This initially started as a very long post on X but I ended up deleting it shortly after posting because I wanted to think about it some more. You’ll understand why as you read: it is a difficult thing to write about and no human being – if they have any wisdom at all – wants to presume too much. I worked into Book X of the Mirrors series (coming out later this year but it might slip to early next year) a bit where Fred is asking for a direct answer to what is going on from someone he’s certain knows: she gives an equivocal answer but rather than getting angry, Fred quotes Job 38:4, Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. And Fred, like Job, is comforted by this answer to all true Mysteries, continuing on with part of 2 Corinthians 12:10, for when I am weak, then I am strong. It is important, always, to be humble. To not be too sure and to ultimately rely on God, who’s judgements are true and righteous altogether. That said, I think this is important to say.
I was reading a post from a Catholic priest – a good priest, let it be noted – who was upset over the story that IDF soldiers were deliberately targeting Gazans coming for food aid. I noted that the story is almost certainly a lie – that its primary source is the Gazan health ministry, a known purveyor of fabrications. In jumped a Hamas-nik to deflect away from that indisputable fact to chime in with claims that the IDF routinely commits war crimes. Went back and forth a little bit there until it was certain the man was entirely wooden headed and would never think for a moment. But the whole interaction got me thinking about the concepts of justice and mercy. What, in fact, does love require we do here?
War is, of course, a nasty business. All we can learn of Our Lord tells against going to war. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we war upon him? On the other hand, the greatest – St John the Baptist – when asked by soldiers what they must do to enter the Kingdom merely replied – in essence – that they should be good soldiers. He didn’t say desert the army. This is pretty crucial if you ask me. That being in the military and carrying out your duties is pleasing to God. This indicates to me that Fallen Man is not going to stop being Fallen – and, of course, he isn’t. He still needs, every day, a Savior. Once we enter the Kingdom that is different – but until we do, we are prey to all the troubles of the world and war is one of those troubles.
That being said, it all comes down to why and how a person fights if war occurs. Naturally, no Christian may deliberately start a war. We are always to seek a peaceful resolution of differences and only engage in fighting if attacked or if an attack is so obviously pending that prudence dictates we strike the first blow. The only defensible war is a war of defense. Once a war starts, we are to act like Christians. We are not to be needlessly cruel to the enemy. We are to apply the necessary force to bring the conflict to its swiftest resolution, but no more than that. Nothing gratuitous. And these requirements are not just required of Christians – nobody wants as a result of war their own people to be massacred and despoiled. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu what have you, nobody wants that to happen to their side. And as they know they don’t want it to happen to them, so they know they must not do it to others. All human beings are morally obligated to be as decent as possible at all times, even the most difficult. So, in essence, there should be no war as nobody should attack unjustly and there should be no war crimes because everyone who engages in warfare should be as merciful as possible.
But what do we do in the face of the unjust attack? And, furthermore, what do we do in the face of an unjust attack accompanied by monstrous cruelty?
Naturally when attacked unjustly we are permitted to fight back in self defense. And the response must be proportional to the needs. In other words, if peace may be obtained by ten bombs then you shouldn’t drop ten thousand. But now we need to think a little bit. To consider just what we’re dealing with – and what response is proportional to it.
World War One morphed from a fracas in the Balkans into a World War for one reason and one reason, alone: the Germans unjustly attacked Luxembourg, Belgium and France. There was no reason for this German attack. Not the slightest justification can be made for it. The Germans did it because they thought they would win quickly and gain total mastery of Europe in six weeks. And the Germans, when they did it, knew they were doing wrong – because they wouldn’t want another power to invade Germany out of the blue in a bid for European mastery. They would have considered such an attack upon themselves as an outrage against all decency. And yet they went ahead and attacked France. They were in the wrong, totally.
By immense exertions and loss of lives, this German attack was defeated. The German army was forced to withdraw and enter into an Armistice before the German army was totally destroyed in the field. Germany then had a peace treaty imposed upon her designed to prevent a recurrence of the just-defeated attack. Germany’s army was limited in size and her economy was burdened with reparations payments designed to not only repay the offended parties, but to cripple Germany’s economic ability to wage war. This was an entirely just peace treaty given what had happened.
But it turned out that it didn’t punish the Germans enough. It left them intact enough to very swiftly rebuild their military might and try again – which they did a mere twenty five years after the first try. And this time their attack was accompanied by the most monstrous cruelty ever done by the hand of Man. People murdered by the millions. Rapes all over German occupied Europe. Massive looting not just of food and tools, but the very artwork of the conquered peoples. Meanwhile, over on the other side of the world, Japan had launched a totally unjustified war in 1937 – attacking China quite ruthlessly with the Rape of Nanking being a horror that would have made Attila the Hun sick to his stomach…an orgy of rape, murder and looting. And then, later, Japan just continued this in all the lands they occupied as World War Two became global.
