So, we rise from the rubble...
"International Man: Why does the assassination of JFK still matter today?
Doug Casey: Assassination has always been part and parcel of the political landscape since at least the days of the Egyptian pharaohs. Sometimes, assassinations can change the course of world history. Two outstanding examples are that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, which precipitated Rome's change from a republic to an empire, and that of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, which ignited World War I.
Assassins come in two main flavors. Sometimes, it's simply an individual or group with an ideological difference of opinion, a grudge, or a wish to make a point. That was the case with Ferdinand. Sometimes however, the assassins want to grab the reins of power. That was the case with Caesar.
Which was it with JFK? Was Lee Harvey Oswald a solo actor? Or was he part of a greater conspiracy? I'm partial to the latter view. Even assuming that Oswald was even the assassin—which is unlikely.
International Man: In his first week in office, President Trump issued an Executive Order to release the remaining JFK files. After a lengthy delay, the government finally made the files public nearly two months later. Tucker Carlson recently remarked: "There is active pressure on elected officials to stop this disclosure… now, in 2025. Who is powerful enough to intimidate people into delaying this release? What force is influencing the new administration to prevent the disclosure?" What are your thoughts?
Doug Casey: The Deep State in general, and the CIA in particular, are powerful institutions with lots of money, force, and cultures that tend to close ranks when under attack. Their members are intensely loyal not just because, on the upside, the institution treats them well and fills their rice bowls, but can give them immense wealth and privileges. Betraying them is dangerous. That's why members of the praetorian agencies like the CIA and NSA are typically much more loyal to their employer and coworkers than the government or even the country itself. They'll defend the institution that they've built their lives around.
There are dozens of armed entities within the US government. The most intimidating include the 17 comprising the so-called Intelligence Community, as it's officially known. They resemble the Praetorian guards of the Roman Empire. It's perversely amusing doublespeak that they're referred to as a "community," which sounds friendly and benign. Tulsi Gabbard is unlikely to have any success reining them in. It's more likely that she'll either be evicted or co-opted by them.
They have unit cohesion. They have armed forces. They have cultures of intense secrecy and large "black budgets." They're used to circulating in the halls of power, which puts them in a position to understand and, therefore—quite naturally—disrespect the people who are the country's nominal rulers.
The front-facing politicos are dangerous enough. But the powers behind the throne are the real danger. Especially the CIA, because of its history and traditions and the fact that the things it does are largely kept secret by law. "National security," you know…
There's no question that a certain type of individual is drawn to an organization that specializes in black budgets, black activities, and doing things that nobody can know about. As they say, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."
Anybody who threatens a serious investigation—forget about abolition—of an organization like that is putting their life at serious risk. Who's powerful enough to intimidate people into delaying the release of the Kennedy documents for six decades? Anyway, I suspect the most important files have been burned. The JFK assassination, as far as I'm concerned, was 100% a government operation.
International Man: Who do you believe was truly behind JFK's assassination, and what were their motives?
Doug Casey: JFK said that he wanted to break the CIA into 1,000 different pieces. I think he found that almost impossible to do. And it would be harder, much harder, to do today than it was back then. The CIA has its own large and extravagant campus at Langley, Virginia, where these people are actually in a world of their own. Their 25,000 employees are much better at self-promotion than gathering intelligence, having famously failed to predict the rise of Castro in Cuba, the triumph of the Mullahs in Iran, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. But they excel in getting writers and movie producers to apotheosize them.
In 1964, it could only have been the CIA. The NSA was newly hatched and just figuring out how to gather electronic information. It didn't have the kind of tentacles it does today when it knows absolutely everything about everybody. Blackmail is much more effective than wet work.
I don't think it would have been the FBI. Although the FBI was very powerful, it was strictly under the control of J Edgar Hoover. It wouldn't have made sense for Hoover to risk everything with an assassination, considering the blackmail power that he had.
But who knows? You'll recall the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas at a public concert when 60 people were killed and over 400 wounded. The "investigation" results impressed me as totally phony, and the completely nonsensical story they fabricated was immediately swept under the rug. They should at least have called in the actors who played in the popular show, CSI Las Vegas.
