Believe Nothing Until it is Officially Denied

The original guerrilla journalist, Claude Cockburn and the journalism of subversion. In the tumultuous arena of 20th-century political journalism, few figures cut as dashing, contrarian, and intellectually formidable a profile as Claude Cockburn. To review his biography, Believe Nothing Until it is Officially Denied, is not merely to assess a chronicle of a life, but to excavate the origins of a radical journalistic philosophy. The book’s title, Cockburn’s most famous and enduring maxim, serves as both a guiding principle and a battle cry for a form of reporting that is as relevant today as it was during the ideological trench warfare of the 1930s. This biography, pieced together from his own prolific writings and correspondence, presents Cockburn not just as a reporter, but as the archetypal "guerrilla journalist"—a writer who understood that in a world saturated with official propaganda, the truth is a subversive force that must be hunted down, often from the margins, with wit, courage, and a profound distrust of authority. Cockburn didn’t just report on history; he provided the essential, gritty texture that official narratives deliberately sand away, crafting a body of work that serves as both a historical record and a moral compass.

The term "guerrilla journalism," while not one Cockburn himself necessarily used, perfectly encapsulates his method and legacy. It implies a style of engagement that is nimble, unorthodox, and often conducted outside the conventional structures of mainstream media. It is journalism as a form of intellectual combat, where the journalist operates behind enemy lines of accepted narrative, using surprise, deep contextual knowledge, and a commitment to a higher truth to undermine the official story. Through this biography, we see how Cockburn, from his posts in Berlin, Washington, and most famously from the front lines of the Spanish Civil War, pioneered this approach, creating a template for a journalism that is not a passive recording of events, but an active and morally charged intervention into them.

The biography meticulously charts Cockburn’s transformation from an insider to a permanent outsider. His early career could have set him on a path to becoming a pillar of the British establishment. Educated at Berkhamsted and Keble College, Oxford, and then recruited into the Times Office, and a stipend from Oxford the young Cockburn was positioned to become a discreet servant of empire. His posting to Berlin in the late 1920s, however, proved to be an Damascene moment. Witnessing the rise of the Nazis and the paralyzing inadequacy of the diplomatic response, he grew disillusioned with the culture of euphemism and compromise. The biography suggests that it was here, amidst the stormtroopers and the failing Weimar Republic, that his core belief solidified: that official sources were not merely mistaken but were often actively engaged in concealing the brutal realities of power.

His rupture with this world was decisive. He resigned from the Times Office and plunged into journalism, first with The Times and then, more significantly, by founding his own newsletter, The Week, in 1933. The Week was the purest early expression of his guerrilla ethos. It was small, agile, and independent, operating on a shoestring budget from a tiny office in London. It bypassed the traditional media apparatus entirely, relying instead on a network of well-placed contacts, gossip, leaked documents, and Cockburn’s own brilliant, mordant analysis. The Week did not report news; it deconstructed it. It specialized in revealing the connections, financial interests, and backroom deals that lay behind the public statements of politicians and businessmen.

This was guerrilla journalism in its foundational form. Cockburn understood that power operates on multiple levels: the public performance and the private reality. While the mainstream press reported the former, his mission was to expose the latter. A classic example, detailed in the biography, was his relentless pursuit of the pro-appeasement "Cliveden Set," whom he identified as a powerful social and political network advocating for a rapprochement with Nazi Germany. By naming them, charting their connections, and highlighting their influence over the British government, Cockburn used his small-circulation newsletter to punch far above its weight, shaping the debate and infuriating the establishment. This was not objective reporting in the sterile, modern sense; it was advocacy journalism rooted in a fierce anti-fascism and a conviction that the public was being systematically misled.

The Spanish Crucible: If The Week was the theory, the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was the practice. Cockburn’s reporting from Spain for the British Communist newspaper, the Daily Worker, under the pseudonym Frank Pitcairn, represents the apex of his guerrilla journalism. The Spanish conflict was the first great media war of the 20th century, a battleground of narratives where journalists were not just observers but participants. Cockburn arrived not as a dispassionate correspondent but as a committed anti-fascist, a Communist Party member who saw the war as a defining struggle against global fascism.

This explicit partisanship is a crucial, and often challenging, aspect of his guerrilla identity. From a traditional journalistic perspective, it compromises his objectivity. From Cockburn’s own perspective, however, neutrality in the face of fascism was a moral abdication. His commitment was to the "truth" of the Republican cause, which he believed was being strangled by a combination of fascist aggression and the hypocritical Non-Intervention Pact enforced by Britain and France. His journalism, therefore, became a weapon in that fight. The biography is filled with vivid accounts of his methods in Spain. He was a kinetic presence, constantly moving between Madrid, Barcelona, and the various fronts, often under fire. He didn't just interview generals; he drank with anarchist militiamen, debated with Trotskyists in Barcelona cafes, and witnessed the brutal reality of aerial bombardment in working-class neighborhoods. This physical immersion was key to his guerrilla approach. He gathered intelligence from the ground up, trusting the testimony of soldiers and civilians over official communiqués.

His most famous, and admittingly controversial, act of guerrilla journalism was his reporting on the defence of Madrid in November 1936. As Franco’s Nationalist forces advanced on the city, poised for a decisive victory, the Republican government fled to Valencia. The official story was one of impending collapse. Cockburn, however, embedded with the International Brigades and the passionate, if disorganized, Republican militias, sensed a different story. He witnessed the fierce determination of the defenders and the arrival of the first International Brigades, which provided a crucial morale boost. Famously, he filed a dispatch proclaiming the legendary cry of the Republican defense, "¡No Pasarán!"  and describing the city’s spirited resistance.

The biography does not shy away from the fact that Cockburn’s reporting often blurred the line between reportage and propaganda. He was involved in creating and disseminating stories for their psychological impact. The most notable example is the mythologized account of the "German, Italian, and Moorish" hordes at the gates of Madrid, a narrative that, while containing kernels of truth, was simplified and amplified for maximum emotional and political effect. For Cockburn, this was a legitimate tactic. In a war of information, where the other side was receiving ample support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the Republican cause needed its own myths to survive. The "truth" he was serving was the larger truth of the anti-fascist struggle, which justified the deployment of potent, if not strictly factual, narratives. This remains the most complex and challenging facet of his legacy: a journalism that so deeply identified with a cause that it was willing to shape facts in service of what it perceived as a greater truth.

