Skip to main content

Full text of "Marxmanship in Dallas"

See other formats

Marxmanship in Dallas 

Revilo P. Oliver, American Opinion, Volume VII, No. 2, February 1964, pp. 13-28 

Revilo P. Oliver is Professor of Classics in the University of Illinois. During World War II, he was 
Director of Research in a secret agency of the War Department. He has traveled widely. Dr. Oliver is an 
academician of international reputation who has published scholarly articles in four languages within the 
pages of twelve learned periodicals in the United States and Europe. 

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 guerilla 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 possibly 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. 

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 of 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. T 

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. 

* If you missed the detail about Mrs. Oswald's father, see the Congressional Record fox 
December 4, page 22215. 

f Reprinted in The Councilor (228 Oil & Gas Bldg., Shreveport, La.), December 20, 

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 
pander 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 the 
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 Press, 
and through many indirect pressures (such as allocation of advertising and harassment by 
bureaus of the federal government), has 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 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 Communists' 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 amphitheater 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 

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 should have no 
relation to either the private life or the public 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 impossibile) 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 and 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 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 subjects. 

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 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 


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 technekota me 
kakologein). 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 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, weep 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 departed 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 merely 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 
phoney "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, 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 there are Americans, his memory will be cherished with distaste. If 
the United States is saved by the desperate exertions of patriots, we may have a future of 
true greatness and glory — but we shall 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 a brutish degradation that leaves no hope for 
anything but a speedy death. 

Three Explanations 

Why was Kennedy murdered by the young Bolshevik? With a little imagination, it is 
easy to excogitate numerous explanations that are not absolutely impossible: (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 that 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. Every 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 Yarmolinskys 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 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 the 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 

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 the result of one of the rifts that 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 suspected 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," an 
"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 reelection 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 denouement 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 then 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 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 "right-wing 
extremists" (if I may use the Bolsheviks' code- word for informed and loyal Americans), 
and "clues" had been 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 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 

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 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 
is 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 of 1963, an experienced 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 thirty-first 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 whether 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 million in a single raid or the probable "disappearance" of another $109 
million 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 have 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 government 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 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 populace 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 fore-knowledge 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 defense. 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 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 Officer 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 would 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 un- 
constitutional "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 the 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 

some 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 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 

(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 Mister 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 this 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 good English. Mr. Dulles' C.I. A. is also the gang that helped Castro 
attain power 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 perhaps frenetic observers believe — based upon this 
and other "coincidences" — 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 


(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, these 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 Communists 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 that 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 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 

(4) Harass the Dallas police as much as possible. This will 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 

* 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.). ' 

"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. 

(5) Try to smear and intimidate loyal Americans in every way possible. Much can be 
accomplished in this direction if the Congress can be pressured into voting un- 
constitutional powers of subpoena to an un-Constitutional "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, the august 
Chief Justice could dash over to the Supreme Court Building, put on his black robe, and 
rule that Congress, like God, is un-Constitutional. 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 un-Constitutional power will 
be un-Constitutionally 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 Americans could be scientifically tortured into "confession," and the 
remains of those who proved "uncooperative" could be efficiently washed down the 

(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 other high 
government officials 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, might go so far as to 
arrange the assassination of some Justice: That could, perhaps, be made to seem plausible 
after the Warren Court has maltreated a number of Americans in its latest usurpation of 
un-Constitutional powers, and it is, further more, the only sure way of preventing an 
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 incidents 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 not 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 assassination. 

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. (End of Part One.) 

[Part II] 

Henceforth, no American has an excuse for illusion. He has had an ocular 
demonstration of who and what his enemies are. And that lesson is repeated every day as 
his enemies, recklessly exposing themselves, try to carry out their original plan in spite of 
Comrade Oswald's bungling. 

The assassination and its aftermath must have given to many Americans the shock that 
each of us must somehow feel in his own being before he can understand what 
Communists really are and why they are seeking to kill or enslave him. That 
understanding does not automatically come from mere information. We all carry in our 
minds a great accumulation of items of information, such as that a continent lies under 
the ice of Antarctica or that the natives of the Andaman Islands are pygmies, which have 
no effect on our thinking because such facts seem irrelevant to our own lives. By this 
time, every literate American has in his own mind a good deal of information about 
Communists, although often as detached and unrelated items that seem remote from his 
quotidian concerns. Even copious and systematic information may remain, so to speak, 
inert in the mind until illumined by a perception that carries conviction. 

The Moment of Truth 

The perception usually comes from some personal experience or observation. It may 
be some minor shock, such as the falling apple is said to have given Newton; but at that 
shock a thousand bits of scattered knowledge latent in the mind arrange themselves into a 
coherent whole and exhibit a basic truth. 

When I was a youngster, I knew a man of substance who told me that he had almost 
been enlisted in a Communist-front operation to release from prison a creature named 
Mooney, who had murdered nine persons in California to show how much he loved 
Humanity. Although moved by the plausible and pathetic story told him by the Editor of 
a "literary" periodical, the gentleman was canny enough to check a few facts and then 
visit the headquarters of the organization soliciting his support. His unannounced visit 
gave him a moment of perception. He returned with the conviction that he had seen 

specimens of a criminal gang that was burrowing its way beneath the foundations of 
society, bent on undermining the whole nation. I thought his alarm preposterous, and, I 
am afraid, smiled at it. 