War and cruelty go together. After all, even under the most honorable of circumstances, you are still seeking to end the lives of the other side. Who can say what lies and threats got that enemy soldier into uniform? Yet the soldier must kill – swiftly and without remorse. And in the heat of combat – with fear and hatred rising – at times even the most honorable of soldiers can commit acts which, in the cold light of reason, can only be described as barbaric. Of course, when such acts occur decent military organizations do seek redress. If for no other reason than to ensure good order and discipline in the ranks. But, often, because it is just the right thing to do. We understand why our boys might go too far at times and we want to be merciful to the man who may have been pushed too far…but right is right and sometimes we have to punish our own. But what the Germans and Japanese did in World War Two went far beyond this.
It is one thing for a soldier, or a few soldiers, or even a whole company of soldiers to go off their heads. At the Siege of Badajoz in 1812, Wellington’s army had to carry out an exceptionally difficult assault against an alert and entrenched enemy and the fighting was quite ferocious with no quarter asked or given. Those men were brave and disciplined British soldiers…but the cost of the assault seems to have set those men off their heads…once they had won they disregarded their officers from Wellington on down and went on a rampage of looting, rape and murder in the town. It was totally unjustified. A horrific blot on the honor of the British army. It took days for Wellington and his officers to regain control and turn their mob back into an army. It was horrible but not ordered by the command, nor sanctioned by the government, nor justified in any way by any British patriot. What the Germans and Japanese did was different from this.
What was done at Nanking and Babi Yar was the considered policy of the respective governments. The soldiers were ordered to carry it out. And they carried it out. As time went on and the monstrous cruelties increased in scope whole support systems were put into place so that Germans and Japanese could kill ever more people…and with ever more attendant cruelty, including torture and looting. Japanese soldiers didn’t go berserk at Nanking. No more than German soldiers went berserk at Oradour-sur-Glane. They carried out orders. And orders they knew were wrong as they carried them out because not one German or Japanese soldier wanted those events to happen in their home towns to their own people. Basic human decency required them to refuse to obey…but they obeyed. It doesn’t, in the end, matter why. Cowardice or cruelty or any combination of human failings – they were still responsible adults who knew better. And the sheer scale of the atrocities of Germany and Japan required that the whole populations of each country become intimately involved in them. After all, the guy who drove the train full of Jews to Auschwitz couldn’t pretend he didn’t know what he carried…nor that he never carried people away from the place. He knew. And so did his wife and children. Did they approve? It doesn’t matter: they went along with it when they knew they shouldn’t have.
You can excuse it and try to explain it away but the bottom line is that death is preferable to participation in such crimes…even the death of you and all you love. It just isn’t worth it if life requires you to participate, even second hand, in massacres. You think about the endless number of German families who just quietly went along – and then the Ulma family of Poland which harbored eight Jews and, when caught, was massacred down to Mrs. Ulma’s unborn child. The Ulma’s knew the risks – and think of Mr. Ulma, dedicated to the safety and happiness of his family. He could easily have said, “I hate the Nazis and I want to help the Jews, but I have my wife and children to think of” and done nothing. But he truly thought of his wife and children – and did what had to be done. It is when things are worst that we are supposed to do our best. The Germans and Japanese, in the whole, did not do this (and all honor to the few in each country who did do the right thing).
Now on to the really difficult thing to consider and I pray to God I don’t get this wrong – I do not wish to lead myself or anyone else astray!
As the children of Poland, China, Philippines, France, Norway, Burma, Russia, Greece and so many other nations were martyred by German and Japanese cruelty, did not their cries for justice rise up to heaven? They spoke in a multitude of languages and they had often very different ideas about God, but all of them were human beings and all of them were caught in a welter of cruel slaughter they in no way deserved. Surely out of their mouths and hearts went up the cry: my God, save me!
Of course it did. And I can’t imagine God not listening. Not seeing their tears. And while God gives us the free will to do as we wish God is also just and merciful and His will is always accomplished. The fact that the Germans and Japanese were utterly defeated is an obvious example of God’s justice operating in the world. That people so depraved were not able to win is just and merciful. And how were they not able to win? By being subjected to such ferocious punishment that total destruction resulted.
