Challenge Your Knowledge - Zionist Report

VIDEO: Zionist Report Published It’s FIRST Book Titled – “Challenge Your Knowledge”

If you have not yet read our recently published book, we strongly recommend you do. Even if you think you are already aware of all the historical lies we have been taught for centuries, you are still in for a surprise! Please spread the word, we must give people a chance to learn the truth! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37vBzYGrv3Q

VIDEO: David Duke on Bolsheviks, Communism, & The Tribe

David Duke talks about communism, Soviet Union, Bolsheviks, Lenin, Trotsky, Marxism, Jacob Schiff, Russian Revolution, and more.
Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Rothschilds, Paul Warburg, Max Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) and Mao Zedong are some of the most horrible human beings in history.

For the full interview click the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Us3pn0wS-U

https://youtu.be/SXkD4wlnrDo

BOMBSHELL: Zionist Report’s First Book – Challenge Your Knowledge

This is the first book we published. We strongly recommend you read it. You might think you know history, but this book will surprise you without a doubt. It will take you by the hand and clearly show you, true history. This is not just ‘another book’ it is a book that exposes events in an orderly fashion and will make everyone open their eyes! 

 

https://youtu.be/37vBzYGrv3Q

Communism - Capitalism

COMMENTARY: Jews And Bolshevism – Names And Lists

Many years have gone by since the Bolshevik Revolution. If humanity had known back then what was really happening, things would have been very different for all of us. That is why the Jews made sure to infiltrate all aspects of society from the beginning, to slowly ‘erase’ the truth from our history books and our lives. This is why, many generations completely ignore what really happened and who are to blame, and it is the reason why history is repeating itself. 

It doesn’t take much research to see who controls today’s major banks, mainstream media, education, and basically everything that affects our daily lives, there is no doubt that the Jews are behind it. They control America and America has been influencing society for too long, the result is clear, a brainwashed society where there is no God, no family, no values and the only thing  people care of is themselves and ‘being happy’. 

Communism - Capitalism

 

“Jews and Bolshevism: Names and Lists,” Source: heretical.com

Amongst themselves, the Jews are quite candid about their sympathy for and involvement in Bolshevism.

On 4 April 1919 the Jewish Chronicle: “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”

(Perhaps this explains why the Red Army uses a Jewish star as its symbol?)

Probably the best-known exposé of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik coup d’état was by Sir Winston Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of 8 February 1920. Churchill wrote “With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and the driving power comes from Jewish leaders.”

Communism was of course founded by Karl Marx whose grandfather was a rabbi by the name of Mordeccai. Marx was given his initial encouragement by a Communist-Zionist by the name of Moses Hess. As founder and editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, the main organ of leftist thought in Germany, he provided Karl Marx with his first important platform. Later, in Brussels, he collaborated with Marx on The German Ideology. It was Hess too who converted to Communism Friedrich Engels, the wealthy textiles magnate who later subsidised Marx from the profits of sweated labour in Britain and Germany.

When the Bolsheviks overthrew the short-lived democratic government in Moscow and St. Petersburg in October 1917, it was a virtual Jewish coup d’état. The most prominent Jewish Commissar was Trotsky, real name Bronstein. He had been married by a rabbi in 1900, and whilst in exile in New York he had worked for Novy Mir, described in the Church Times (23 January 1925) as a “Yiddish newspaper.”

The various reporters and diplomats who were there at the time of the “Revolution” have given evidence as to its Jewish nature.

The widow of the Guardian’s correspondent Mrs. Ariadna Tyrkova-Williams wrote: “In the Soviet Republic all the committees and commissaries were filled with Jews.”

The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925. He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:

 

NAME NATIONALITY
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Lourie (Larine) Jew
Ouritski Jew
Volodarski Jew
Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
Smidovitch Jew
Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Krylenko Russian
Lounatcharski Russian

 

“The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

 

MINISTRY NAME NATIONALITY
President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
Agriculture Protian Armenian
Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
Food Schlichter Jew
Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
State Control Lander Jew
State Lands Kauffman Jew
Works V. Schmidt Jew
Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
Religions Spitzberg Jew
Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Hygiene Anvelt Jew
Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
Press Volodarski Jew
Elections Ouritski Jew
Justice I. Steinberg Jew
Refugees Fenigstein Jew
Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew

 

“The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

 

NAME NATIONALITY
Sverdlov (president) Jew
Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
Bruno Lett
Babtchinski Jew
Bukharin Russian
Weinberg Jew
Gailiss Jew
Ganzburg Jew
Danichevski Jew
Starck German
Sachs Jew
Scheinmann Jew
Erdling Jew
Landauer Jew
Linder Jew
Wolach Czech
Dimanstein Jew
Encukidze Georgian
Ermann Jew
Joffe Jew
Karkline Jew
Knigissen Jew
Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Krylenko Russian
KrassikofSachs Jew
Kaprik Jew
Kaoul Lett
Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
Latsis Jew
Lander Jew
Lounatcharski Russian
Peterson Lett
Peters Lett
Roudzoutas Jew
Rosine Jew
Smidovitch Jew
Stoutchka Lett
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Sosnovski Jew
Skrytnik Jew
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Teodorovitch Jew
Terian Armenian
Ouritski Jew
Telechkine Russian
Feldmann Jew
Froumkine Jew
Souriupa Ukranian
Tchavtchevadze Georgian
Scheikmann Jew
Rosental Jew
Achkinazi Imeretian
Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
Rose Jew
Sobelson (Radek) Jew
Sclichter Jew
Schikolini Jew
Chklianski Jew
Levine (Pravdine) Jew

 

“The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

 

NAME NATIONALITY
Dzerjinski (president) Pole
Peters (vice-president) Lett
Chklovski Jew
Kheifiss Jew
Zeistine Jew
Razmirovitch Jew
Kronberg Jew
Khaikina Jewess
Karlson Lett
Schaumann Jew
Leontovitch Jew
Jacob Goldine Jew
Glaperstein Jew
Kniggisen Jew
Latzis Lett
Schillenkuss Jew
Janson Lett
Rivkine Jew
Antonof Russian
Delafabre Jew
Tsitkine Jew
Roskirovitch Jew
G. Sverdlof Jew
Biesenski Jew
Blioumkine Jew
Alexandrevitch Russian
I. Model Jew
Routenberg Jew
Pines Jew
Sachs Jew
Daybol Lett
Saissoune Armenian
Deylkenen Lett
Liebert Jew
Vogel German
Zakiss Lett

 

 

Although Lenin is described as a “Russian,” in fact he was a mixture of various nationalities. It is likely that he was one-quarter Russian, one-quarter German, one-quarter Jewish and at least one-quarter Kalmuck (Mongol), which accounts for his Mongol appearance. Various authorities allege that his wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya was a Jewess and that her family spoke Yiddish in the home.

A report sent to the British government in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke, the Dutch consul in St. Petersburg, said that “Bolshevism is organised and worked by Jews.” The report was included in a pamphlet published as a government White Paper in April 1919 entitled Russia No. 1 (1919) A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. However, the pamphlet was quickly withdrawn and reissued with various excisions and alterations made.

In the War Records Division of the United States National Archives, there is filed a report from an American Intelligence operative in St. Petersburg. Under Record Group 20; Records of the American Expeditionary Forces Capt. Montgomery Schuyler, G2 Intelligence wrote, “The Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type.”

Also in the U.S. National Archives are two telegrams sent by American diplomats in Russia. State Department document 861.00/1757 sent on 2 May 1918 by U.S. Consul Summers in Moscow relates, “Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population.” Document 861.00/2205 from Consul Caldwell in Vladivostock on 5 July 1918 describes, “Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of worst type.”

In January, 1924, Lenin died from causes variously described as ‘a heart attack,’ brain hemorrhage’ and ‘syphilis.’ His comrades immediately began fighting amongst themselves to see who was to become his successor.

A relative outsider, Joseph Stalin, came to the fore and purged all competition either by exiling or executing them. Since Stalin was not Jewish, yet nearly all his opponents were, it is often suggested that Stalin was anti-Semitic. This is far from the truth.

Stalin had three wives, all of them Jewesses. The first was Ekaterina Svanidze who bore him one son, Jacob. His second wife was Kadya Allevijah. She bore him a son Vassili and a daughter Svetlana. His second wife died in mysterious circumstances, either by committing suicide or murdered by Stalin. His third wife was Rosa Kaganovich, the sister of Lazar Kaganovich, the head of Soviet industry. Stalin’s daughter (who in 1967 fled to the USA) then married Lazar’s son Mihail i.e. her step-mother’s nephew. Svetlana Stalin had a total of four husbands, three of them Jewish.

Stalin’s vice-president Molotov was also married to a Jewess, whose brother, Sam Karp, runs an export business in Connecticut. Just to complicate things even more, the Molotov’s (half-Jewish) daughter also called Svetlana was engaged to be married to Stalin’s son Vassili.

After the death of Stalin, his successors kept up the tradition, for a report in the B’nai B’rith Messenger relates: “To show that Russia treats its Jews well, Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev this week remarked at a reception at the Polish Embassy that not only he himself and Soviet President Klementi Voroshilov, but also half the members of the Praesidium have Jewish wives. Mr. Kruschev made this remark to Israeli Ambassador Joseph Avidar, who was amongst the guests.” (Kruschev’s wife was yet another Kaganovitch.)

According to a report in The Canadian Jewish News of 13 November 1964 the present Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev is married to a Jewess, and his children are brought up as Jews. There are a number of prominent Jews in the Soviet government, including Dimitri Dymshits in charge of industry, Lev Shapiro regional secretary of Birobidjan, and Yuri Andropov in charge of the secret police, the KGB. In fact, every secret police chief in Soviet history has been a Jew, from the first Uritsky to the most recent, the murderous Beria. A Jew is also in charge of the Soviet economy – Leonid Kantorovich.

It is a well-known fact that the Bolsheviks were and are financed by Jewish interests in the West.

At a Bolshevik celebration rally in New York’s Carnegie Hall on the night of 23 March 1917, a telegram of support from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was read out. The telegram was reprinted in the next morning’s New York Times. Schiff later tried to deny his involvement, but thirty years later his grandson John admitted in the New York Journal-American (3 February 1949) that the old man had sunk twenty million dollars into the Bolshevik cause.

Another Western bankers who poured funds into Bolshevik Russia was Olaf Ashberg of the Stockholm Nia Banken. He remained the Soviets’ paymaster until the late 1940s. The London Evening Standard of 6 September 1948 reported a visit by Ashberg to Switzerland “for secret meetings with Swiss government officials and banking executives. Diplomatic circles describe Mr. Ashberg as the ‘Soviet banker’ who advanced large sums to Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. At the time of the revolution, Mr. Ashberg gave Trotsky money to form and equip the first unit of the Red Army.”

The Bolsheviks also received assistance from Armand Hammer, who still commutes back and forward between New York and Moscow to take care of his business interests in both communities. Hammer’s Occidental Oil Company is at the moment building a 1,600-mile chemicals pipeline in southern Russia. He is also on such good terms with the Soviets that he personally arranges for Soviet art galleries to lend paintings to America.

Another American-based businessman to help out the Soviet economy is Michael Fribourg, who owns the massive Continental Grain Company. Together with the Louis Dreyfus Corporation, these Jewish speculators were able to buy up vast quantities of cheap American grain in 1972, sell it to the Soviets at a vast profit, and collect an export subsidy from the U.S. taxpayer.

In every other East European country, it is exactly the same story:

In Hungary a Communist revolution was staged in 1919, instigated by the Jew Bela Kun (Cohen). During the three month regime, the country was turned upside down in a reign of murder and terror. Here again, the government was composed almost entirely of Jews. And it was this factor which brought about the regime’s downfall, as the ordinary Hungarians detested Jewish dictatorship. Kun was deposed and fled to the Soviet Union, where he became chief of the secret police, the Cheka, in southern Russia.

It was not until 1945 that the Jews were able to regain control. Three Russian Jews were installed as the ruling triumvirate, Matyas Rakosi (Rosencranz), Erno Gero (Singer) and Zoltan Vas. Both Rakosi and Gero had been members of Kun’s bloody government.

