Castle Report

The Castle Report

• JFK’s Grave
  Darrell Castle talks about the recently released 80,000 files, so far, concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the immense power of the deep state. Transcription / Notes JFK’s GRAVE Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday, the 28th day of March in the year of our Lord 2025. I will be talking about the recently declassified and released 80,000 files, so far, concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Those files remind us of the immense power of the deep state and how its members tend to close ranks when threatened because they derive great wealth and power from their membership, I remember that day quite clearly because I was 15 years old and at a high school track meet when the news told the world what supposedly happened. The coach told us the track meet was over and school was closed for the day. It was scary and a sobering time for a 15-year-old trying to make sense of the world anyway, but this Report is not a rehash of the assassination but instead it is a look at what it all means for the world and how its aftermath still resonates in the world today. That day was an eye opener for some people but for most of us it has taken decades for our eyes to fully open. Polls taken throughout the 1950’s revealed that over 70% of Americans trusted the government and believed that it would do what is right “most of the time.” A follow up question showed that most of the time meant “just about always.” November 22, 1963, began a long decline in the public’s confidence that is greater today than at any other time in our history. That former trust in government is gone and today’s polls show only about 22% still trust in government. Was the assassin an individual or group of individuals with some ideological difference of opinion that drove the action or was the murder simply an effort to grab the reigns of power. Which of the two explains JFK’s murder. Was Lee Harvey Oswald the assassin. If so, was he a solo actor or part of a greater conspiracy. We have learned that the government can’t be trusted to tell us the truth about anything and it and its representatives seem quite often to have sinister motives. Those motives, whatever they may be, sometimes prove fatal for those little people, sometimes referred to as the masses. Those people are viewed by the government and its representatives as sheep to be sheared, or as fodder for the cannons of whatever stupid, senseless war government chooses for us the next time. So, if they know we no longer trust them what can they do to ensure support and loyalty from the masses. Philosophers over the centuries have written of the formula governments use to keep us motivated and committed to their next scheme. The simplest part of the formula is to make sure there is always a sinister bad guy, or government of bad guys that threaten us and our way of life. If we don’t go abroad and fight the bad guys on their home turf we will have to fight them here on our own turf sooner or later. There is never enough time to analyze whether the bad guy is truly bad and truly means to do us harm before the bombing, or other means of war are launched. The end result is usually a lot of dead people and a lot of money added to our future as debt. JFK’s death and the cover-up of the truth behind it explains what the government and its spokespeople have come to call conspiracy theories. There are few things as bad as wearing that label because it means you are not evil like a racist, just naïve and probably stupid because you don’t believe the government’s obvious lies.  I will admit that it is far easier to just accept whatever cockamamy explanation the government gives us for its crimes. For example, resisting the government’s COVID policy was very difficult although healthier in the long run. The COVID pandemic was the worst government psyop in our history. Nobel laureates and scientists of the world lined up...
• The U.S. and Russia Have Common Interests
  Darrell Castle talks about the wars currently on-going in the world and how they are being used to form a new order of the world. Transcription / Notes THE U.S. AND RUSSIA HAVE COMMON INTERESTS Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday, the 21st day of March in the year of our Lord 2025. I will be talking about the subject I hate the most, and that is war which seems to be almost everywhere. The partial ceasefire in Ukraine, the open fire now in Gaza, and the U.S. war in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden and Bab-el-Mandab against the Houthis. War shapes the world order and I guess it always has. For example, the military defeat of Napoleon in 1814 led to the Congress of Vienna which cemented Great Britain as the leader of the new world order instead of France. I suppose since those countries controlled the world it would be OK to call that a world war resulting in the new order which existed until World War One or 1914. The victors in WW l set the order with the formation of the League of Nations which totally collapsed when Germany decided that it would be a better world leader than Britain. The victors in World War ll formed the new order with the United States as its leader and the United Nations to cement the order permanently. The Soviet Union, which was one of the victors in WW ll didn’t accept the U.S. as world leader and that resulted in a 40 year long world order which became the cold war. The end of the cold war brought an end to the Soviet Union which dissolved into the Russian Federation. The global elite of the world had to find a way to continue the struggle to feed the eternal death machine so the conflict between NATO and Russia continued. We won’t move one inch closer to Russia Reagan told Gorbachev but later presidents reneged on that promise and the struggle continued. NATO was formed out of the shared belief that the Soviet Union was a direct threat to Western Europe and so an alliance pledging