Cockburn’s guerrilla journalism was not solely reliant on courage and commitment; it was powered by a formidable intellectual arsenal. The biography brilliantly showcases his primary weapons: satire, a genius for connection, and a belief in a "higher realism." His use of satire was devastating. He understood that to simply rebut a lie was often ineffective. To ridicule it, to expose its absurdity, was far more potent. In The Week, he would take the pompous pronouncements of statesmen and, through a process of sly juxtaposition and ironic commentary, reduce them to nonsense. This was a classic guerrilla tactic: instead of a frontal assault, a flanking movement that undermined the enemy’s credibility. He believed that laughter could be a revolutionary tool, disenchanting the powerful and emboldening the doubting.

Secondly, Cockburn was a master of what we might now call "networking" or "connective analysis." Long before the internet, he operated a human intelligence network. His genius lay in drawing lines between seemingly disconnected events—a bank loan in London, a political assassination in Vienna, an arms shipment from Italy. He saw the world as a web of interests, and his journalism was the process of tracing the sticky threads of money and power that held it together. This method, pioneered in The Week, is the direct antecedent of the kind of investigative journalism practiced today by outlets like Greyzone or the organized researchers like Kit Klarenberg. It is journalism that rejects the superficial story in favor of the deep, structural narrative.

Underpinning all of this was his philosophy of a "higher realism." In his view, the so-called "objective" reporting of the mainstream press—which presented "both sides" of an issue without critical analysis—was often profoundly unrealistic. It gave equal weight to truth and lies, to the aggressor and the victim. Cockburn’s realism was different. It sought to describe the underlying forces, the true motivations, and the likely consequences that the official story sought to obscure. Reporting that Franco was a devout Catholic defending Spain from communism was, in a literal sense, reporting what Franco said. But in Cockburn’s "higher realism," it was a lie. The true story was one of a reactionary military uprising against a democratically elected government, backed by foreign fascist powers. His commitment was to this deeper, more analytical, and politically engaged truth.

The biography does not end with Spain but follows Cockburn through his later years—his time in the United States, his return to Ireland, and his continued writing. While his peak influence was in the 1930s, the biography makes a compelling case for his enduring relevance. Claude Cockburn’s  journalism established a lineage that runs directly to the present day. One can see his spirit in the work of his own sons, particularly Patrick and Alexander Cockburn, who became formidable iconoclastic journalists. Patrick’s ground-level, skeptical reporting from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, which consistently challenges official Western narratives, is a direct inheritance and refinement of his father’s method. The title of this biography, after all, was borrowed by Patrick for one of his own collections, a deliberate and meaningful passing of the torch.

Beyond his immediate family, Cockburn’s influence is felt in the tradition of pamphleteering, in the rise of the underground press in the 1960s, and in the modern world of Substacks and independent digital media. The Week was, in essence, an early and highly successful Substack—a one-man operation that bypassed traditional gatekeepers to speak directly to a dedicated audience. Today’s independent journalists, who use digital platforms to challenge corporate media consensus and official government lines, are the spiritual descendants of Cockburn, operating with the same guerrilla ethos.

His methods are a vital antidote to the challenges of the 21st-century media landscape. In an age of "fake news," his core maxim: "Believe nothing until it is officially denied" is a more essential survival tool than ever. It trains the mind to approach all official pronouncements with radical skepticism. His emphasis on connective analysis is crucial for understanding a globalized world where financial, political, and military power are deeply intertwined. And his use of satire as a weapon finds its modern equivalent in the meme wars and the sharp, deconstructive comedy of shows that dissect political hypocrisy. Of course, the biography also forces us to confront the enduring dilemmas of his approach. His willing entanglement with propaganda in Spain raises timeless questions about the relationship between truth and partisanship. Can a journalist be a committed combatant and a reliable witness? Cockburn would have argued that the pretense of neutrality was the greater deception, and that in a world of competing propagandas, one must choose the side of justice. This is not a comfortable answer, but it is a coherent one that continues to challenge the foundations of journalistic ethics.

Believe Nothing Until it is Officially Denied is not a hagiography. It presents Claude Cockburn in all his brilliant, flawed, and contradictory glory: a charismatic intellectual, a loyal comrade, a sometimes very reckless adventurer, and a man whose deep political commitments led him to justify, or at least overlook, the dark side of the Soviet system he for so long supported. Yet, in doing so, it gives us a far more valuable portrait than any sanitized tribute could. The biography’s greatest achievement is its successful argument for Cockburn’s centrality to the history of modern journalism. He demonstrated that reporting could be a form of radical action. He proved that a single individual, armed with a typewriter, a sharp mind, and a network of sources, could hold the powerful to account in a way that large, institutional media often failed to do. His guerrilla journalism: autonomous, skeptical, satirical, and structurally analytical, provides a powerful model for anyone who believes that the purpose of the press is to speak truth to power, not to transcribe its press releases.

In our current era of resurgent authoritarianism, perpetual war, and algorithmic disinformation, Claude Cockburn’s voice, as captured in this essential biography, rings out with a clarion call. He reminds us that the official story is rarely, if ever, the whole story. He teaches us that truth is not a passive commodity to be consumed, but a contested territory to be fought for. To read his life is to understand that the most vital journalism is often that which operates like a guerrilla force; nimble, committed, and unafraid to strike at the heart of the lies that sustain the powerful.

Occupied: Denmark's Adaptation and Resistance to German Occupation 1940-1945

In the vast historiography of World War II, the experiences of smaller nations under Nazi occupation often receive less attention than the grand narratives of major Allied and Axis powers. Denmark, a neutral Scandinavian country with a population of just over three million in 1940, exemplifies this oversight. Its occupation by Nazi Germany from April 9, 1940, to May 5, 1945, was unique in its relative leniency compared to other European countries, yet it was marked by profound internal divisions, subtle shifts in power dynamics, and a gradual escalation from passive accommodation to active resistance. Nathaniel Hong's Occupied: Denmark's Adaptation and Resistance to German Occupation 1940-1945, published in 2012, fills a critical gap as the first comprehensive English-language history of this period in over four decades. 