In Germany, the Jews also tried to take over there in the chaos that followed the First World War. Aided by funds from the Soviet Ambassador Joffe, Rosa Luxemburg’s Spartacus Bund attempted to overthrow the government. The revolt was quelled and its leaders Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht executed.

The post-war dictator of Roumania, Anna Pauker, was the daughter of a Bucharest kosher butcher. For a time she earned her living teaching Hebrew. Her father and brother now live in Israel.

Although Tito was the only non-Jewish dictator behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1940s, he was tutored by the Jew Mosa Pijade. According to John Gunther in Behind the Iron Curtain, “He is Tito’s mentor… Whatever ideological structure Tito may have, he got it from the shrewd old man.”

Moscow’s puppet government in Czechoslovakia in the late 1940s was run by another Jew, Rudolph Slansky.

In Poland too, Jews occupied virtually every position of authority in the post-war Communist regime. Prominent among these were Minc, Skryesewski, Modzelewski and Berman. Jacob Berman gradually eclipsed the others until he became supreme dictator by himself. Also, Gomulka’s wife was a Jewess.

Even in China, Soviet Jews were at work helping Mao Tse Tung. High up in the Political Department of the Red Army in China were W. N. Levitschev and J. B. Gamarnik.

Jacob Schiff

COMMENTARY: Wall Street And The March 1917 Russian Revolution Part 1 & 2

In its early years, America was infiltrated by international Jewry. This evil infiltration has been corroding, destroying and consuming this country morally and economically for decades, now we see the harm done by these people who’s god is money and power – the means justifies the end.

jews

“Wall Street & the March 1917 Russian Revolution,” Source: countercurrents.com

“There is no proletarian, not even a communist, movement that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money — and that without the idealists amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.” Oswald Spengler.[1]

The “Russian Revolution” (sic) is heralded in both the popular imagination and by academe as a triumph of the people against Czarist tyranny, even if most concede that the utopian vision turned sour, at least with the eventual dictatorship of Stalin. However a look behind the multiple facades of history shows that the “Russian Revolution” was one of many upheavals that have served those who provide the funding.

Few–whether laymen or supposed “experts”–ever seem to question as to where the money comes to finance these revolutions, and we are expected to believe that they are “spontaneous uprisings of the people against oppression,” just as today we are still expected to believe that the so-called “colour revolutions” in the Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, etc., are “spontaneous demonstrations.” This essay examines the funding of the March 1917 Russian Revolution, the so-called First Revolution that served as an opening scene for the Bolsheviks, and concludes that there are forces at work behind the scenes, whose goals are far removed from the welfare of the masses.

March 2010 marks the ninety-third anniversary of the (First) Russian Revolution, which served as the prelude for the Bolshevik coup the following November, known as the “Bolshevik Revolution.” A look beyond orthodoxy shows with ample documentation that socialism, from social democracy and fabianism[2] to communism, has generally “operated in the interests of money” as Spengler observed. There is so much history that is associated with Russia, that is only makes sense as to why many people are looking into filling out a Russian visa application form, in the hopes of being able to witness this country for themselves.

The Fabian historian and novelist H. G. Wells, when in Russia in 1920 observing the still precarious Bolshevik regime, commenting on how arch-capitalists were even then already going into the embryonic Soviet republic to negotiate commercial concessions[3], wrote:

. . . Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.[4]

Big Business saw in socialism a means for both destroying the traditional foundations of nations and societies and as a control mechanism. In the case of Old Russia where a State based on monarchical and rural traditions was not amenable to being opened up for global business exploitation of its resources the scene was set for the upheavals of 1917 back in 1905 at the time of the Russo-Japanese War, which played a significant role in the formation of a Russian revolutionary cadre.[5] The funding for the formation of that cadre came from Jacob Schiff, senior partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., New York, who backed Japan in the war against Russia.[6]

The individual most responsible for turning American opinion, including government and diplomatic opinion, against Czarist Russia was the journalist George Kennan[7], who was sponsored by Schiff. In a collection of essays on American-Russian diplomacy, Cowley states that during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 Kennan was in Japan organizing Russian POWs into ‘revolutionary cells’ and claimed to have converted “52,000 Russian soldiers into ‘revolutionists’”. Cowley also adds, significantly,

“Certainly such activity, well-financed by groups in the United States, contributed little to Russian-American solidarity.”[8]

The source of the revolutionary funding “by groups in the United States” was explained by Kennan at a celebration of the March 1917 Russian Revolution, as reported as by the New York Times:

Mr. Kennan told of the work of the Friends of Russian Freedom in the revolution.

He said that during the Russian-Japanese war he was in Tokio, and that he was permitted to make visits among the 12,000 Russian prisoners in Japanese hands at the end of the first year of the war. He had conceived the idea of putting revolutionary propaganda into the hands of the Russian army.

The Japanese authorities favored it and gave him permission. After which he sent to America for all the Russian revolutionary literature to be had . . .

“The movement was financed by a New York banker you all know and love,” he said, referring to Mr. Schiff, “and soon we received a ton and a half of Russian revolutionary propaganda. At the end of the war 50,000 Russian officers and men went back to their country ardent revolutionists. The Friends of Russian Freedom had sowed 50,000 seeds of liberty in 100 Russian regiments. I do not know how many of these officers and men were in the Petrograd fortress last week, but we do know what part the army took in the revolution.”

Then was read a telegram from Jacob H. Schiff, part of which is as follows: “Will you say for me to those present at tonight’s meeting how deeply I regret my inability to celebrate with the Friends of Russian Freedom the actual reward of what we had hoped and striven for these long years.”[9]

The reaction to the Russian revolution by Schiff and indeed by bankers generally, in the USA and London, was one of jubilation. Schiff wrote enthusiastically to the New York Times:

May I through your columns give expression to my joy that the Russian nation, a great and good people, have at last effected their deliverance from centuries of autocratic oppression and through an almost bloodless revolution have now come into their own. Praised be God on high! Jacob H. Schiff.[10]

Writing toThe Evening Post in response to a question about revolutionary Russia’s new status with world financial markets, Schiff replied as head of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.:

Replying to your request for my opinion of the effects of the revolution upon Russia’s finances, I am quite convinced that with the certainty of the development of the country’s enormous resources, which, with the shackles removed from a great people, will follow present events, Russia will before long take rank financially amongst the most favoured nations in the money markets of the world.[11]

Schiff’s reply reflected the general attitude of London and New York financial circles at the time of the revolution. John B. Young of the National City Bank, who had been in Russia in 1916 in regard to a US loan stated in 1917 of the revolution that it has been discussed widely when he had been in Russia the previous year. He regarded those involved as “solid, responsible and conservative.”[12] In the same issue, the New York Times reported that there had been a rise in Russian exchange transactions in London 24 hours preceding the revolution, and that London had known of the revolution prior to New York. The article reported that most prominent financial and business leaders in London and New York had a positive view of the revolution.[13] Another report states that while there had been some disquiet about the revolution, “this news was by no means unwelcome in more important banking circles.”[14]

These bankers and industrialists are cited in these articles as regarding the revolution as being able to eliminate pro-German influents in the Russian government and as likely to pursue a more vigorous course against Germany. Yet such seemingly “patriotic sentiments” cannot be considered the motivation behind the plutocratic support for the revolution. While Max Warburg of the Warburg banking house in Germany, advised the Kaiser and while the German Government arranged for funding and safe passage of Lenin and his entourage from Switzerland across Germany to Russia; his brother Paul,[15] as associate of Schiff’s,[16] looked after the family interests in New York. The factor that was behind this banking support for the revolution whether from London, New York, Stockholm,[17] or Berlin, was that of the tremendous largely untapped resources that would become available to the world financial markets, which had hitherto been denied control under the Czar. It must be kept in mind that these banking dynasties were–and are–not merely national or local banks but are international and do not owe loyalty to any particular nation, unless that nation happens to be acting in their interests at a particular time. [18]

The Bolshevik Revolution of eight months later, despite the violent anti-capitalist rhetoric, was to open Russia’s vast resources up to world capitalism, although with the advent of Stalin, not to the extent that the plutocrats had thought when the Lenin-Trotsky regime had held sway for several years.

Notes

This essay is based on parts of chapters in my book Revolution From Above: Manufacturing “Dissent” in the New World Order (London: Arktos, 2011). I hope to submit a similar essay on the funding of the November 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution for the October-November-December issue of Ab Aeterno.

[1] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of The West, 1918, 1926 (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1971), vol. 2, p. 402.

[2] The Fabian Society features on its coat-of-arms a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Prominent among the founding members were literati such as H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw. The Fabians founded the London School of Economics and Political Science as a training academy for the future governing elite in a collectivist state. According to co-founder Beatrice Webb, funding for this came from Sir Ernest Cassel of Vickers armaments and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., New York; and the Rothschilds, et al. (K. R. Bolton, op.cit., “Revolution By Stealth”).

[3] Washington A. Vanderlip was in Russia at the same time as Wells, negotiating commercial concessions with the Soviet regime–successfully.

[4] H. G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows, Chapter VII, “The Envoy.” Wells went to Russia in September 1920 at the invitation of Kamenev, of the Russian Trade Delegation in London, one of the leaders of the Bolshevik regime. Russia in the Shadows appeared as a series of articles in The Sunday Express. The whole book can be read online at:gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602371h.html

[5] The Russian monarchy and the Russian peasant were both considered historically passé by the Western financial establishment, in the same manner that in our own time the Afrikaner farming folk were considered passé and their system of apartheid hindered the globalization of South Africa’s economy. Like the March and November 1917 Russian Revolutions, the ostensibly “Black” revolution in South Africa eliminated the Afrikaner anachronism and under “socialism” has privatized the parastatals (state-owned utility companies) and privatized the economy.

[6] “Jacob Schiff,” Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. XVI, p. 431. Schiff gave a loan of $200,000,000 to the Japanese aggressors, for which he was decorated by the Japanese Emperor.

[7] Robert Cowley, “A Year in Hell,” America and Russia: A Century and a Half of Dramatic Encounters, ed. Oliver Jensen (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962), pp. 92-121. The introductory note to the chapter indicates the nature of Kennan’s influence: “An American journalist, George Kennan, became the first to reveal the full horrors of Siberian exile and the brutal, studied inhumanity of Czarist ‘justice’.” Cowley quotes historian Thomas A. Bailey as stating of Kennan: “No one person did more to cause the people of the United States to turn against their presumed benefactor of yesteryear.” (A reference to Czarist Russia’s support for the Union during the American Civil War). Cowley, ibid., p. 118.

[8] Ibid., p. 120.

[9] New York Times, 24 March, 1917, pp. 1-2.

[10] Jacob H. Schiff, “Jacob H. Schiff Rejoices, By Telegraph to the Editor of the New York Times,” NewYork Times, 18 March, 1917. This can be viewed in The New York Times online archives: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9802E4DD163AE532A2575BC1A9659C946696D6CF (accessed 12 January 2010).

[11] “Loans easier for Russia,” The New York Times, 20 March 1917. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B04EFDD143AE433A25753C2A9659C946696D6CF (accessed 12 January 2010).

[12] “Is A People’s Revolution.” The New York Times, 16 March 1917.

[13] “Bankers here pleased with news of revolution,” ibid.

[14] “Stocks strong – Wall Street interpretation of Russian News,” ibid.

[15] Paul Warburg, prior to emigrating to the USA, had been decorated by the Kaiser in 1912.

[16] Paul Warburg was also Schiff’s brother-in-law.

[17] Olof Achberg of the Nye Banken, Stockholm was to serve as the conduit for funds between international banks and the Bolsheviks.

[18] For example, what national or prior imperial loyalties could a banking dynasty such as the Rothschilds owe, when they had family branches of the bank in London, Paris, Frankfurt, and Berlin? The same question applies to all such banks, and in our own time to the trans-national corporations.

Source: Ab Aeterno: Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research, no. 2, March 2010

 

Part 2:

Lenin-Hammer

My last article documented the funding of the March 1917 Revolution in Russia.[1] The primary financier of the Russian revolutionary movement 1905–1917 was Jacob Schiff, of Kuhn Loeb and Co., New York. coup of November. The reaction of bankers from Wall Street and The City towards the overthrow of the Czar was enthusiastic.