together that if one were attacked it would be considered an attack against all. The colonial possessions of the members were to be excepted from that deal as the French possessed Vietnam or Indochina as it was known then. That agreement didn’t change much over the years and so the world order remained in a post-World War Two state of mind with the United States growing ever stronger militarily and Europe growing ever weaker. Europe was fine with it because all those countries could let their militaries deteriorate since the U.S. had their backs. The Europeans did not even live up to the paltry, relatively speaking, of 5% on defense that the NATO agreement called for. The U.S. constantly urged them to spend more but why should they because the U.S, nuclear umbrella was there to cover them. Donald Trump appeared on the scene and started his America First rhetoric exposing the obvious that the NATO agreement and the way it was enforced was extremely unfair to the U.S. The Europeans were stuck and have continued to be stuck in a 1939 mindset which told them the Russians are coming, but the Russians never came. They wanted to constantly poke the bear but they had nothing with which to defend themselves against the bear. The U.S. wanted a unipolar world with the U.S. at the head and the Europeans were fine with that as long as they could spend their tax revenue on their welfare and other social relief programs to pacify the masses. In the meantime, the U.S. and its people languished under the ever-increasing weight of 36 trillion of debt increasing by 2 trillion per year. The weight of constant wars and constantly increasing burdens of wounded veterans to care for, the people becoming ever more impoverished, the middle class driven into poverty and unpayable debt. Now, I’m taking a little poetic license here folks and speaking for Donald Trump but I think it went something like this. Trump takes office having already looked at the world and seen the order of it.
• Resetting the Global Order
  Darrell talks about several things that taken together, in his opinion, represent an attempt by President Trump to reset the global order. Transcription / Notes RESETTING THE GLOBAL ORDER Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 14th day of March in the year of our Lord 2025. I will be talking about several things that taken together, in my opinion, represent an attempt by President Trump to reset the global order. Some of those things include a proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine, along with the US and Europe’s special relationship and the attitude of the US toward Russia. US national security advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio went to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for talks with Ukrainian officials about a proposal for ending the Ukraine/Russia war. It’s a very difficult thing to end a war unless you are able to raise your flag over the enemy capitol. Getting two warring sides to just stop fighting and stand in place is very difficult because one side or the other always has the advantage or momentum and wants to keep it. This particular peace conference was apparently brokered by the Saudis who had several representatives in attendance. One important party missing from the meeting was Russia which will obviously have to be onboard if the ceasefire has any chance of working. Ukraine agreed to the discussions and quickly agreed to the deal when Zelensky’s visit to the oval office didn’t go so well and Trump cut off aid and Intelligence information to Ukraine. Without that intelligence including targeting information, Ukraine could not prosecute the war so Zelensky swallowed his pride and accepted the deal. Now, it has to go to Russia for approval and that might be difficult because Russia seems to think it has the advantage. Several Russian missile attacks against Ukraine have occurred since the deal was made but that is probably just trying to appear dominant before Putin talks to Trump or whoever it turns out to be. This ceasefire proposal is set to last for 30 days as a way to start negotiations to end the war. Again, it’s difficult because both sides think they have won or at least should win and winners expect to dictate terms not to negotiate. Trump’s attitude has been to let Zelensky know that the US billions were going to stop flowing and it is in his best interest to make the best deal possible. That deal will not include NATO membership or a US guarantee of security for Ukraine, hopefully. Why couldn’t Europe just admit Ukraine to NATO on its own? No, it can’t because admitting new members has to be unanimous. Rubio was quoted as saying that Ukraine has to be ready to do difficult things and Russia would also have to make difficult decisions. When asked what difficult decisions he said that both sides would have to conclude that the conflict could not be resolved by military means. Rubio said that the President wants the war to end and Ukraine has accepted that premise and we hope the Russians will accept it as well. My interpretation of that diplomat speak is that Ukraine will have to permanently concede the eastern Russian speaking provinces along with Crimea to Russia. Who will maintain this proposed ceasefire line, I’m not sure but I hope it’s not the USA just as it does in Korea. No, that would be very unacceptable and I hope that Trump would not go along. Yesterday, in advance of any US—Russia meeting Putin rejected the ceasefire as proposed without “substantial changes.” He said he wanted the root cause of the conflict eliminated but he did not say what he thinks the root cause is. He wants guarantees that the Ukrainians will not mobilize, train soldiers or receive weapons during the ceasefire. These proposals seem reasonable assuming that Putin would also agree to abide by them although his announcement did not say that he would. He made the announcement just as the American envoy, Steve Witkoff was arriving in Moscow so perhaps...