Mustafa Kemal Atatürk at Turkey’s first parliament building. 1935.
1,604 words
The “deep state” is a new term for an old idea. The term “deep state” dates to the 1990s and is a translation of a Turkish phrase, “derin devlet.” Turkish Islamists claim that the Turkish deep state is a network within their military, intelligence services, and judiciary—with connections to organized crime. The deep state operates behind the scenes to protect the secularist, nationalist Kemalist system from Islamists, Leftists, and Kurdish separatists. In extreme cases, the deep state has resorted to assassinations and military coups.
In America, I first noticed the term “deep state” during the Obama administration. The term is now common on the populist Right. As Americans use the term, the deep state is whatever thwarts Right-wing and populist policies. Thus the deep state includes the intelligence agencies, the bureaucracy, the military, and the judiciary—i.e., the unelected parts of the federal government. The deep state also includes elements of big business and academia. Beyond that, the deep state encompasses the leadership of both major parties. Basically, the deep state is America’s cultural and political elite, which uses its power and influence to thwart populist policies and defend entrenched elite interests.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
Before the Obama years, the Right did not complain about a deep state but about the “eastern liberal establishment,” which means pretty much the same thing. The Left, of course, has similar concepts. Basically, they blame the oligarchy, the “military-industrial complex,” and the intelligence agencies for thwarting Left-wing energies.
By my reckoning there are three functions that a genuine deep state should perform.
First, a deep state should provide continuity of government, which is particularly necessary in liberal democracies, in which elected leaders are rotated out sometimes quite quickly. The flip side of ensuring continuity, however, is resisting change.
Second, a deep state should ensure that regime loyalists occupy all prominent positions in society, most especially in education and the creation of culture.
Third, a deep state should perform the function of the sovereign as defined by Carl Schmitt. For Schmitt, the sovereign is first and foremost a person. Schmitt has little to say about sovereign peoples and states. Instead, the sovereign is the person who deals with exceptions to the rules. Most of the time, we can be governed by general rules. But in human affairs, there are always exceptions that cannot be foreseen by legislators and bureaucrats. Thus, when confronted with a fact that does not fall under the existing rules, a decision needs to be made. These exceptions crop up on all levels of society, thus bureaucrats, judges, and even cops on the beat are empowered to make decisions on the spot.
But at the highest level of government, particularly in crises in which an existing constitution—i.e., fundamental laws and institutions—are incapable of serving the common good, we need someone empowered to decide what to do. If such a figure needs to make decisions about the applicability of the fundamental law of the land, he is obviously in some sense “above” the existing constitution and law, since they can no longer guide him. Instead, he must be guided by the ultimate unwritten law, namely the common good of the people, which is the whole point of government in the first place. (For more on these topics, see my essays “Schmitt, Sovereignty, and the Deep State,” “Superheroes, Sovereignty, and the Deep State,” and “Yes to the Rule of Law.”)
In a crisis in which blood must be shed, soldiers and police need some assurance that they will not be tried as criminals for acting—outside the law, if need be—to preserve the nation. Thus their guilt must be heaped upon a scapegoat figure, namely the sovereign giving orders. Thus “I was just following orders” is a complete defense. But the sovereign who gives the orders cannot do his job—i.e., take both the credit and the blame for saving his nation—if he is not immunized from any form of prosecution for his extralegal acts.
Beyond that, he can’t really do his job if his position is at all contingent, i.e., subject to impeachment or requiring re-election. Thus the best sovereign would be not be an elected ruler but a hereditary monarch enjoying complete impunity for any act necessary to save the nation. The best hereditary monarch is a constitutional one, whose role is confined to dealing with emergencies, while the normal business of state is dealt with by elected representatives and bureaucrats.
This role was stated beautifully by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Joseph to former US President Theodore Roosevelt: “I am the last monarch of the old school. It is my duty to protect my peoples from their politicians.”
In my view, the single disadvantage of republics vs. monarchies is that elected heads of state cannot do what is necessary to quell a crisis, because they cannot act with impunity and their term of office is contingent on voters. A striking example of this is Donald Trump’s treatment of the BLM insurrection in 2020. If Trump thought only of the public good, the second night of riots would have been put down with violence, which would have prevented months of violence and bloodshed. But Trump allowed America to descend into the abyss because he feared that shooting down a few dozen rioters might . . . cost him the black vote or get him impeached by his political enemies. This is no small disadvantage.
But a true sovereign isn’t willing just to kill to maintain the social order. Killing is easy for governments, and the people who order it seldom face any personal risks. Beyond that, a leader might simply be killing to maintain his own personal status. His actions may be entirely selfish.
The true test of whether a leader fully identifies with the body politic is if he is willing to die to preserve his nation in an emergency. The Turkish generals who mounted coups were certainly willing to risk their lives to preserve a secular nationalist Turkey. But I am not so sure about the smug, lying bureaucrats who stymied Trump for social media clout.
You can order Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here
In short, I wonder if America really has a deep state in the Turkish sense. Indeed, I wonder if America ever had one. The Founders simply took the metapolitical conditions of the Constitution for granted. Thus, for example, they saw no reason for the state to take a role in fostering public virtue. A nation with a deep state would not have descended into a Civil War which brought about an almost complete break with the old Constitution. Nor would a nation with a deep state have allowed its ruling elite to be ethnically replaced by Jews. Nor would a nation with a deep state be ruled by tribes that are out to loot it and utopians who regard it as a mere stepping-stone to global power and status.