Drawing on extensive archival research in Denmark and beyond, Hong offers a nuanced, non-judgmental exploration of how Danes navigated the occupation—not through heroic myths alone, but through a complex interplay of cooperation, adaptation, and defiance. Hong's work stands out for its balanced perspective, avoiding the post-war glorification of resistance that dominates Danish national memory while also not excusing collaboration. Instead, it humanizes the Danish experience, examining how ordinary citizens, politicians, and institutions grappled with survival under authoritarian rule. The book spans 374 pages, blending political history with social and economic analysis, and is accessible to both general readers and scholars. Its publication coincides with renewed interest in "small-state" histories of WWII, influenced by global reflections on occupation, resistance, and moral ambiguity in times of crisis. 

As Europe grapples with echoes of nationalism and authoritarianism in the 21st century, Occupied provides timely insights into resilience and compromise. The book weaves together official documents, personal diaries, newspaper clippings, and resistance pamphlets into a cohesive narrative. Unlike some Danish historians who emphasize the "heroic" resistance to bolster national pride, Hong adopts a journalistic ethos—objective, evidence-based, and explanatory. He avoids moralizing, instead framing adaptation as a pragmatic response to overwhelming odds, while highlighting resistance as an evolving, multifaceted phenomenon, his outsider's view provides fresh insights, unburdened by national biases, though some Danish scholars question whether it fully captures local nuances. To appreciate Occupied, one must understand Denmark's precarious position in 1939. A constitutional monarchy since 1849, Denmark prided itself on neutrality, a policy rooted in its geographic vulnerability between Germany and Britain. With a small army and no natural defenses beyond the narrow straits of the Øresund, Denmark had avoided major conflicts since the 19th century. Economically, it was an agrarian exporter of butter, bacon, and eggs to Germany, its largest trading partner, fostering economic interdependence that would later complicate resistance efforts. The outbreak of WWII in September 1939 thrust Denmark into isolation. 

Prime Minister Thorvald Stauning's Social Democratic government pursued strict neutrality, but Nazi ambitions in Scandinavia—securing iron ore from Sweden and naval bases in Norway—sealed Denmark's fate. On April 9, 1940, Operation Weserübung saw German forces invade without declaration of war. Danish defenses crumbled in hours; King Christian X urged surrender to avoid bloodshed, and by noon, Copenhagen was occupied. Unlike Norway's fierce five-week resistance, Denmark's capitulation was swift, earning it the label of "model protectorate" under Reichskommissar Werner Best. There is a good deal of detailing the pre-war politics: the coalition government's fragility, the rise of fascist sympathizers like the Danish National Socialist Workers' Party (DNSAP), and public sentiment favoring peace at any cost. He draws on diplomatic cables and intelligence reports to show how Britain and the Soviet Union offered little support, leaving Denmark exposed. This backdrop of helplessness sets the stage for the book's central tension: how a nation of pacifists balanced survival with sovereignty. 

Hong also notes cultural factors, such as Denmark's strong welfare state and egalitarian society, which influenced collective responses. By framing the occupation within broader Nazi strategies—contrasting it with harsher regimes in Poland or France—Hong underscores Denmark's relative autonomy until 1943, when escalating Allied successes prompted tighter control. This context is crucial, as it explains why initial adaptation was widespread. Hong cites economic data: German orders accounted for 50% of Danish exports by 1941, sustaining employment but tying the economy to the Reich. Socially, the occupation disrupted daily life minimally at first—no curfews, no mass arrests—fostering a false sense of normalcy. Yet, subtle erosions, like censorship of the press and anti-Jewish rhetoric, sowed seeds of discontent. Hong's prelude chapters effectively demystify the "why" of Danish compliance, preparing readers for the moral ambiguities ahead. 

Hong also delves into the role of the Danish authorities, particularly the police and judiciary, in upholding the policy of cooperation. For most of the occupation, the Danish police acted as an auxiliary force for the Germans, arresting saboteurs and anti-German activists, thereby freeing up German troops for other duties. This created a deeply conflicted institution, one that would later be tasked with rounding up the Jewish population and, after the war, with punishing collaborators. Hong’s treatment of these institutions is fair but unsparing, showing how their commitment to maintaining order and the rule of (Danish) law inadvertently served the interests of the occupier. Occupied unfolds chronologically, tracing the occupation's evolution from uneasy coexistence to open conflict and liberation. 

While no explicit table of contents is detailed in promotional materials, the structure can be inferred from summaries and reviews as a linear progression divided into phases: initial occupation (1940-1941), deepening cooperation (1941-1943), the turn to resistance (1943-1944), and the endgame (1944-1945), followed by post-war reflections. The book vividly recounts the morning of April 9, using eyewitness accounts from soldiers and civilians to convey the surreal speed of defeat. He examines the Stauning-Best agreement, which allowed Denmark a semblance of self-governance in exchange for non-aggression. This "cooperation policy" (samarbejdspolitikken) is portrayed not as cowardice but as calculated diplomacy, preserving democratic institutions and averting famine. Later the book shifts to the "quiet occupation" era. Hong explores economic exploitation: Germany extracted agricultural goods while Denmark rationed food, leading to black markets and class tensions. Politically, he analyzes the role of the Folketing (parliament) and the king's symbolic resistance, such as his 1941 New Year's speech subtly criticizing Nazism. 