Much is said these days about the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. From right after the end of the war, it has been derided as a failure. The advocates of strategic bombing swore up and down that it, alone, would destroy the enemy and compel peace. Clearly, it did not and so it must have failed. This, I think, was based upon a faulty understanding of just what happened in the strategic bombing campaigns.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Germans and Japanese were forced to expend enormous resources fighting against the bombings. Every plane, every soldier, every bullet and shell shot up into the sky at Allied bombers was that much less they had on the battlefield against Allied armies. Each bomb that dropped in some manner hampered both nations in the conduct of the war…even the fact that craters had to be filled in to get the roads open took time and manpower and so there was less power to apply on the battlefields. In short, without the bombings the fighting on the ground would have been far more intense, lengthy and bloody. Maybe so much so that the Germans and Japanese could have prevented the total defeat of their nations.
In addition to that, Allied bombing power was still growing in 1945. It was only in 1944 that the Allied air forces could really be certain that a bombing raid would seriously degrade the selected target. It was all a matter of getting sufficient planes, sufficiently skilled crews and learning the difficult task of hitting a relatively small target from a great height. By 1944 the Allied air forces were nailing this down – and the destruction went from bad to absolutely horrific. We’ve all seen the pictures of the ruined cities taken post-War but they don’t really capture what it was like – meaning for the Germans and Japanese on the ground. To be absolutely helpless as a thousand enemy planes leisurely pass overhead dropping tons of bombs was likely one of the worst sensation any human being has endured. Small wonder that very often downed Allied pilots in both Germany and Japan were lynched on the spot by outraged people. Had the Germans and Japanese been able to keep us away – prevent Allied invasions of their own territory – then the bombings would just have gotten worse. Even absent the atomic bomb! Just worse and worse and worse. By 1945 Allied planes were ranging at will over Germany and Japan and Allied factories were turning out planes, bombs and aircrews at an increasing pace…suppose, for instance, that the Battle of the Bulge pushed us back to Paris and that the Germans had defeated the Russians January, 1945 offensive in Poland…so much the worse for Germany as the number of bombs dropping would have simply increased – perhaps to the point where it was simply impossible for the Germans to live (seriously: by 1945 even ox carts were being strafed).
And here’s the interesting thing I want to say: is it at all possible that Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay were instruments of God’s justice? That with all the cries to heaven for justice, it was those two men – and their intrepid air crews – who delivered the redress? I don’t know. But I can suspect. And I can definitely say that given what the Germans and Japanese were doing – as peoples – the bombings weren’t unjust even if not an expression of God’s justice.
What can we say? For the Germans this was round two. They had started a totally unjust war in 1914 and were totally defeated…but didn’t accept their defeat and so tried again in 1939 and this time were unbelievably cruel. So, too, the Japanese all over Asia and the Pacific…just simply mean and cruel…killing, raping, looting…both people lording it over the conquered even in the smallest ways. Simple military defeat in the manner of 1918 didn’t work…and so there was absolute crushing defeat on every level in 1945. And that did work. Nobody fears that the Germans or Japanese will ever try it again. So, just maybe the result of 1945 was totally just? Could be. This doesn’t excuse anything the Allies did which was actually wrong (like the behavior of Russian soldiers regarding German women), but the basic operation was just – it burned out of the Japanese and German populations any desire to carry on with their imperial and racist ambitions. And then we have God’s mercy working even for the Germans and Japanese: because of this massive application of power against them, the war ended before they were all killed and everything was totally destroyed. They, too, cried out to God for an end to it…and their prayer was granted.
And now lets go forward to today – the aftermath of 10/7. First and foremost, nothing can justify 10/7. Suppose Israel is guilty of every crime charged to her, there is no way to justify what was done on 10/7. First off, it was an unjust attack – there was no attack happening or pending on the people of Gaza. That they didn’t like the political and economic situation they were in doesn’t constitute a justification for war. To justify war you must be attacked or an attack is so imminent that you must attack to thwart it. Nothing like that was going on in Gaza on 10/7.
And then what the Gazans did: they didn’t enter Israel for a stand-up fight with the IDF: they came to rape and murder. Their primary method of warfare was to attack the helpless and treat them with inhuman cruelty. Even if someone did that to your people, you are not justified in doing it to theirs. Once again, as you do not want it to happen to you so you must not do it to others. And, of course, Israel has never sent in IDF units to rape and murder the helpless. What the Gazans did was a monstrous crime – something which hadn’t happened since the Germans and Japanese were doing it in WWII. And when the rapist/murderers returned to Gaza – often dragging their victims (living and dead) in their wake – the overwhelming mass of the people of Gaza cheered.
Cheered.
They cheered rapists and murderers bringing home the victims of their crimes.
They knew precisely what those men had done and they were happy about it.