The bedrock assumption in politics is that somebody is in charge, that the buck stops somewhere, that someone is ultimately responsible. Thus Americans are eager to imagine that ultimate power resides in the FBI or the CIA or various secret societies and fraternities. Because the military explicitly cultivates an ethos of self-sacrifice for the nation, some people hope that the military could act like a deep state. Such sentiments might exist among enlisted men, but they are carefully bred out of the officer class. America’s intelligence agencies are also candidates for a deep state. But these agencies have long lists of American legislators and bureaucrats who are agents of foreign powers. It is somebody’s job to track treason but nobody’s job to stop it.
The whole thrust of liberalism from the start has been to divide and distribute power, exalt private interests, and evade accountability. In America’s case, it may have worked all too well. Thus the nation continues to drift toward destruction, because no matter which party occupies the positions of power, it is beholden to looting tribes, but there is no faction anywhere near power that thinks about the common good.
Is the most powerful special interest group the American “deep state”? No, because the deep state identifies with the good of the whole political order. A special interest group, by its very nature, does not. Indeed, the stronger the special interest group, the more opposed it is to a deep state. An excellent example is Jewish control of the Trump regime’s foreign policy. The Iran War is being fought for the benefit of Israel, not the United States. If the United States had a deep state, Netanyahu would never have gotten in a room with Trump.
The sad truth is that America is a mess not because we have a deep state but because we lack one.
Every White Nationalist movement needs to aim not just at restoring or creating white homelands, but also at preserving them. That means that they must all build deep states. These deep states must perform three functions. First, they must secure the continuity of the regime through changes of government. Second, they must secure the continuity of the regime through crises. The best instrument for this is a constitutional monarch who controls the military. Third, they must place white racial idealists in all positions of power and influence. In such a society, we need not fear cultural and political pluralism, because as long as anti-whiteness is out of bounds, pretty much everything else can be in play.
35 comments
You’re a retard, by God.
The Deep State is the amalgamation of petty tyrants who wield their power with vindictive glee. It is the collection of weak willed men with small penis’, who pine for the pretty girl, but haven’t the balls to talk to her, and then are jealous of the man with the courage to do what they only wish they could.
They are everything that is wrong with our society, in a single term, and you seem to suggest there’s a purpose? You’re retarded.
Surely one of us is retarded.
LOL
I literally am Laughing Out Loud! Can’t stop.
Reading comprehension, pal. Oh boy.
I nearly spit out my morning coffee. Thanks for the laugh.
What you’re thinking of are today’s DC swap creatures and the other bozos infesting the corridors of power. What he was describing is how things should be instead. Every country inevitably has a ruling class, so responsible leadership is essential.
Thank you, this article single-handedly checkmates the conspiratist way of thinking about hidden powers in America! This is why I read Counter-Currents.
The best candidate for an American deep state would have been the Freemasons – but Freemasonry is an international club for businessmen based on free association (it is a deep private network rather than a deep state). To protect a particular society, a sort of holy order is needed, while Freemasonry is an amorphous brotherhood in the private domain that views itself as apolitical except for a bedrock of vague but high-minded “pluralistic-Libertarian” ideas in the best Anglo tradition. And Freemasonry does not distinguish between nations, creeds or tribes, it isn’t pro-American or pro-Heritage American or pro-White because it seeks to be universal and embodies Enlightenment ideals that view “particularisms” of any sort as obsolete and archaic.
The American deep state has been made up of multiple overlapping & competing semi-secret societies: Freemasons & B’nai Brith, Ivy League alumni, Jews, sayanim, fraternities, Skull & Bones, communists, CIA, perhaps Fabians, Rhodes scholars, WEF future leaders, feminists, Catholics, Opus Dei et al. All of these elements represent conspiracies in that their members have at least some common aims, even if that be only to do favours for one another. Most of them have workings and goals that are not public knowledge. Consider also the possibilities for leverage available to agents who manage to insert themselves into several of these groups.
Like all politics, it’s non-stop conspiracy.
Is it a deep state or simply different groups of organized looters?
It’s a result of the freedom of a pluralist liberal society which is not sufficiently genetically & socially cohesive, but not all of these groups are purely selfish in their aims, although all of them must seek some degree of wealth and power if they are to survive. “Totalitarian” 1930s Germany introduced its own deep state: the Schutz Staffel and tried to eliminate or at least disempower competing groups, using bloody force where necessary, by outlawing freemasonry, heavily restricting Jewry & regulating the churches. Even such comprehensive efforts were not fully successful.
Your description is not wrong, but it does not match the original Turkish definition of “deep state” which Mr Johnson is using in his article: A parapolitical network committed to the founding principles of the nation itself and willing to break laws and spill blood to defend them.
What you describe is the “deep state” in the adopted sense of overlapping informal insider networks (which of course exist everywhere!).
And then there’s the “deep state” in the schizo/conspiratist sense, which is the latter imagined as a centralized power center in the shadows i.e. the expression of a single “will” (the cryptocracy, NWO, Illuminati).
I don’t accept your framing of “NWO, Illuminati” theorists as necessarily crazy. Freemasons were infiltrated & influenced by Weishaupt’s Illuminati in the eighteenth century and played a significant role in the American & French revolutions. Freemasons still exist, adhering outwardly to a universalist monotheistic umbrella religion with many Hebraic elements, which is perfectly suited to establishing a universal world order. Whilst being ecumenical it also has special affiliated lodges which are just for Jews.
The Turkish deep state is a result of an ethnoreligiously cohesive albeit secularly oriented elite, in a nation with a strong sense of its history. I’m no expert on Turkey but freemasonry (or some other secret society) MAY underlie the strength of this deep state.