Socially, chapters delve into cultural life—cabaret satire, jazz as subtle protest—and the plight of minorities, including early anti-Semitic measures. The pivot comes in 1943, with Hong dedicating significant space to the "August Crisis." As Allied bombings intensified and sabotage acts multiplied, German authorities dissolved the government, imposing direct rule. The book details the general strike in Copenhagen, deportations to concentration camps, and the flight of 7,200 Jews to Sweden in a remarkable humanitarian effort organized by ordinary Danes. Resistance escalates: illegal presses (building on Hong's prior expertise), sabotage of railways, and intelligence for the Allies via the SOE (Special Operations Executive). Final sections cover the liberation and describes the chaotic 1945 spring, with German retreats, British advances, and internal purges. Post-war, he examines the "settling of accounts" (opgøret), trials of collaborators, and the myth-making that elevated resistance heroes while marginalizing adapters. 

 Throughout, the Occupied interweaves farmers smuggling food, teachers defying curriculum changes—to humanize the macro-history. Maps, photographs, and appendices (including timelines and key figures) enhance readability. The narrative builds tension, from resignation to empowerment, culminating in a sober assessment of costs: 3,300 Danish deaths, economic ruin, but preserved national spirit. One of Occupied's strongest contributions is its unflinching examination of adaptation—the "non-heroic" responses that sustained daily life under occupation. Hong argues well that cooperation was not monolithic betrayal but a spectrum of survival strategies, from passive compliance to active alignment with Nazis. He dissects the policy's architects: Stauning's government viewed it as a shield against harsher measures, allowing elections in 1943 (though under duress) and maintaining social services. Economically, adaptation meant exporting to Germany while importing coal and machinery, preventing collapse. 

Hong uses trade statistics to show how this interdependence created vested interests; farmers prospered, industrialists hedged bets. Socially, he explores "inner emigration"—Danes retreating into private spheres, listening to BBC broadcasts covertly. Yet, Hong reveals cracks: corruption in rationing bred resentment, and cultural censorship stifled dissent, fostering underground networks. Morally, the book navigates gray areas without absolution. He profiles figures like Erik Scavenius, foreign minister who negotiated with Best, as pragmatists rather than villains. Collaborationists, including DNSAP members who joined auxiliary police, are contextualized amid ideological fringes. Hong draws parallels to Vichy France, noting Denmark's unique "soft occupation" delayed radicalization but prolonged ethical dilemmas. Workers balanced strikes with job security. The analysis humanizes these choices, emphasizing context: fear of reprisals, family needs, and hope for quick war's end. 

By deconstructing the binary of hero/villain, he enriches understanding of occupation psychology, echoing Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" in everyday concessions. Danish resistance was evolving from symbolic gestures to organized sabotage. By 1943, over 800 clandestine newspapers circulated, from simple leaflets to sophisticated dailies like Frit Danmark (Free Denmark), printing 100,000 copies. These "guerilla media papers" eroded German legitimacy, coordinating strikes and exposing atrocities. The milestones are also well presented: the 1941 shelling of the Danish navy at Iverød as a loyalty test, the 1942 formation of the Freedom Council (Frihedsrådet), and BOPA (Danish Resistance Movement) versus Holger Danske saboteurs. He details operations like the 1943 train derailments disrupting troop movements to the Eastern Front. Intelligence networks, including women couriers, fed data to London, aiding D-Day. 

The Jewish rescue operation shines as a pinnacle of collective resistance. Hong recounts how, after the October 1943 order for deportation, clergy, fishermen, and citizens formed a human chain across the Øresund, saving 99% of Denmark's 8,000 Jews. This "Danish miracle" stemmed from pre-war integration and moral outrage, contrasting with adaptation's self-preservation. Occupied also balances triumphs with tragedies: failed uprisings led to executions, like the 1944 Borgbjerg shooting. He critiques romanticized views, noting resistance's limited scale (only 50,000 active members) and internal divisions—communists vs. conservatives. Allied support, via airdrops, amplified efforts. But what stands out is that Communists and Conservatives fought the occupation while the liberal Centrist parties played along with the Fascist occupation. This theme underscores resistance as adaptive too opportunistic, networked, and ultimately transformative, reshaping Danish identity from victim to victor. 

Occupied excels in portraying the occupation's ripple effects on society and economy. Hong devotes space to rationing's hardships: by 1943, bread was 80% ersatz, fueling malnutrition and infant mortality. Black markets thrived, exacerbating inequalities—urban elites fared better than rural poor. Labor conscription to Germany, affecting 6,000 Danes, sparked ethical debates on refusal versus family support. Culturally, Hong explores suppression and subversion. Danish literature, like Martin Hansen's novels, veiled critiques; theater and film navigated censorship. Education faced Nazi-leaning curricula, prompting teacher strikes in 1943. Family life strained under surveillance, with denunciations rising. Hong highlights resilience: community gardens, folk dancing, and radio as morale boosters. Economically, the occupation was a double-edged sword. Initial booms from orders masked inflation (prices quadrupled by 1945). 

Post-1943 sabotage crippled industry, leading to unemployment. Hong analyzes post-war reconstruction, noting how resistance myths aided recovery but ignored economic collaborators' roles in rebuilding. Gender shifts emerged: women entered workforce en masse, accelerating emancipation. These chapters ground the abstract in tangible suffering and ingenuity, illustrating how occupation forged social cohesion amid division. In the final chapters the book investigates Denmark's purge of collaborators. Over 13,000 faced trials; 500 death sentences (mostly commuted) targeted Nazis and quislings. He critiques the process's unevenness: economic adapters escaped scrutiny, while ideological foes bore the brunt. Resistance heroes like the Freedom Council shaped narratives, embedding "the people's war" in collective memory. 

Long-term, the occupation bolstered welfare state solidarity and EU skepticism, viewing integration as occupation's antithesis. Jewish rescue enhanced Denmark's humanitarian image. Hong warns against mythologizing, noting suppressed stories of adaptation. This legacy analysis tie’s themes together, showing history's contested nature. Occupied is essential for WWII studies, a masterful chronicle, urging nuanced views of history's grays, and it endures as a testament to human adaptability.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

James W. Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, published in 2008 by Orbis Books, stands as a monumental work in the historiography of the John F. Kennedy assassination. At 544 pages, this book is not merely another entry in the vast library of conspiracy theories surrounding November 22, 1963; it is a theological and historical meditation on power, peace, and the human cost of empire. Douglass, a Catholic Worker theologian and pacifist activist, brings a unique lens to the subject, informed by his decades of engagement with nonviolence and social justice. 