Now, did every last person in Gaza approve? Almost certainly not. But the number disapproving is very small. It took years to develop the rape/murder squads. To get people to think that it is good to do these things is not something you just whistle up in a weekend. You have to mentally condition people to do it and approve of it. The Germans were all “oh, Hitler went mad in 1943!”…as if it wasn’t insane to deny Jewish humanity with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Sure, a basic Gazan on the street might not have known ten years ago that it was specifically leading to 10/7, but that Gazan knew – knows and always has known – that propaganda denying the basic humanity of Jews is wrong. They know it because they would be aghast at propaganda which held that Muslims aren’t human. Bottom line, given what Hamas was doing in Gaza from the get-go, nobody could have the slightest illusion that very bad things were going to happen. The Gazans just hoped they’d only happen to Jews.
So, what is the best thing to do here? A ceasefire? You mean a pause until the next round? How is that good? What does that accomplish? Indeed, wouldn’t a ceasefire seem in the minds of the Gazans a victory? That they stood up to the IDF and forced them to quit? And what of the mindset of the Gazans – the mindset that approves the rape and murder of helpless people? Which, by the way, doesn’t just happen in Israel…you can see it happening all over Syria right now, as well as in Sudan and other places in the Muslim world where violence is becoming endemic. There is a mindset at work here – a belief system – which sustains such cruelty. Ceasefire with it? To what purpose? Negotiate a peace? What’s the half way point between rape and no rape? What’s the compromise position? A little murder?
Or is it time to emulate Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay? That is, apply such ferocious force on these people that they fully understand what they’ve done is wrong and they’ll never do it again.
Honestly, I am not certain. But I can’t see the use of going on like we have. As if, perhaps, we are the bad guys – that there is some justification for what the enemy is doing, or maybe we should feel guilty about Dresden and so we’d better hold back going forward. All I know is that the only bad thing here is a continuation – letting this go on and on and on. It is time to end this – and unless we want to end this via our surrender, we’re going to have to get very stern in action. And true justice might require us to act sternly. After all, what would we say of the cop who let a murderer go, only to have that man kill again? We’d be pretty furious – and justly so. If we go soft on Hamas and Hezbollah and the other fanatic groups of killers, then all we’re ultimately doing is ensuring that some poor innocent at a later date gets killed. And innocents on both sides, it should be noted; some poor kid in Gaza who is killed by a bomb or a stray bullet didn’t deserve to die…and I’d prevent that if I can.
To get back to the genesis of this post, suppose the story of IDF soldiers taking pot shots at Gazans lining up for food is true. Well, I have some bad news for you: the only way to ensure it doesn’t happen is the total defeat of the Gazan people. If you take the position that the way to stop it is to punish the IDF soldiers and impose a ceasefire, then all you’re doing is making sure other innocent people are killed later. And I mean its as definite as Euclidean geometry: you are definitely, consciously deciding that some poor sap will die next week, next month or next year…and you’re doing it because you just want people to think you’re the good guy, today. The problem isn’t the IDF soldier taking the shot – the problem is that the IDF soldier is there in response to the 10/7 massacre. Had 10/7 not happened then no need for Gazans to line up for aid and thus no possibility of an IDF soldier going off his head and taking a shot at the Gazans. Get to the crux of the matter, people. The problem is an anti-human ideology which holds that Jews aren’t people and may be raped and murdered at will.
If we want an end to this then what must end is the ideology which generates the actions. An ideology of peace and brotherhood is very unlikely to start a war. An ideology domination is highly likely to start a war. Hamas’ ideology – like similar ideologies – is one of domination. Rule. Masters and slaves. It has to go. If you can think of a way to talk them out of it, I’m all ears. But I believe that its going to be necessary to burn it out of them. To let them know they’re just plain and simple wrong. That God has not decreed they be Masters.
Blogs For Victory 
Great post.
And you make an important point, which is that some entities must simply be destroyed. Not weakened, not diminished, but destroyed, because their very existence is based on the destruction of innocents, and therefore if even a seed remains it will grow into a new iteration of the same entity.
But…we can’t just destroy PEOPLE. Not because of what they represent, anyway. So in the case of Hamas, we must destroy Hamas without killing the people who support it. This will probably mean destroying its base and fragmenting it, scattering it so those people have to live among sane and decent people, deprived of the ongoing relentless indoctrination of hate and violence that the concentrated population of Gaza provided. The hope for such a process would be that it might encourage assimilation, and at the very least allow the children to grow up exposed to teachings and ideas contrary to the total indoctrination of Hamas.
And I don’t know how to do this without some extensive social engineering. For example, if we allow any Gazans to remain in the area, can we force them to live in integrated societies among Jews and Christians and prevent them from creating cells of virulent hate-driven lunatics like we see there now?
