Why No “Conspiracy Theory!” on Prigozhin’s Death?

I’m rather amused by the U.S. mainstream media’s response to the widespread accusations that Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated the assassination of Russian mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin. Notice that no one in the U.S. mainstream press is crying “Conspiracy theory!” to mock or ridicule the accusation.

Yet, whenever one points to the U.S. national-security establishment’s assassinations and assassination targets, as with President Kennedy, civil-rights leader Martin Luther King, Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Chilean Gen. Rene Schneider, CIA scientist Frank Olson, or the countless assassination victims of Operation Condor, the response of the mainstream media is completely different. “Conspiracy theory!” they cry!

You see, in the eyes of the U.S. mainstream press, it’s only the Russkies who assassinate people. The kind, benevolent people within the CIA and the Pentagon would never engage in state-sponsored assassinations. It always a “conspiracy theory!” Well, except maybe for some victims of U.S. assassinations, such as Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, who the Pentagon confessed it did assassinate.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

A few days ago, the conservative Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “The Godfather in the Kremlin,” which contained a picture depicting Putin as a Mafia don. The article stated, “The very public death of Putin henchman Yevgeny Prigozhin highlights the evolution of Russia into a mafia state held together by violence and incapable of global leadership.” 

While the Journal article does point out that “his death, two months after the mutiny, may have been an accident,” the newspaper also makes clear that U.S. intelligence disagrees with that assessment and points out that Putin “presides over a system that has assassinated or executed those it designates as traitors, often in spectacular ways.”

But while we are on the subject of the Mafia, it’s worth reminding ourselves that it was the U.S. government itself, operating through the CIA, that actually entered into an assassination partnership with the Mafia. The purpose of that assassination partnership was to assassinate Fidel Castro, a man who headed up a foreign government that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The U.S. government and the Mafia felt that they had the “right” to murder Castro because of his communist beliefs and because he had nationalized the Mafia’s casinos in Cuba.

The way I figure it is that when a government enters into any partnership with the Mafia — and especially a partnership that involves murdering innocent people — that government essentially becomes likes its partner.

Yet, I’ve never seen any depiction of U.S. officials, including those in the CIA, as Mafia dons in the U.S. mainstream press arising from that U.S.-Mafia assassination partnership. In fact, one rarely sees any criticism of that assassination partnership itself. It’s as though entering into an assassination partnership with the Mafia is no big deal, at least not when it’s done by the CIA. It’s only when the Russian national-security state assassinates people that we should think in terms of Mafia dons.

The assassination partnership between the CIA and the Mafia came in handy when the U.S. national-security establishment deemed President Kennedy to be a grave threat to “national security.” (See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne). That’s because they were able to easily switch the target of their partnership — Fidel Castro — to Kennedy. 

As I point out in my book An Encounter with Evil: the Abraham Zapruder Story, the CIA-Mafia assassination partnership enabled the Mafia to quickly silence accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald to prevent him from explaining at his trial why he was innocent and who was framing him for the crime. Keep in mind that while U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press have always presumed Oswald to be guilty, he himself was not only claiming to be innocent, he was also calling himself a “patsy,” meaning that he was being framed.

One of the fascinating aspects of the fraudulent autopsy that the military conducted on the evening of the assassination is the fact that no one at the autopsy expressed any concern whatsoever about being subpoenaed to testify about their autopsy shenanigans in a criminal trial. As I explain in my book, that’s undoubtedly because everyone knew that Oswald was never going to make it to trial, just as everyone knew that Prigozhin didn’t have long to live either.