In college, I could not overlook the young Communists. It required no great acumen to 
see that their idealistic squeakings about "social justice" and the "downtrodden" were 
mere pretense to cover the malice and phrenetic rancors seething within them. But I did 
not really understand them until I met, during the great Crusade to Save the Soviet, a 
young lawyer who had been provided with a direct commission and a "vital" job in 
Washington to preserve him from the kind of military service that may be bad for the 
skin. He explained to me the wickedness of making a profit, and he told me how "social 
justice" would come to businessmen. "We'll shoot them in the belly," he said 
rapturously; "they die longer that way." And the greasy-faced creature licked its dry lips. 

A professional man tells me that his moment came at the time that Irreproachable Ike, 
violating the Constitution he had sworn to uphold, used the Army to help the Warren 
Crew get the race war under way. He was talking to a clergyman of the "social gospel" 
variety whose emotional perturbation he did not understand until some indiscreet 
exclamations let him see that the holy man was inwardly trembling with eagerness for 
news that Americans had been bayonetted or machine-gunned on the streets of Little 

The moment came to another man when he was one of a party of four in the bar of a 
private club. One of the four, an evidently urbane and cultivated gentlemen — who had 
come to the United State as a refugee and had been given a salary and security that he 
could never have attained in the land whence he came — took a Scotch or two too many 
and began to make it painfully clear that he regarded Americans as detestable swine who 
need to be taught, with the toe of a boot, their place in One World. 

A university professor tells me that his moment came two years ago when a senior 
colleague, who had for many years pontificated about the "marketplace of ideas," and, 
serene as a seated Buddha, had beamed benignly when Gus Hall and Gordon Hall spoke 
on the campus, "because we need to hear all sides," began to yell like a Comanche at a 
scalp-dance. What had shattered academic serenity was the discovery that there was a 
horrible "hate-sheet" read by "Fascist war-mongers" who must be "stamped out" or, at 
least, have their teeth kicked in. As for contributors to the hate-sheet, said the Sakya 
Muni of Academic Freedom, whom I quote verbatim, "they must be exterminated. 
Shooting is too good for them." The hate-sheet in question was that mild and self- 
consciously "moderate" fortnightly, National Review , and my informant believes that the 
Double Dome would have run amok with a kris, had he even suspected the existence of 
American Opinion. As it was, however, the yells sufficed to make my informant suddenly 
realize what makes "Liberals" tick — and he compared them to certain well wrapped and 
disguised packages that are occasionally discovered by a postal inspector or the baggage 
master of an airline because they also tick. 

A New Yorker says that his moment came early in December when he read a column 
by Walter Lippmann, whom he had long suspected to be suffering from nothing more 
serious than a cerebrum bloated with ideals. In the column the punctate pundit, wrapping 
his feet about his neck in one of his customary verbal twists, claimed that "in a free [sic] 
country" criticism of "Civil Rights and Russia" is "inherently subversive." Not content 
with thus having exposed himself, Big-Brained Walt went on tactlessly to yowl that 

because Oswald scored a bull's-eye, "the only solace for the nation's [sic] shame and 
grief can come from a Purge" — a purge, of course, of the awful Americans who think 
they still have a country. Thus, said my correspondent, was long covert hatred of 
Americans and dissembled blood-lust made manifest for all to see. It is possible, to be 
sure, that the quoted phrase was just lipography, and that Lippmann meant something 
else, such as forced feeding of castor oil to Americans; but the phrase served to give at 
least one of his readers an impulse to put together and comprehend many data that his 
mind was holding in suspension. 

Ex uno disce omnes 

Oswald was a young Communist punk, but, aside from his fortuitous notoriety, there 
was nothing unusual about him. You have seen thousands like him, and you are paying 
taxes to breed or nourish swarms of them. 

You saw a representative selection of them in that excellent film, Operation Abolition, 
which is now more timely than ever. You saw the veteran criminals, who should have 
been deported or imprisoned long ago, riot and yell at the House Committee, an official 
delegation of the highest governmental authority in our nation. You will not have failed 
to recognize in them rabid beasts grown insolent with long impunity. You saw also the 
rioting swarms of young creatures that had crawled out from the woodwork of the 
University of California and other tax-supported institutions of "higher learning." You 
had an opportunity to study their hate-contorted faces. 

You can see fledgling Oswalds in the flesh whenever, as occasionally happens, a loyal 
American is permitted to speak on or near a college campus. The young "progressives" 
will be there to jeer and quibble. It will be instructive to observe how many are deformed 
in body or feature as well as mind, and, if you approach near enough, you can see the 
hatred glistening in beady eyes. (For a close approach, a handkerchief sprinkled with 
ammonia will minimize the discomfort.) And you should reflect that you are financing, 
directly through taxes or contributions or indirectly through the institution's tax- 
exemption, the hatching and "education" of young murderers. 

You can see the species wherever you look. And with just a little patience and 
dexterity, you can make all but the most hardened and experienced disclose their inner 
emotions — perhaps in a spate of verbiage, but at least for a moment in an unguarded 
word or glare in the eyes; and you will feel like a swimmer who has glimpsed, six 
fathoms down, the flat, greenish flicker of a turning shark. 

You can see them on television, on the floor of Congress, and in their pulpits; you can 
read them in the Press. And you need have no doubts. Whether they are trying crudely or 
subtly to use the Communists' assassination of Kennedy to incite hatred against "right- 
wing extremists," you can no longer fancy that they are just ignorant "intellectuals" with 
mixed-up ganglia. They are lying. They are lying with conscious calculation. They are 
lying with murderous intent. 