This article deals with the funding of the subsequent Bolshevik coup eight months later which, as paradoxical as it might seem to those who know nothing of history other than the orthodox version, was also greeted cordially by banking circles in Wall Street and elsewhere.

Apologists for the bankers and other highly-placed individuals who supported the Bolsheviks from the earliest stages of the communist takeover, either diplomatically or financially, justify the support for this mass application of psychopathology as being motivated by patriotic sentiment, in trying to thwart German influence over the Bolsheviks and to keep Russia in the war against Germany. Because Lenin and his entourage had been able to enter Russia courtesy of the German High Command on the basis that a Bolshevik regime would withdraw Russia from the war, Wall Street capitalists explained that their patronage of the Bolsheviks was motivated by the highest ideals of pro-Allied sentiment. Hence, William Boyce Thompson in particular stated that by funding Bolshevik propaganda for distribution in Germany and Austria this would undermine the war effort of those countries, while his assistance to the Bolsheviks in Russia was designed to swing them in favor of the Allies.

These protestations of patriotic motivations ring hollow. International banking is precisely what it is called–international, or globalist as such forms of capitalism are now called. Not only have these banking forms and other forms of big business had overlapping directorships and investments for generations, but they are often related through intermarriage. While Max Warburg of the Warburg banking house in Germany advised the Kaiser and while the German Government arranged for funding and safe passage of Lenin and his entourage from Switzerland across Germany to Russia;[2] his brother Paul,[3] a partner of Jacob Schiff’s at Wall Street, looked after the family interests in New York. The primary factor that was behind the bankers’ support for the Bolsheviks whether from London,[4] New York, Stockholm,[5] or Berlin, was to open up the underdeveloped resources of Russia to the world market, just as in our own day George Soros, the money speculator, funds the so-called “color revolutions” to bring about “regime change” that facilitates the opening up of resources to global exploitation. Hence there can no longer be any doubt that international capital a plays a major role in fomenting revolutions, because Soros plays the well-known modern-day equivalent of Jacob Schiff.

Recognition of Bolsheviks Pushed by Bankers

This aim of international finance, whether centered in Germany, England or the USA, to open up Russia to capitalist exploitation by supporting the Bolsheviks, was widely commented on at the time by a diversity of well-informed sources, including Allied intelligence agencies, and of particular interest by two very different individuals, Henry Wickham Steed, editor of The London Times, and Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labor.

On May 1, 1922 The New York Times reported that Gompers, reacting to negotiations at the international economic conference at Genoa, declared that a group of “predatory international financiers” were working for the recognition of the Bolshevik regime for the opening up of resources for exploitation. Despite the rhetoric by New York and London bankers during the war that a Russian revolution would serve the Allied cause, Gompers opined that this was an “Anglo-American-German banking group,” and that they were “international bankers” who did not adhere to any national allegiance. He also noted that prominent Americans who had a history of anti-labor attitudes were advocating recognition of the Bolshevik regime.[6]

What Gompers claimed, was similarly expressed by Henry Wickham Steed of The London Times, based on his observations. In a first-hand account of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Steed stated that proceedings were interrupted by the return from Moscow of William C. Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens, “who had been sent to Russia towards the middle of February by Colonel House and Mr. Lansing, for the purpose of studying conditions, political and economic, therein for the benefit of the American Commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate peace.”[7] Steed also refers to British Prime Minister Lloyd George as being likely to have known of the Mission and its purpose. Steed stated that international finance was behind the move for recognition of the Bolshevik regime and other moves in favor of the Bolsheviks, and specifically identified Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., New York, as one of the principal bankers “eager to secure recognition”:

Potent international financial interests were at work in favor of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference—a proposal which had failed after having been transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. . . . The well-known American Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists . . .[8]

In return for diplomatic recognition, Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Commissary for Foreign Affairs, was offering “extensive commercial and economic concessions.”

Wickham Steed with the support of TheTimes’ proprietor, Lord Northcliffe, exposed the machinations of international finance to obtain the recognition of the Bolshevik regime, which still had a very uncertain future.

Steed related that he was called upon by US President Wilson’s primary adviser, Edward Mandel House, who was concerned at Steed’s exposé of the relationship between Bolshevists and international financers:

That day Colonel House asked me to call upon him. I found him worried both by my criticism of any recognition of the Bolshevists and by the certainty, which he had not previously realized, that if the President were to recognize the Bolshevists in return for commercial concessions his whole “idealism” would be hopelessly compromised as commercialism in disguise. I pointed out to him that not only would Wilson be utterly discredited but that the League of Nations would go by the board, because all the small peoples and many of the big peoples of Europe would be unable to resist the Bolshevism which Wilson would have accredited.[9]

Steed stated to House that it was Jacob Schiff, Warburg and other bankers who were behind the diplomatic moves in favor of the Bolsheviks:

I insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.[10]

Steed here indicates an uncharacteristic naïveté in thinking that House would not have known of the plans of Schiff, Warburg, et al. House was throughout his career close to these bankers and was involved with them in setting up a war-time think tank called The Inquiry, and following the war the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations, in order to shape an internationalist post-war foreign policy. It was Schiff and Paul Warburg and other Wall Street bankers who called on House in 1913 to get House’s support for the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank.[11]

House in Machiavellian manner asked Steed to compromise; to support humanitarian aid supposedly for the benefit of all Russians. Steed agreed to consider this, but soon after talking with House found out that British Prime Minister Lloyd George and Wilson were to proceed with recognition the following day. Steed therefore wrote the leading article for the Paris Daily Mail of March 28th, exposing the maneuvers and asking how a pro-Bolshevik attitude was consistent with Pres. Wilson’s declared moral principles for the post-war world?

. . . Who are the tempters that would dare whisper into the ears of the Allied and Associated Governments? They are not far removed from the men who preached peace with profitable dishonor to the British people in July, 1914. They are akin to, if not identical with, the men who sent Trotsky and some scores of associate desperadoes to ruin the Russian Revolution as a democratic, anti-German force in the spring of 1917.[12]

Here Steed does not seem to have been aware that some of the same bankers who were supporting the Bolsheviks had also supported the March Revolution.

Charles Crane,[13] who had recently talked with President Wilson, told Steed that Wilson was about to recognize the Bolsheviks, which would result in a negative public opinion in the USA and destroy Wilson’s post-War internationalist aims. Significantly Crane also identified the pro-Bolshevik faction as being that of Big Business, stating to Steed: “Our people at home will certainly not stand for the recognition of the Bolshevists at the bidding of Wall Street.” Steed was again seen by House, who stated that Steed’s article in the Paris Daily Mail, “had got under the President’s hide.” House asked that Steed postpone further exposés in the press, and again raised the prospect of recognition based on humanitarian aid. Lloyd George was also greatly perturbed by Steed’s articles in the Daily Mail and complained that he could not undertake a “sensible” policy towards the Bolsheviks while the press had an anti-Bolshevik attitude.[14]

Thompson and the American Red Cross Mission

As mentioned, House attempted to persuade Steed on the idea of relations with Bolshevik Russia ostensibly for the purpose of humanitarian aid for the Russian people. This had already been undertaken just after the Bolshevik Revolution, when the regime was far from certain, under the guise of the American Red Cross Mission. Col. William Boyce Thompson, a director of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, organized and largely funded the Mission, with other funding coming from International Harvester, which gave $200,000. The so-called Red Cross Mission was largely comprised of business personnel, and was according to Thompson’s assistant, Cornelius Kelleher, “nothing but a mask”for business interests.[15] Of the 24 members, five were doctors and two were medical researchers. The rest were lawyers and businessmen associated with Wall Street. Dr. Billings nominally headed the Mission.[16] Prof. Antony Sutton of the Hoover Institute stated that the Mission provided assistance for revolutionaries:

We know from the files of the U.S. embassy in Petrograd that the U.S. Red Cross gave 4,000 rubles to Prince Lvoff, president of the Council of Ministers, for “relief of revolutionists” and 10,000 rubles in two payments to Kerensky for “relief of political refugees.”[17]

The original intention of the Mission, hastily organized by Thompson in light of revolutionary events, was ‘”nothing less than to shore up the Provisional regime,” according to the historian William Harlane Hale, formerly of the United States Foreign Service.[18] The support for the social revolutionaries indicates that the same bankers who backed the Kerensky regime and the March Revolution also supported the Bolsheviks, and it seems reasonable to opine that these financiers considered Kerensky a mere prelude for the Bolshevik coup, as the following indicates.

Thompson set himself up in royal manner in Petrograd reporting directly to Pres. Wilson and bypassing US Ambassador Francis. Thompson provided funds from his own money, first to the Social Revolutionaries, to whom he gave one million rubles,[19] and shortly after $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviks to spread their propaganda to Germany and Austria.[20] Thompson met Thomas Lamont of J. P. Morgan Co. in London to persuade the British War Cabinet to drop its anti-Bolshevik policy. On his return to the USA Thompson undertook a tour advocating US recognition of the Bolsheviks.[21] Thompson’s deputy Raymond Robbins had been pressing for recognition of the Bolsheviks, and Thompson agreed that the Kerensky regime was doomed and consequently “sped to Washington to try and swing the Administration onto a new policy track,” meeting resistance from Wilson, who was being pressure by Ambassador Francis.[22]

The “Bolshevik of Wall Street”

Such was Thompson’s enthusiasm for Bolshevism that he was nicknamed “the Bolshevik of Wall Street” by his fellow plutocrats. Thompson gave a lengthy interview with The New York Times just after his four month tour with the American Red Cross Mission, lauding the Bolsheviks and assuring the American public that the Bolsheviks were not about to make a separate peace with Germany.[23] The article is an interesting indication of how Wall Street viewed their supposedly “deadly enemies,” the Bolsheviks, at a time when their position was very precarious. Thompson stated that while the “reactionaries,” if they assumed power, might seek peace with Germany, the Bolsheviki would not. “His opinion is that Russia needs America, that America must stand by Russia,” stated the Times. Thompson is quoted: “The Bolsheviki peace aims are the same as those of the Untied States.” Thompson alluded to Wilson’s speech to the United States Congress on Russia as “a wonderful meeting of the situation,” but that the American public “know very little about the Bolsheviki.” The Times stated:

Colonel Thompson is a banker and a capitalist, and he has large manufacturing interests. He is not a sentimentalist nor a “radical.” But he has come back from his official visit to Russia in absolute sympathy with the Russian democracy as represented by the Bolsheviki at present.

Hence at this time Thompson was trying to sell the Bolsheviks as “democrats,” implying that they were part of the same movement as the Kerensky regime that they had overthrown. While Thompson did not consider Bolshevism the final form of government, he did see it as the most promising step towards a “representative government” and that it was the “duty” of the USA to “sympathize” with and “aid” Russia “through her days of crisis.” He stated that in reply to surprise at his pro-Bolshevik sentiments he did not mind being called “red” if that meant sympathy for 170,000,000 people “struggling for liberty and fair living.” Thompson also saw that while the Bolsheviki had entered a “truce” with Germany, they were also spreading Bolshevik doctrines among the German people, which Thompson called “their ideals of freedom” and their “propaganda of democracy.” Thompson lauded the Bolshevik Government as being the equivalent to America’s democracy, stating:

The present government in Russia is a government of workingmen. It is a Government by the majority, and, because our Government is a government of the majority, I don’t see how it can fail to support the Government of Russia.

Thompson saw the prospects of the Bolshevik Government being transformed as it incorporated a more Centrist position and included employers. If Bolshevism did not proceed thus, then “God help the world,” warned Thompson. Given that this was a time when Lenin and Trotsky held sway over the regime, subsequently to become the most enthusiastic advocates of opening Russia up to foreign capital (New Economic Policy) prospects seemed good for a joint Capitalist-Bolshevik venture with no indication that an upstart named Stalin would throw a spanner in the works.

The Times article ends: “At home in New York, the Colonel has received the good-natured title of ‘the Bolshevik of Wall Street.’”[24] It was against this background that it can now be understood why labor leader Samuel Gompers denounced Bolshevism as a tool of “predatory international finance,” while arch-capitalist Thompson lauded it as “a government of working men.”

The Council on Foreign Relations Report

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) had been established in 1921 by President Wilson’s chief adviser Edward Mandel House out of a previous think tank called The Inquiry, formed in 1917–1918 to advise President Wilson on the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. It was this conference about which Steed had detailed his observations when he stated that there were financial interests trying to secure the recognition of the Bolsheviks.[25]

Peter Grose in his semi-official history of the CFR writes of it as a think tank combining academe and big business that had emerged from The Inquiry group.[26] Therefore the CFR report on Soviet Russia at this early period is instructive as to the relationship that influential sections of the US Establishment wished to pursue in regard to the Bolshevik regime. Grosse writes of this period:

Awkward in the records of The Inquiry had been the absence of a single study or background paper on the subject of Bolshevism. Perhaps this was simply beyond the academic imagination of the times. Not until early 1923 could the Council summon the expertise to mobilize a systematic examination of the Bolshevik regime, finally entrenched after civil war in Russia. The impetus for this first study was Lenin’s New Economic Policy, which appeared to open the struggling Bolshevik economy to foreign investment. Half the Council’s study group were members drawn from firms that had done business in pre-revolutionary Russia, and the discussions about the Soviet future were intense. The concluding report dismissed “hysterical” fears that the revolution would spill outside Russia’s borders into central Europe or, worse, that the heady new revolutionaries would ally with nationalistic Muslims in the Middle East to evict European imperialism. The Bolsheviks were on their way to “sanity and sound business practices,” the Council study group concluded, but the welcome to foreign concessionaires would likely be short-lived. Thus, the Council experts recommended in March 1923 that American businessmen get into Russia while Lenin’s invitation held good, make money on their investments, and then get out as quickly as possible. A few heeded the advice; not for seven decades would a similar opportunity arise.[27]

However, financial interests had already moved into Soviet Russia from the beginning of the Bolshevik regime.

The Vanderlip Concession

H. G. Wells, historian, novelist, and Fabian-socialist, observed first-hand the relationship between Communism and big business when he had visited Bolshevik Russia. Travelling to Russia in 1920 where he interviewed Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders, Wells hoped that the Western Powers and in particular the USA would come to the Soviets’ aid. Wells also met there “Mr. Vanderlip” who was negotiating business contracts with the Soviets. Wells commented of the situation he would like to see developing, and as a self-described “collectivist” made a telling observation on the relationship between Communism and “Big Business”:

The only Power capable of playing this role of eleventh-hour helper to Russia single-handed is the United States of America. That is why I find the adventure of the enterprising and imaginative Mr. Vanderlip very significant. I doubt the conclusiveness of his negotiations; they are probably only the opening phase of a discussion of the Russian problem upon a new basis that may lead it at last to a comprehensive world treatment of this situation. Other Powers than the United States will, in the present phase of world-exhaustion, need to combine before they can be of any effective use to Russia. Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism.The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.[28]

In addressing concerns that were being expressed among Bolshevik Party “activists” at a meeting of the Moscow Organization of the party, Lenin sought to reassure them that the Government was not selling out to foreign capitalism, but that, in view of what Lenin believed to be an inevitable war between the USA and Japan, a US interest in Kamchatka would be favorable to Soviet Russia as a defensive position against Japan. Such strategic considerations on the part of the US, it might be added, were also more relevant to US and other forms of so-called “intervention” during the Russian Civil War between the Red and the White Armies, than any desire to help the Whites overturn the Bolsheviks, let alone restore Czarism. Lenin said of Vanderlip to the Bolshevik cadres:

We must take advantage of the situation that has arisen. That is the whole purpose of the Kamchatka concessions. We have had a visit from Vanderlip, a distant relative of the well-known multimillionaire, if he is to he believed; but since our intelligence service, although splendidly organized, unfortunately does not yet extend to the United States of America, we have not yet established the exact kinship of these Vanderlips. Some even say there is no kinship at all. I do not presume to judge: my knowledge is confined to having read a book by Vanderlip, not the one that was in our country and is said to be such a very important person that he has been received with all the honors by kings and ministers—from which one must infer that his pocket is very well lined indeed. He spoke to them in the way people discuss matters at meetings such as ours, for instance, and told then in the calmest tones how Europe should be restored. If ministers spoke to him with so much respect, it must mean that Vanderlip is in touch with the multimillionaires.[29]

Of the meeting with Vanderlip, Lenin indicated that it was based on a secret diplomacy that was being denied by the US Administration, while Vandrelip returned to the USA, like other capitalists such as Thompson, praising the Bolsheviks. Lenin continued:

. . . I expressed the hope that friendly relations between the two states would be a basis not only for the granting of a concession, but also for the normal development of reciprocal economic assistance. It all went off in that kind of vein. Then telegrams came telling what Vanderlip had said on arriving home from abroad. Vanderlip had compared Lenin with Washington and Lincoln. Vanderlip had asked for my autographed portrait. I had declined, because when you present a portrait you write, “To Comrade So-and-so,” and I could not write, “To Comrade Vanderlip.” Neither was it possible to write: “To the Vanderlip we are signing a concession with” because that concession agreement would be concluded by the Administration when it took office. I did not know what to write. It would have been illogical to give my photograph to an out-and-out imperialist. Yet these were the kind of telegrams that arrived; this affair has clearly played a certain part in imperialist politics. When the news of the Vanderlip concessions came out, Harding—the man who has been elected President, but who will take office only next March—issued an official denial, declaring that he knew nothing about it, had no dealings with the Bolsheviks, and had heard nothing about any concessions. That was during the elections, and, for all we know, to confess, during elections, that you have dealings with the Bolsheviks may cost you votes. That was why he issued an official denial. He had this report sent to all the newspapers that are hostile to the Bolsheviks and are on the pay roll of the imperialist parties . . .[30]

This mysterious Vanderlip was in fact Washington Vanderlip who had, according to Armand Hammer, come to Russia in 1919, although even Hammer does not seem to have known much of the matter.[31] Lenin’s rationalizations in trying to justify concessions to foreign capitalists to the “Moscow activists” in 1920 seem disingenuous and less than forthcoming. Washington Vanderlip was an engineer whose negotiations with Russia drew considerable attention in the USA. The New York Times wrote that Vanderlip, speaking from Russia, denied reports of Lenin’s speech to “Moscow activists” that the concessions would serve Bolshevik geopolitical interests, with Vanderlip declaring that he had established a common frontier between the USA and Russia and that trade relations must be immediately restored.[32] The New York Times reporting in 1922: “The exploration of Kamchatka for oil as soon as trade relations between this country and Russia are established was assured today when the Standard Oil Company of California purchased one-quarter of the stock in the Vanderlip syndicate.” This gave Standard Oil exclusive leases on any syndicate lands on which oil was found. The Vanderlip syndicate comprised sixty-four units. The Standard Oil Company has just purchased sixteen units. However, the Vanderlip concessions could not come into effect until Soviet Russia was recognized by the USA.[33]

The Vanderlip syndicate holds concessions for the exploitation of coal, oil, and timber lands, fisheries, etc., east of the 160th parallel in Kamchatka. The Russian Government granted the syndicate alternate sections of land there and will draw royalties amounting to approximately 5 percent on all products developed and marketed by the syndicate.[34]

It is little wonder then that US capitalists were eager to see the recognition of the Soviet regime.

Bolshevik Bankers

In 1922 Soviet Russia’s first international bank was created, Ruskombank, headed by Olof Aschberg of the Nye Banken, Stockholm, Sweden. The predominant capital represented in the bank was British. The foreign director of Ruskombank was Max May, vice president of the Guaranty Trust Company.[35] Similarly to “the Bolshevik of Wall Street,” William Boyce Thompson, Aschberg was known as the “Bolshevik banker” for his close involvement with banking interests that had channeled funds to the Bolsheviks.

Guaranty Trust Company became intimately involved with Soviet economic transactions. A Scotland Yard Intelligence Report stated as early as 1919 the connection between Guaranty Trust and Ludwig C. A. K. Martens, head of the Soviet Bureau in New York when the bureau was established that year.[36] When representatives of the Lusk Committee investigating Bolshevik activities in the USA raided the Soviet Bureau offices on May 7, 1919, files of communications with almost a thousand firms were found. Basil H. Thompson of Scotland Yard in a special report stated that despite denials, there was evidence in the seized files that the Soviet Bureau was being funded by Guaranty Trust Company.[37] The significance of the Guaranty Trust Company was that it was part of the J. P. Morgan economic empire, which Dr. Sutton shows in his study to have been a major player in economic relations with Soviet Russia from its early days. It was also J. P. Morgan interests that predominated in the formation of a consortium, the American International Corporation (AIC), which was another source eager to secure the recognition of the still embryonic Soviet state. Interests represented in the directorship of the American International Corporation (AIC) included: National City Bank; General Electric; Du Pont; Kuhn, Loeb and Co.; Rockefeller; Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Ingersoll-Rand; Hanover National Bank, etc.[38]

The AIC’s representative in Russia at the time of the revolutionary tumult was its executive secretary William Franklin Sands, who was asked by US Secretary of State Robert Lansing for a report on the situation and what the US response should be. Sands’ attitude toward the Bolsheviks was, like that of Thompson, enthusiastic. Sands wrote a memorandum to Lansing in January 1918, at a time when the Bolshevik hold was still far from sure, that there had already been too much of a delay by the USA in recognizing the Bolshevik regime such as it existed. The USA had to make up for “lost time,” and like Thompson, Sands considered the Bolshevik Revolution to be analogous to the American Revolution.[39] In July 1918 Sands wrote to US Treasury Secretary McAdoo that a commission should be established by private interests with government backing, to provide “economic assistance to Russia.”[40]

Armand Hammer

One of those closely associated with Ludwig Martens and the Soviet Bureau was Dr. Julius Hammer, an emigrant from Russia who was a founder of the Communist Party USA. There is evidence that Julius Hammer was the host to Leon Trotsky when the latter with his family arrived in New York in 1917, and that it was Dr. Hammer’s chauffeured car that provided transport to Natalia and the Trotsky children. The Trotskys were met on disembarkation at the New York dock by Arthur Concors, a director of the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society, whose advisory board included Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.[41] Dr. Hammer was the “primary owner of Allied Drug and Chemical Co.,” and “one of those not so rare creatures, a radical Marxist turned wealthy entrepreneur,” who lived an opulent lifestyle, according to Professor Spence.[42] Another financier linked to Trotsky was his own uncle, banker Abram Zhivotovskii, who was associated with numerous financial interests including those of Olof Aschberg.[43]

The intimate association of the Hammer family with Soviet Russia was to be maintained from start to finish, with an interlude of withdrawal during the Stalinist period. Julius’ son Armand, chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, was the first foreigner to obtain commercial concessions from the Soviet Government. Armand was in Russia in 1921 to arrange for the reintroduction of capitalism according to the new economic course set by Lenin, the New Economic Policy. Lenin stated to Hammer that the economies of Russia and the USA were complementary, and in exchange for the exploitation of Russia’s raw materials he hoped for America’s technology.[44] This was precisely the attitude of significant business interests in the West. Lenin stated to Hammer that it was hoped the New Economic Policy would accelerate the economic process “by a system of industrial and commercial concessions to foreigners. It will give great opportunities to the United States.”[45]

Hammer met Trotsky, who asked him whether “financial circles” in the USA regard Russia as a desirable field of investment? Trotsky continued:

Inasmuch as Russia had its Revolution, capital was really safer there than anywhere else because, “whatever should happen abroad, the Soviet would adhere to any agreements it might make. Suppose one of your Americans invest money in Russia. When the Revolution comes to America, his property will of course be nationalized, but his agreement with us will hold good and he will thus be in a much more favorable position than the rest of his fellow capitalists.[46]

The manner by which Russia fundamentally changed direction, resulting eventually in the Cold War when Stalin refused to continue the wartime alliance for the purposes of establishing a World State via the United Nations Organization, traces its origins back to the divergence of opinion, among many other issues, between Trotsky and Stalin in regard to the role of foreign investment in the Soviet Union.[47] The CFR report had been prescient in warning big business to get into Russia immediately lest the situation changed radically.

Regimented Labor

But for the moment, with Trotsky entrenched as the warlord of Bolshevism, and Lenin favorable towards international capital investment, events in Russia seemed to be promising. A further major factor in the enthusiasm certain capitalist interests had for the Bolsheviks was the regimentation of labor under the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The workers’ state provided foreign capitalists with a controlled workforce. Trotsky had stated:

The militarization of labor is the indispensable basic method for the organization of our labor forces. . . . Is it true that compulsory labor is always unproductive? . . . This is the most wretched and miserable liberal prejudice: chattel slavery too was productive. . . . Compulsory slave labor was in its time a progressive phenomenon. Labor obligatory for the whole country, compulsory for every worker, is the basis of socialism. . . . Wages must not be viewed from the angle of securing the personal existence of the individual worker [but should] measure the conscientiousness, and efficiency of the work of every laborer.[48]

Hammer related of his experiences in the young Soviet state that although lengthy negotiations had to be undertaken with each of the trades unions involved in an enterprise, “the great power and influence of the trade unions was not without its advantages to the employer of labor in Russia. Once the employer had signed a collective agreement with the union branch there was little risk of strikes or similar trouble.”

Breaches of the codes as negotiated could result in dismissal, with recourse by the sacked worker to a labor court which, in Hammer’s experience, did not generally find in the worker’s favor, which would mean that there would be little chance of the sacked worker getting another job.[49]

However, Trotsky’s insane run in the Soviet Union was short-lived. As for Hammer, despite his greatly expanding and diverse businesses in the Soviet Union, after Stalin assumed power Hammer packed up and left, not returning until Stalin’s demise. Hammer opined decades later:

I never met Stalin—I never had any desire to do so—and I never had any dealings with him. However it was perfectly clear to me in 1930 that Stalin was not a man with whom you could do business. Stalin believed that the state was capable of running everything without the support of foreign concessionaires and private enterprise. That is the main reason I left Moscow. I could see that I would soon be unable to do business there and, since business was my sole reason to be there, my time was up.[50]

Foreign capital did nonetheless continue to do business with the USSR[51] as best as it was able, but the promising start that capitalists saw in the March and November revolutions for a new Russia that would replace the antiquated Czarist system with a modern economy from which they could reap the rewards was, as the 1923 CFR report warned, short-lived. Gorbachev and Yeltsin provided a brief interregnum of hope for foreign capital, to be disappointed again with the rise of Putin and a revival of nationalism and opposition to the oligarchs. The policy of continuing economic relations with the USSR even during the era of the Cold War was promoted as a strategy in the immediate aftermath of World War II when a CFR report by George S Franklin recommended attempting to work with the USSR as much as possible, “unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation . . .”

The United States must be powerful not only politically and economically, but also militarily. We cannot afford to dissipate our military strength unless Russia is willing concurrently to decrease hers. On this we lay great emphasis.

We must take every opportunity to work with the Soviets now, when their power is still far inferior to ours, and hope that we can establish our cooperation on a firmer basis for the not so distant future when they will have completed their reconstruction and greatly increased their strength. . . . The policy we advocate is one of firmness coupled with moderation and patience.[52]

Since Putin, the CFR again sees Russia as having taken a “wrong direction.” The current recommendation is for “selective cooperation” rather than “partnership, which is not now feasible.”[53]

The Revolutionary Nature of Capital

Should the fact that international capital viewed the March and even the November Revolutions with optimism be seen as an anomaly of history? Oswald Spengler was one of the first historians to expose the connections between capital and revolution. In The Decline of the West he called socialism “capitalistic” because it does not aim to replace money-based values, “but to possess them.” H. G. Wells, it will be recalled, said something similar. Spengler stated of socialism that it is “nothing but a trusty henchman of Big Capital, which knows perfectly well how to make use of it.” He elaborated in a footnote, seeing the connections going back to antiquity:

Herein lies the secret of why all radical (i.e. poor) parties necessarily become the tools of the money-powers, the Equites, the Bourse. Theoretically their enemy is capital, but practically they attack, not the Bourse, but Tradition on behalf of the Bourse. This is as true today as it was for the Gracchuan age, and in all countries . . .[54]

It was the Equites, the big-money party, which made Tiberius Gracchu’s popular movement possible at all; and as soon as that part of the reforms that was advantageous to themselves had been successfully legalized, they withdrew and the movement collapsed.[55]

From the Gracchuan Age to the Cromwellian and the French Revolutions, to Soros’ “color revolutions” of today, the Russian Revolutions were neither the first nor the last of political upheavals to serve the interests of Money Power in the name of “the people.”

Notes

[1] K. R. Bolton, “March 1917: Wall Street & the March 1917 Russian Revolution,” Ab Aeterno, No. 2 (March 2010).

[2] Michael Pearson, The Sealed Train: Journey to Revolution: Lenin–1917 (London: Macmillan, 1975).

[3] Paul Warburg, prior to immigrating to the USA, had been decorated by the Kaiser in 1912.

[4] Col. William Wiseman, head of the British Secret Service, was the British equivalent to America’s key presidential adviser, Edward House, with whom he was in constant communication. Wiseman became a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. From London on May 1, 1918 Wiseman cabled House that the Allies should intervene at the invitation of the Bolsheviks and help organize the Bolshevik army then fighting the White Armies in a bloody Civil War at a time when the Bolshevik hold on Russia was doubtful (Edward M. House, ed. Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Col. House [New York: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1926], Vol. III, p. 421).

[5] Olof Aschberg of the Nye Banken, Stockholm, the so-called “Bolshevik banker” who became head of the first Soviet international bank, Ruskombank, channeled funds to the Bolsheviks. On September 6, 1948 The London Evening Star commented on Aschberg’s visit to Swiss bankers that he had “advanced large sums to Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. At the time of the revolution Mr. Aschberg gave Trotsky money to form and equip the first unit of the Red Army.”

[6] Samuel Gompers, “Soviet Bribe fund Here Says Gompers, Has Proof That Offers Have Been Made, He Declares, Opposing Recognition. Propaganda Drive. Charges Strong Group of Bankers With Readiness to Accept Lenin’s Betrayal of Russia,” The New York Times, May 1, 1922. Online at Times’ archives: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E00E3D81739EF3ABC4953DFB3668389639EDE

[7] Henry Wickham Steed, “Through Thirty Years 1892–1922 A personal narrative,” The PeaceConference, The Bullitt Mission, Vol. II. (New York: Doubleday Page and Co., 1924), p. 301.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Charles Seymour, 165–66. House was assigned by Wilson to draw up the constitution for the League of Nations, and in 1918 formed a think tank at Wilson’s request, called The Inquiry, to advise on post-war policy, which became the Council on Foreign Relations. House was the US chief negotiator at the Peace Conference in Paris, 1919–1920.

[12] Henry Wickham Steed, “Peace with Honor,” Paris Daily Mail, 28 March 1922; quoted in Steed (1924).

[13] Crane was a member of a 1917 Special Diplomatic Mission to Russia, and a member of the American Section of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

[14] H. W. Steed, 1924, op. cit.

[15] Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), p. 71.

[16] Ibid., p. 75.

[17] Ibid., p. 73.

[18] William Harlan Hale, “When the Red Storm Broke,” America and Russia: A Century and a Half of Dramatic Encounters, ed. Oliver Jensen (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962), p. 150.

[19] Ibid., p.151.

[20] “Gives Bolsheviki a Million,” Washington Post, 2 February 1918, cited by Sutton, ibid., pp. 82–83.

[21] A. Sutton, op.cit., p. 8.

[22] W. Harlan Hale, op.cit., p. 151.

[23] Trotsky while still in the USA had made similar claims. “People War Weary. But Leo Trotsky Says They Do Not Want Separate Peace,” New York Times, March 16, 1917. This was why he became the focus of British intelligence efforts via R. H. Bruce Lockhart, special agent to the British War Cabinet in Russia.

[24] “Bolsheviki Will Not Make Separate Peace: Only Those Who Made Up Privileged Classes Under Czar Would Do So, Says Col. W. B. Thompson, Just Back From Red Cross Mission,” New York Times, January 27, 1918.

[25] Robert S. Rifkind, ‘”The Wasted Mission,” America and Russia, op. cit., p. 180.

[26] Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry:The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html (Accessed on February 27, 2010).

[27] Ibid. Chapter: “Basic Assumptions.”

[28] H. G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows, Chapter VII, “The Envoy.” Wells went to Russia in September 1920 at the invitation of Kamenev, of the Russian Trade Delegation in London, one of the leaders of the Bolshevik regime. Russia in the Shadows appeared as a series of articles in The Sunday Express. The whole book can be read online at: gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602371h.html

[29] V. I. Lenin, December 6, 1920, Collected Works, 4th English Edition (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), Volume 31, 438–59 http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/06.htm (Accessed on August 4, 2010).

[30] Ibid.

[31] A. Hammer, Witness to History (Reading, England: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988), pp.151-152.

[32] “Vanderlip’s Empire,” The New York Times, December 1, 1920, 14.

[33] “Standard Oil Joins Vanderlip Project,” The New York Times, January 11, 1922, p. 1.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), pp. 62–63.

[36] “Scotland Yard Intelligence Report,” London 1919, US State Dept. Decimal File, 316-22-656, cited by A. Sutton, ibid., p. 113.

[37] Basil H. Thompson, British Home Office Directorate of Intelligence, “Special Report No. 5 (Secret),” Scotland Yard, London, July 14, 1919; cited by Sutton, ibid., p. 115.

[38] A Sutton, op.cit., pp. 130–31.

[39] Sands’ memorandum to Lansing, p. 9; cited by Sutton, ibid., pp. 132, 134.

[40] A. Sutton, ibid., p. 135.

[41] Richard B Spence, “Hidden Agendas: Spies, Lies and Intrigue Surrounding Trotsky’s American Visit, January-April 1917,” Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 21, #1 (2008).

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] A. Hammer, Witness to History, op. cit., p. 143.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid., p. 160.

[47] K. R. Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a New World Order,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 31, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/31/origins-of-the-cold-war-how-stalin-foild-a-new-world-order/all/1

[48] Leon Trotsky, Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions, April 6th, 1920. http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/05.htm (Accessed on August 4, 2010).

[49] A. Hammer, op. cit., p. 217.

[50] Ibid., p. 221.

[51] Charles Levinson, Vodka-Cola (West Sussex: Biblias, 1980). Antony Sutton, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York: Arlington House, 1973).

[52] Peter Grose, op. it., “The First Transformation,” http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html

[53] Jack Kemp, et al., Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should do, Independent Task Force Report, no. 57 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006) xi. The entire publication can be downloaded at: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9997/

[54] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of The West (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1971), Vol. 2, p. 464.

[55] Ibid., p. 402.

Source: Ab Aeterno, no. 5, Fall 2010

DOCUMENTARY: The International Banker Conspiracy

For many years the words “International Banker”, “Banksters”, “Rothschild”, “Money”, and “Gold” have held a mystical type of fascination for many people around the world but particularly in the United States.

This documentary delves into the International Banker Conspiracy and is a must watch to see and understand who are the real puppet masters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti_VEXUvlsw

 

eBOOK: Secrets of the Federal Reserve

“The Secrets of the Federal Reserve,” by Eustace Mullins (1983)

The author presents some bare facts about the Federal Reserve System with subjects on: it IS NOT a U.S. government bank; it IS NOT controlled by Congress; it IS a privately Secrets of the Federal Reserveowned Central Bank controlled by the elite financiers in their own interest.  

The Federal Reserve elite controls excessive interest rates, inflation, the printing of paper money, and have taken control of the depression of prosperity in the United States.

This astonishing research reveal to us in a very clear way the real purposes of the Federal Reserve Bank. This “federal” institution was created by the international bankers elite at the beginning of the XX century at Jekyll Island with the sole purpose of completed their plan of world economic domination. This book help us to understand a little more why WWI (1914-18), the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) in Russia, the Crash of 1929, the rise of the Nazism in Germany in 1933 and WWII (1939-1945) and how the banks managed to survived unseen and untochable all this time, merged and become more rich and powerful. Also the author give us the names of the intellectual creators such as the Morgan, Harrimans, Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers families and how they manipulated politicians and stateman such as Herbert H. Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt et al. to approved, legalized and support the Federal Reserve Bank, the only institution that break the check and balance policy in United States “reporting” only to the president of the nation.

 

You can download the book below. 

Please support Zionist Report & buy the book on Amazon:

[WooZoneProducts asin=”0979917654″][/WooZoneProducts]

[embeddoc url=”http://zionistreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Secrets-of-the-Federal-Reserve-.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]

About the Author

Eustace Mullins is a veteran of the United States Air Force, with thirty-eight months active service during World War II. A native of Virginia, he was educated at Washington and Lee University, New York University, the University of North Dakota, the Escuelas des Bellas Artes, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Washington, D.C. The original book, published under the title “Mullins on the Federal Reserve”, was commissioned by the poet Ezra Pound in 1948. Ezra Pound was a political prisoner for thirteen and a half years at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane). His release was accomplished largely through the efforts of Mr. Mullins. –This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

 

Communism - Capitalism

COMMENTARY: Jews And Marxism – Socialism – Communism

Marxism, Socialism, or Communism in practice are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority having virtually no property or legal rights. As is discussed elsewhere herein, Talmudic Judaism is the progenitor of modem Communism and Marxist collectivism as it is now applied to a billion or more of the world’s population.

Quote

Only through thorough understanding of the ideology from which this collectivism originates, and those who dominate and propagate it, can the rest of the world hope to escape the same fate. Communism — Socialism was originated by Jews and has been dominated by them from the beginning.

There is no moral, philosophical or ethical conflict whatsoever between Judaism and Marxist collectivism as they exist in actual practice. Marxism, to which all branches of Socialism necessarily adhere, was originated by a Jew, Karl Marx, himself of Rabbinical descent. Every Jewish source today boasts of his rabbinical ancestry, and his “keen dialectical ability” (as presumably manifested by his abstruse, hair-splitting, Das Kapital) being due to his Talmudic inheritance.

Marx did not actually originate anything, but merely “streamlined” Talmudism for Gentile consumption. The Socialist” system he conceived merely brings about a practical means for a state dominated and controlled through a Jewish minority to rule by absolute dictatorship over everything and everyone, a concept which has been carried out very successfully in those countries of the World brought thus far under Marxist dictatorship.

Socialism is indeed merely the clover held in front of the cow’s nose to get her into the barn under the milking machine. It is a mechanism whereby a “human” can lead a whole non-human herd into the Jewish controlled barn.

The next time when some Christian dupe tells you: “Socialism is not Jewish!,” for one thing, pull out the pamphlet “Jew and Non-Jew,” put out by the Reform Jewish “Union of American Hebrew Congregations” and their “Central Conference of American Rabbis” and read:

Socialism was originated by Jews; and today Jews play a leading role in its spread and interpretation.” (page 30) (The Commission on Information about Judaism, Merchants Bldg., Cincinnati, Ohio, Exhibit I, page 71)

In a publication of the Jewish Publication Society of America, “Jewish Contributions to Civilization,” it is stated that, “We find a strong Jewish participation throughout the socialistic movement which, from its inception up to the present day. has been largely dominated by Jewish influence. (See Exhibit I page 71)

Says the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia: “Jews have been prominently identified with the Socialist movement from its very inception.” (See Exhibit J, page 72)

The leaders of the 1917 Russian revolution were mostly Jews. (See Exhibit K, page 73)

Communism - Capitalism

Moses Hess — Jewish Marxist and Progenitor of Zionism

Like Karl Marx, “Father of modern Socialism,” Moses Hess (1812-1875) was born in Germany of Talmudic rabbinical ancestry, being steeped in Orthodox Judaism by the rabbi grandfather who raised him. He was active with Marx and Engels in promoting Communism which, he held, could best be achieved on a worldwide scale through Jewish Hasidism and Nationalism, or Zionism, based upon Orthodox Judaism. That he remains a pillar of present-day Zionism is illustrated by the fact that the Jewish press has recently announced removal of his body to Israel.

“He collaborated with Marx in writing, ‘Die Deutsche Ideologie’ (1845) … his continued publicizing for practical socialism in Germany earned him a sentence of death after the 1848 revolution.” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia)

His chief work, authorities agree, was “Rome and Jerusalem” (translated by Meyer Waxman and published in the United States in 1945 by the Block Publishing Co.). He rushed home in 1848, says the translator, from Paris, “taking an active part in the armed resistance of the people.” (page 22) “In 1845, Hess engaged in propagating the Communistic idea and founding societies devoted to its realization, an occupation which led Arnold Ruge to describe him as ‘The Communist Rabbi Moses.”’ (pp. 21-22)

It is stated that, “The fundamental principle of Hess’ thought … is based on the teaching of Spinoza, of which he was a devoted follower,” but he went further, says the translator, in expounding the “basic unit” of mind and matter, “the basic unity and its various unfoldings.”

Thus, he was considered a better pagan philosopher, even than the Jewish pantheist, Spinoza.

The translator quotes from a later article of Hess (page 30) in which Hess holds that Judaism: “began with the family of the individual and will finally end with a family of nations” (page 30). The Orthodox Jews have, “in his opinion, a much higher and truer conception of Judaism. They have retained … the kernel of Nationalism, and the desire for Jewish restoration … He advocated the colonization of Palestine … he also dreamed of a Jewish Congress, demanding the support of the Powers for the purchase of Palestine …” (page 32) page 70]

Hess and Christianity

In his preface to “Rome and Jerusalem” Hess referred to Pope Innocent III (1198-1216 AD) and his decrees to compel Jews to wear distinctive badges and be identified as anti-Christians. “From the time of Innocent III … Papal Rome symbolized to the Jews an inexhaustible well of poison. It is only with the drying up of this source that Christian German Anti-Semitism will die from lack of nourishment. With the disappearance of the hostility of Christianity … to Judaism, with the liberation of the Eternal City on the slopes of Moriah; the renaissance of Italy heralds the rise of Judah … Springtime in the life of nations began with the French Revolution.” The translator’s footnote here (page 34-5) is “At the time when Hess wrote these lines, Italy, under the leadership of Garibaldi, was struggling to wrest Rome from the Papal government and annex it to the new unified Kingdom.”

Hess also stated, “Judaism has no other dogma but the teaching of the Unity.” (page 44) “… the Rabbis never separated the idea of a future world from the conception of the Messianic reign. Nachmanides insists … upon the identity of … ‘the world to come’ with the Messianic reign.” (page 46)

Sneering at Christianity, holding up the myth of a Jewish race (instead of the actuality, a breed of all races and nations), extolling the Talmud and delegating Moses to the inferior role given him therein (page 91), the whole cry of Hess was for Jewish world rule from Palestine “between Europe and far Asia … the roads that lead to India and China,” and he told Jewry:

“You have contributed enough to the cause of civilization and have helped Europe on the path of progress to make revolutions and carry them out successfully.” He called for Jews to “March forward!” and stated: “The world will again pay homage to the oldest of peoples.” (pp. 139-40) The “Talmud is the corner-stone of modern” Orthodoxy, (page 143). He looked to black magic, the occultism of Chasidism, which along with Zionism, was to achieve Communist dictatorship.” “The great good which will result from the combination of Chasidism with the national movement is almost incalculable,” (page 218), and he added, “Although the Chasidists are without social organization, they live in socialistic fashion.” (same)

The translator called Hess, in the 1918 edition Preface: “The herald of Nationalism and the trumpet of Zionism.”

Jewish Cover-up

The attempts of organized Jewry to cover-up its connections with Marxist collectivism are never-ending.

My book, The Octopus, (published under a pen name, 1940) refuted the lying propaganda of the powerful Jewish organization, B‘nai B‘rith in its brochure, widely copied by Christian dupes, entitled: “Answer Anti-Jewish Propaganda with Statistics.” The more fitting title would have been “Answer Anti-Talmudic Truths with Lies.”

The B‘nai B‘rith “defenses” were more revealing than defending — if one knows the subject matter. For example, in Russia the Mensheviks were but a branch of the Socialist Second International, along with the Bolsheviks, all consisting almost entirely of Marxian Talmudic revolutionaries, with the same objectives. Hence the revealing nature of telling any informed person that Jews were supposedly not Communistic because: “The great part of the Russian Jewish population belonged to the Menshevik party, which was a Democratic party and opposed to the Bolshevik party.” (B‘nai B‘rith Article 5, page 12)

The smear tactic for the gullible was employed by B‘nai B‘rith concerning German Jewish Reds. To whitewash these of Red connotations, the same B‘nai B‘rith article (Article 5, page 11) stated that in Hitler Germany: “Most of the Jews were social Democrats.”

Turning to the authoritative 1920 New York State Committee Investigating Subversive Activities Report (the Committee was headed by Senator Clayton Lusk): “The principles of the Karl Marx Communist Manifesto were adopted as early as 1869 as the basis of the first Social Democratic Party.” And, in 1891, the Party’s “Congress… adopted a thorough and comprehensive Marxian position … which remained the basis of the Party from that time forward.

The Party had over 3,000,000 votes in 1903.” (N.Y. State Lusk Report pp.87-8) In Marx’s lifetime, it was led by his followers Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebels. Its left-wing, under the Jews, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, staged the bloody Spartacist revolution in attempting to Sovietize Germany, in which they were killed, January 15, 1919.

A short-lived Soviet in Hungary was set up by another Jew, Bela Kun (actual name, Cohen), in 1919. There were 32 days of murdering, torturing Christians, burning nuns alive in ovens and other atrocities, as related to me by eyewitnesses. When this regime fell, Jews and their cohorts who conducted it were killed in large numbers by outraged citizens.

Of this the above New York Lusk report stated under the index: Hungarian and Soviet governments principally Jewish:”

“Of thirty-two principal Commissars, twenty-five were Jews, which was about the same proportion as in Russia.”

Jewish encyclopedias and authoritative histories admit the Jewishness of Bolshevik leaders.

Attempted Cover-up on the Jewish Bund

The same B‘nai B‘rith publication states as to Jewry in Russia:

“As for the part of Jewry which was united politically as Jewish, it grouped itself in the only mass-like Jewish party, the Bund. The Bund as well as the Zionists have been persecuted by Bolshevism from the first days of the October upheaval of 1917 to the present day …” (Article 5, p.30)

The Jews’ own authorities refute these false statements, [page 74] however, and show the active participation of the Bund in the Russian Red Revolutions, and the Red regime which followed.

[NB: Pages 71, 72, and 73 of Dilling’s book consist of Exhibits I, J, and K, respectively. Those exhibits are included on this web page and may be viewed via on the links provided herein. They are also listed in the Table of Exhibits.]

Note, for example, the official New York Jewish Communal Register report concerning the Central Verband of the Bund Organizations of America, and its purpose to aid the “Jewish Socialist Bund in Russia.” The same publication reveals (see Exhibit 242) Bund support of the then completed Bolshevik Red Revolution in Russia, stating:

“Since the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Central Verband of the Bund has been active in collecting funds to assist the Russian Bund in its work against counter-revolution forces and against the agitation by the Black Hundred for massacre of the Jews.”

Pages 1256-61 of the same Kehilla report, not reproduced here, tell how the Russian Bund in this country formed the Jewish Socialist Federation of America, and was foremost in organizing the 1915 National Workmen’s Committee of radicals, representing: “a total membership of half a million Jewish workmen … representative of all radical wings.” (page 1448 of same, See Exhibit 239)

Further:

“A net of Bund branches was spread throughout the United States and Canada. For a number of years these branches, whose primary object was to collect funds for the Bund in Russia, were the most active and influential bodies in the Jewish radical world. Their members formed the vanguard of the Workmen’s Circle and swelled the ranks of the Jewish trade unions. The activities of the branches were coordinated and supervised by a Central Verband …” (page 1257 same report, not reproduced here)

The falsity of the alleged “persecution” of the Bund is best described in the 1943 Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (under “Bund”):

“After the revolution of March, 1917, the Bund grew rapidly … It succeeded in electing 300 of its candidates to city councils and 515 to Jewish community boards … The Bolshevik revolution in October of the same year led to sharp conflict of opinion within the Bund. Certain groups immediately joined the Communist Party; others … formed separate Communist Bunds (Kombund) for a time, but soon after joined the Communist Party as well. The members who remained in the party decided at their 11th convention (1919) to favor a Soviet form of government … A year later the majority of the party had adopted the Communist platform and shortly afterwards were ready to liquidate the Bund itself and join the Communist Party. The conflicts reduced the Bund to a fraction of its former size.”

It is further stated that what was left of the Bund ceased to exist in 1920. 

Jewish Marxist-Zionist Minority Power

Most non-Jews have no concept of the degree to which Jewry is organized to further its aims. But millions of U.S. Jews are participants and members in Zionist and Marxist organizations, the names of which are virtually unknown to non-Jews, let alone their activities. The most powerful of these organizations have existed for decades.

Much revealing material as to some of the organizations was contained in the Jewish Communal Register for 1917-18, excerpted photostats of which appear herein. This 1597 page book was the report of the Kehilla (Jewish Community) of New York City, 356 Second Avenue, New York City, for 1917-18. Just reading this publication alone dispels any delusion that “Jews,” so-called, are primarily citizens of the USA, or any country in which they live.

The Jewish Community Register concerns itself largely with the political structure of the New York “Kehilla” in which world control of Jewry is centered. 

National Workmen’s Committee of 1915

Nationwide Jewish Marxism was sponsored in 1915 by the National Workmen’s Committee.

The National Workmen’s Committee, says the 1917-18 Kehilla Report (Exhibit 233) “was organized in the early part of 1915, by representatives of the four leading radical organizations, viz.: The Workmen’s Circle, the United Hebrew Trades, The Jewish Socialist Federation of America and the Forward Association.”

I have visited one of the fraternal insurance society headquarters and training schools of the Workmen’s Circle, where anarchist meetings are held and Karl Marx’s big picture adorns the walls. Their schools reported teaching some 10,000 children Yiddish and Marxism in recent years.

The United Hebrew Trades has always sent delegates to the Socialist international conferences.

The Forward Association, has published the “Forward,” in Yiddish, and which is currently the largest Socialist paper in the world.

The fourth organizer of the 1915 Committee was the red Jewish Socialist Federation.

“Over two hundred organizations were represented” the 18th of April, 1915, says this report. “Similar conferences were held in practically every important Jewish community all over the United States.”

Note (Exhibit 239) that the 1915 convention was held at a time when there were supposedly numerically only a small percentage of the Jews now in this country, but represented “a total membership of half a million Jewish workmen.” That is quite a large number indeed of organized Marxists with but one purpose in mind. They set out to propagandize the American people and the American government — and did.

The American Jewish Committee

The American Jewish Committee is the single most powerful body in world Jewry. Its membership then and now embraces world Jewish capitalists and moving powers.

[page 75] Note the wide range of activities of the Committee to influence national and international actions in favor of Jewry. (See Exhibits 227, 228,229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, and 236)

Note in Exhibits 235 and 236, the powerful capitalistic Jews functioning on this all-powerful arbiter of world Jewry, the American Jewish Committee.

Louis Marshall was then, (1917 — 18) President of the Committee. It was he who served notice upon Henry Ford that he must cease telling the truth about the Talmudic cabal or else. According to the man perhaps closest to Henry Ford, Sr., high in the administration of his affairs, it was an attempt to assassinate Ford by driving his car off the road that caused Mrs. Ford to plead with Henry to cease his exposures of Talmudism through his Dearborn Independent. All the kowtowing now being done by the present-day Ford family to Jewry is but a repetition of what Ford exposed in his paper. One article, discussed later herein, on how President Taft was brought to his knees, refused a second term, then was decorated by B‘nai B‘rith and given a professorship at Yale — then addressed B‘nai B‘rith audiences and wrote internationalist propaganda until his death — is almost a replica of the job being done on the Fords.

Concerning Louis Marshall, the Communal Register states, “a great part of his life [was devoted] to the interests of the Jewish people,” and his part in the “abrogation of the treaty with Russia,” cannot be disputed. He is listed as “president of Temple Emanu-El,” his synagogue, and as Chairman of the Board of Directors and of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, among other things.

The Marshalls have worked all sides of the street for Talmudic rule: the capitalistic, the educational, the Red revolutionary, the legal, the United Nations.

James, son of Louis, has (according to Who’s Who in American Jewry, 1938-9) headed the New York City school board and a string of Jewish communal organizations, and as a member of the law firm of Marshall, Bratter and Seligson, listed himself as director and a legal counsel of the Jewish-run Communist Garland Fund, which subsidized the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, run from its foundation in 1913 by the Jewish Spingarns (Joel, the brother Arthur). In Who’s Who In America, 1954-5, Joel boasts of arguing the Texas primary and first Area Zoning cases for the NAACP, going to the Supreme Court. He lists his positions as delegate and commission member for the USA of UNESCO, and as advisor to the US Commissions of UNESCO at Paris and Mexico City. He lists his vice-presidency of the American Jewish Committee in Who’s Who. (1964-5)

Brother Robert, son of Louis, Sr., died, leaving a fortune to be spent for Marxian purposes, in the Robert Marshall Foundation. Its benefits to almost every phase of Communistic activity are chronicled by the Dies Committee reports (Vol. 17, 1944 – Section 1-6, etc.). It is run by another of Louis’s sons, George.

Red George Marshall’s record is so clear and so voluminous that it leaves no doubt about his ideological devotion to the Soviet Union and the revolution upon which that government is based. He has 29 Communistic listings in the index of the Dies Report, all backed by documentary evidence.

A book could be written about other architects for world Talmudic power listed in the 1917-18 Kehillah listing of the American Jewish Committee.

There is Eugene Meyer, Jr., of the Federal Reserve and Washington Post; Herbert Lehman, New York Governor, financier and Senator; Felix M. Warburg, of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., international bankers; Jacob Schiff, who then headed Kuhn, Loeb and Co.

We see that in 1939 Max Warburg, brother of Felix, of the Hamburg, Germany, bankers, appears on the American Jewish Committee’s “Institute on Peace and Post-War Problems,” set up with a ponderous staff and full equipment to go forward, as it did, to write and move the United Nations Charter into being, even before the USA entered World War II. Then we currently see Frederick M. Warburg, son of Felix Warburg, as a member of the American Jewish Committee, while his Hamburg relative, Max Warburg, who came here in 1939, serves on its “Post-war” Committee, as shown in the report of the American Jewish Committee in its American Jewish Year Book (Vol. 43, 1941-2, pp 751, 762).

Also listed in the 1917-18 Kehillah Register was Rabbi Judah L. Magnes of the Communist Garland Fund, protege of Jacob H. Schiff.

There was Cyrus L. Sulzberger, father of Arthur Hays Sulzberger, presently in control of the New York Times.

There was also Jacob Wertheim, father of Maurice, investment banker, industrialist of wide power, and director of the revolutionary Socialist Nationmagazine and of that center of Marxian propaganda and Talmudic-Freudian sex-filth, the New School for Social Research, in New York.

Rabbi Wise

A book could be written about the Red activities of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, before, during and since the Russian Revolution.

He was a founder of the American Jewish Congress and its President from 1924 on. He was a committeeman of the Communist-aiding American Civil Liberties Union, and also the communist American League Against War and Fascism, before, and after its change of name to American League for Peace and Democracy, with Communist Earl Browder as its national vice-chairman, and Communist Party leaders as officials. He “committed” himself for the anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti, for Communist dynamiter Tom Mooney, for the National Religion and Labor Foundation, featuring atheist Soviet cartoons and distributing Toward Soviet America, by Communist William Z. Foster. He ardently backed the Communist burners of Spanish Christian churches. His American Jewish Congress greeted, and he spoke for, the American League for Peace and Democracy. Its official [page 76] program was the incitement of mutiny and sabotage within the armed forces to turn any war of the USA into a Red Revolution. Notes pledging this treason were read at their Congress in Chicago, which I attended.

Long and effusive memorials to Rabbi Wise appeared in the American Jewish Committee’s 1950 American Jewish Year Book:

“He was founder of the American Jewish Congress … He was the moving spirit and president of the World Jewish Congress from its organization in 1936 to his death … In 1897, as an organizer and secretary of the Federation of American Zionists, Stephen Wise ushered in a career of leadership in Zionism which brought him many high offices in the movement in America and throughout the world … more than any other American he was the outstanding symbol and advocate of Zionism, not only in the eyes of American Jews but also to the entire American people and its leaders, including Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

This is but a small part of the tribute paid to Red Rabbi Wise in 1950 by the “conservative” American Jewish Committee, which also stated: “Toward the end of his life Rabbi Wise was greatly disturbed about the foreign policy of the United States which he felt was leading toward war with the Soviet Union … The last addresses he delivered in the weeks before his death were highlighted by attacks on those forces which he maintained were pushing his country toward war with Russia and which, he claimed, were attempting to suppress him. ‘I will not be silenced!’ were the last words this writer heard Rabbi Wise speak publicly, and they were most typical …” The same tributes close with fervent praises, and chronicle the fact that Wise had amalgamated his Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, which trains Rabbis, with Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio, whose founder and head until his death, Rabbi Isaac M. Wise, edited the first English translation of the Babylonian Talmud, known as the Rodkinson translation. Isaac Wise had introduced so-called “Reform” Judaism into this country from Germany. 

American Jewish Congress

Another powerful Marxist-Zionist Jewish organization, with 500,000 or more Jewish members, is the American Jewish Congress.

We see (Exhibit 224), how the 1917-18 Jewish Kehillah report boasted of Pinchas Rutenberg as a founding force in the American Jewish Congress, as well as being the right hand man to Jewish Premier A.F. Kerensky, at the time of the Russian Revolution.

Out of the Marxian welter of the “National Workmen’s Committee” of Reds in 1915, came the American Jewish Congress, now organized all over the world, with its New York headquarters named after Rabbi Stephen S. Wise. (See Exhibit 240)

We see (same Exhibit 224) Sholem Asch, author of deceitful “Christian” stories, who served on the staff of the socialist Yiddish Forward, then on that of the Stalinist Freiheit, also printed in Yiddish. There is also Rabbi Judah L. Magnes, Jacob Schiff’s protege, of the Communist Garland Fund, also, Louis Marshall, and Louis D. Brandeis whose hysterical cry to Jewry was: “Organize, organize, organize!” until every Jew has to “stand up and be counted.” President Wilson put Zionist Brandeis on the Supreme Court. He was the largest single contributor to Communist Commonwealth College. Free love, nude swimming, singing the Soviet International in the training school for red agitators and other extreme activities resulted in Commonwealth College being closed up under the Arkansas anarchy laws.

As for the millionaire American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress: “The two organizations differed on the question of method rather than that of principle.” (See Exhibit 240)

The American Jewish Congress is active in some 65 countries of the world. The Congress has followed the Red line with enthusiasm — whether going to court for the “Miracle,” a play which portrays Christ as a bastard son of a soldier, in accordance with the Talmud, opposing “loyalty oaths,” or what have you.

Majority of Jews in Zionist-Marxist Organizations

The magazine, Jewish Life (April, 1938, published by the New York State Jewish Bureau, Communist Party) stated:

“Three federated Jewish bodies encompass between them the majority of Jews; the American Jewish Congress, controlled by the Zionists and representing the majority of Zionists, the Jewish Labor Committee and the Jewish People’s Committee, both of which have had national conventions in the past months, at which their respective positions were very clearly stated.”

Thus, the majority of Jews are in three Marxist national networks: all Marxist Socialist and one of them outright Communist in affiliation.

The Jewish Labor Committee

The organization of the Jewish Labor Committee in 1934 is cited in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1943), in a sketch by its executive secretary. It represented a membership of half a million in 1942 and included David Dubinsky’s International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union, Sidney Hillman’s Amalgamated Clothing Worker’s Union, “and 765 other labor organizations.” The donation of a day or half-day’s pay to underground activities abroad was mentioned. Adolph Held, Joseph Baskin, David Dubinsky and the writer Jacob Pat, are given as officers.

Comparing the 1915 convention with a 1934 convention of the Jewish Labor Committee, B‘nai B‘rith Magazine (National Jewish Monthly, April, 1934) felicitated the Jewish Labor Committee on its “racial solidarity” and stated: [page 77]

“With the leading Jewish Socialist organizations represented by over one thousand delegates, this recent conference equalled in size and resembled in character that one that was held at the outbreak of the war. It was estimated that the delegates acted and spoke for more than half a million organized Jewish toilers, and spoke for them in behalf of specific Jewish interests.

“To show the world that we have great armies of labor is a very good thing but to have the same world note that these hosts are largely of radical frame of mind is something about which we have in the past been somewhat squeamish.”

The elected officers of the original and subsequent Jewish Labor Committee such as Chairman, B. Charney Vladeck (deceased), Secretary J. Baskin, Treasurer David Dubinsky, Joseph Schlossberg and Max Zaritsky, Vice-Presidents, were all Russian-born Red Socialist Jews, and former Red revolutionists in Russia.

Dubinsky, for example, was arrested repeatedly in Russia, serving 18 months in one prison, and was exiled to Siberia, escaping after five months and coming to the USA (American Labor Who’s Who, 1925).

Israel Weinberg, another official of the Jewish Labor Committee was “acquitted on one charge of murder in San Francisco Preparedness Day Parade bomb explosion, July 22, 1916, eight other indictments still pending.” (same source) The San Francisco Preparedness Day bombing was the work of the Anarchist-Communist Tom Mooney and his cohorts. Mooney had been expelled from the Socialist branch of the party for the dynamiting. But world Communism made him a hero until his death.

Adolph Held, Polish-born Jewish Socialist, who has been President of Sidney Hillman’s Amalgamated (Clothing Workers’) Bank, and President of the Daily Forward Association, was Chairman in 1955, of the Jewish Labor Committee. As previously mentioned, Daily Forward is the largest Socialist paper in the world — and is printed in New York in Yiddish.

B‘nai B‘rith Gloats Again

In the May, 1938 issue of its magazine, B‘nai B‘rith again gloated over a current convention of the Jewish Labor Committee “attended by 1,200 delegates, and said to represent more than 500,000 organized Jewish workers,” and rejoicingly commented that:

“The achievements of the Jewish people in the Soviet Union have been made possible by the assistance of the Soviet government.”

The American Jewish Committee, B‘nai B‘rith, and the Jewish Labor Committee formed a joint council with the Zionist radical American Jewish Congress (Associated Press, June 17, 1938), and have since been known as the “Big Four.”

Jewish People’s Committee

The Jewish People’s Committee of the Communist Party is comprised of hundreds of thousands of Communist Jews.

The January, 1938 issue of its publication, Jewish Life, reported a convention of the Jewish People’s Committee, stating:

“Close to 1,000 delegates representing half-a-million American Jews participated in the National Conference and anti-Polish Pogrom march on Washington under the auspices of the Jewish People’s Committee … A spokesman for Jewish reaction, Dr. S. Margoshes, tried to pooh-pooh the whole conference by saying: ‘About a thousand delegates, representing mostly Left and Communist-controlled Jewish organizations, assembled in Washington over the weekend.’”

But the article goes on to say: “Half a million Jews constitute a significant cross section of American Jewry.”

Poale Zion

In the Jewish Communal Register for 1917-18, note, concerning “Zionism-Socialism,” the tribute paid to a socialist leader, B. Borouchov, who proclaimed Zionism as a Socialist “theory which was necessarily very popular among the Jewish masses who were at the same time Socialistic through and through.” And they still are “Socialistic through and through.”

“Zionism thus received a Marxist basis, and appealed strongly to the masses.” We see the organizations of the “Social Democratic Zionist Party Poale-Zion,” by Socialist Borochov and Ben-Zwi; a great Russian general strike (always part of Zionist strategy) and the organization of revolutionary red journals.

“At the same time that the party was organized in Russia, sister societies were organized in America, in England, and finally, in Palestine.” (See Exhibits 218, 219)

“Poale-Zionism” [i.e. workers of Zionism] we read “is a party not for Palestine alone, but also for the Golus [all Jews everywhere in so-called dispersion] and its interests.” “For this reason, Poale-Zionism is the center of the East Side [of New York] from which come forth almost all Jewish American movements, or without which no movement can prosper.”

And, continuing: “The Poale-Zion created the [Jewish] Congress movement … And the participation by the Jewish Kehillah of New York is cited:

“The Poale-Zion have made their best record in the Congress movement, where they forced the whole Jewish laboring class on the one hand, and the Zionists on the other hand, as well as the better-to-do elements, to participate.” (See Exhibits 222 and 223)

Even in 1917-18, there were stated to be “more than one hundred societies in the National Workers’ Alliance, which cooperates with Poale Zion. ”All this constitutes a strong [page 78] National-Socialist movement in America under the spiritual leadership of Poale Zion.” (See Exhibit 225) And:

“Purpose … the establishment of a socialistic commonwealth … the education of the Jewish masses in America (See Exhibit 226)

“Poale Zion” formed a world organization and affiliated with “Zeire Zion,” and became the strongest element in the Palestine “Histadruth” (giant cooperatives of unions, properties, industries, bus lines, banks, etc., on USSR lines) “controlling 70% of its votes” (Universal Jewish legion that fought on the side of the Allied army in Egypt and Palestine … a Yiddish weekly, Yiddisher Kampfer, and a monthly, The Jewish Frontier [supporter of Histadruth] and its prominent place in the Zionist World Organization. Poale Zion’s string of Marxist schools have done their work and are continuing to do it.

A Poale Zion Palestine party mentioned in the above 1943 report was called Aduth Haabodah, also spelled in the Zionist Palestine Year Book (1946), Ahdut Avoda and (in a 1955 Jewish Examiner report) Achdut Avodah.

“Ahdut Avoda is affiliated with the World Zionist Movement. It stands for the establishing of a Socialist Jewish State in Palestine, but is more radical in internal affairs.” (Palestine Year Book. 1946, page 355).

Marxist Parties in Israel

Where there is changing and realigning, the Marxist political composition of Israel does not change. “Left Poale Zion” and Ahdut Avoda form in part the Mapai party: “Its socialistic outlook is similar to that of the Third International [i.e. of Moscow] but was not permitted to affiliate with it.” These Marxist parties comprise 92% of the Histadruth vote. (Palestine Year Book, 1946, page 355). As an illustration of “Poale-Zion”).

Poale Zion, like the rest of the Palestine Socialist parties, is part of the World Zionist Organization, in turn maneuvering through the world for Zionist aims.

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1943) reported under “Poale Zion,” its formation in 1897; its founding of the Israel political orientation, the 1955 vote for Knesset (parliament) members in Israel was reported as follows (Jewish Voice, August 12, 1955):

“Mapai 40; Mapai-affiliated Arab parties, 4; Herut 16; General Zionists, 14; Religious Front (Mizrachi, Hapoel Hamizrachi) 12; Agudah, 6; Achduth Avodah, 10; Mapam, 8; Progressives, 5; and Communists, 5.”

And what are these parties, in brief? Says the Palestine Yearbook, 1946, page 354:

“Mapai is a Zionist Socialist party From its inception Mapai has been affiliated with the Second (Brussels) International.” Lenin and other Reds belonged to the Second International, until Moscow formed its own, called the Third International, a combine of Marxist parties formed in 1919.

Herut, which is now reputedly the second most powerful Palestine party, was formed by the Sternist terrorists who dynamited British police in sadistic fashion. After Israel was declared a state by the UN, these Sternists were admitted to the Palestine parliament, the Knesset, calling their party Herut.

Mapai tried to join the Moscow International, but was not permitted to because of minor stipulations. It “generally has a line of policy similar to Irgun and the Fighters for Freedom. It stands for close cooperation with the Soviets … A little publicized fact is that Soviet arms have now been issued to all Israel troops … Recent Hebrew victories have been won with Soviet guns.” (From Jerusalem Calling, organ of the Sternist, now Herut, Fighters for Freedom, September 3, 1948, 149 Second Avenue, New York)

Ahdut, or Acduth, or Leachduth, Avodah, as before stated, is a Socialist Party, a party dedicated in other words to subjugating all classes to one collective rule.

The Religious Front — Mizrachi and Hapoel Hamizrachi, and the even more fanatical Agudah parties are Talmudic parties, fanatically dedicated to the achievement of the anti-Christian, immoral, anti-human world power aims of their Pharisee religion. The difference between Communist tactics and Talmudic tactics is that one is political and deceptive, the other inspires and is the dynamic of these tactics. One practices what the other teaches. Communism is Talmudism in action.

The Communist Party is merely an arm attached to the Moscow branch of Jewish imperialism.

The General Zionists are different only in their stress upon certain policies best calculated to achieve Talmudic world aims. As for any imagined “conservatism,” the leaders of the General Zionists, (according to the Palestine Year Book, 1946, issued by the Zionist Organization of America) the ruling heads of the World Zionist Organization were: red Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, Louis Lipsky, Nahum Goldmann. (page 357)

Wise, Silver, Goldmann, Lipsky, were all included in the 120 top Jews of the world chosen by the world Kehillas in 1937, along with Commissar Litvinov (Finklestein) of Russia, Rabbi Louis Finkelstein (see his “Pharisees” herein), and others.

The four have been leaders in the World Zionist Congress, and its American branch, the American Jewish Congress.

 

Source: come-and-hear.com

VIDEO: “F*CK YO FLAG:” Black Activists Desecrate U.S. Flag in Front Of Vets

At the Trump rally in West Allis, Wis., “F*ck Yo Flag” activists stomped and spit on a U.S. flag in front of veterans.

WARNING: Graphic language – viewer discretion advised

Rob Dew interviews the head activist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=241&v=7sJnB2PAiwY

A confrontation between a veteran and the activists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWrhgjL0DbE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkEWhtDEJDM

Correspondence

NEW DOCUMENTS REVEAL TROTSKY WAS WALL STREET COLLABORATOR

Mexico | A series of documents discovered during renovations at the Leon Trotsky Museum in Mexico City explicitly prove that Leon Trotsky entertained close ties with Wall Street bankers and investors who wanted to overthrow the Russian Tsarist government at the time.

trotsky

The series of documents which include a total of 36 letters and correspondences between Trotsky and high-end financiers and New York bankers had lay hidden in a metal coffer which construction workers found in-between walls recently weakened by a leaking roof.

The documents were found on the property of the Leon Trotsky Museum, which is also the house in which Trotsky lived with his wife from 1939 to 1940, and where the Russian dissident was murdered. Some experts believe Trotsky hid the private documents anticipating his own murder by Stalinist agents in 1940.

Correspondence

The highly controversial documents were discovered in a hidden compartment in the walls of Trotsky’s last habitation

The documents which are to be analyzed further by a team of historians at the University of Mexico have already partly been published in major Mexican newspapers and tend to confirm what for decades were believed to be conspiracy theories linking the rise of the Bolshevik revolution and overthrow of the Russian Tsarist regime to Wall Street bankers and investors.

A recurring name in the correspondences is that of Jacob Schiff, a prosperous Wall Street financier and head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company.

The successful business man is also known to have played a historical role in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 in which the firm enabled large war loans to Japan. 

The correspondence between Trotsky and Schiff assert previously unfounded claims that Schiff personally financed Trotsky’s trip from New York to Russia, took care of his expenses whilst in New York and even provided him with a chauffeured limousine. 

Trotsky also mentions in his correspondence with Schiff of a “large loan” in the “millions of roubles” to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar.

In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal-American, Schiff’s grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given an estimated $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia, a claim that can now be corroborated by these recent findings. 

 

Source: worldnewsdailyreport.com