His background as a professor of religion and a participant in peace movements lends the book an almost prophetic tone, framing Kennedy's death not as an isolated tragedy but as a pivotal moment in the American soul's confrontation with its own "unspeakable" demons—the forces of militarism and covert violence that lurk within the national security state. The central thesis of *JFK and the Unspeakable* is both bold and meticulously argued: President Kennedy, once a Cold War hawk, underwent a profound personal and political transformation toward peacemaking. This shift, evidenced in his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, his pursuit of a nuclear test ban treaty, and his secret overtures to Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev, positioned him as a direct threat to the entrenched interests of the CIA, the military-industrial complex, and elements within his own administration. 

Douglass speculates that these forces orchestrated Kennedy's assassination to eliminate not just a man, but a vision of global peace that challenged the perpetual war economy and ideological rigidity of the Cold War era. The "unspeakable," in Douglass's terminology—borrowed from Trappist monk Thomas Merton's concept of the unspoken horrors of nuclear extinction—refers to this systemic evil, a conspiracy so profound that it remains taboo in mainstream discourse. What elevates this book beyond typical assassination narratives is its structure and scope. Approximately two-thirds of the text chronicles Kennedy's presidency, weaving a narrative of his evolution through key events like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the American University address. The remaining third dissects the assassination itself, interweaving Oswald's biography with the events in Dallas. This interleaved approach creates a "textured effect," as Douglass calls it, allowing readers to see the assassination not as a sudden rupture but as the culmination of mounting tensions. Drawing on declassified documents, interviews with key figures, and a synthesis of prior research, Douglass builds his case with scholarly rigor, avoiding the sensationalism that plagues much of the genre. I will summarize the book's key arguments and reflect on its broader implications. For those unfamiliar, the book has garnered praise from figures like Oliver Stone, who called it "the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance,”. 

Ultimately, JFK and the Unspeakable matters because it forces us to confront why Kennedy's death still echoes in our collective psyche, reminding us that history is not just what happened, but why it happened—and why we refuse to speak its truths. Douglass opens with Kennedy's early life and entry into politics, portraying him as a product of his time—a decorated war hero shaped by the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s. Chapters on his Senate career and 1960 presidential campaign highlight his hawkish rhetoric, such as calls for a stronger stance against Castro. Yet, Douglass argues, beneath this facade lay seeds of doubt, sown by personal brushes with mortality (Kennedy's chronic illnesses) and intellectual encounters with figures like Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, who warned of nuclear apocalypse. The pivotal chapter on the Bay of Pigs invasion (April 1961) marks the beginning of Kennedy's disillusionment. Douglass details how the CIA, under Allen Dulles, deliberately misled the new president about the operation's prospects, hoping to force a full U.S. invasion of Cuba. Kennedy's refusal to commit air support, leading to the mission's failure, enraged the agency. 

He famously vowed to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds," a quote Douglass uses to illustrate the personal rift. Evidence here includes declassified memos and testimonies from participants like Arthur Schlesinger Jr., showing how the CIA viewed Kennedy as weak for not escalating. This event, Douglass contends, was the first "unspeakable" act against Kennedy—a covert entrapment that revealed the agency's rogue nature. The Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962) forms the emotional and thematic core of the early chapters. Douglass reconstructs the 13 days of brinkmanship with vivid detail, drawing on Robert Kennedy's secret back-channel communications with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and Khrushchev's memoirs. He argues that Kennedy's restraint—rejecting military advice for immediate strikes and opting for a naval blockade—stemmed from a moral awakening. Private letters exchanged between Kennedy and Khrushchev, quoted extensively, reveal a shared humanity: "We both know what it means to live in the shadow of nuclear destruction," Kennedy wrote. 

The crisis's resolution, with the U.S. secretly removing Jupiter missiles from Turkey, is portrayed as Kennedy's first major peacemaking victory, but one that deepened enmities with Joint Chiefs like Curtis LeMay, who called it "the worst defeat in American history." Douglass interweaves Oswald's story here, noting his defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 and return in 1962 without prosecution—facts that, in Douglass's view, suggest Oswald was a low-level intelligence asset, possibly monitored by both CIA and FBI. This parallel narrative underscores the thesis: just as Kennedy was pivoting toward peace, Oswald was being positioned as a patsy in a larger plot. We then read on to find out about Kennedy's post-crisis initiatives, framing them as a "strategy of peace." 

The June 10, 1963, American University address is a highlight, where Kennedy called for an end to the Cold War: "Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Cold War... Our problems are man-made—therefore, they can be solved by man." Douglass links this speech to Merton's "unspeakable," arguing it was a lethal profile in courage, coming just five months before Dallas. Evidence includes transcripts and reactions from hawks like Senator Barry Goldwater, who saw it as appeasement. On Vietnam, Douglass challenges the orthodox view that Kennedy was committed to escalation. He details NSAM 263 (October 1963), authorizing the withdrawal of 1,000 advisors, and quotes aides like Roger Hilsman: "The president was determined to get out." 

The chapter on the Diem coup (November 1963) is harrowing, showing how Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and CIA operative Lucien Conein encouraged the assassinations of Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother against Kennedy's orders. Kennedy's shock upon learning of the murders— "This is the worst mistake" —is cited from oral histories, illustrating bureaucratic betrayal. Douglass argues this event, mirroring the Chicago plot against Kennedy weeks earlier, signaled to plotters that the president was vulnerable. The backchannel to Cuba receives exhaustive treatment. Starting with journalist Lisa Howard's 1963 interviews, Douglass traces negotiations through William Attwood and French journalist Jean Daniel. Castro's response to Daniel— "Kennedy could become the greatest president in history if he achieves peace" —is quoted, but so is the CIA's sabotage via exile groups like Alpha 66. Evidence from declassified cables shows Kennedy overruling State Department hardliners, a move that, per Douglass, would have normalized relations by 1964. The chapter ends poignantly with Castro's reaction to the assassination: "Something smells fishy," he told associates, sensing the plot's success. 