They are crazy because they take reasonable speculation about conspiracies originating within Freemasonry too far and posit unity and an overarching plan where there is none:
“Freemasonry” is an umbrella term for private clubs that follow a certain tradition. It’s not a single entity like the Catholic Church or the Jesuit order. As Richard Spence likes to say, it’s “a house with many rooms”.
Furthermore, one of the most basic and longstanding principles of Freemasonry is that neither politics nor religion can be discussed in the lodge.
See: http://www.themasonictrowel.com/Articles/Freemasonry/masonic_institution/religions_and_political_discussions.htm
The crux is that, as Spence explains “the lodge itself, what it’s doing is bringing like-minded people together and it’s binding them together in an atmosphere of mutual support and secrecy … so if you wanted to create the perfect conditions to plot a revolutionary conspiracy, that’s it”.
In other words, the organizational structure provided by Masonry enables conspiracies. In apolitical lodges, Masonry is used for private conspiracies (networking, nepotism). For lodges full of people with revolutionary spirit (against king or church or foreign oppressors) Masonry becomes a vehicle for revolutionary conspiracy.
But it is not “THE Masons” conspiring, just particular groups using this or that particular room in the big Masonic house for their conspiracy!
Because Freemasonry was by far the biggest fraternal order open to the bourgeoisie (in contrast to aristocratic or religious orders), most Progressive conspiracies of the 18th century and early 19th century originated within the Masonic umbrella resp. used Masonic structures. Masonry was more of a “How?” than a “Who?” when it comes to these conspiracies.
Because it lacks mechanisms of centralized control, Masonry can’t stop individual lodges or branches of Masonry from becoming political and pursueing their own goals. That’s the downside of liberalism. They can’t keep bad actors from infiltrating lodges and using the same symbols, degrees and names, so they’ll inevitably be associated with the ensuing revolutions, scandals, corruption etc.
You’re right. Freemasonry should not be underestimated, especially liberal Freemasonry. A well-known Austrian artist called Freemasonry one of the tools of the Jews..
“… The Founders simply took the metapolitical conditions of the Constitution for granted.”
This makes perfect sense and, inevitably, happens all the time in history. Who could foresee what would happen 100+ years later, in a world dramatically changed technologically, intellectually, economically and demographically? The founders of the US looked back at recent European (and more ancient Greco-Roman history), and they set up a system that was optimized for the time and place they were living in (what else could an intelligent person do?).
“The whole thrust of liberalism from the start has been to divide and distribute power, exalt private interests, and evade accountability. In America’s case, it may have worked all too well.”
I see this as Anglos trying to be as anarchic as possible to prevent otherwise inevitable abuses of power. But ultimately, this simply meant that when particular lobbies actually formed, the natives didn’t have a real home advantage.
“A nation with a deep state would not have descended into a Civil War which brought about an almost complete break with the old Constitution.”
Note how the Freemasons weren’t able to prevent the Civil War. Instead, the Masons in the South supported the South while those in the North supported the North. Masonry was not equipped to prevent the schism at all. Instead, it was a neutral vehicle that different interests groups used to organize themselves (see also the KKK and its Masonic roots).
“Nor would a nation with a deep state have allowed its ruling elite to be ethnically replaced by Jews. Nor would a nation with a deep state be ruled by tribes that are out to loot it and utopians who regard it as a mere stepping-stone to global power and status.”
The deep state as a conspiracy of the center preventing conspiracies by outsiders. Or: If the responsible people don’t conspire (cause it’s immoral, leads to abuses etc), the irresponsible people who do will inevitably outcompete them.
We hear from time to time that George Washington was a Freemason to the usual howls of outrage. On the TRS network commenter Jazzhands McFeels and guest Ethnarch even floated the Left-Libertarian (semi-Marxist) thesis of Columbia Prof. Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913).
Jazzhands and Ethnarch (who at least had familiarity with the Cliff Notes version of Prof. Beard) and others in the TRS network, blithely dismissed Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s many treatises or reports on public credit, taxation, and manufactures ─ which still carry weight today.
The first Treasury Secretary’s policies actually made American currency worth the Continental paper that it was printed on ─ largely because the Federal government under the new Constitution could now back it up with stable tax revenues.
Unlike under the Articles, if the new government borrowed some money or paid off some Revolutionary War Debt, the notes now bore the “full faith and credit” of the national regime itself, and this is still true today; the interest paid will come right off the top of any national tax revenues. Private investors in the new regime, therefore, now had unprecedented trust in the regime itself coded in black-letter law. All government debts will be paid ─ and a U.S. dollar bill is the legal tender for all debts, public and private.
Contrary to popular belief from some amateur historians, this did not create a “debt-based government.”
This is why those not trained in at least some serious historiography in post-secondary school should not drift too far out of their lane. Ethnarch was at least familiar with the work of Beard, the noted Columbia University Professor of History (from 1904-1917). They basically tried to argue such things that General Washington was a military incompetent whose motivation for calling a Constitutional convention was because of his personal business interests. Being a landed baron based on the borders of Virginia, showed the General that the independent American nation had insufficient authority to regulate interstate commerce in a basic and orderly manner ─ let alone was unable to properly coin and stabilize a useful national currency. There is some truth to this from a Progressive viewpoint, but so what?
Washington lost most of the wartime battles but won the war because he understood where the strengths and weaknesses of the two sides lay ─ and he obviously understood the systemic governmental dysfunction under the Articles of Confederation.
