Dave McGowan On Stalin

by **mr e** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:20 am

When I first discovered McGowan, I shouted hallelujah. He was a breath of fresh air. But frankly, when I read this bizarre offering several months ago, it led me to question the guy's sanity and/or agenda. " ...considering that Stalin was, as commander of the Red Army, the man who saved the world from an overt fascist takeover in the 1940s." WHAT? You mean Hitler and Mussolini were going to "take over" the world? They couldn't even take Europe, and they were going to handle Africa, Asia and the Americas too? Okay, sure. Hitler and Stalin were two peas in a pod, only Stalin was bigger and more bloodthirsty. Fascism was not defeated in WWII, it was enthroned. Fascism is communism is fascism. The difference is cosmetic. Some writers have used the word "syncarchism" to bridge the false dichotomy (dialectic) that has been created between the two. The synarchists wanted totalitariansm by any means and under whatever name. They took one route in Russia and another in Germany. Look behind the scenes in both episodes -- same bankers, ultimately the same secret societies, etc. They took over Russia, then Germany. The Bolsheviks were the pretext for Hitler and Hitler was the pretext for allying with "Uncle Joe" and creating history's most murderous empire -- which in turn was pretext for evil U.S. imperialism as well. It's not one side good, other side bad -- both sides  are the bad guys!

by **nomo** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The ability to follow an argument made by an essayist with a command of persuasive rhetoric is no substitute for the increased evaluative skills that result from a depth of erudition, either. So I intend to keep on seeking it- primarily in public libraries and bargain book sales. <hr></blockquote> I'm a sucker for flashy rhetoric. Almost got taken in by that CD argument as well. Still, it doesn't bother me when a sourceless article warps my thinkspace, every once in a while, so to speak. I'll back that up with sources, later.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:40 am

Yeah, Mr. E, Dave's not for you. He doesn't believe in a secret group of bankers who created both Hitler and Stalin. There are several people on this site who believe that though. We can't seem to run them off quickly enough. If you want to post something of substance on this thread, you could start by providing the tiniest clue as to where you get your information about synarchism in Russia and its alleged connections to synarchism in Germany and the rest of Europe and your contention that their agenda was to create BOTH Nazi and Communist states. How are you privileged to know their secret plans and machinations? I think Hitler espoused similar views about the origins of Bolshevism. Is this what you mean by Bolshevism being a "pretext" for Hitler? And it is your contention that US imperialism began only AFTER the Soviet Union was born? As tired as I am of simplistic theories of "bankers" controlling all aspects of world affairs, I am more tired of overly broad and overly vague assertions implying some "obvious" knowledge about the internal workings of allegedly secret, world dominating bankers. It is my fondest wish that your reply to this will not be: "Anyone who can't see how obvious this is is either a moran or a shill for the New World Order." Surprise us.

by **mr e** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:22 am

As in ... "We can't seem to run them off quickly enough"? :rolleye Who are you, the forum police? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is my fondest wish that your reply to this will not be: "Anyone who can't see how obvious this is is either a moran or a shill for the New World Order." <hr></blockquote> Quite possibly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, anyone who doesn't realize that banks run the economic and political world, as a matter of course, needs to inform himself. Banking as primary engine of political power in modern capitalism = Deep Politics 101. Hell, it's Common Sense 101. There are so many sites and so many books and so much information out there. I'm not inclined to spoon-feed someone not genuinely interested in knowing. The information is a few clicks away. But in case you really are interested, for starters, you'll want to check Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope." You're not likely to find a copy of the book at your library, but will find numerous excerpts online from this CFR member and influential Georgetown foreign service professor, to the effect that yes, international bankers do run the world, largely through secret conspiracy, and that yes, they do set up "left-wing" and "right-wing" front movements. The left/right game is the biggest con going. Check <a href="http://AntonySutton">Antony Sutton</a>: "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler," "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution." Same guys behind both. The October revolution (actually an overthrowing of the Adler/"Kerensky" revolution), nominally led by Ulyanov, Bronstein/Trotsky, and friends from the lower East Side, later joined by Djugashvili/Stalin, was ginned up with monetary and other help from big-time capitalists. "This stuff's made in New York City" "NEW YORK CITY??" From http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/melenin.html : <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The core of the conspiracy which had financed the "Russian" Revolution was the international financial groups linked with Kuhn, Loeb and Company. One of the principal figures was Jacob Schiff, whose grandson admitted had invested $20 million in a revolution which was in fact imposed upon the unfortunate Russians from outside their country. ... A leading member of Kuhn, Loeb and Company was Mr. Paul Warburg who, with his brother Felix, had left Germany for the United States in 1902, leaving behind their brother Max to run the family bank of M. N. Warburg & Co. in Frankfurt. Paul Warburg married Solomon Loeb's daughter and Felix Warburg married Jacob Schiff's daughter. Bronstein [Trotsky] later married the daughter of another of the wealthy bankers who backed the Bolshevik Revolution, Jivotovsky. While millions of troops were being torn limb from limb on the battlefields of the First World War, the international financiers were operating on both sides of the fighting lines. Max Warburg, for example, was playing a vital role in Germany while brothers Felix and Paul were doing likewise in the U S Another comfortable arrangement at this time was Ulyanov's, tucked up cosily in neutral Finland or Switzerland with his Jewish wife Krupskaya, so safe that they could leave their door unlocked overnight so that any tired passing Reds could doss on their couch. Following the imposition of the Bolsheviks upon the Russian peoples, and the British acceptance of the Zionist project for Palestine, the Schiffs, Warburgs and their international associates took the necessary steps, including the entry of the United States into the conflict, to bring the First World War to an end. These financiers were represented on both sides at the Versailles Peace Conference. British Prime Minister Lloyd George later wrote: ‘The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all on one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs.’ At Versailles the American President Woodrow Wilson changed his attitude on a vital issue after he received a telegram from Jacob Schiff. Schiff and his associates insisted upon the recognition of the Bolshevik Government in Russia and supported the first step towards the creation of a World Government, the League of Nations. <hr></blockquote> There ya go, a very good start. If you are truly sincere about wanting to know, you will find plenty of information. The best advice I can give is to take the "left/right" blinders off. You'll see a lot better that way. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:35 am

Man, I'm so tired of that heartland ultraconservative mythology about the "bankers", especially how the proponents of it claim that it's so obvious and that you're an idiot if you don't "know" about it ("common sense 101"). You know, Mr. E, I've read Tragedy & Hope, the whole thing. Judging by your post, it doesn't sound like you have. If you had, you would know that Quigley doesn't espouse anything like the theory you and people like Pat Robertson claim he does. There are a lot of right-wing cranks who claim that the "bankers" created the Russian revolution and both world wars, but Quigley was a serious historian and shouldn't be associated with that theory. He certainly never proposed it. Yes, American banks - or at least the First National City Bank in St. Petersburg - continued to operate in the Soviet Union for some time after the revolution. The Bolsheviks needed to borrow money. So I guess that proves that the "bankers" created communism, right? Stalin, however, and whatever one may think of him, did create a self-sufficient Soviet Union that was independent of foreign capital (though I think they started borrowing abroad again some time after his death). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Banking as primary engine of political power in modern capitalism = Deep Politics 101<hr></blockquote> The interesting thing about this "bankers are behind it all" Grand Unified Theory of Everything is that there was some truth in it in the era of financial capitalism, ca. late 19th century, when a JP Morgan controlled most heavy industry in the United States and dynasties like Baring and Warburg and Rothschild and many others dominated European industry and built railways on three continents. This theory, and its proponents among American ultraconservatives, Christian fundamentalists, Larouchies and conspiracy theorists seem to be stuck in that period. However, as Quigley points out, with the growth of the giant corporations and the advent of monopoly capitalism ca. 1920-1940, the power of the bankers was broken and usurped by industrialists and the state. In the United States, the Rockefellers' Standard Oil Company bacame the main supplier of capital to the City Bank. The old power relationship in which bankers controlled industry was reversed. As Quigley wrote, the initial public offering of JP Morgan & Co in 1940 marked the end of an era. Today, big banks are multinational corporations like any other. They aren't privately owned by secretive dynasties colluding and conspiring behind the scenes (the Rothschild banks are still privately owned, but they're small compared to the publically traded giants). The importance of banks to corporations is not what it was a hundered years ago. Unlike then, there's an abundance of capital from a multitude of sources. Multinationals mainly raise capital in the securities market and internally, and many have their own banking and financial services subsidiaries (GE Capital Bank etc.). And new players on the scene, such as hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds connect suppliers and consumers of capital without the need for the intermediation of a bank. This abundance of capital has caused a crisis of profitability in the banking industry, which has led to increasingly predatory lending practices and pressing for legislation such as the Bankruptcy Bill. Governments are not dependent on a few banking dynasties to buy their government bonds anymore either. The real power over government finances lie with bond rating agencies such as (primarily) Moody's. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qutb>Qutb</A> at: 11/29/05 8:38 am

by **proldic** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>but will find numerous excerpts online from this CFR member and influential Georgetown foreign service professor, to the effect that yes, international bankers do run the world, largely through secret conspiracy, and that yes, they do set up "left-wing" and "right-wing" front movements. The left/right game is the biggest con going.<hr></blockquote> I just can't believe anyone could read this shit and come away believing it. Are we so deluded? Are we so eager for a biscuit from our abusive daddy that we will buy these fake insiders each and every time? "The left/right game is the biggest con going". HA! Yeah, right. Maybe from your priviliedged, detatched, dispassionate position ensconced in the capitalist world. Go try telling that to the millions who have been murdered in anti-capitalist struggles around the globe for the last 100+ years. Many many millions have been tortured because they were identified as "leftist". Guess someone thought it meant something, huh? I'll just skip over 'Mr E's' thinly-veiled proto-fascism and Jew scapegoating embodied in his quotes of Sutton, except to point out to all that care that (a) here we go again, here they come again (b) how obvioulsy seamlessly the Sutton/Quigley and (RDR) line dovetails into what we now see as that very popular crypto-fascism that has taken over the conspiracy movement, yet they would never admit to their bastard Nazi cousins in the basement like "Mr. E". Imo, the Sutton/Quigley "meme" is one of the very biggest of the big lies lurking out there in truth-seeking land. Its purpose is to suck people off the "consciousness train" before it gets to the end of the line. Custom-designed for white capitalist "anti-establishment" intellectuals who can't face their and their father's role in the evil of the world. Here we see it, coming straight out of Harvard, straight out of the mouths of the same disinfo agents who pushed the "Eastern Establishment" vs "Texas Oilianaires" red herring to take the focus off CIA complicity in JFK murder. Sure "they" set up front right and left groups. And, sure, maybe right and left, terms originating from designations of radical left vs mainstream left in the French Revolution ironically, are not very good working labels for today's world. But, like it or not, the ideas that are behind the labels still exist: popular liberty vs elitist rule, governance by the property-less vs governance by the rich, rule of the masses of working people vs rule by hereditary government. Means of production in the hands of the workers or in the hands of the bosses. Same as it ever was, despite Sutton. So, today, if the CIA sets up a left wing front group (which they do by the dozen), that doesn't mean that the ideas commonly associated in most people's minds (putting aside the entire and valid question of how the modern US Euro left has largely discarded the successful legacy of working-class struggle to embrace an ill-defined and non-thought out pool of single-issue identity politics, celebrity leadership, and divisive cultural affectations.) are entirely nullified. We have to look at funding sources, yes, but as we all know, it's getting pretty hard to furrow out the truth about those things, and even then, as evidenced time and time again, at times they go to great -- no herculian -- lengths to hide their source, and then what about all the people who take funds thinking they can control their own independence, or just don't want to see? So, imo, it's much easier to look at the messages being purveyed. But to do that we have to have common ground in common sense. It's really part of "thinking for ourselves". And that doesn't just mean waiting until we find the right authors that "move us", that play with what we think is our common sense. Because what we think is our common sense, especially in western capitalist college-educated white people, is very very often not the same common sense that the rest of the world has. Just the incredible popularity of the Sutton/Quigley "pox on both your houses" "baby w/ the bathwater" approach with conspiracy "truthseekers" in the US proves this. Better to reflect on undisputed historical truths and the obviousness of today's global realities. Then we would see that this essentially ridiculously flawed theory will have legs only in the capitalist 1st world. Try go saying that stuff to the people of nations that have lived under the boot heel of imperialism. Yeah, right, it's all the same. Go fuck yourself they'd say. Who saved my ass, who was providing me with the arms to save my family, vs who sponsored the death squads and the night riders? Who engaged in economic imperialism and globalization vs who bled themselves dry and jeaprodized their very domestic economic security trying to assist us? Who maintained a favorable trade exchange, with 0 or no interest loans, and fair exchanges of goods, vs who was solely interested in capital penetration for global trade and arranged ruthlessly exploitative WTO-type economic mono-cultural growth-for-export rape? Who prosecuted against usury and hording and price fixing? Who encouraged community grain reserves and municipally held farmlands, and cooperative landholdings vs who banned relief and welfare efforts, forbade communally-held community water and irrigation projects, who encouraged usury and hording and price-fixing? Who believed and acted upon the idea of community survival and communal property vs being obsessed with privatizing all land and valuable agricultural areas into the hands of the wealthy few? Who built schools and encouraged development modernization and training and childrens and women's rights vs who supported the most backwards regressive tribal elements (Mujajadeen, Montanards, Hmong, etc.) who poisoned the wells of schools, who threw acid in women's faces and burned teachers alive? Ex: Just because CIA-agents like Ramsey Clark manages to control the dynamics of most of the major protest marches, and his incredibly-well funded Answer/IAC/WWP coterie basically defines "Marxist" in the eyes of most US leftists, does not mean that he is actually a genuine Marxist, or leftist for that matter. In fact, read up on him, he's not. They're not. They virtually openly support and call for a joining (evidenced very strongly in the past on this board) of fascist European anti-establishment figures with the leftist forces. As far as Quig/Sutton, it's such a common technique: take a valid truth and conflate it to fit their eunuchal agenda. They take the real truth of the millions and millions of dollars poured into post-revolutionary Russia by the capitalists to fund every conceivable destabilizing and counter-revolutionary force, every group -- any group -- that would counter the power of the Bolsheviks. That would range from legitimate oppposition figure, to utopian communards seeking endless revolutionary state, to anarchist bomb-throwers, radical "social revolutionaries" who continued violence against European diplomats after the Bolsheviks were trying to forge diplomatic ties and legitimize themselves as a nation among nations, to ultra-nationalist orthodox religious leaders preaching spiritual servitude, to every podunk mystic, cult, bohemian, child-slaver, etc. etc. They throw in a lot of fake evidence and outright lies, i.e.: Stalin was funded by the west, while ignoring other, more open truths, such as the real story of Leon Trotsky, who the overall weight of accurate historical deducements does lead to the fact that he probably was a funded by the west, but he either gets ignored or lumped in with the shit. So when no distinguishment is made, baby goes out with bathwater. It is just so obviously flawed to me, but I also see it as unfortunately one of those inevitable paths that most western conspiracy thinkers go down at one time or another (myself included, btw). Whether they see beyond it, that depends on their backgrounds, their core principals, their ability to wear blinders to blatant reality (and let's never underestimate that ability in the US and Europe esp). It's for people who have no appreciation for people's history, no SOUL, i.e. -- no understanding of or connection to the eternal historical struggle that has defined our world. Only by sitting in our ivory-tower western conspiracy world could we possibly take this seriously. And that's our priviledge. Exercised ruthlessly and unquestioningly. Hmm, sound familiar?

by **AnnaLivia** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:54 am

Zundel, you really need to get a life. Could you at least just listen from the sidelines? Because these other fellas get mighty interesting sometimes, and the rest of us are interested in learning a thang or two from their exchanges, but no one on this board (or the planet) needs the input of Hitler's minions.

by **proldic** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:56 am

I've never seen you looking so lovely as you did tonight I've never seen you shine so bright I've never seen so many men ask you if you wanted to dance They're looking for a little romance, given half a chance I have never seen that dress you're wearing Or the highlights in your head that catch your eyes I have been blind The lady in red is dancing with me cheek to cheek There's nobody here, it's just you and me, It's where I wanna be But I hardly know this beauty by my side I'll never for get, the way you look tonight I've never seen you looking so gorgeous as you did tonight I've never seen you shine so bright you were amazing I've never seen so many people want to be there by your side And when you turned to me and smiled, It took my breath away I have never had such a feeling Such a feeling of complete and utter love, as I do tonight The way you look tonight I never will forget, the way you look tonight The lady in red The lady in red The lady in red My lady in red (I love you.)

by **AnnaLivia** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:13 pm

just a reminder, Proldic...it's a dangerous game to encourage ol' Ruthie. and i gotta live with this woman, so don't get her all wound up. she's supposed to be helping me find my damn passport, which ain't where she swears she left it last. so anyway, i'm now wondering whose fault is the mess in North Korea? i am grateful for the reads and discussions, gents.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:17 pm

Your link just goes to a page of "people who like this site" with their little icons, and one "review". When you click on the "anthonysutton.com" it gets an empty template. That's okay. Google is my friend. However, you've confused me just a tad. Your quote from "heretical.com" (I'll get to that in a second.) suggests you believe that primarily Jewish Bankers were behind the Soviet Union. But you told me to go to Anthony Sutton on this. Here's what his appendix in Western Technology And Soviet Economic Development had to say about this theory (I don't support the general theory that it was bankers in general who supported Bolshevism, but since Sutton was YOUR source, I thought I'd start there): <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Appendix II THE JEWISH-CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION There is an extensive literature in English, French, and German reflecting the argument that the Bolshevik Revolution was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy"; more specifically, a conspiracy by Jewish world bankers. Generally, world control is seen as the ultimate objective; the Bolshevik Revolution was but one phase of a wider program that supposedly reflects an age-old religious struggle between Christianity and the "forces of darkness." The argument and its variants can be found in the most surprising places and from quite surprising persons. In February 1920 Winston Churchill wrote an article — rarely cited today — for the London Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled "Zionism Versus Bolshevism." In this' article Churchill concluded that it was "particularly important... that the National Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion . . . and take a prominent part in every measure for combatting the Bolshevik conspiracy." Churchill draws a line between "national Jews" and what he calls "international Jews." He argues that the "international and for the most atheistical Jews" certainly had a "very great" role in the creation of Bolshevism and bringing about the Russian Revolution. He asserts (contrary to fact) that with the exception of Lenin, "the majority" of the leading figures in the revolution were Jewish, and adds (also contrary to fact) that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship were excepted by the Bolsheviks from their policies of seizure. Churchill calls the international Jews a "sinister confederacy" emergent from the persecuted populations of countries where Jews have been persecuted on account of their race. Winston Churchill traces this movement back to Spartacus-Weishaupt, throws his literary net around Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman, and charges: "This world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing." Churchill then argues that this conspiratorial Spartacus-Weishaupt group has been the mainspring of every subversive movement in the nineteenth century. While pointing out that Zionism and Bolshevism are competing for the soul of the Jewish people, Churchill (in 1920) was preoccupied with the role of the Jew in the Bolshevik Revolution and the existence of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Another well-known author in the 1920s, Henry Wickham Steed describes in the second volume of his Through 30 Years 1892-1922 (p. 302) how he attempted to bring the Jewish-conspiracy concept to the attention of Colonel Edward M. House and President Woodrow Wilson. One day in March 1919 Wickham Steed called Colonel House and found him disturbed over Steed's recent criticism of U.S. recognition of the Bolsheviks. Steed pointed out to House that Wilson would be discredited among the many peoples and nations of Europe and "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."1 According to Steed, Colonel House argued for the establishment of economic relations with the Soviet Union. Probably the most superficially damning collection of documents on the Jewish conspiracy is in the State Department Decimal File (861.00/5339). The central document is one entitled "Bolshevism and Judaism," dated November 13, 1918. The text is in the form of a report, which states that the revolution in Russia was engineered "in February 1916" and "it was found that the following persons and firms were engaged in this destructive work": (1) Jacob Schiff Jew (2) Kuhn, Loeb & Company Jewish Firm Management: Jacob Schiff Jew Felix Warburg Jew Otto H. Kahn Jew Mortimer L. Schiff Jew Jerome J. Hanauer Jew (3) Guggenheim Jew (4) Max Breitung Jew (5) Isaac Seligman Jew The report goes on to assert that there can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution was started and engineered by this group and that in April 1917 Jacob Schiff in fact made a public announcement and it was due to his financial influence that the Russian revolution was successfully accomplished and in the Spring 1917 Jacob Schitf started to finance Trotsky, a Jew, for the purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia. The report contains other miscellaneous information about Max Warburg's financing of Trotsky, the role of the Rheinish-Westphalian syndicate and Olof Aschberg of the Nya Banken (Stockholm) together with Jivotovsky. The anonymous author (actually employed by the U.S. War Trade Board)2 states that the links between these organizations and their financing of the Bolshevik Revolution show how "the link between Jewish multi-millionaires and Jewish proletarians was forged." The report goes on to list a large number of Bolsheviks who were also Jews and then describes the actions of Paul Warburg, Judus Magnes, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and Speyer & Company. The report ends with a barb at "International Jewry" and places the argument into the context of a Christian-Jewish conflict backed up by quotations from the Protocols of Zion. Accompanying this report is a series of cables between the State Department in Washington and the American embassy in London concerning the steps to be taken with these documents:3 5399 Great Britain, TEL. 3253 i pm October 16, 1919 In Confidential File Secret for Winslow from Wright. Financial aid to Bolshevism & Bolshevik Revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mendell Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Max Breitung & one of the Guggenheims. Document re- in possession of Brit. police authorities from French sources. Asks for any facts re-. * * * * * Oct. 17 Great Britain TEL. 6084, noon r c-h 5399 Very secret. Wright from Winslow. Financial aid to Bolshevik revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews. No proof re- but investigating. Asks to urge Brit. authorities to suspend publication at least until receipt of document by Dept. * * * * * Nov. 28 Great Britain TEL. 6223 R 5 pro. 5399 FOR WRIGHT. Document re financial aid to Bolsheviki by prominent American jews. Reports — identified as French translation of a statement originally prepared in English by Russian citizen in Am. etc. Seem most unwise to give — the distinction of publicity. It was agreed to suppress this material and the files conclude, "I think we have the whole thing in cold storage." Another document marked "Most Secret" is included with this batch of material. The provenance of the document is unknown; it is perhaps FBI or military intelligence. It reviews a translation of the Protocols of the Meetings of the Wise Men of Zion, and concludes: In this connection a letter was sent to Mr. W. enclosing a memorandum from us with regard to certain information from the American Military Attache to the effect that the British authorities had letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. Copies of this material will be very useful to us. This information was apparently developed and a later British intelligence report makes the flat accusation: SUMMARY: There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action....4 However, none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information is contained in the paragraph to the effect that the British authorities possessed "letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion." If indeed such letters exist, then they would provide support (or nonsupport) for a presently unsubstantiated hypothesis: to wit, that the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions are the work of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point — particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else — then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence. The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism. It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.5 This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks. The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.  What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism? Footnotes: 1See Appendix 3 for Schiff's actual role. 2The anonymous author was a Russian employed by the U.S. War Trade Board. One of the three directors of the U.S. War Trade Board at this time was John Foster Dulles. 3U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, 861.00/5399. 4Great Britain, Directorate of Intelligence, A Monthly Review of the Progress of Revolutionary Movements Abroad, no. 9, July 16, 1913 (861.99/5067). 5See Appendix 3. <a href="http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/appendix_02.htm">reformed-theology.org/htm...dix_02.htm</a> <hr></blockquote> So, I am wondering if perhaps the quote you provided maybe misrepresented your views on this, since you suggested Anthony Sutton. Yet Sutton says: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?<hr></blockquote> Will you join me in agreement with Sutton's statement? Can we disagree about the role of banks in the Soviet Union but joyfully agree that, whatever the truth, it is not a Jewish conspiracy? I'm a tad concerned about your source on the quote you did provide, however, for a couple of reasons. First, reading the entire article, here's the only listing of sources for the article: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Various sources, including a tiny booklet by Eric D. Butler entitled Censored History<hr></blockquote> A tiny booklet? That doesn't help much. Perhaps a look at heretical.com might help. Let's see, here's their symbol that comes up as an icon on your web browers (this is the big version of it): <img src="http://www.heretical.com/pubs/hxlogo.gif" style="border:0;"/> I admit, I haven't had time to fully peruse this site, but I'm anxious to get to this section: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Holocaust Parodies • Ohrdruff • Six Chimneys • Tales of the Holohoax<hr></blockquote> http://www.heretical.com/main.html#directory I think a perusal of the site for anyone who doesn't understand what Mr. E here is all about will satisfy your curiosity. And for everyone else: You see, people really DO use "international bankers" to mean Jews. I don't make that up and Mr. E was kind enough to give an example.

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:48 pm

That symbol really does say it all.

by **robertdreed** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:53 pm

"how obvioulsy seamlessly the Sutton/Quigley and (RDR) line dovetails into what we now see as that very popular crypto-fascism that has taken over the conspiracy movement, yet they would never admit to their bastard Nazi cousins in the basement like "Mr. E"." It seems you've brought up my name again in this discussion, proldic. This time, I'll respond directly- seeing as my supposed "line" is portrayed by yourself as "dovetailing into crypto-fascism." What, pray tell, is my "line"? Feel free to use my exact words to impeach me for any "crypto-fascism." Be careful about the "crypto-" part, though. Explanations that get too elaborate in that regard account for a lot of Thorazine prescriptions. To speak of the other authors associated with my name, Antony Sutton and Carroll Quigley: it appears that both Qutb and Dream's End have a much better handle on comprehending their works than you have illustrated. You might also look to them for pointers on how to construct a dialectic and a debate- they're both formidably articulate, they illustrate a command of general historical knowledge, they know how to extract reference quotes that show an appreciation of context to illustrate the points they seek to make, and they are able to interpret passages without falling back on the spurious tactic of zeroing in on "buzzword" semantic quibbles and bristling at them (although I've noticed both of them having minor difficulties with that, on occasion ;^) . ) Overall, as debate opponents, their serves typically land within bounds, and they volley very well. And ~,although I've often found myself contending with them as debaters,~[Edit, 12:11pm. RDR. ] it's a treat whenever I find myself agreeing with them. They often don't leave much for me to add. By contrast, you seem satisfied to "impeach" someone's views via paint-by-number guilt by association- as with your denigration and and dismissal of Carroll Quigley's writings simply by noting that he was a professor at Georgetown University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Quigley's actual views are never examined by you. In fact, you evince roughly the same lack of familiarity with the book Tragedy and Hope in your post that RI poster "Mr. E." showed with his comments. Enough. I'm really not any more interested in entering into a "slugfest" on this page than most other RI posters are interested in reading one. But I had to say something. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 11/29/05 12:15 pm

by **proldic** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:27 pm

I owned and read Quigley's work in the '90's over and over. After a while, I started to see things I disagreed with or questioned. As far as the quality of Qutb and DE's writing and research, I agree 100% and am taking notes. Um, but you should be, too, instead of just genuflecting, then rolling over on your back like some submissive whupped puppy dog. Unlike you, I'm not in some perpetual "debate" locker-room intellectual pissing contest. I am all in favor of heavy reading. I probably am better read when it comes to the para-political works than you give me credit for. I have/had quite an extensive library, including works by Sutton and Quigley -- and Dan Baum, and Gerald Colby. It's not about how many fucking books you read, it's what you do with the knowledge after you get it. Or what it does to you. So I'm simply not as articulate nor well-written. So I should shut up. Not a chance. I believe I bring a valuable element of insight and quality to my posts, despite my lack of time and level of writing skill. I know I originate many interesting threads. You constantly deride and deny my contributions. Odd since you contribute so very very little beyond your anal-retentive "style" of spurious debate (yeah, where are those ringing defenses of capitalism, anyway?). Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=proldic@rigorousintuition>proldic</A> at: 11/29/05 11:50 am

by **robertdreed** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:32 pm

"you should be, too. Instead of just genuflecting, then rolling over on your back like some submissive whupped puppy dog. Unlike you, I'm not in some perpetual "debate" locker-room intellectual pissing contest."

by **AnnaLivia** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:59 pm

maybe doesn't hurt to mention...to recall often, just who the common enemy really is, even as differing systems are discussed? so. is it just me, or does it seem, sadly, like no matter what the system of government, we always end up headed right back to "the end justifies the means"? how DO we avoid that?? and i'll just smart off with, i still think the deeper root is found in our whole notion of how we pay people...what we pay people for. if paid in accord with sacrifice of time and energy (all any of us really have), there would be far greater equity and far less injustice and terror, and it could be so under more than one governmental system, methinks. anyway, the whole notion of taxing least, those who take the most benefits from society, has gotta go. the billionaires and trillionaires have got to be de-constructed, one way or another.

Dave McGowan On Stalin

groan

Re: Dave McGowan On Stalin

Re: groan

Who's "We"?

Re: Evil luciferian bankers

What's left after the pox on both houses?

RUTH HERE

Re: RUTH HERE

anna's back

Re: Who's "We"?

Re: Wow

Re: Libel

Re: One Vain Little Bitch

quote without comment

um

Who is online