You cannot mistake them when, in your very presence and with breath-taking 
effrontery, they discharge the diseased hatreds and homicidal lusts that fester in their 
gangrenous little minds. 

From direct observation, you, as an American, can now recognize your enemy and 
know what he is. And if ever you are tempted to doubt the evidence of your own eyes and 
ears, remember that such monsters are no novelty — that in the brief span of man's sad 

and dolorous history one can find almost innumerable instances of recrudescent savagery 
and of the frenzied and exacerbated rage of anthropoid beasts that cannot bear to be 
dragged toward civilization and humanity. The best illustration in a book that I have seen 
is Louis Zoul's Thugs and Communists (Public Opinion, Long Island City 4; cf American 
Opinion, January, 1962, pp. 29-36). 

The vital thing is that you, as an American, realize that you are being hunted by a feral 
and stealthy pack. And that this is no nightmare, from which you will automatically 
awaken in a moment, nor yet is it a vision excited by the writers who strove to be more 
outre than Poe. That is a reality which you must face, if you are to survive at all. 

The Time Is Now 

With the nature of our enemies thus made manifest, and with such unmistakable 
indications of their numbers and power, an American who does not wilfully close his 
eyes and drug his mind can scarcely escape a perception of the magnitude and immediacy 
of our peril. This is the year of decision. We cannot hope for a complete victory this year, 
but we must end thirty years of unvaried retreat and, for a change, advance a little to 
recover some of the ground we have lost and to turn the tide of battle. A mere stalemate 
is scarcely possible, and another defeat will be our last. With another defeat, you and I 
may not be alive in 1965 — or, if we are, we may regret it. 

Now that Providence has given us a last chance, we must use it wisely and well. We 
must act with courage and determination, and, above all, with a rational and realistic 
understanding of our situation. We are fighting against enormous, though not insuperable 
odds, and we shall need the utmost effort of every American who will work with us. Our 
greatest handicap is that we, unlike our enemies, do not have a unified and secret 
command which plans the total strategy without need to disclose or explain it to anyone, 
and which carries out that strategy by issuing orders that are obeyed without question. 
Against a conspiracy that makes its decisions in secret and coordinates with the 
efficiency of a single organism the movements of its numerous and often hidden 
tentacles, we can oppose only the voluntary efforts of individuals who are loosely 
organized into a large number of voluntary organizations, which must, in turn, voluntarily 
cooperate with one another. In these circumstances a secret strategy is impossible, and we 
must rely on the rationality and self-control of responsible individuals to supply that 
minimum of unity without which we could do nothing against a conspiracy that has 
almost absolute control over its agents through its appeal to their criminal instincts, their 
complicity in past crimes, and, if need be, fear. 

Our enemies plan in secret, but they have a standard technique for dealing with 
Americans that has long been obvious to every observer. While the vast majority of 
Americans are kept, so far as possible, in a state of ignorant complacency and confusion 
by the lie-machine, conservative and patriotic organizations are destroyed by inciting 
them to fight one another and by paralyzing them with internal dissension. That technique 
has been used for more than forty years, and, without exception until the past few years, 
accomplished its purpose speedily and infallibly. Its success depended partly upon our 
enemies' vast financial resources and long experience in covert and subtle manipulation 
of individuals, but even more on the fact that loyal Americans are divided in their 
personal interests and beliefs. 

That we Americans are so divided is our basic weakness in the present struggle, but it 

is not one of which we need be ashamed. It is the weakness of all societies of free men, 
and hence it is, in large part, precisely what we are trying to preserve. But our conflicts of 
interest and belief must be candidly admitted and accurately defined, if we are not to 
succumb to the manipulations of our enemies. 

The Unity Of Dissension 

As Americans, our one bond of effective unity is the American tradition, which is, in 
its essentials, a severely practical one. It is our first and most urgent duty to take a lesson 
from our forefathers, the citizens of the thirteen colonies, who, confronted by 
overwhelming odds, achieved independence because they had the intelligence and self- 
control never to lose sight of their real objective; although the colonies were deeply 
divided by opposed economic interests, vehement religious dissensions, and cultural 
differences that were, within the ambit of Western civilization, comparatively great. The 
governing bodies of each colony well knew that they could make an extremely 
advantageous settlement by deserting the other twelve. And the larger colonies must have 
been often tempted to seek opportunities, during the long struggle, of extending their 
influence and power at the expense of others in the hope of dominating whatever 
confederation might come out of independence. 

A desperate undertaking, which most political analysts would have pronounced 
impossible a priori for peoples so sundered by divergent interests and creeds, succeeded 
because — and only because — our forefathers were able to transcend those differences and 
maintain an effective unity for the specific and strictly limited purpose of attaining 
political freedom. 

Our task as Americans today is to attain and maintain an effective unity for the specific 
and strictly limited purpose of (a) preserving our national independence by recovering 
our federal government from the international vermin who have stealthily captured it, and 
(b) restoring as rapidly as may be — and that will be over a period of more than a decade 
— our Constitutional government that those vermin have all but totally subverted. As a 
practical imperative, all other purposes, however passionately important they may be to 
us personally, must be recognized as secondary and even irrelevant, so far as the cause in 
which we must unite is concerned. 