Therefore, according to the TRS podcasters, the Generalissmo was insidiously influenced by the arguments of his wartime aide-de-camp, Colonel Alexander Hamilton, who was a King’s College (Columbia University) -educated lawyer from New York, who understood that the Articles of Confederation (1781) needed to be summarily replaced because they did not give the Chief Executive especially, sufficient authority to govern, let alone to lead.
The new government under the Articles of Confederation actually had to go begging to the states for tax revenues, and some were diligent with their debts while others not so much. There was zero investor confidence as a result, and the “printing press” Continental currency was literally “not worth a Continental.”
TRS even tried to argue that Hamilton was a Jew because he was born illegitimate on Nevis Island in the Caribbean, orphaned at a young age, and later worked as a import/export bookkeeper (but NOT for a member of the Hebrew persuation).
The young Hamilton wrote an essay about a powerful hurricane (1772) that struck the area and was then published in the Royal Danish American Gazette, thus leading to his discovery by a Protestant clergyman who sent him to the American colonies to be educated, until his education at Columbia was cut short by “the shot heard ’round the world.”
I digress, but the lack of authoritative “Federalism” was also a fundamental administrative flaw and also military problem in general for the South during the American Civil War ─ even though the average Southern rifleman actually inflicted more casualties than the average Northern rifleman did. Some Yankees were immigrants who had never even fired a gun before they were hired by Uncle Sambo to restore the Union and tree the slaves (er, I mean, to free them, along with their reparations of forty acres and a mule).
The original Ku Klux Klan was also initially a Southern Protestant reaction to the excesses of “Reconstruction.”
No less than the eggheaded Globalist and Southern-born former Princeton academic and then U.S. President Thomas Woodrow Wilson believed this paradigm when he screened the 1915 D. W. Griffith film Birth of a Nation at the White House. The Horror.
But back in the 18th century when there was still hope for the new American Republic, Col. Hamilton convinced Gen. Washington and others like the Virginian scholar James Madison that a Constitutional Convention desperately needed to be held (1787).
Hamilton supported the Bill of Rights and Madison’s work, but he was a little disappointed with the end result and all the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity stuff, but belived that the new Constitution, which brusquely replaced the Articles of Confederation, did just sufficiently meet his minimal criteria for a viable new Republic.
And unlike his mentor with the ivory teeth stained black by an occasional glass of Madeira, Hamilton was not a Freemason.
Secretary Hamilton essentially wrote Washington’s Farewell Address, which is the foundation for the Federalist Party’s poltical doctrine and a solid basis for American Nationalism and Isolationism to this very day.
I’m no fan of nor a defender of the Freemasons, but basically they were Protestant interests that effectively “networked” in some sort of broad transcendentalist way that the Catholics and Jews had always done.
The United States was founded by Protestants, and if the Great Awakenings are any indication, they were also at each other’s throats over many religious disputes with their holiest of holies, the New Testament, interpreted so differently by the fractious children of the Reformation that some don’t even believe that the others are actually even Christians at all. (Apparently American Evangelicals get to unilaterally decide this.)
Clearly, American history itself made the Separation of Church and State, favored by deists like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, an essential feature of the new Republic.
One thing that the Founders did not well anticipate was the growth of political parties and factions. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers No. 10, interest-group pluralism was like air to a flame ─ and literally essential for political life.
But the problem was that immediately the bickering political parties drew their battle lines. Secretary Hamilton led the Federalist Party but could not get along with President Adams, a fellow Federalist and the second man to hold the nation’s highest office. At the time of Hamilton’s 1804 death by the bullet fired by Vice President Aaron Burr, a fellow lawyer from New York City, whom Hamilton disliked more than the third President Thomas Jefferson, the former Treasury Secretary and now militia General considered the American experiment on the brink of failure like the Revolution in France. (Napoleon Bonaparte had already seized power in a coup d’état in 1799.)
The New York lawyer and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr fled the jurisdiction after the famous duel, served out his term of office until 1805, and President Jefferson later tried unsuccessfully to convict the former Vice President with treason in 1807 (unrelated to the deadly duel at Weehawken, New Jersey).
Anyways, the Federalist Party soon fell apart after the death of its leader, General Hamilton. And American two-party factions have always been like Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The Center-Right is especially committed to a role of “controlled opposition,” but it is no surprise to me that dodgy plutocratic Eastern Establishment Liberals like four-term President Franklin Roosevelt and his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. considered themselves unironic Jeffersonian Democrats.
Francis Parker Yockey spoke well of Alexander Hamilton and the ideals of the Federalist Party to represent a nationalistic noblesse oblige that is almost absent from our now 250 years of national history.
According to Mister AI:
“Noblesse oblige is a French phrase that translates to ‘nobility obliges’. It means that people who have high social rank, power, wealth, or privilege, have a duty to act honorably, generously, and responsibly toward others, especially those who are less fortunate.”
This is an interesting concept for an American Founding Father who was born illegitimate on a tropical island of an errant Scotish trader (James Hamilton) and whose mother, Rachel Faucette died when Alexander was young (1768). Hamilton, who was then sent as a teenaged bookkeeping apprentice in St. Croix to the American colonies to be educated, and then became a staunch American patriot and General Washington’s aide.
Mister AI summarizes:
“Francis Parker Yockey lamented the ‘tragic defeat of the Federalists by the less worthy among the post-Revolution generation’, claiming that this loss allowed American sectionalism to rise and ultimately led to the Civil War. In his 1948 text Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics (written under the pen name Ulick Varange) and supplementary essays like ‘The Destiny of America’, Yockey viewed early American history through an elitist and authoritarian lens. He expressed admiration for figures like Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist faction for attempting to establish a strong, centralized, and governing authority akin to a monarchy or high statecraft, rather than yielding to the individualistic, materialistic, and egalitarian democratic trends that later dominated American political culture.”