Oswald's arc intensifies here, with Douglass exploring his pro-Cuba activities in New Orleans and contacts with CIA figures like David Atlee Phillips. Using John Armstrong's *Harvey and Lee* (controversially, as a source on Oswald doppelgangers), Douglass suggests Oswald was a "designated suspect," his Marxist facade crafted to blame communists’ post-assassination. Finally we accelerate into the events of November 1963. The "Saigon and Chicago" chapter masterfully parallels the Diem coup with a foiled plot in Chicago on November 2, where Thomas Vallee (an ex-Marine with CIA ties) was arrested with a rifle aimed at Kennedy's motorcade. Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, interviewed by Douglass, revealed scrubbed reports of the plot, linking it to Dallas via shared gunmen like those from the 544 Camp Street address. The Dallas chapter is a tour de force, reconstructing the day with granular detail: Oswald's "patsy" cry, the "three tramps" arrests (including CIA-linked figures like Frank Sturgis), and the hasty autopsy. Douglass argues the plot involved a "false flag" operation—Oswald as the lone nut to justify war—thwarted in Chicago and Miami but executed in Texas, where Governor Connally and right-wing oilmen were complicit. Evidence includes witness testimonies (e.g., Jean Hill on the grassy knoll shooter) and acoustic analysis from the House Select Committee, which Douglass uses to affirm multiple shooters. 

 Post-assassination, Douglass examines the cover-up: the Warren Commission's rushed conclusions, J. Edgar Hoover's memos suppressing Oswald's intelligence ties, and Lyndon Johnson's rapid reversal of NSAM 263 via NSAM 273, greenlighting Vietnam escalation. The book closes with reflections on why it matters: Kennedy's vision could have averted millions of deaths in Vietnam and eased Cold War tensions, but the "unspeakable" prevailed, perpetuating endless war. Douglass's greatest strength lies in his synthesis of sources. Over twelve years of research, he consulted the Warren Report, ARRB releases, and interviews with survivors like Vallee's associates. His use of primary documents—Kennedy's tapes, Khrushchev's letters, CIA cables—lends credibility, avoiding the anecdotal pitfalls of books like Mark Lane's *Rush to Judgment*. The interleaved structure is innovative, humanizing both Kennedy and Oswald while building suspense toward the assassination. As a theologian, Douglass infuses moral depth, comparing Kennedy to prophets like Martin Luther King Jr., assassinated for similar anti-war stances. 

The book's readability is another asset; despite dense footnotes (over 1,000), the prose flows like a novel, with poetic flourishes: "Kennedy was dying all his life, but in his last months, he chose to live." This accessibility broadens its appeal beyond assassination buffs to peace activists and historians. The reliance on conspiracy staples—like Oswald's CIA handler George de Mohrenschildt or the Paines as intelligence assets—can feel speculative. Douglass dismisses the lone-gunman theory outright without engaging ballistics experts in depth, potentially alienating mainstream readers, but then again, why speculate on the absurd? One point of critique is however that Kennedy emerges almost saintly, downplaying his own covert ops like Operation Mongoose. Yet, these flaws do not undermine the core thesis. Recent declassifications, like 2017 CIA files on Oswald, bolster Douglass's claims of intelligence complicity. Compared to contemporaries like Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (a pro-Warren tome), Douglass's work is more nuanced on policy, showing how JFK's "peacemaking" threatened trillion-dollar industries. The New York Observer noted its "selective rehashing," but praised the portrait of Kennedy's foreign policy disillusionment as the book's true value. Methodologically, Douglass excels in contextualizing the assassination within Cold War dynamics. He draws on Merton's letters to frame the "unspeakable" as nuclear madness, a theme resonant today amid U.S.-Russia tensions. His analysis of the military's hatred, LeMay's post-Dallas toast to "victory over the Soviets" (implying Kennedy's death), is chilling and well-sourced. 

Why does JFK and the Unspeakable matter in 2025, over six decades after Dallas? Douglass argues it exposes the "deep state" long before the term's vogue, warning of a security apparatus that prioritizes perpetual conflict over democracy. Kennedy's unrealized vision; a world without nuclear swords, normalized Cuba relations, Vietnam withdrawal, haunts us amid ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. The book's pacifist ethos aligns with Catholic social teaching, urging readers to resist the unspeakable through nonviolence, much like the Catholic Workers' protests. Personally, reading Douglass evokes a mix of outrage and hope. His portrayal of Kennedy's humanity, a man who stared into the abyss during the Missile Crisis and chose dialogue, restores faith in transformative leadership. Yet, it also indicts our complacency; why has no president since dared such bold peace? In an era of drone strikes and surveillance states, Douglass's call to "speak the unspeakable" feels urgent. Critics may dismiss it as conspiracy porn, but as historian David Kaiser notes in endorsements, it's a "thoroughly researched account" reshaping JFK scholarship For balance, pair it with Gerald Posner's Case Closed, but Douglass's evidence tilts toward conspiracy. 

Ultimately, it matters because it humanizes history: Kennedy died for peace, and in remembering why, we reclaim our agency against the shadows. JFK and the Unspeakable is a masterpiece of historical theology, blending rigorous research with moral urgency. This is a book that not only explains why Kennedy died but illuminates why peace remains our unfinished revolution. Essential reading for anyone grappling with America's soul. Read. 

Informationsmanipulation och spridning av vilseledande narrativ; eller enkelt uttryckt censur

Minns alltid och glöm aldrig: Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966 den 20 maj 2025. Lipp, Röper och Dogru. För drygt tre månader sedan satte EU sanktionerna ett nytt demokratiskt lågvattenmärke, med ett chockerande och fullständigt exempellöst beslut, tre EU-medborgare – förbjöds att resa genom EU och deras bankkonton frystes – för att de påstått ägnat sig åt "pro-rysk propaganda". Vad värre är, de förbjöds även att överklaga beslutet.