Our problem, I grant, is far more complex and delicate than that which confronted our 
forefathers. Their opponents were men who frankly and honorably declared themselves 
and disdained disguise. Our enemies are secret criminals whose principal weapon has 
always been deceit, dissimulation, and stealthy subversion. But our problem, surely, is 
not beyond the power of reason. And we should derive a stimulus to use it from the 
consideration that we have much more at stake than did our forefathers. 

Who Is The Enemy? 

Every one of us who tries to calculate our chances of victory must be continually 
astonished, and not infrequently dismayed, by the fantastic fact that what should be our 
greatest strength is also our greatest weakness. We have so indulged our human 
propensities to sentimentality and emotionalism, and we have been so subtly conditioned 
to fear shibboleths and bugaboos, that we squander in acrimonious debate over 
conjectures the energies which, if rationally directed, could save us from annihilation. 

Our enemy is the International Communist Conspiracy. Of that, there can be no 

possible doubt. Every time the fetid nest of vermin in Washington spends our money and 
(usually) the lives of American soldiers to enslave and barbarize another country, that 
country is invariably handed over to Communists — never to Fabian Socialists, Illuminati, 
or similar groups. East Germany, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, China, Cuba, and the many 
others are all obviously and notoriously Communist provinces. And it is perfectly obvious 
that what the nest is preparing for the United States, through "civil rights," disarmament, 
and the like, is a Communist regime. 

Although the Conspiracy is secret, we have learned a great deal about it by (a) studying 
its operations, and (b) utilizing the testimony of defectors from the Conspiracy and of our 
own counter-espionage agents who were able to penetrate some distance into the 
organization. The information thus obtained is necessarily incomplete, and, for obvious 
reasons, it becomes the more scanty, the nearer we approach the Conspiracy's inner core; 
and fails us completely before we reach that core. 

The information that we have is sufficient to give us a good working knowledge of the 
general structure of the Conspiracy, although, of course, there are a great many details 
and possibly some very important elements about which we urgently need to know more. 

Only the most naive persons today are puzzled by the operations of what is the lowest 
level in the Conspiracy (although it includes persons of great social or political 
prominence). The Conspiracy, engaged in total subversion, naturally finds and exploits 
all the weaknesses that are inherent in our society as in all human societies. It finds, and 
uses as its unconscious instruments, fat-heads and dunces who can be stirred to glutinous 
sentimentality or a rancorous resentment of their betters. But it uses above all the 
criminal tendencies that always have been present in all large populations and always will 
be present to the utmost verge of the foreseeable future. Every large aggregation of 
human beings produces, by biological necessity, its sneak-thieves, robbers, shysters, 
"intellectuals," perverts, sadists, and other degenerates. As is known to everyone who has 
thought about it at all, the continued existence of a civilization, like that of a large city, 
depends on the efficiency of the sewage system that disposes of its organic waste: On this 
level, all that the Conspiracy has to do is stop up the sewers (which civilized societies 
seem naturally predisposed to neglect anyway, since no one likes to think about such 
unpleasant necessities). By this time, we have all learned not to waste time arguing 
whether a given person, who is knowingly serving the Conspiracy's ends, is a member, 
an accomplice, a hireling, or just a petty criminal who has been given opportunity and 

The structure of the main Communist apparatus in this country is reasonably clear. 
There is a large number of them and, so far as is known, they operate independently of 
one another. The official Communist Party, the more concealed "Trotskyite" apparatus, 
the military and naval espionage rings directed from the various Soviet embassies, the 
industrial and technological espionage directed from the various consulates, and the 
Secret Police are all controlled directly from Moscow, and are believed to have no 
contact with one another in this country, except that the Secret Police watch all the others 
and probably supervise the transfer of talented criminals, recruited by the Party, to the 
more secret units. The vast crypto-Communist apparatus no longer has large cells, such 
as the one of which the infamous Hiss was a member; and is now so organized that no 
cell has more than three members and most of the criminals know the identity only of the 
superior from whom they receive orders. Most observers believe that this operation is 

handled by the Secret Police. There are other apparatus and transmission belts, some 
possibly of strategic importance, which may operate in this country independently of the 
ones I have mentioned. But given the criminals' success in preventing or halting all 
official inquiry into their more clandestine activities in the United States, we can only 
speculate about the chain of command in operations that we cannot even prove to be 
Communist. Most observers would agree in identifying some of these by cogent 
inference from copious circumstantial evidence; about others, so little is known that 
competent observers differ widely in the surmises that they base on admittedly 
fragmentary indications; and it is quite possible that there are some whose true nature has 
not even been suspected. 

So far as we know, however, the various Bolshevik apparatus are controlled from 
Moscow. Whenever we can trace their organization at all, we can follow the wires until 
they disappear in the massive walls of the Kremlin. (In recent years, some circuits have 
been rewired so that the lines from this country to go Peking; cf American Opinion, 
January, 1964, p. 71. That merely shows that a new exchange has been installed for 
operational convenience.) All observers, I believe, would agree that, so far as is known, 
the criminals in our country get their orders, directly or indirectly, from Moscow. 

Now there are very good reasons for believing that the foul brute that is titular Boss in 
the Kremlin is merely a subordinate, an executive of limited powers. So long as the 
unspeakable thing called Stalin was alive, most (but not all) observers thought that he 
was the real head of the Conspiracy. Events subsequent to the death (or, perhaps 
liquidation) of that monster have made it increasingly apparent to judicious observers that 
the organization of the Conspiracy is more complex than was once generally supposed — 
that the bloody beast named Khrushchev is like a "star" in a show on Broadway in that 
his personal appetites and eccentricities will, within rather narrow limits, be tolerated, 
since he represents a considerable investment in publicity; but who can always be fired 
by the producers of the show, and will be eliminated the minute the he gets out of hand so 
far as to endanger the success of production. So, who are the producers? 