If we need to have a Deep State to get it done, it should be OUR Deep State.
🙂
So ultimately, the Anglos who created the United States (and effectively ruled it for its first 120+ years) didn’t set up a semi-official, parapolitical background institution to ruthlessly defend their creation if necessary. Nor were their descendants able to set such a thing up when it clearly became necessary to do so.
They had created one of the world’s greatest nations, but they weren’t able to endow it with its own self-propelled will-to-power, to make the system protect itself (even against its own rules and supposed “reason”, “progress” or morality”). That’s an almost metaphysical failure!
In Taoism, there are two fundamental polar forces – “Yin”, the female principle that dissipates, and “Yang”, the male principle that concentrates.
The British Liberal tradition worships freedom, rebellion and pluralism because it views power as the root cause of evil (power = centralization = tyranny). That is not how Catholic nations thought, nor how the Prussians who unified Germany did.
This ideal of anarchy really has the downside of making it impossible to effectively concentrate “will”, making Anglo-founded societies particularly “Yin” in the metapolitical dimension. Hence, they were taken over by the most opposite group(s) – those with the most supremacist, tyrannical mindset.
I’d say geography plays a large role as well. The deep state is easy to organize when there a few competing major power centers in the country. London, Paris, Berlin, Stockholm, Moscow, Petersburg – most European states eventually centralized their power geographically in the capital region. The Habsburg Austria was eventually torn apart as the major cities became hotbeds for ethnic ambitions with aspiring elites: Prague, Budapest, Cracow and Lvov for example.
Modern Ukraine is an another good example of this dysfunction. Controlling Kiev hasn’t meant anything if you haven’t secured the support in Dnepropetrovsk (now Dnepr/Dnipro) and Donetsk at least. Few presidents tried establishing themselves at the top, but with no success, the latest attempt ending with the Maidan coup and the current one under regular fire from NABU investigations.
Looking at the USA I could ask which city provides the best image of the entire country: the Washington D.C., the New York or the L.A.? The size and the pace of the westward expansion might have played a role as well, spreading the emerging powers too widely. The former dominions of Canada and Australia are of the Anglo-Saxon origin as well, yet remain more centralized.
There was no “Maidan coup.”
Good point. So if the US doesn’t have a natural geographic-urban center, it will be ruled by something that is not localized – an ideology or a group of “anywheres”.
“Hence, they were taken over by the most opposite group(s) – those with the most supremacist, tyrannical mindset.”
Which group could that be, I wonder? Which one group most exhibits that mindset.
Brilliant article! The jews started the rumors of “deep state,” and the “military industrial complex” to divert attention from their role in running America, and the assassination of JFK. This will be my selection for article of the month. 🦈
Saint Jack wasn’t that important ─ although he is deified by older generations, and his holy work basically moved on without him. The Jews and Leftists actually called it “Camelot.”
JFK was shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a lone anarcho-Marxist and ex-U.S. Marine with dyslexia and an estranged Russian wife, and hardly any close friends.
Lee Harvey Oswald took three fairly easy shots with his very low cost surplus Italian WWII Carcano rifle onto the Presidential parade route from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building at historic Dealey Plaza, where he worked as a warehouse clerk.
Oswald hit the President twice, at least once fatally, plus severely wounding the Governor. And he was seen scampering away by a co-worker, who assumed that he was just leaving for lunch since he did not recall him bringing a sack lunch with him that day.
After the assassination, Oswald had trouble getting out of the traffic jam near Dealey Plaza by city bus and instead hopped into a taxi at the Greyhound Bus station at 205 S. Lamar St.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EamqRqJoRgkCMgqZ7
The cab ride cost Oswald a whopping 90 cents to go the two miles to where he lived in a cheap boarding house on N. Beckley Ave. in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas (now a museum).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GDvzJcRwJcS3VVzJ6
But Oswald did not want the cab driver to know exactly where he currently lived, so he got off down the street, not far from the apartment on 214 W. Neely St. where he used to live with his wife Marina, where she had photographed him with his rifle and pistol and waving Marxist literature on March 31, 1963, just before he took the potshot at “Fascist” General Ted Walker at his upscale Dallas home on April 10, 1963.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DZxd15q9NAZ4i3hw8
Oswald was home barely long enough to change his shirt and grab his .38 caliber snub-nosed Smith & Wesson revolver. He hoped to catch another bus before the previously obtained transfer ticket expired and hopefully get out of Dallas.
The Oswalds’ old apartment on Neely St. and Oswald’s new digs at the boarding house on Beckley was not far from where Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was shot on E. 10th St. at N. Patton Ave. with Oswald’s modified .38 Special revolver, and the Texas Theater on Jefferson Blvd. where he was captured after being seen sneaking in without paying by the nearby Hudson’s Shoe store manager after darting up to his store suspiciously. The Texas Theater was a neighborhood venue that Oswald and his wife had likely used when they lived in the Oak Cliff neighborhood there together.
When officer Tippit saw Oswald in the late morning after the assassination, he obviously resembled the missing TSBD shooting suspect’s height and build, and saw him acting suspiciously and galloping furtively on foot on the way to another bus stop.
Tippit pulled his patrol car over and approached Oswald on 10th St. near Patton Ave. Oswald was probably surprised that he had gotten so far away because he really had no clear escape plan. He likedly hoped to escape to Mexico and then to Cuba where the “real” revolution was going on.