Rådet erkänner härmed att gränsen mellan fakta, tolkning och åsikt kan vara otydlig, särskilt i polariserade frågor som geopolitik; deras slutsats? Att införa åtgärder mot falsk eller vilseledande information. Nyheter måste därmed inom Unionen vara så kallat proportionerliga och förenliga med den förmodade majoritetens uppfattning. Vilket – i förlängningen – betyder att kontroversiella åsikter får censureras bara för att de avviker från konsensus, även om det strider mot de enskilda medlemsländernas grundlagar.

Så med lätthet har nu Rubikon korsats och tärningarna kastats. EU medborgare sätts upp på sanktionslistor för att de nyttjar den tidigare så självklara rätten att yttra sig. 

I juli detta år riktade vidare tyska myndigheter misstankar mot medborgare som påstods med hjälp av utländsk inblandning genom algoritmmanipulation påverkat bilden av Ursula von der Leyen inför hennes förtroendeomröstning. Och i Frankrike genomfördes en polisrazzia mot högkvarteret för Nationell Samling, efter att ännu en tvivelaktig utredning om kampanjfinansiering inletts.

Yttrandefriheten är hotad, men inte från "utländska motståndare" eller "högerextrema populister", utan från EU ländernas egna regeringar. Vare sig det är i Frankrike, Tyskland eller Sverige har censur, eller som det heter ”korrigeringar” blivit rutin, samtidigt som oliktänkande i allt högre grad kriminaliseras och rättssystem används som vapen för att tysta oppositionen. I själva verket är syftet tydligt: dvs. att hjälpa regeringarna att behålla sitt grepp om makten inför en historisk kollaps av legitimitet. Huruvida de kommer att lyckas med det återstår att se, lyckas de befästa sin kontroll genom alltmer auktoritära medel kommer Väst att gå in i en ny era av korrigerad och faktakontrollerad yttrandefrihet. Vi kan nu med relativ enkelhet jämföra situationen i Danmark under de tidiga ockupationsåren 1940–1943. 

Vi censurkritiska jurister har i åratal oroat oss för den demokratiska tillbakagången, vi har sett hur västerländska samhällen, som skröt med yttrandefrihetens attribut, i allt högre grad gjort den till en meningslös Potemkinkuliss. Val är hårt styrda spektakel, orkestrerade av professionella politiker som verkar inom en gemensam konsensus; marknadsvänlig, företagsvänlig, Washingtonvänlig; val erbjuder väljarna få valmöjligheter i grundläggande politiska eller ekonomiska frågor. Medborgarna har numera blott en passiv roll, hjälplösa inför politisk; medial och företagsmässig makt. Ordet är inte fritt, yttrandefriheten är placerat i de privilegierade politikernas kontroll på det sätt som i det närmaste är karakteristiskt för fördemokratiska tider.

Vad har då hänt geopolitiskt som skapat förutsättningarna för denna utveckling av lawfare mot allas rätt till ordet? Det finns delförklaringar. En del ligger i USA:s status; en status där de kunnat ta sig rätten att aggressivt hävda global hegemoni och skapa en unipolär "ny världsordning". Detta understöddes av strukturella ekonomiska förändringar inom den Västliga industrin: nedgången för traditionell tillverkning och det keynesianska samhällskontraktet, som ersattes av tjänster, arbetskraftsspridning, otrygghet och fragmentering. Denna historiska trend förvärrades av en politik som avsiktligt syftade till att minska arbetarnas förhandlingsstyrka och främjade privatiserad konsumtion och skapade en kommunikativ apati. Vi har gått från Folkrörelse till Folkorörlighet. 

Vidare finner vi en del av förklaringen i de isolerade beslutsprocesserna, där alltmer togs ifrån demokratiska påtryckningsgrupper, främst genom att nationella befogenheter överlämnades till överstatliga institutioner och superstatliga byråkratier som Europeiska unionen. Denna strategi att avpolitisera demokratin och försvåra ansvar påverkar även yttrandefriheten; val reduceras till en fråga om AIK eller Mjällby, dvs. endast mindre variationer inom ett förutbestämt ramverk.

Det sätt på vilket EU saboterade Greklands folkomröstning om EMU är ett exempel här. Detta fenomen är uppenbarligen mycket mer uttalat när nationella regeringar är underordnade överstatliga institutioner, som Europeiska unionen. Och så har man naturligtvis militär- och underrättelsebyråkratierna, som idag utan tvekan utövar mer inflytande än någonsin tidigare. 

Minns gärna att allt såg så ljust ut inför vårt århundrades första stora anti-etablissemangsuppror i början och mitten av 2010-talet: Brexit, Gula västarna och växande EU-skeptiska känslor över hela Europa. Detta massuppvaknande trodde en del vara "slutet på historiens slut", det var ett frihetligt utbrett förkastande av den nyliberala ordningen efter kalla kriget. Ändå misslyckades dessa uppror i slutändan, trots en då starkare yttrandefrihet, protesterna absorberades eller neutraliserades i stället av etablissemanget genom repression och starka ideologiska motoffensiver.

Sen kom pandemin, som utöver sin epidemiologiska natur, var en strukturell begivenhet som accelererade en auktoritär centralisering av makten. Regeringar nyttjade viruset för att sopa undan de demokratiska tillvägagångssätten från 10-talet, militarisera samhällen, slå ner friheter och genomföra exempellösa åtgärder för social kontroll, och samtidigt "frysa" demokratiska samtal och urholka den energi som fanns kvar från de populistiska rörelserna frrån 2010-talet. Dis- och missinformation trumfade plötsligt med en oönskad tydlighet den lagstadgade yttrandefriheten. 

Sen återuppstod denna kontroll av vad som fick sägas i och med konflikten mellan Ryssland och Ukraina, där det mediepolitiska etablissemanget uteslöt, censurerade och till och med straffade röster som var kritiska till den västerländska retoriken.

Samtidigt har nya populistiska hot mot den etablerade ordningen uppstått. Men hittills har inte heller dessa lyckats rubba status quo, delvis på grund av att Västvärldens alltmer impopulära och de-legitimerade eliter har vänt sig till att nyttja alltmer fräcka former av förtryck för att påverka valresultaten och undertrycka dessa utmaningar. Fallet med Rumänien markerade en ödesdiger eskalering: Nato och EU, blandade sig i och Rumänien och med Lawfare upphävde ett presidentvalsresultat och uteslöt den populistiska kandidaten genom ogrundade påståenden om rysk inblandning.