The question may be too precipitately asked. Let us state it first in more simple terms: 
Who controls Khrushchev and the organizations on which his power is evidently based? 

An experienced and highly qualified anti-Communist organization, which has probably 
penetrated as far into the Kremlin and its secrets as any human beings, summarized its 
findings in a report that the Honorable Timothy P. Sheehan read to the House of 
Representatives on August 5, 1957. (You probably never heard of it. The unanimity with 
which daily liepapers ignored sensational, and therefore potentially profitable, news, and 
the extraordinary exertions made by prominent subhumans to avert the re-election of 
Congressman Sheehan, serve only, so far as prudent ant rational Americans are 
concerned, to validate and confirm the report he communicated to Congress.) 

The kernel of this long and circumstantial report is that, superior to Khrushchev and 
similar administrators, and superior even to the Secret Police, is another and more select 
organization of truly international scope, the Communist Security System (CSS), which 
has penetrated and controls even the Secret Police. The existence of such an inner 
organization was first suspected by cautious observers in 1939, when the purulent blob of 
anti-human protoplasm called Nicolai Yezhov was blotted out and replaced by the 
equally loathsome thing called Lavrenti Beria. That suspicion, however, remained 
hypothetical, in the eyes of most observers, until 1953, when the ease with which the 

Beria-thing was in turn liquidated made it apparent to thoughtful analysts that the Secret 
Police, of which Beria had been the absolute and unchallenged master, must be in turn 
subordinate to some inner and even more secret apparatus. The CSS, as described in the 
report, precisely corresponds to that more secret apparatus, as its characteristics were 
deduced by many observers before the report was made public by a courageous and 
patriotic Congressman at the cost of his own political career. 

Not all qualified observers find the report on the Communist Security System as 
convincing as I do, although I know of none who would categorically reject it. Since no 
member of the CSS has ever defected and confessed, the intelligence report concerning it 
can be corroborated only by deduction and inference from numerous, scattered, often 
ambiguous, and sometimes conflicting data. The most that any observer can say, 
therefore, is that he accepts the report's description of the CSS as highly probable, since 
it fits the known patterns of conspiratorial organization and provides the most 
comprehensive and consistent explanation thus far proposed of the facts which indicate 
that the Conspiracy is controlled by some inner circle. 

But if the CSS is the controlling organism, we have merely pushed the ultimate 
question one step further back. Who controls the CSS? 

That, of course, must be the darkest and most jealously guarded secret of all. As was to 
be expected, the report can only state that "the guiding [i.e. controlling] members of the 
Communist Security System" are "fellow travelers, rich financiers, and secret 
Communists" whose identity is known only to themselves and the few trusted agents 
through whom they, as an invisible government, transmit their orders. That description 
suggests — even implies — that most or all of the real directors of the Conspiracy live 
outside of Soviet territory. There is nothing implausible in that. Indeed, there never was 
any real evidence to support the gratuitous assumption that the Conspiracy's headquarters 
were moved to Russia after the conquest of that country in 1917. 

Our Secret Enemy 

Whatever hypothesis we may form concerning the inmost structure of the Communist 
Conspiracy, we can scarcely do other than postulate that the supreme direction must 
come from some supreme council which, in all probability, has not less than ten nor more 
than five hundred members. Whatever we may suspect, we do not know who they are; we 
do not know where they meet or how they communicate with one another; we do not 
even know what rational end (if any) they propose to themselves other than a Satanic 
domination over the whole world. We only know that they must be phenomenally 
intelligent and unutterably evil. 

Now, at the risk of laboring the obvious, we cannot too often remind ourselves that our 
ultimate enemies are the members of that council, whoever they are, however they work, 
and whatever their secret designs. And the International Communist Conspiracy by 
definition consists of the unknown members of that council and all of the 
instrumentalities and subordinate organizations that they direct. That is the conspiracy 
that we must defeat, if we are not to perish most miserably at its hands. And I do not see 
how any American who has observed what has been done to his nation in recent years, 
and thought about it, could disagree with either the definition or a statement that only the 
most dedicated and united efforts of American patriots can save us from an imminent and 
unspeakable horror. 

No reader of American Opinion, I am sure, will be confused, even for an instant, by the 
semantic quibble made possible by the fact that the Communist Conspiracy is not 
directed by Communists, if by that term we mean persons who believe in "Marxism." 
The barbarous jargon and confusing twaddle of "dialectical materialism" has always been 
what Marx designed it to be, an elaborate deception triply useful for enlisting recruits, 
stultifying ignorant "intellectuals," and concealing serious purposes. On the lower levels 
of the Conspiracy, many members of the Community Party believe, or pretend to believe, 
that drivel as an article of faith; while the more sincere and intelligent rack their brains 
trying to solve a set of quadratic equations that were designed to be insoluble (and 
eventually they either defect or get the point and move upward to the next level). We may 
be quite sure, I think, that anyone who attains the rank of assistant to an immediate 
subordinate of a branch manager, such as Castro, has left belief in "Marxism" as far 
behind him as belief in Santa Claus. So, unless we find an adolescent's pleasure in the 
paradox that Khrushchev and his kind are not Communists, we must understand that by 
"Communist" we mean a conscious participant in the International Conspiracy, without 
reference to his real or feigned reasons for participation. 

