never done anything at all for the United States, whose taxpayers provide the gang with unlimited funds. Some observers believe that the C.I.A. is now the major branch of the Soviet Secret Police in the United States.
It was to Mr. Dulles personally that the late Bang-Jensen trustingly confided evidence that very important members of the C.I.A. were officers in the Soviet Secret Police, and Mr. Dulles did nothing at all about it — unless, indeed, it was the C.I.A. that murdered Bang-Jensen to prevent him from ever giving testimony.
One writer has recently suggested that it was the C.I.A. that arranged the assassination of Kennedy; I know of no evidence to support that opinion, but obviously Mr. Dulles’ creation is open to suspicion. Perhaps that is why he is a member of the “special commission.”
(4) John. J. McCloy, of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Ford Foundation, the World Brotherhood, and other mysteriously powerful organizations whose un-American or anti-American activities should have been investigated by Congress long ago. McCloy is reputed to be the principal author of the present plan to disarm the United States and prepare it for occupation by Soviet troops and associated savages of the “United Nations,” which he, as an assistant of Alger Hiss, helped to design and foist on the American people.
Well, those four form a majority of the “fact-finding commission” and their records offer a guarantee of the kind of “facts” they will find or devise. Two of the other members are self-styled “Liberals” of little political experience, and it is obviously idle to speculate concerning what Senator Russell may be able to do alone in such company.
It should be noted that the very creation of this Soviet-style “commission” in violation of our Constitution and for the express purpose of superseding legal and constitutional procedures represents in itself a victory for which the Communist Conspiracy would have been willing to pay almost any price, since it accelerates the disintegration of legality and accustoms Americans to dictatorial acts that subvert the authority of Congress.
The functions of a “commission” so constituted are obvious. It will:
(1) Cover up for the Communist Conspiracy as much as possible by claiming that Comrade Oswald was a poor, lone critter who done it all alone. Probably “psychiatrists” will be produced to prove he done it ’cause, at the age of six months, he had to wait an extra five minutes for his bottle. That will establish the need for more Welfare and Civil Rights.
(2) Suppress permanently the report of the F.B.I., which it has already acted to conceal from the American people, and, if permanent suppression proves impossible, to have the report watered down or at least kept secret until a “crisis” can be arranged that will make its publication pass almost unnoticed.
(3) Smother and suppress the evidence of close contacts between Oswald and Rubenstein in both Waco and Dallas during the period immediately preceding the assassination of Kennedy, and other evidence connecting both of them with mysteriously prosperous persons of unknown antecedents in the vicinity of New York City. Every effort will be made to conceal Rubenstein’s connections with Communist Cuba, including such items as a clandestine visit to Havana about a year ago, when he stayed with a long-time and close associate of Castro’s named Praskin, who operates, as a cover for his other activities, a “novelty store” on the Prado opposite the Seville Hotel.* It may even be possible to prevent the public from learning definitely whether or not the “Jack” Rubenstein who executed Oswald is the person of the same name who has a published record of Communist associations and activities in this country going back for many years.
(* I understand that a full report on this and other known activities of Rubenstein will probably appear in a future issue of The Herald of Freedom (Box 333, Staten Island 1, N.Y.).)
(4) Harass the Dallas police as much as possible to convey to police forces everywhere an understanding of the inadvisability of interfering with Communists engaged in the discharge of their duties. I doubt that the “commission” will go farther than this, although I confess that I am disturbed by the persistence with which the “Liberal” columnists around the world, from France to Australia, insist that poor Oswald, an innocent little Communist, was “framed” by the “Fascist” police of Dallas. One does not know, of course, how far the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will dare to go in forging evidence and suborning perjury, but it is hard to see how it would be feasible to put over such a story here at this late date.
(5) Try to smear and intimidate loyal Americans in every way possible. Much more can be accomplished in this direction if the Congress can be pressured into voting unconstitutional powers of subpoena to an unconstitutional “commission” dominated by persons who should themselves be on trial for their efforts to subvert and destroy the Constitution. Since no American cow is wealthy after having been milked by the Income-Tax collectors, and since the majority of conspicuously loyal Americans are persons of very modest means, just one item, the cost of employing attorneys, could give the gang the power to inhibit and even paralyze most of the opposition to treason in the crucial year of 1964. It is possible, of course, that the “commission” may simply assume such powers. If so, Congress will probably object, but, if it should be necessary, Earl could dash over to the Supreme Court Building, put on his black robe, and rule that Congress, like God, is unconstitutional. It’s just a ten-minute trip by cab.
(6) To go as much further as may be feasible. It is reported in the press that the “commission” has requested the power to “extort” testimony from “unwilling witnesses.” At the time at which I write, it seems unlikely that any such unconstitutional power will be unconstitutionally granted. Of course, the original plan, to have been carried out eventually if everything went according to schedule in Dallas, called for nice, rubber-lined torture chambers (such as you may glimpse in that excellent film, My Latvia) in which the hated American could be scientifically tortured into “confession,” and the remains of those who proved “unco-operative” could be efficiently washed down the drains.
(7) To create propaganda for other Communist projects to facilitate the final conquest of the United States. A number are likely, but the most obvious is the one that was contemplated when Comrade Oswald was careful to provide evidence that the rifle used in the assassination had been purchased by mail. It is eminently desirable that firearms now in the possession of Americans be confiscated, partly to convince the Conspiracy’s serfs how helpless they are, and especially to reduce the occupational hazards to the Balubas, Outer Mongolians, or other beasts who may form the “international police force” that is to occupy the United States and butcher its white inhabitants.
(8) To co-operate when the Conspiracy arranges for further violence. We may be sure that such will occur at the earliest feasible moment, and that every precaution will be taken to avoid a slip-up such as occurred in Dallas. It is impossible to predict at this moment when such an incident will occur or what form it will take — except, of course, that the blame will fall on “right-wing extremists.” The assassination of Lyndon Johnson is an obvious possibility — perhaps too obvious, despite the sudden yapping of “Liberals” that something must be done quick to prevent the succession of John McCormack, as now provided by law. (Newsweek, the weekly liepaper published by the Washington Post, had the effrontery to state the cause for alarm: McCormack is suspected of “anti-Communism”!) The Conspiracy, however, would do much better to arrange the assassination of Earl Warren: that could, perhaps, be made to seem plausible after the Chief Justice has maltreated a number of Americans in his latest usurpation of unconstitutional powers, and it is, furthermore, the only sure way of preventing his impeachment and trial by Congress.
But another assassination would seem a bit monotonous, unless preceded by several other incidents of a different pattern. A hundred varieties of incident are possible, such as first-class race riots, an “accidental” nuclear explosion to pep up agitation for “disarmament,” or a well planned series of almost convincing “suicides” of American “rightists.” A properly timed “crisis” in Latin America, preferably near to our borders, would be a suitable intermezzo during the performance. We cannot now predict precisely what arrangements the unknown Directorate of the Conspiracy will deem most expedient, for it is likely that their choice of both time and events will be made after they have seen how much advantage they will have been able to extract from the Kennedy affair.
One thing is certain, however: the bungle in Dallas, far from justifying the slightest relaxation, should summon us to the utmost vigilance. It should warn us that we have come to the year of decision, and that only our most devoted and united efforts can prevail against a gang of international murderers rendered desperate by the awareness that their time is running out.