Oswald in a panic shot officer Tippet four times with his British Lend-Lease surplus .38/200 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver, later modified to .38 Special with a shortened barrel. This was seen by several witnesses. Oswald immediately reloaded, dumping the identifying used brass shell casings at the scene. Waving the gun, Oswald ran right past a cab driver stopped at 10th and Patton who was eating his lunch.
The bullets in Tippit’s body were too damaged to be linked to the rifling in the shortened-barrel of Oswald’s revolver, but the shell casings left at the scene had a tell-tale signature since they were .38 Specials, and the gun was originally manufactured for the weaker .38 S&W caliber, or .38/200 grain as the British called it.
The S&W Model 10 “Victory” revolver’s originally-manufactured bore size of .38 S&W was exactly 0.361 inches or 9.2 mm diameter, and was slightly bigger than the 0.357 inches or 9.1 mm bore size of the newer and more powerful .38 Special caliber ─ and so the fired cartridge cases had expanded slightly in the oversized cylinder and the fired lead projectiles had not been scored much by the rifling of the modified short and oversized barrel of the gun in Oswald’s possession.
Oswald, who had snuck into the Texas Theater without paying, and had only about 11 dollars on his person, resisted arrest there after the police were called by the 22-year old manager of the adjacent Hudson’s Shoe store, Mr. Johnny Calvin Brewer.
Oswald was arrested with the revolver that murdered Tippit on his person. Oswald had suspiciously ducked into the alcove at Hudson’s Shoes on Jefferson Ave. moments before when the police cars roared past in response to the nearby Tippit shooting. Brewer, who had been listening to the day’s events on the radio, then called the police and notified the staff at the Texas Theater that a weirdo had just snuck in without paying.
The Kennedy Assassination is about as straighforward as it gets ─ but it has been milked endlessly and throughly obfuscated by the “fake news” media and by Libertarian Jews like Mark Lane, the crackpot journalist and attorney who supposedly represented the Oswald family after Oswald was murdered by small-time Jewish nightclub owner Jacob Rubenstein, aka Jack Ruby, who considered Jack Kennedy to be a Righteous Gentile.
Jack Ruby was a lowlife who owned a burlesque (not nude) nightclub that served watered drinks and barely paid the bills. Ruby roomed with another guy in a Dallas dive apartment and was hardly some mafia kingpin.
Mark Lane endlessly besmirched the Warren Commission Report which got a few minor details wrong but was otherwise bipartisan and essentially correct. Lane also made a career out of coaching frightened witnesses.
A couple of days later, on Sunday morning at the old downtown Dallas jail and municipal court house on Main St. and Harwood St., the national news media were congregrating to cover the transfer of suspect Oswald to a more permanent jail location, and the basement parking garage was filled with reporters and TV crews, all wearing hats, suits, and ties.
The terrestrial microwave infrastructure was laid out in the Downtown area to cover the prisoner transfer on television, an event which was known to them in advance in a show of transparency, and was to be covered live by most of the national news.
The North ramp entrance to the Dallas municipal court parking garage was guarded by a single police officer who was busy directing the police car into the area while sleazy local nightclub owner Jack Ruby, who had a nose for such adventures, just walked right in off the sidewalk.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/53EyNEfgWDjAaJYW6
Ruby was wearing a hat, coat and tie and otherwise looked like any normal pudgy reporter. Ruby was walking by the jail after wiring some cash to an employee from the Western Union office almost next door on Main and Pearl Ave. when he was attracted to the fuss at the courthouse basement parking garage and just walked down the ramp and right in (with his .38 Colt snubbie revolver in his pocket).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3ryyPyd8h75pkKpr5
At Ruby’s murder trial, he was defended by the mercenary San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli, who later tried to play cat and mouse with the Zodiac Killer, and played the Gorgon creature on a rather lame episode of Star Trek. Ruby basically said that he saw Oswald’s smirk whilst being led out in handcuffs and then just let him have it.
Ruby soon died of cancer and may have already been sick. The murder of Oswald was not premeditated before the moment that he saw Oswald in the basement since it was only a coincidence that he saw the activity at the jail just after using the nearby office at Western Union.
NBC broadcast the Ruby-Oswald shooting live to the nation, but Dallas CBS TV reporter Dan Rather, who was propelled to national prominence with the coverage after the Kennedy assassination, narrowly missed the live scoop because when Oswald was shot by Ruby in full view of television just before getting into the police car for the transfer, the CBS network was reluctant to switch their feed away from the solemn ’round the clock Kennedy funeral boilerplate then airing from Washington, DC to something lame like Oswald’s banal Dallas transfer from the old courthouse jail to a more secure venue.
I’ve done TV live shots many times in my youth as a Broadcasting Engineer, and they were always a big pain. In those days, TV cameras were massive and needed to be connected via awkward microwave links, so a lot of TV news action was filmed by smaller B&W motion picture cameras, the film developed, and then broadcast by a film chain machine from the local TV studio itself. The KRLD studio was where Dan Rather actually was at the time of the Ruby-Oswald shooting.
So there was both live and filmed coverage of the Oswald transfer where he was unexpectedly shot dead, plus audio recorded by various reporters ─ and lots of different versions of all of it, which only enhances the verisimilitude of the events.
https://youtu.be/r6PcVCqg3tg?si=F5nxMR9nU92uu7xd
There is much of the same conspiracy nonsense spread about the Bryan Kohberger case, the man who stabbed the four University of Idaho Students to death in 2022 ─ and Tyler Robinson, the “TrantiFa” activist who murdered Charlie Kirk in 2025 on a University campus in Orem, Utah with his Granddad’s sporterized and customized Mauser .30-06 deer rifle.