We can see a version of the results of the creation of mini-cultures within a nation. Chinatowns in cities where they exist in the United States basically inhibit any assimilation. It’s great to respect other cultures and I understand how such mini-nations have evolved, but they are antithetical to a national identity. Much the same thing happens when Latin communities become insular and eventually independent. The movie “Spanglish” illustrated this—-a mini-nation in the heart of Los Angeles where Latin immigrants live only among other Latinos, only superficially in the United States but with their own language and food and culture, without the need or motivation to learn English or assimilate into American culture.
This is what is happening in many Muslim areas, electing their own nationalities to Congress to represent these constituencies as the foreign mini-nations they are and not as assimilated Americans. And now many of these mini-nations advocate for the replacement of American laws with Sharia, as if these are actually independent little countries located within the United States, while their elected officials fly their national flags in the halls of Congress instead of the American flag.
The same thing will happen if Gazans are allowed to congregate to recreate a new Gaza, which will naturally support a new or revitalized Hamas or other group that just has a different name, and the whole thing will start over.
I keep going back to two things from WWII:
The first was an interview with a German woman – just a regular old frau on the streets – who said that the first time she was angry with Hitler was after it was over…to paraphrase her, Hitler had said that if they did what he said, they’d gain half the world…they did what he said and now it was all over and all they had was the clothes on their backs. It was, as the lady noted, the anger of a cheated gangster.
The second was the interview with Hitler’s Secretary Traudl Junge who observed that for the longest time she excused herself…she was so young and she didn’t know and Hitler was a really nice boss and so on…but then she eventually understood that she didn’t know because she didn’t want to know. She preferred the access to power that being Hitler’s secretary entailed. It was so exciting to be at the center of things!
Taking the two things together we can see the pull of the ideologies of dominance – doesn’t matter what the particular excuse is, the main thing is the dominance…and people buy into it because they want to be part of the dominant side. Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Fascist…all the same at the end of the day: it is all a promise that if you subscribe to it and do as you’re told, glory, power and riches will be yours for the taking. So, too, the modern Islamists. I’m not a scholar of Islam so I can’t say if this is inherent in Islam or not – I have known Muslims who are just regular folks like anyone else…but are those Muslims the norm or the heretic? I just don’t know. But whether Islamism is mainstream or an aberration, the crucial thing about it is that its an ideology of dominance as much as all the others I listed…once again, subscribe to it and do as you’re told and glory, power and riches will be yours.
What we had to do to kill off such ideologies in Italy, Japan and Germany was burn it out through the application of overwhelming force. To kill them in great, big batches at minimal cost to ourselves…to be completely unfair about it and keep hitting them until they came out with their hands in the air. I believe that is what must be done with the Islamists…because, as you point out, even if we exile them to far away from Israel, they’ll still have their ideology and will continue to seek to carry it out.
I don’t want anyone to die. But if they choose to bring death into the conversation, then I believe we must apply death to them in such a disproportionate manner that they’ll abandon their ideology forever.
” I have known Muslims who are just regular folks like anyone else”
But how do you know? Have you asked them?
I think of the times speeches by David Horowitz were disrupted by “regular folk moderate Muslims” who criticized him for portraying Islam as radical. After every calm, reasonable, “regular folk” query from someone from CAIR he would ask if the person would honestly answer one question and the response was always “yes”.
The question, paraphrased here: Do you agree with the statement by (radical Muslim leader) that he hopes all Jews will return to Israel so they can all be killed in one place and Muslims will not have to hunt them down all over the world?
And every answer, every single time, sometimes rather reluctantly, was “yes”.
Horowitz, who was a red diaper baby born and bred in the heart of Communism and an ardent follower and advocate till the Black Panthers murdered his secretary and the Communists refused to speak out against it, embarked on a commitment to show Islam for what it really is, even behind the curtain of “regular folks like anyone else”. And every single time he asked for an honest answer to the question that centered on Muslim commitment to kill every Jew in the world the underlying truth of Islam, even to these “regular folks” was that this was a core belief of Islam and therefore of them.
There is that! And Islam does hold that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims. This is just a fact of Islamic teaching – that no Muslim may properly be ruled by a non-Muslim and that all non-Muslims must be subservient to Muslims. But I meant what I said in the sense that not all Muslims are fanatics about this…and so I’ve been able to interact on friendly terms with Muslims. OTOH, there is out there the question: “would you allow a doctor dressed in a burka to treat you?”…and my answer to that is “no”…because a woman who dressed like that is of the fanatic type and so definitely views me as a subhuman. Sorry, not letting someone like that come at me with a scalpel or syringe!