The powers that be don't seriously investigate crimes which might have political fallout. We still don't know the full backstory on the two Trump assassination attempts just before the election. Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.
Police and, especially, Federal intelligence agencies are in an ideal position to hide or quash their own crimes. Don't expect the truth to come out, even with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino running the FBI. They've got to realize that they're putting their lives on the line if they turn over too many rocks.
International Man: If a group of people can orchestrate the assassination of a sitting president in broad daylight and get away with it, what else might they be capable of, and what does this reveal about the true power structure?
Doug Casey: It used to be fairly easy to assassinate a president. The Lincoln (1865), Garfield (1881), and McKinley (1901) attempts succeeded. Various others (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, FDR in 1933, Truman in 1950, Reagan in 1981, and Trump in 2024) could easily have succeeded.
But it's gotten much harder over time. Whenever the president goes out in public, an entire area is locked down. His limousine is a thinly disguised tank, and Air Force One has every countermeasure known to man. The President and close associates are guarded more closely than a Roman emperor was. This is a sign of sickness in the State. Because most of the assassinations of emperors were perpetrated by Praetorians or other insiders. Trump should look within, not outside.
I'm speaking to you right now from Uruguay. Uruguayan presidents wander around in public, ride their motorcycles, and live in normal houses. They don't have battalions of bodyguards. There's little danger of their being assassinated because not only is the country economically, ethnically, and politically stable, but the president doesn't have enough power—symbolic or real—to make him worth shooting.
The way to look at an assassination, as I intimated a few moments ago, is to consider whether it is being done by outsiders or insiders. An outsider generally just wants to create chaos; they don't really care what happens afterward. Insiders, however, are interested in capturing the State and replacing the warm body with somebody in their own group.
With Kennedy, it was definitely a question of insiders trying to capture the State. I'd put my finger on his VP, Lyndon Johnson, and the CIA. Many volumes have been written about this, and we can't recount them here. But that's my conclusion.
International Man: The term "conspiracy theorist" was originally coined to discredit those who questioned the official narrative of the JFK assassination—that a "magic bullet" was responsible for the president's death. Today, "conspiracy theorist" and similar labels are still used to ridicule those who engage in independent and critical thinking. What are your thoughts on this tactic, and what can be done to counter it?
Doug Casey: The CIA coined the phrase. It was clever to create that meme. They're specialists in psychological warfare. When you're trying to upset or gain control of the apparatus of the State, discrediting the people currently in power is almost as good, or maybe better, than killing them. Bodies, or empty suits, can be easily replaced. Ideas linger.
Meme warfare, psychological warfare, is increasingly important in today's world of mass media. In the past, we had thousands of newspapers with diverse opinions. There were groups of newspapers run by people like Pulitzer and Hearst, but today's media is ubiquitous with radio, TV, movies, and print. The Internet, with its thousands of bloggers and podcasters, provides some countercurrents, of course. But news isn't official unless it's in the New York Times or on a major TV network.
Today, the media and the State have merged together as a practical matter. The people in power (the Deep State, if you will) know it's critical that the public are all on the same page when it comes to major issues. The public can argue about whether chocolate or vanilla, or red or blue, is better. That makes them feel relevant. But big philosophical issues are off the table. They dare not, for instance, question whether the Intelligence Community has their interests at heart. Or whether a Deep State exists. If they do, the plebs may start questioning all aspects of Authority and stop obeying instructions. If their psychology is changed, things can fall apart.
Physical force doesn't keep an elephant tied to a tiny rope; it's his psychology. It's important that the public think they know what's happening and believe that what "we," or the government, is doing is right. In other words, changing someone's psychology and beliefs can be as effective as killing them physically. Killing someone's credibility is critical to power mongers.
Physical bodies are basically replaceable like puppets, but killing the ideas they represent is more important. Assassinations are important, but there are more important things. Information war is a major front of World War 3. It's critical that all the details—no exceptions—of not only the JFK assassination but every other government mystery should be an open book. Who are these people that think they have the right to decide what you do or don't know?"