Kohberger was spared a trial because the hippie-dippie Latah County prosecutor, Bill Thompson, who had just been reelected in Moscow, Idaho is opposed to the Death Penalty and wasn’t really up to it.
“Based” podcasting Negress Candace Owens uses the same “epistemological nihilism” technique about the Charlie Kirk murder that Mark Lane did by making specious connections about nonsense and then spreading doubt. Israeli aircraft, Mossad spooks, Grassy Knolls, whatever.
In fact, Oswald was barely even on the FBI radar at the time, and the most investigating that the Feds did before the Kennedy assassination was that they wanted a current address on him as a former Soviet defector, so agent James Hosty, who was far more interested in going after Klansmen than Commies, visited Oswald’s estranged wife, where she was staying with an older Quaker busybody friend named Ruth Paine in her Irving, Texas home, a Dallas area borough about ten miles from Dealey Plaza.
Oswald could rarely hold a job for long, and as a favor to Marina, who was teaching Mrs. Paine some basic Russian language skills, she had gotten Lee his new warehouse job at the Texas School Book Depository building merely by making some phone calls.
Marina Oswald was terrified by Agent Hosty’s FBI visit since she knew that her husband had previously taken a pot shot at General Walker with his rifle which was hidden in Mrs. Paine’s garage (unbeknowst to Mrs. Paine).
Oswald stormed into the Dallas FBI office to complain to them about harassment, but nobody of importance was there at the time, and nobody was very interested in him anyway ─ even though Oswald had recently made a bus trip to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City.
Oswald wanted to send Marina and the kids back home to Minsk in Russia ─ but she didn’t want to go back ─ and he hoped to emigrate himself to Cuba to join Castro’s revolutionaries. Oswald left Marina the last of his meager paycheck when he stayed for the last time at the Paine residence with her on the Thursday evening before the Kennedy assassination, and left her a cryptic breakup note about being captured or killed or something weird. Marina tossed the note.
Oswald sometimes stayed over on the weekends with Marina at Mrs. Paine’s house, but never on a Thursday evening work week, so Mrs. Paine thought that odd, but they were breaking up after all. Ruth Paine was a Liberal Christian busybody and her modest Irving home is now a museum.
Friday morning, Oswald with his disassembled rifle wrapped in string and brown packing paper was driven to his job at the TSBD building by Mrs. Paine’s young neighbor, Buell Wesley Frazier, who worked with Oswald there and was probably his only friend, though he hadn’t known him long.
Mr. Frazier was the brother of Mrs. Paine’s best friend and neighbor, Mrs. Randle, which is how Mrs. Paine heard of the warehouse job opening at the Texas School Book Depository building,
Oswald told Frazier that the longish package was curtain rods that Mrs. Paine had given him for his room at the Beckley Ave. boarding house. Frazier also saw Oswald scamper away in the confusion after the Kennedy-Connally shooting, an event which everybody was still processing, but Frazier assumed that Lee was only leaving for lunch since he had not brought in a sack lunch as he usually did.
The 19-year old Buell Wesley Frazier, who is now aged 82, and has been extensively interviewed by the Oral History Project at the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, owned a car and had driven Oswald to work from Mrs. Paine’s house in Irving on that fateful Friday morning of the assassination ─ November 22, 1963. He often did this on Monday morning when Lee had stayed with Marina at Mrs. Paine’s house at Irving on the weekends. Mr. Frazier was treated rather roughly by Captain J.W. “Will” Fritz of the Dallas PD because he was initially believed to have been Oswald’s co-conspirator.
The best book on the JFK assassination is Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the massive two-volume 2007 tome by Vincent Bugliosi, the man who prosecuted the Manson family. The book weighs about six pounds and leaves no stone unturned.
There is another good one on the Tippet shooting by Dale K. Myers, Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit (1998).
The 2003 Gerald Posner book Case Closed on the Kennedy assassination is fine too if your time is short. Yes, Posner is a Jew.
Vincent Bugliosi and the Libertarian anti-Death Penalty Wyoming “cowboy lawyer” Gerry Spence faced off in a mock TV trial of the Oswald case in London in 1986, and Spence came up short.
Oswald was cheated out of his day in court by Jewish nutcase Jack Ruby, who murdered him, but like Tyler Robinson, who will hopefully go to trial soon in Utah and face the Death Penalty, Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty as hell.
Otherwise no Joos or spooks involved.
🙂
Good article. Question: I may have missed it, but if the genuine deep state is a person guided by the common good of the people, whose to say that heredity qualifies such a person to correctly evaluate the situation and make the best decision? Just a thought.
If part of the job description is a status that is not contingent on the will of the electorate, then being a hereditary monarch qualifies a person for the job. It doesn’t necessarily qualify him in terms of the quality of his judgment, but it does remove one of the main incentives for elected heads of state to avoid doing bloody but necessary deeds to preserve the common good.
The deep state Mr Johnson envisions for the US reminds me of a post by a now-defunct esoteric blog: https://web.archive.org/web/20130308192318/http://thevicarslamp.blogspot.com/p/athenas-men.html
“Athena’s Men
In her name, we are bound to fight for freedom, equality and justice. This is our pledge, our bond, our birthright.
She is the Goddess of the State – a concept like Columbia – for Columbia and Athena are one.”
“We are the Owls. We have been defending Democracy since the days of old Athens. We are called Athena’s Men, but we are far more than an old mystery cult. The occult forces that the NWO and the so-called Illuminati represent are our natural enemies, and they are no different in form and function now than were those who moved Xerxes, Attila and Temujin before. We do not fear them or their familiars. We too are wizards.”