But that still leaves us with the “what to do?” question – and I still lean towards the need to burn it out of them. Either that or totally exclude them from the West while we completely stay away from the Muslim world.
Back to Epstein. Town Hall has a Schlichter pod cast I have not yet heard, but the comments are interesting, and this caught my eye as it echoes what I have said about Epstein being an agent put in place to run a honey pot scheme, funded by the government. This comment echoes that but suggests a different government. Interesting…This is something I did not know about Maxwell.
Could very well be something like that – there was a long post yesterday on X about the varied connections between the CIA, German intelligence, the Vatican, Nazi fugitives and so forth and it was interesting but also didn’t really cover all the web. But the point of that post is to show that the modern rise of anti-Semitism shouldn’t really surprise anyone…not when post-WWII huge numbers of dedicated Nazis fled to the Muslim world and/or were brought in by Western intelligence agencies as assets. One of the parts of it left out was the genesis of some of the money which funded all this. Towards the end of WWII Himmler, seeing the writing on the wall, set up a system to offshore massive amounts of German wealth…SS wealth, of course, but also the wealth of major German businesses and banks. Naturally, Himmler planned to have control over this money (it looks like his plan was to escape Germany and set up shop in Switzerland or some other neutral nation and, after laying low for a bit, use the money to rebuild a Nazi movement) – his extremely mysterious death while being held by the British ended his part of the plan (can’t see his death as other than the Brit’s whacking someone who simply knew too much to be put on trial in open court) but the money was still there and senior people knew where and how to access it. You think about how rich someone like Otto Skorzeny was post-war…and his alleged connections with Mossad and if you start looking into any of these Nazi survivors you start to find the names of very prominent people in government and business throughout the West along with the usual connections – often originating the Gehlen Organization – with Western intelligence agencies.
The more I think about it – and discover it’s scope – the more I see that the real problem we have in the West is that large numbers of very prominent people ceased being loyal to their nation and started being loyal to their money, power and position. For years now I’ve contemplated writing a book called: Unserious Men: the People Who Destroyed the West. It would be a series of short biographical sketches of some of the prominent people of the last 150 years and then tying them together into the series of really stupid policy decisions which turned the West from confident, prosperous and dominant into the near-basket case it is today.
Epstein isn’t the only person allowed to skate for years – nor the only person when finally caught was given an exit which limited the damage. Perhaps he really did kill himself – under pressure or not – but if he did whack himself it was to protect others. To protect the club. You can’t imagine a man like him having a guilty conscience…and if he suddenly gained one, he would have openly repented and named names. Himmler was killed to protect the club as well – and though he deserved death a million times over, he also deserved a trial (unless we made the conscious decision to just shoot all Nazis as Churchill suggested – and he was not part of the club even though Prime Minister, no more than MacArthur or McCarthy were part of the club). Meanwhile, Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff – a personal aide to Himmler – was allowed to skate and only given a token sentence years after the war when the cover-up of his participation in the Holocaust finally came out. He was part of the club, you see? Kept out of too much trouble, stayed wealthy…and converted to Islam at the end of his life. His daughter, who also converted, became a prominent advocate for Islam in Germany. Funny, huh?
The club is everything – the club gives you access to money. To position. To depravity if that’s your thing. All you have to do is always protect the club and foster its members. It isn’t like there’s a Central Club Headquarters which gives out the orders…the Conspiracy Theorists are wrong about that, just as much as they’re wrong about it being controlled by the Jews (if it were, Israel-hatred would be a non-starter). They don’t need a central headquarters…they just need to know the rules of the club.
Trump, of course, was never a member of the club. He had one of the prerequisites for membership, of course: money. But that, alone, isn’t sufficient for entry. You also have to have their mindset…generally produced by emerging from elite schools and universities and not engaging in money-making unless it is via draining government treasuries or insider trading. That, IMO, is the real reason they hated him as soon as he came down the escalator – he wasn’t on the team. He wasn’t one of them.
re: your comment on Himmler’s death (“whacking someone who simply knew too much to be put on trial in open court”) seems very relevant to that of Epstein.
That X post pointed out that some of the Gehlen-connected knew various people involved either in the run-up to the JFK assassination or were deeply involved in the investigation of it. IOW, people who had a vested interest in protecting the Club.
To be sure, the Kennedy’s were (and are) part of the Club. But lower end of it in the 1960’s…Joe Kennedy was desperate to get into it and did everything he could to gain the approval of the Club. His son’s followed his lead (naturally enough) but they were still not far from being regular folks. Did JFK start looking around begin to wonder just who was running the show? That is, wondering if it was him…or shadowy people in the Institutions?