Dessa händelser signalerar en illavarslande trend: delar av statsmakten begränsar sig inte längre till att "hantera" valresultat genom så kallad mjuk påverkan; mediemanipulation, censur, lawfare, ekonomiska påtryckningar och underrättelseoperationer. Snarare är de alltmer villiga att helt och hållet överge demokratins formella struktur. Undertryckande av yttrandefriheten utförs i syfte av att försvara demokratin från så kallade interna hot (populister) och externa hot (utländska konkurrenter, inte motståndare, utan konkurrenter). Det verkliga målet är att stärka en centristisk ideologi, fri från demokratiska avvikelser. 

Under en relativt kort period, ungefär mellan fyrtio- och sjuttiotalen bevittnade vi en form av demokrati som var avsevärt mer substantiell än vad som existerar idag. Under dessa decennier, ofta beskrivna som kapitalismens "guldålder", integrerades arbetarklasserna i västvärldens politiska system för första gången i historien. Detta gjorde det möjligt för dem att få ett betydande inflytande över den politiska agendan, vilket ledde till en expansion av sociala, ekonomiska och politiska rättigheter, i ett sammanhang av växande politisering av massorna. Kontrasten till dagens politiska period är mycket skarp.

Ändå vore det fel att idealisera västvärlden vid denna tid. Även då förblev demokratin i sin fysiska bemärkelse starkt begränsad. Även om de härskande klasserna tvingades, under press från folkrörelser, kalla kriget och hotet om social oro, att utöka yttrandefriheten, rösträtten samt erkänna en rad politiska och sociala rättigheter, gjorde de det inte frivilligt. Tvärtom drevs de ofta av rädslan att massorna kunde utgöra ett verkligt hot mot den etablerade samhällsordningen, att arbetare skulle kunna använda demokratin för att kullkasta befintliga maktförhållanden.

Denna rädsla gjorde att de västerländska staterna nyttjade, militären, underrättelse- och säkerhetsapparaten, som utövade ett betydande inflytande bakom kulisserna, vanligtvis under ledning av USA. Detta inkluderade ett okänt antal terroristhandlingar som syftade till att begränsa vänsterpartiernas och folkrörelsernas yttrandefrihet, till exempel genom Gladio. Kort sagt, från den moderna liberala demokratins allra första början arbetade de ledande klasserna aktivt för att hålla demokratin inom gränserna för vad de ansåg vara acceptabel korrigerad politik.

Berlinmurens fall markerade det symboliska slutet på denna era. Under decennierna som gått sedan dess har vi bevittnat en stadig erosion av demokratiska normer. Konstitutionella skyddsåtgärder upphävs undantagsvis för att införa beslut som inte kan uppnås via normala demokratiska kanaler. 

Detta är naturligtvis en paradox: om det är permanent, så är det per definition inte längre ett undantagstillstånd. Det blir regel. Men är detta permanenta undantagstillstånd unikt? Snarare är det ett grundläggande kännetecken för hur själva staten, även i dess liberaldemokratiska skepnad; inte sammanfaller med den representativa demokratins institutioner.

I teorin agerar statliga byråkratier som neutrala verkställare av regeringspolitik. I verkligheten agerar de ofta oberoende av, eller till och med i opposition till, valda parlament och regeringar, särskilt när det gäller att skydda institutionell kontinuitet, militära- och geopolitiska normer eller en ekonomisk elits intressen. 

Staten är en social organism utrustad med sin egen interna logik och kontinuitet, kapabel att sträva efter mål och riktningar ofta oberoende av de som deklarerats eller eftersträvas av en tillfällig politiska ledning, oavsett färg; för oligarkins järnlag formar partierna till en passande bit i den rådande hegemonins pussel. (S och NATO är ett exempel som comes to mind) Detta har alltid varit en sanning, även om staten, ibland kan tvingas göra yttrandefrihetliga eftergifter till den folkliga politikens krafter. I mina ögon representerar dagens kris inte yttrandefrihetens plötsliga kollaps, utan i stället avslöjar det hur makt verkligen fungerar. Den samtida krisen blottar begränsningarna för de formella demokratiska institutionerna. 

Framtiden är dyster. Förutsättningarna som möjliggjorde den korta perioden av hållbar demokrati är borta och det är osannolikt att de kommer återvända inom en snar framtid. I verklig mening är demos inom demokrati skadad, och vägen till, Politeia , det som enligt Aristoteles är den goda formen av flervälde, är definitivt stängd. 

Ändå markerar den upplösta geopolitiska ordningen som ligger till grund för västerländsk dominans samt framväxten av en multipolär ordning, ett djupgående politiskt och ekonomiskt skifte. Erosionen av västerländsk hegemoni försvagar dess eliter, vars dominans förlitat sig på både internt förtryck och maktprojicering utomlands. Minskat inflytande utomlands förvärrar det inhemska missnöjet, särskilt när det drivs av ökande och systemisk ojämlikhet.

Denna upplösning blottlägger de strukturella svagheterna i det västerländska systemet. Utan den geopolitiska stabilitet och ekonomiska dominans som en gång maskerade våra interna motsättningar blir yttrandefrihets fienderna mer sårbara. Avgörande är att denna nedgång också banar väg för en potentiell nyordning, och en potentiell omtolkning av våra frihetliga rättigheter samt politiska och ekonomiska system. När västerländska eliter brottas med sin avtagande makt finns det stora möjligheter till alternativa visioner av styrelseskick och yttrandefrihet.

Det som ligger framför oss är inte bara en fråga om huruvida rätten att uttrycka oss fritt kan "återställas", utan om ett nytt politiskt projekt kan uppstå för att ersätta den uttömda modellen av elitistisk centristisk liberalism. Den gamla ordningen kollapsar, men den nya har ännu inte fötts. I detta vakuum kan vad som helst yttras och bli verklighet. Tack för er tid.

Samtal för Fred, Varberg

Varberg 2025-09-06