Some Theories 

It has long been apparent that the Communist Conspiracy was something quite 
different from the picture that its members tried to hold before the general public. It was 
clear to judicious observers a century ago that the degenerates who publicly headed or 
secretly financed the International were not in the least interested in the "workers" or the 
"proletariat" about whose "oppression" they pretended to snivel. When the Conspiracy 
effected its first territorial conquest in 1917, only the simple-minded could describe as 
"Russian" a revolution whose leaders and executives had, almost without exception, 
swarmed into Russia a few months before the take-over, and have been financed from 
both Germany and the United States, although those two nations were technically at war 
with one another. And after the conquest of Russia, it was clear that the total resources of 
that hapless and more than decimated land were utterly inadequate to finance an 
international conspiracy. And although Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and the rest were, without 
doubt, viciously cunning monsters, it was extremely improbable that they had either the 
brains or the time to direct such a conspiracy while discharging their duties as executives 
in Russia and, incidentally, clawing at one another's throats. 

Long ago, therefore, observers very reasonably began to look for a conspiracy behind 
the Soviet. The existence of such an inner or directing conspiracy was strongly suggested, 
as I have said, by the known facts in the history of Communism from the time of Marx to 
the present. It was also indicated by analogy to the structure of criminal conspiracies 
known to history. For example, Weishaupt's Illuminati* were organized in a set of 
concentric circles; all members, even those in the outer circle, were given the impression 
that they were "on the inside," but the members of each inner circle regarded the 
members of outer circles as neophytes to be prepared for more advanced work or as 
suckers who were useful because they could be made to believe anything. The Assassins, 
founded by Hasan-I-Sabbah, were similarly organized: The members of the lowest grade 
(Lasiqs) were fanatical believers in the Koran and Islam, while guru members of the 
grade next to the top (Da 'i i-Kabir) found it difficult to keep a straight face while talking 

* See American Opinion, June, 1962, pp. 33-37. 

to boobs they considered so stupid as to believe in Allah or any god. 

Since it was clear that there was a conspiracy inside the outer (Marxist) shell, it was 
only natural that attempts should be made to identify it. Various sincere and thoughtful 
writers have positively identified the inner conspiracy as composed of one of the 
following: "Force X," Illuminati, Satanists, "Bilderbergers," Zionists, Pharisees, Khazars, 
Fabian Socialists, International Bankers, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, or a gang of 
otherwise unidentified "messianic materialists." Good and authentic evidence drawn from 
the present or the recent past can be assembled to support each of these identifications, 
and it is easy to argue convincingly that each is right, provided that we can assume an 
extraordinary degree of stupidity or short-sighted venality in some or all of the others. 
And although some of the groups I have listed overlap others, or may do so, it is clear 
that all of them cannot be the one central conspiracy. Furthermore, we cannot assume that 
there are a number of major conspiracies independent of one another but all blithely 
working together today with no thought of the morrow. 

Let me take as my example the "Force X," recently brought into prominence by 
Kenneth de Courcy in his excellent and generally reliable Intelligence Digest. And let me 
hasten to add that, although I feel confident that I recognize the entity to which Mr. de 
Courcy refers. I do not pretend to have at my disposal the mass of information and 
documentation that has presumably been assembled by Mr. de Courcy' s private 
intelligence organization, which largely consists of former members of British Military 
Intelligence now stationed throughout the world as representative of British industries or 
in similar capacities. 

Mr. de Courcy has not said that "Force X" was the inner core of that Communist 
Conspiracy, but many of his readers have drawn that inference from the indications that 
he has provided. Mr. de Courcy has described "Force X" as "basically a criminal group," 
which directs the entire drug traffic of the world," high-class prostitution and homosexual 
rings, and many other forms of profitable crime. But he says that it "has made use of 
Communism," that "in Russia, Trotsky, Zhdanov, Beria, and Litvinov" were its agents 
(as were, in Germany, "both Ludendorff and Himmler") , and that its executive head, a 
homosexual and necrophiliac degenerate, gave advice to Stalin and now advises both 
Khrushchev and Mao Tse-tung. Mr. de Courcy concludes that "The alliance between this 
person and Communism is very close, although there are fundamental clashes of aim. 
Neither seems to mind that at present." 

It is at this point that I have my doubts. As Communist agents and fuddled cops are 
forever telling us, there is only one world — and, what is worse, it is less than 25,000 
miles in circumference at the equator. It is much, much too small for two conspiracies of 
"One Worlders," and if, perchance, there are two, the heads of both must have realized 
long ago that the more successful they were, the sooner one would have to liquidate the 
other to escape liquidation itself. I could believe that "Force X" is subordinate to the 
International Communist Conspiracy, and I could believe that "Force X" is the inner core 
of that Conspiracy and so controls Khrushchev and similar vermin, but I cannot believe 
that two wolves are peacefully munching one rabbit. 

Less Blood-Pressure, Please 

If not two, then not three or five or ten. What we have said about "Force X" will apply, 
mutatis mutandis, to any other conspiratorial group that we may consider in connection 

with the Communists. Let us, therefore, draw some conclusions. 