We’ll absolutely never know at this point…because while we can place Oswald in that book depository, we can no longer discover exactly why he was there.
And you think about it…before the body was even cold, the Narrative went out that JFK was killed because of “hatred”…American hatred. The hatred of patriotic, anti-Communists…that is what made it happen! And we need to stop being so anti-Communist and we need gun control and we need to make certain that we follow the lead of educated Experts because if we don’t then we’ll all die!
There is a lot of information leading to the conclusion that Oswald was with the CIA and some believe he thought his role was to stop the assassination. Therefore, his calmness when arrested and his eventual panic when he realized, as he said, he was just a “patsy”. He was almost immediately killed by someone else linked to the CIA.
He could have been a patsy in multiple ways – and for multiple interests. This doesn’t preclude him being a lone nut, of course…but with all we’ve learned these past few years the only thing we can be certain of is that we were lied to in some way about the event. I was watching the movie Parkland which deals, as you might guess, with the doctors and nurses at the hospital but also covers Zapruder and his film and some of the actions of those in the JFK entourage…very good movie. If you haven’t seen it, definitely worth a watch. But one scene in there seems very interesting in light of what we now know – the coroner coming in and saying he had to do an autopsy on JFK because, after all, it was a homicide and had to be investigated.
The official word we’re all given – and which was presented without comment in the movie – was that the Secret Service agents were just determined to get JFK’s body on Air Force One. But, why? Why in heck would you want to do that? Sure, there would be a State funeral and so the body would naturally come back to DC…but why right then, in the passenger compartment of AF-1? With LBJ and Jackie still in her blood stained clothes? And it was obvious that an autopsy should be done as far as possible in situ…nobody at the time could know the prime suspect would end up dead a day later. What was found could be crucial in getting a conviction…and that crucial info could be lost in the very non-forensic transfer of the body into a random casket shoved into AF-1 for a plane ride back to DC. Understanding there was huge stress, anger and sorrow…but that just seems…off. And I remember my mother thought it was odd at the time (I was born after but it was still a major life event for her and other older people in my family and it would be discussed from time to time). Like someone wanted to make sure that no Outsider got a look at things – that it would all be done under the close supervision of only those in the Club.
This doesn’t preclude him being a lone nut, of course… but the official narrative has been shot down so many times this doesn’t really seem likely, either.
He had a high security clearance, enough to be on a crew servicing the extremely secret U-2 spy plane. People who knew him said he was extremely bright and rather gregarious.
Then there were the red flags. He (or much more likely an imposter) made a huge fuss in Mexico City, pounding on the Russian Embassy doors, slamming a gun down on the ambassador’s desk when given an appointment, repeating his name a lot—-all actions pretty obviously designed to convince everyone that LEE HARVEY OSWALD had been in Mexico City and would never be forgotten and by damn wanted to go to Russia!
The alleged doofus, low-ranking and weird, was still allowed to emigrate to Russia—where he, like any low-ranking American doofus, was able to meet and marry the niece of a high-ranking KGB official. And then, when any other Russian traveling to the U.S. was either escorted by armed guards or fished out of the harbor, she was allowed to accompany her doofus weird husband back to the United States. Where she pretended to speak only broken minimal English, while being quite fluent around others, and somehow as if the universe were pulling strings ended up associated with a woman with several links to the CIA, who presented herself to officials as Marina Oswald’s “translator” though she had very limited Russian and Marina was fluent in English.
None of the official Oswald stories make any sense. Eyewitnesses to the Tippet killing gave conflicting accounts of what happened (common with eyewitness accounts) but in general these reports included more than one man approaching Tippet and a man with a very different description than that of Oswald. And Tippet’s police car was seen near Oswald’s home, though that was far from his patrol area.
Oswald never admitted to killing Kennedy and kept repeating that there was just a mistake and he would be set free very soon, remaining very calm and unrattled—till it apparently sunk in that no one was going to come for him, when he got agitated and said he was just a patsy and was quickly assassinated himself.