^
It’s lamentable that such an organization does not exist in our world.
… or maybe it does, and someone like Thomas Massie is a member? This is only half a joke because Massie, a principled Libertarian, is a member of DeMolay International, a Masonic youth organization, see:
https://www.facebook.com/DeMolay.International/posts/we-wanted-to-congratulate-congressman-thomas-massie-on-his-re-election-to-the-ho/10156795119085750/
“Third, they must place white [sic] racial idealists in all positions of power and influence. In such a society, we need not fear cultural and political pluralism, because as long as anti-whiteness [sic] is out of bounds, pretty much everything else can be in play.”
Excellent article. Yeah, a good candidate for the best of the month.
🙂
The above analysis of the concept of a Deep State has greatly expanded my understanding of the term.
Quote from this article – “the smug, lying bureaucrats who stymied Trump” – that’s a good description of Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and many other subversives. These are the degenerate traitors who cheat the system to destroy our race. However, by the definition of Deep State given above, America has never had a real Deep State. Instead we now have a kind of anti-Deep-State, a loose coalition of “looting tribes“, who work for our destruction.
Elear: September 27, 2026 …Looking at the USA I could ask which city provides the best image of the entire country: the Washington D.C., the New York or the L.A.?
—
None of the above, not for a future White nation.
Scott: September 28, 2026 Saint Jack wasn’t that important ─ although he is deified by older generations, and his holy work basically moved on without him. The Jews and Leftists actually called it “Camelot.”
—
Thanks, Scott. Older generations were fooled. New generations are wising up to that Camelot and “holy” civil rights crap, thanks to articles like this from John Massaro:
“Just Another Kennedy” at nationalvanguard.org that exposes the entire disgusting clan, especially sleazy RFK, Jr.
I put a fact about JFK under that essay at NV today that many on our side, young and old, have never known:
… I just found a fun fact about the phony who dared to set the ambitious goal of the U.S. landing on the moon before the end of the 1960s. That goal was reached despite JFK’s insistence to promote a Negro into NASA’s astronaut training program. The problem was, as hard as they tried they could not find a Negro with the “Right Stuff” to pass rigorous requirements of astronaut training. Thankfully, American hero Colonel Chuck Yeager pulled the plug on JFK’s candidate, Negro Captain Ed Dwight, becoming an astronaut three days after President Kennedy was assassinated.
Source: Chapter 13 of Paul Hersey’s Whitey on the Moon, The Wrong Stuff–The Ed Dwight Story: John: F. Kennedy’s Crusade To Find and Promote a “Negro Astronaut”
A pro-White state needs a deep state that is different from the deep state of an antiwhite establishment.
War is a key issue.
White people, Americans in particular, generally don’t like wars. Wars are unpopular with Americans. The war against Iran is a fine example; Vietnam was another. Nevertheless, the wars continue, because the antiwhite state sets White preferences aside and privileges the agendas of antiwhite “elites” that want to win their victories at White people’s expense.
An antiwhite deep state with a swollen military-industrial complex didn’t care if White men were being sacrificed for the good of Asians in Korea and then Vietnam; these wars fit into schemes of a liberal global order so away the troops went.
The Israeli-American war on Iran is even clearer. Other than Zionists, hardly anyone in America wanted this war, if only because the prospect of great economic harm was obvious, but here it is.
From an antiwhite perspective, a hugely swollen and overly influential military industrial complex can be and currently is a useful part of your deep state. If you are a Zionist billionaire who thinks of White people as sticks that you can use to beat the enemies of the Jewish State into submission, a huge military budget is good. It will do your work, it will sway policy in the way you want, and if the cost is heavy, it falls mostly on Whites.
A pro-White deep state should include a cheaper, smaller, and less influential military-industrial complex.
There should not be a class of influential warmongers dreaming big dreams with themselves in starring roles, and setting aside as irrelevant the interests and values of the Whites that will pay for this war machine. There should not be politicians like the late senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and there should not be influential lobbies paying for them and empowering them.
You have written elsewhere (my apologies, I cannot recall where) that a constitutional republic is superior to a constitutional monarchy. This is the first time you have suggested the opposite. In any event, that isn’t what I want to get into. My question is, what about a ceremonial president as opposed to an executive president, instead of a monarch? There are many heads of state that wield little executive power, they are more like guardians of the constitution, or umpires. I’m thinking of Singapore, India, Ireland and Germany and so on. They are either popularly elected or appointed by a federal convention or electoral college.
This is one area in which a monarchy is arguably superior to a republic.
A ceremonial elected or appointed head of state is seldom more than a ribbon cutter and banquet host. It really does depend on his constitional role, I suppose, but I can’t think of any examples of such people stepping in in a constitional crisis. Monarchs, unless we are dealing with the absurdity of child monarchs, at least have the trading gravitas of their office and usually they command the military.
Yep. I strongly agree. I’ll just add that Ron and Rand Paul idiot, know it all Libertarians are clueless and worthless in times of Antifa/BLM/Fentanyl Floyd riots, insurrections – same with even “talking” to the worst Islamists.
I also think Kemal AtaTurk and Kemalism is a great model for countries/societies that are more than 50% Islamic. Islam and minority religious (ours) are tolerated and protected, but they are not allowed to threaten the secular state or secular society – if and when that happens, the Turkish military steps in and does a coup – the Islamic extremists get killed or set to El Salvador style maximum security prisons.
That works for me.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.