On the basis of the information supplied by Mr. de Courcy, and on the basis of our 
own deductions concerning the probable structure of the Conspiracy, we recognize that 
"Force X" may be: 

(1) An inner circle, comparable to, if not identical with, the Communist Security 

(2) A formal arm of the Conspiracy, comparable to the official Communist Party in the 
United States or the Secret Police, and like them controlled from above. 

(3) A large and highly organized gang of racketeers, who, like all ordinary criminals, 
"take the cash and let the credit go," intent only on loot today and loot tomorrow, but 
with no long-range plans or cosmocratic ambitions. Such a gang would naturally be 
encouraged and protected by the Communists, and would naturally perform services for 
cash fees or in exchange for protection and opportunities. (Note that China is now the 
principal source of the narcotics commonly used by drug-addicts, so that one of the most 
profitable branches of the gang's business depends on supplies from Communist 
territory.) This, however, would make the gang, for all practical purposes, a Communist 
subsidiary or instrumentality, and it could not be "more powerful" than its employers. 

Those are, I think, the three most probable explanations, but others are possible, viz.: 

(4) That our inferences about the Conspiracy are incorrect, and that "Force X" and 
the Communists really are independent in the sense that neither controls the other. 
(5) That the data supplied by Mr. de Courcy are wrong, in part or in their entirely, either 
because his informants were mistaken or because they were supplied with false 
information (a common trick in all intelligence work) or because they or Mr. de Courcy 
have some interest in deceiving us. Thus "Force X," as described to us, may not exist at 

Now we may differ widely in the percentage of probability that we assign to each of 
these five explanations, and it will certainly do no harm to argue about them for the 
purpose of clarifying our own thinking and of eliciting from one another such incidental 
information as each of may have that is relevant to the subject. But obviously, no one of 
the five hypotheses is certainly right or certainly wrong. And I trust that no one will place 
an extraordinary strain on his neuro-vascular system to shout at the rest of us. 

Serious argument is futile when what we obviously need is more evidence. That 
evidence is available. A great deal must now be in the possession of various police forces 
throughout the United States and either has not been assembled or has been suppressed 
by political pressures. A vast amount of evidence was concealed when the gang around 
Mr. Macmillan succeeded in covering up the Profumo scandals, but the greater part of it 
is still there. In the opinion of the best informed observers, a thorough investigation of 
the activities of Bobbie Baker, and his high-ranking accomplices in the Administration, 
would uncover a vast cesspool of corruption necessarily connected with the one in 
England, because some specialists in vice and crime shuttle back and forth from one 
country to the other. Probably any one of the hundreds of known nests of drug-addicts, 
perverts, and degenerates in Washington (or others found in any large city) would expose 

a trail that could be followed back to the lair of some criminal syndicate or subsidiary 

What "Force X" is or is not can be ascertained only by systematic and relentless 
inquiry conducted with governmental powers; and while it might take a long time for 
such an investigation to attain certainty, every bit of additional evidence would enable us 
to calculate probabilities more accurately. In the meantime, you can't prove anything by 
waving your arms. 

Horrid Hypotheses 

So far as I can see, all hypotheses regarding conspiracies that may be associated with 
the Communist Conspiracy are in the same status as views about "Force X." The 
evidence comes, of course, from other sources, is of varying degrees of probability, can 
be reconciled with more or less difficulty with what we know or think we can deduce 
with some assurance concerning the Communists, and is susceptible to different ranges of 
alternative interpretations. In some cases religious belief will strongly affect our 
estimates: A formidable and powerful conspiracy of Satanists will seem likely only to 
those who believe in a devil having the power to intervene, directly or indirectly, in the 
affairs of this world. In others, a recognition of adverse interests or inveterate antipathies 
is very likely to color our opinions. But we are certainly dealing with hypotheses based 
on inadequate data. The most probable cannot be reasonably stated as a certainty; the 
least probable cannot reasonably be pronounced an impossibility. To prove or disprove 
anything, we shall need many more facts than we now have at our disposal. 

I confess that I cannot understand the extraordinary amount of passion that can be 
generated by violent asseverations and hysterical denunciations of theses that can be 
established or refuted only by ascertaining facts. Quarrels on this subject remind me of 
two men whom I once saw engage in a violent brawl to determine which of two teams 
would win a ball game on the following day. I could not but wonder whether they 
imagined that their exertions would, through some sympathetic or methectic magic, affect 
the result. 

Less Heat, More Light 

No display of temper will change historical facts. The hair-pulling matches in which 
some Americans engage to vindicate their favorite hypotheses would be comic, if they 
were not tragic in their consequences: personal antagonisms, disruption of conservative 
organizations, and, quite possibly, defeat and death for all of us. I should suppose that 
even the most perfervid champions of antithetical hypotheses would realize, if they 
paused to think about it for a moment, that the only way to settle their argument — to say 
nothing of accomplishing something for their country — is to unite in demanding of their 
state and federal governments the kind of searching and unremitting inquiry into the 
Communist Conspiracy that we have urgently needed for fifty years and have never had. 

Few Americans realize that all of our uncertainties and the futile quarrels that they 
occasion are directly caused by the International Communist Conspiracy's success in 
stifling, frustrating, or preventing official investigation. A raid, carried out jointly by the 
State of Michigan and Federal officers in 1922 on the headquarters of a nest of homicidal 
vermin disclosed evidence that should have scared every sober American as much as 
though a bullet had whizzed past his ear. But the net result was that a gang of 

subversives, headed by the malodorous Felix Frankfurter, stopped in 1925 all Federal 
investigation of the enemies in our midst. Nothing more was done by our Federal 
government, despite its obligation under the Constitution to protect us from foreign 
enemies, until a great American, Martin Dies of Texas, established what became the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities (see his new book, Martin Dies' Story; 
The Bookmailer, New York; $5.00). Mr. Dies' committee accomplished a great deal, 
despite open opposition and clandestine harassment from the great War Criminal in the 
White House and the scabrous louts with which that being surrounded himself. 

In the Senate, a valiant beginning was made by Senator McCarthy, but we all know 
what happened to him; and we all know that all inquiry into treason in Washington was 
effectively stopped when Eisenhower issued his un-Constitutional order to protect the 
vicious vermin lodged in our government from interrogation. 

Both the House and the Senate Committees have done the best that they could, I 
believe, in the face of enormous pressures from the criminals who had captured the 
Treasury of the United States and could use our money to prevent us from learning about 
our blood-thirsty enemies. But such inquiries were necessarily limited to the peripheral 
and superficial. 

Some years ago, Judge Robert Morris, one of the most experienced and staunch of all 
Congressional investigators, in a radio broadcast, stated that no Congressional committee 
had ever been able to investigate subversion and treason effectively, because the 
investigation, whenever it began to approach the higher echelons of the Conspiracy, was 
stopped by "irresistible pressures. " 

Obviously, what we Americans must do, if we wish to go on living, is to generate 
pressures which make those that once seemed "irresistible" seem as puny as the waving 
of a cockroach's antennae. 

The information is there and available in vast quantities. It is constantly and almost 
automatically coming to light; the trouble is that, if you read the liepapers, you never hear 
of it. For example, in December of 1963, Texas Rangers, on the authority of the Attorney 
General of Texas, raided a criminal hang-out and discovered documents that astonished 
even seasoned observers. The membership of the Communist Party in Texas had been 
officially estimated at about five hundred. That was obviously too low, but few were 
prepared for the discovery of a list containing the names of ten thousand international 
criminals, members or conscious accomplices of the Conspiracy, residing in Texas. As I 
write, it is rumored that Earl Warren, if not soon impeached and brought to trial, will 
make heroic efforts to suppress that list, acting either in his capacity as Boss of the 
Warren Crew in the Supreme Court Building or in his capacity as chairman of Johnson's 
special Committee to Conceal. Whether these efforts succeed will depend on you, my 
fellow Americans. 


I venture to suggest — even to urge — that we Americans suspend our vexatious 
disputaillerie about conjectures and concentrate on our united efforts on obtaining the 
basic information that we need, not merely to settle our arguments, but to survive. 

I do not see how there can be a reasonable objection to that policy, with which even the 
most incensed should concur. We are prudent men and we therefore know that every 
prudent man knows that — if it happens that he is unjustly accused of a crime of which he 

is innocent — he cannot destroy public documents and sandbag witnesses on their way to 
the Grand Jury without arousing some grave suspicions that he may be less innocent than 
a new-born lamb on the hills of Arcadia. 

We must obtain all possible information quickly, and we must be willing, as 
reasonable and practical men, to pay the requisite price for it, recognizing that the 
primary responsibility for the demoralization of American life falls on you and me, who 
were too timid, too busy, or too lazy to do anything about it during the past fifty years. 
That means, specifically, that we must be prepared to condone and forget venial sins in 
public life — anything, that is, which is short of treason. We could all argue for a year, 
vehemently and inconclusively, about what should be a general standard of sexual 
morality. I hope that we would agree, however, that that standard, however much we 
prize it, is less important than our lives and those of our children. That question is vital, 
if, as informed sources in Washington assert, fifty-five Senators — a majority, mind you — 
are now kept in line by blackmail made possible by highly-trained and expert "call girls" 
operating, at the expense of American taxpayers, in collaboration with secret agents who 
installed concealed microphones and hidden cameras, including infra-red equipment. 
That, it is said, explains votes for "disarmament" and also explains the massive resistance 
that would be opposed to any proposal for an open and searching investigation. In the 
present crisis, I think it not too much to ask of even Mrs. Grundy that she look the other 
way for a while. 

In the meantime, we certainly know enough about our enemies to attack effectively the 
Conspiracy on fronts that can absorb all our energies. Enough of our enemies have 
exposed themselves in acts of open treason to make inquiry into their motives or 
antecedents a waste of time. And time is what we cannot afford to waste: We have so 
little of it left. 

It is entirely possible that we may never be able to identify the head of the octopus, but 
that will matter little, if we can lop off enough of its tentacles. 

I know that apocalyptic visions of cosmic disaster are usually born of disordered 
imaginations. I know that men tend always to exaggerate the important of their own 
countries and hence of the crises of the moment. But look as I will, I cannot see a future 
for Western civilization anywhere in the world, if the United States is lost. What another 
race may do in five hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years is beyond our prevision; 
but the fate of human civilization as we know it depends, I fear, on what we do this year. 

This is not Valley Forge: Had our forefathers lost, they would have reverted to the 
status of British colonies and still have enjoyed a good fortune greater than that of most 
of the rest of civilized mankind. This is Chalons or Tours, and the issue, quite simply, is 
whether the world's most hated minority, the Christian West, shall be forever obliterated 
by the infinite barbarism of irrational hordes. Or, to put it in less general terms, the issue 
is whether your children will regret having been born.