I still think there’s enough info about Oswald to support a possible Nut theory – but while the Warren Commission had people like Ford and others who can generally considered to be honest, it is clear that the control group on it was Dulles and McCloy…Dulles already noted for his deep connections to a heck of a lot of unsavory people while McCloy has an interesting tale: he was born poor but got into the Establishment early on via being a lawyer for major American businesses. By WWII he was placed on the staff of the War Department and in his capacity he played a role in torpedoing the Morgenthau Plan to break up Germany after the war and blocked all efforts to bomb Auschwitz. He was made US High Commissioner in Germany after the war and while he made sure that working-class Otto Ohlendorf was executed for his role as commander of Einsatzgruppe D, he spared the life of upper-class Martin Sandberger (a son of an I G Farben Director) even though he had commanded Einsatzgruppe A…seems that lining up naked Jews and massacring them with machine gun fire is only bad if you’re a nobody…that is, not a member of the Club. McCloy also pardoned Alfried Krupp and restored his fortune even though Krupp had run the sickest slave labor and looting operations among all major German businesses. I mean, we can’t be mean to people just for that, right? I mean, heck: his full name was Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach and such people shouldn’t be in jail or lose their money…
And it just goes on and on and on like that…every time something major happens in the West, there’s the person with the proper connections to ride herd on it. Remarkable coincidence, I’m sure…
I think the information on Oswald being a nut and loner has come from or through government sources.
Most of it seems to – and, of course, who else writes these things down? “I was over at Cousin Bob’s today and he was acting nutty”. No, nobody does that. But if ol’ Bob goes and does something crazy and the family member is asked about it, he might say – or easily be induced to say – that Bob was a nutter. Most people are pretty anonymous. You think about yourself: if you were suddenly gone (God forbid!) what’s left? Your official documents. Some pictures. If you’ve written any letters over the years. That’s about it – and it isn’t much. Beyond that it is just what people imperfectly remember about you. We’re not documented like a movie star, famous general or politician might be (and the dirty little secret of biography is that its just what people wrote down about the subject at the time). What was Oswald like? Marina is still alive and has her personal memories…but nobody really knows any more. Just what people said about him then and later.
All we can really do is apply our own good judgement to the matter – informed by our knowledge of history, of life and of personal experiences, what do each of us, individually, think? To me the startling things are these:
1. The book depository is the perfect place to take a shot. The Secret Service has been charged with Presidential security since 1902 (set up in the wake of the McKinley assassination). They had institutional experience in dealing with Presidential security by 1963 including thwarting multiple attempts on Presidential lives. That depository was as obvious a place to put a cop as that shed roof was in Butler, PA. Why wasn’t a Dallas cop just…there? You know, a hundred yards from where the Presidential limo would take a slow pass right in front of it?
2. Looking over the Warren Commission membership what is striking is the lack of police detectives and forensic experts. I’m sure such people were consulted on the matter but the Commission should have been mostly made up of such…its a bunch of lawyers. You know: what you collect together to write a brief for the defense. In this case, the defense of the a priori assumption that Oswald acted alone. One of the Commission members was an IRS employee! What the heck was that about? In my view, the first task of the Commission was to investigate the crime from square one – and if evidence really indicated Oswald, then build the case as if you were going to put him on trial. They started with the assertion of Oswald acting alone and only sought to defend that position…and with lawyer’s skill, they defended it well…but left everyone with a host of questions.
As we learned in Butler, the perfect murder is one where you let it happen rather than commit it yourself. The failures of the Secret Service in Pennsylvania were so glaring that it was obviously an attempt to let it happen. And then at Mar a Lago later – only the lucky circumstance of Trump’s personal detail noticing the shooter stopped that one from happening. Do I know that the Secret Service let it happen in Butler or in Dallas? Not with existential certainty, of course…but if a layman like me can see very obvious things, then so should the professionals. In neither case are we talking about a super ninja attack…but an easy shot from an obvious location. If the Secret Service was induced to be lax in Dallas as they were in Butler, then this fact would need to be covered up … by putting down Oswald ASAP…and burning the body of the shooter in Butler, ASAP. But you’d never really have to cover up the actual act – because you honestly didn’t do it. You just knew it was coming.
The book depository is the perfect place to take a shot.
To some extent, yes, but that applies to the entire area, not just the building. If you look at Google Earth you can see that there is a main street through downtown Dallas that goes straight past the building—but the route was suddenly changed to move the motorcade to a parallel street so it had to approach the book depository slowly and then execute a very tight left-hand turn, making it slow to a crawl, to go past the building. That alone is enough to think the fix was in. There was a clear sight line from the window of the depository to the limousine for quite some time as it slowly drove toward the building.
And then the motorcade had to go under an underpass with a tall fence along the top of it—an ideal sniper hide. More brilliant planning, especially with no security on the top.
In between was the depository building, which was iffy as from the windows on the end where the shot was allegedly taken part of the route was hidden by a tree, and then the cars were moving away from the window so the angle was downward and at an angle with the target moving away. Then there was the “grassy knoll” which is much closer to the road than it looks in photos or videos, with a little Greek temple kind of thing and backed by another fence.
Of all the options, that particular window was the least obvious with the most potential problems and the most demanding of rapid firing with great accuracy, neither of which could be done with the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon.