What it Means to Be Chosen - By Psychopathic Elites
I am actually much more interested in seeing the truth about 9/11 come out than the holocaust. That said, I lean towards the belief that however nasty the Nazis were, they did not "epitomize evil". They were racist. They were brutal. They were frighteningly talented in many ways. Demonizing them to the extent that alleging an actual plan to exterminate all of Europe's Jews on their part does, however, is a deliberate distortion that serves a specific interest--that of Zionism.
I realize that at first all of this smacks of Nazi apologia, but please understand that all of us who get to this point have been where you are. In fact we absolutely must be on guard lest the correction of the historical record lead us to forget that indeed Nazi Germany was no better than any other imperialist European power--that is the mistake that neo-Nazis make. This is unfortunate in many ways of course, but not least because it is essential to understand the true nature of the evils of Nazism in order to see the relevant similarities to Zionism that help us to understand exactly why the Zionist political movement cannot be allowed to use the legitimate issue of genuine Jewish suffering during WW2 as a shield. The more they do, the more they emulate and in some ways even transcend Nazism.
The events of WW2 have to be seen in context to make sense, and that context is never really taught appropriately in mainstream circles. The context includes the nature of "world Jewry" in the decades preceding the rise of the Nazis. One of the most important things to understand is that the world's Jews were not just geographically diverse, but also very markedly socio-economically stratified. What does this mean? It means in essence that despite the Zionists' dreams (and however well-meaning they may have been) Jews were not in any real way "one people". There were Jews of varying races and ethnicities. There were urban Jews and rural Jews. There were Jews living in countries where emancipation had been thorough and successful and there were Jews living in countries where they had not been emancipated and suffered under special laws and local prejudices.
At the very pinnacle were of course a small but siginificant number of extremely successful Jews. Not simply professionals who had done well under emancipation, but individuals who through their involvement in banking had accumulated great wealth and had naturally become influential on a global political scale. Like any elites, they were not as a rule particularly ethical, nor had they prior to the rise of political Zionism in the late 19th century seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of their less fortunate correligionists.
Where things begin to get murky are during WWI and soon after with the Bolshevik overthrow of the Tsar in Russia. The troubling nature of the debate seems to stem from the fact that the proletarian revolution included a number of prominent Russian Jews, most notably Leon Trotsky. In this light the seemingly odd connection between modern neoconservatives and Trotskyism begins to make more sense. As do the links between anti-communism (read fascism) and anti-semitism. At the same time, mainstream historians have traditionally downplayed the influence of the economic elite over President Wilson. Included among these are of course the American Rockefellers but also the European/American Warburg and European Rothschild banking families, the latter two of whom identified as Jews. Not only were these elites involved in the creation of the federal reserve system that served to undermine American democracy and political sovereignty, but they were also instrumental in bringing America into WWI on the side of Britain against Germany and their Turkish allies (who at the time held Palestine.)
What should becoming clear, and here I have to stop to pick the thread up later, is that we are not talking about a Jewish conspiracy by any means. We are in fact talking about a conspiracy of elite wealth and control versus popular democracy and freedom. On the one hand are the elites who have the means to influence developments on a globally coordinated scale. On the other are the masses of people who are used as pawns in the scheme. That the world's Jews were chosen to play a major role in these events is evident. What is also evident is that they were not consulted before decisions were made that would result in a change from gradual emancipation to massive upheaval. They were instead used as were so many others to bring into being the "new world order" that we hear so much about but that often gets misunderstood--the forest of the whole being lost amid the various distractions of the myriad intrigues clouding the more simple truths.
Obviously deception and the weaving of false narratives has played a role in these developments, and we will discuss that in due order...
Next: "Judea Declares War on Germany!!"
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
great title
I look forward to the next.
so were most of the Bolsheviks jewish? were they agitating for the state of Israel at the same time as they wee waging class warfare/workers' revolution?
good question, my good mouse
I don't know if most, but certainly a fair number of the leaders were. Russia though seems to be one of the places where Jews felt particularly oppressed (because I think they were). The question also has to do with where the funding for the revolution came. I've been reading None Dare Call it Conspiracy that approaches the whole NWO thing from the view of imposing world socialism and the Bolshies of course being part of that conspiracy. The author makes it clear that he is not calling it a Jewish conspiracy and indeed says, back in 1971 that many people fall into that trap and thus bring the ADL down on themselves, and yes, the ADL IS part of the conspiracy.
This is where it pays to be very careful about jumping to conclusions, since there is absolutely a strong possibility that the "alternative history" is presented in such a way as to make people wrongly assume much more Jewish involvement than really existed. That many of the big banking families, including the very biggest, were Jewish is a historical fact. That they were all powerful is not as clear. That there were not also many non-Jewish people with deep pockets, and involved in the federal reserve takeover of the US is also a fact, and the nexus seems to be with the British, who essentially were trying to retain control over europe and the world but realized that they would have to essentially merge with America. That's where the CFR comes in--it was the American branch of a bunch of elites' little powwow originating in Britain.
I think that its quite possible for there to be a relatively benign explanation for many Bolsheviks being Jewish and both they and the Zionists being sucked in by opportunism into a more comprehensive conspiracy that wasn't at all as Jewish as that might at first sugest, especially when looking at the role of the Brits and the oil and drug racketeers in the Anglo-American axis. I think that Zionism was probably just as happy NOT to take part in a conspiracy to rule the world if they would have gotten their state guaranteed that way. That they opted for following the money and the power is not all that surprising, as is true of the people who genuinely believed that Russia needed a people's revolution (well, it probably did, no?)
This is not to say that these were good decisions--they were not, especially when you look at how things would have been to seen to have worked out by people who really did believe in those causes for their own merits and were not interested in or aware of a grander conspiracy sucking them in.
Right-wing tracts such as
Right-wing tracts such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy turn the actual history upside-down. The reality is that the Allies, and especially Britain, supported the Whites in the Russian Civil War, but that the latter completely wasted all aid as it was given. Although the illustrations of this are too numerous to briefly summarize, a few illustrations from John Hodgeson's reporting in Russia are worth noting:
-----
"I did not, during the whole of my service with the Army in Russia, ever see a nurse in a British uniform, but I have seen girls, who were emphatically not nurses, walking the streets of Novorossiisk wearing regulation British hospital skirts and stockings," wrote John Hodgeson, a British war correspondent sent to report about life in Denikin's Russia. "I saw and talked to young ladies of good social standing ... who were wearing costumes made of British officers' serge," he added, as he wrote of men at the front who went into battle "wearing practically nothing but a print shirt and a patched pair of trousers." Almost every minor bureaucrat in South Russia seemed to have a new, crisply creased British summer uniform. "It is impossible to believe," Hodgson reported, "that we sent out clothing for the benefit of lawyers and petty civil officials."
...
Transferred to the military sphere, such massive corruption proved destructive. While Denikin's desperate commanders tried to break through Red fortifications with infantry, British tanks sat on the dock at Novorossiisk. Although Hodgson found "it was always possible for a local profiteer to bribe railway officials and obtain freight cars ... on a colossal scale," it proved impossible to find trains or trucks to move the tanks inland. "One night," Hodgson noted sadly, "a typical Black Sea storm caused one of the tanks to slip its moorings, and the whole consignment [of ten] slid quietly to the bottom of the harbor." Nor was that an isolated instance. While men dying from typhus and dysentery lay on rotting, lice-infested sacks, Hodgson watched the equipment for an entire two hundred-bed British hospital disappear at wharfside. "Beds, blankets, sheets, mattresses, and pillows disappeared as if by magic," he reported. "They found their way to the housesof staff officers and members of the Kuban Government."
-----
-- W. Bruce Lincoln, RED VICTORY: A HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR, pp. 218-20.
That just scratches the surface, but it should be a reminder to someone that the reasons for the White defeat were much more fundamentally basic than simply an alleged Wall Street conspiracy.
As for positions taken on Palestine, although Gromyko as a representative of Moscow during Stalin's time actually did vote in support of Israel at the time of 1948, the actual Trotskyist position rejecting Zionism is clearly laid out in the editorial of Kol Ham'amad (Voice of the Class), Hebrew organ of the Revolutionary Communist League of Palestine, Section of the Fourth International:
http://www.internationalist.org/stream1948.html
It's absurd to imagine that any of the leading revolutionaries of 1917 ever advocated Zionism in Palestine.
response to anonymous critic
Hi, it seems we have a genuine and thoughtful critic in our midst, which is great, since dialogue benefits from an exposition of the facts surrounding a disagreement. I appreciate that you have taken the time to voice your disagreement with NDCIC and other works that take issue with the mainstream account of the history of the previous century. While I don't have time now to go point by point, I should point out that at the end of your comment above you point out that Trotsky was anti-Zionist as somehow undermining the basic argument made in NDCIC. Because I think you miss the point based on a less than nuanced reading of Jones' thesis that the British/American financial elite played Germany and Russia off of each other in part by fomenting revolutions in each country that would establish polar opposite ideological governments that would destroy one another. My reading thus far leads me to at least for the time lean towards the account in which the British (and by extension America) did indeed pretend to sympathize with the Whites (Tsarist sympathizers) in Russia but only as a matter of keeping up appearances given the pretense of Germany being their common enemy and their wish to keep the Tsar and the Kaiser from making peace. After the fall of both, the plan to dominate Eurasia (and the world) seems to have taken the form of the previously alluded to "grand battle" between "fascism and communism (Germany vs Russia) that ensured the direct conquer of Germany and the indirect conquer of Russia, setting the stage for a farther reaching new "grand battle" this between "democracy and communism". To extend the development of this program until modern times, the fall of the soviet union signalled the beginning of a "final stage" of sorts in which a now global "secular neoliberal economic order" will contend with the "backward islamofascist terror regime with global aspirations", now for the hearts and minds of everyone on earth, with the "winner" of course being predetermined as it always has been. With "victory" being claimed to be one of free peoples vs would be oppressors, so that those "free" peoples embrace their newfound tyrants as libertaors and protectors from evil and oppression. In other words, it means little that Trotsky was anti-Zionist, since he was eventually undermined first by Lenin and then by Stalin, who conveniently enough for the conspirators supported the formation of Israel (no doubt in part because of the anti-semitic nature of their vanquished mortal enemy in Nazi Germany.
Create a problem, provoke a reaction, impose a solution.
And so it went, goes, and will go until people learn to think outside the confines of elite-manufactured "reality-illusion".
There's no basis for saying
There's no basis for saying that anyone pretended to sympathize with the Whites. The Allies did give concrete aid to the Whites, while always making clear the limits on how far they could go. After 4 years of WWI no Allied government could afford to commit itself to another all-out unlimited war without taking serious risks of upheavals at home. The Allies had simply hoped to aid the build-up of a more or less competent force of anti-Bolsheviks within Russia so that the latter could win on its own. The reason for the White defeat was merely that they completely alienated the average Russian and simultaneously tried drawing the Allies into a multitude of extraneous civil wars.
When French forces landed in the Ukraine they initially believed that this was an action against the Bolsheviks. Pretty soon it became apparent that a civil war between the Ukrainian Directory and the Russian Volunteer Army was afoot which had nothing to do with fighting Bolshevism since both of the conflicting parties were anti-Bolshevik. The RVA simply had a habit of equating anything which broke apart the Old Russian Empire, such as the Ukrainian national independence movement led by the Directory, with "Bolshevism" and took for granted that French forces would aid them in squelching the Ukrainian Directory. Once the French had caught on to what was really afoot, they ordered a retreat and got out. White apologists have repeatedly tried to make this out as evidence of a grandiose French plan to secretly aid the Bolsheviks by withdrawing their forces, but they've shunned all responsibility for what was really the source of the French decision to withdraw. You have to look at more serious histories such as John Reshetar, THE UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION, to get a better idea of what was really going on.
One could easily enumerate many similar errors on the domestic political front. Without a doubt the revolution which raged across Russia in 1917 was a real phenomenon and not at all an invention of Wall Street. The Bolsheviks were a small party of people who had for a number of years devoted themselves to analyzing and preparing organizationally for what they believed would be an unavoidable revolution, but they were not initially in the lead. The Social Revolutionaries had the widest appeal of all parties among the peasants, who made up a huge mass of the population in Russia. Sharp divisions between the urban population as a whole and the rural populace were one of the major sociological conflicts raging across Russia at this time. Where the SRs proved to be too conservative for the peasants the Greens began forming anarchistic armies which were generally antagonistic to urban authority in all forms. Among the urban laborers, the Bolsheviks had a definite base of support. But the base of the Mensheviks among urban workers had historically been somewhat bigger. Only the crisis situation of 1917, when Russia's food distribution system was breaking down, allowed the Bolsheviks to temporarily take the leading position among urban workers ahead of the Mensheviks.
Nevertheless, in the ideological world of the Whites, all of these forces, Greens, SRs, Mensheviks, were all identically equivalent to "Bolsheviks." This type of political outlook guaranteed the victory of the latter. None of the Bolsheviks's authentic political rivals, such as the Mensheviks and SRs, had prepared themselves organizationally for taking power in a revolutionary situation. Only the Whites had the organizational machinery, coming out of the traditional Czarist army, for building a rival force at the military and administrative level. There were many Mensheviks and SRs who tried to reach a working relationship with the Whites, the latter wasted the opportunity. That alone guaranteed the political defeat of the Whites without needing any special Allied conspiracy to bring it about.
After the civil war the exiled Whites developed their own literature which was often aimed at throwing responsibility for their defeat on the Allies and other powers. A great deal of this has influenced Right-wing commentators such as Gary Allen and other figures from the John Birch Society. But it doesn't hold up in reality.
Stalin's decision to support
Stalin's decision to support Israel in 1948 probably had more to do with intelligence blackmail than ideological sympathy. This is the explanation put forward in John Loftus & Mark Aarons, THE SECRET WAR AGAINST THE JEWS, a book written with the aid of Mossad contacts and interviews. Despite the obvious bias, the book is worth picking up and their explanations of a number of things make some better sense that traditional ones. They claim that Stalin had established an intelligence network in World War II which kept him informed about many things on the Allied and German sides, but that several Zionists had gained key positions in this network in a way which allowed David Ben Gurion to later blackmail Stalin with the prospect of having intelligence networks exposed in the early Cold War. Something like that fits much more consistently with the odd shifts in Stalin's behavior that surround the Soviet endorsement of Israel. There is no basis for seeing any of the early revolutionaries of 1917 as having ever been motivated by an adherence to Zionism.
ummm, that's not what anyone is saying...
If one actually reads these alternative accounts it is nowhere claimed that the revolutionaries themselves were adherents of Zionism. The allegation is that they were supported by adherents to Zionism for their own ends, much as radical Islamism has been supported by adherents to Zionism so as to manufacture an unsympathetic foe so as to win the support of global public opinion. The book you cite sounds interesting, but I'm afraid that I would approach it (since it is obviously biased as you admit) with an eye to how it may be trying to rewrite history for someone's benefit. One might wonder about independent Zionist pressure on Russia, after all, since Israel was supposed to be an American ally. Indeed Russia has long provided a lot of emigrés to Israel in exchange for who knows what--American secrets? Given the history of Israeli spying in and on the US I think that is a charge that deserves serious scrutiny.
> The allegation is that
> The allegation is that they were supported by adherents to Zionism for their own ends
Well, now, we should be clear that, to the extent that the Bolsheviks received any support before the revolution of 1917, it came from the Kaiser's Germany. The latter really was interested in promoting the internal disintegration of Russia from behind the lines and Lenin's trip back to Russia was made possible by the German General Staff. This was not a Wall Street conspiracy by any means. But one shouldn't overrate the significance of German aid either. Although the actual trip back to Russia provided to him was very important for Lenin, the Bolsheviks had long had their own resources. Stalin is sometimes noted for his role as a trainrobber in raising funds for the Bolsheviks. Segments of the middle-class which became disillusioned with the state of affairs in eastern Europe were also capable of giving aid to revolutionary causes. This was the background of Christian Rakovsky. But as far as foreign aid goes, the main source of aid given to the Bolsheviks before November 1917 was Germany.
Once Lenin had taken power there was another period which ended with the Brest-Litovsk treaty. During these 4 months from November 1917 to March 1918 there were sectors of the western governments which advocated aiding the Bolsheviks. The reason for this has nothing to do with a Zionist conspiracy but was done for the same reason that Germany had aided Lenin before November 1917. It was well-known that following a revolution in Russia the Bolsheviks intended to try spreading revolutionary propaganda into Germany. Bukharin even advocated that Russia should declare revolutionary war on Germany. It was Lenin who had insisted on accepting the Brest-Litovsky treaty. But while the treaty was still unsigned there were sectors of the British government which advocated aiding the Bolsheviks in their attempt to carry revolution into Germany. A more up-to-date account of these events appears in Michael Occleshaw, DANCES IN DEEP SHADOWS: THE CLANDESTINE WAR IN RUSSIA 1917-20. Occleshaw traces the various shifts in positions which occurred among people like Bruce Lockhart as it became apparent that Lenin intended to remove Russia from the war and how the Allies settled on intervention against Bolshevism after the Brest-Litovsk treaty had been signed.
One of the principal distortions in Antony Sutton's famous-among-the-Right book WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION is that he makes no attempt to inform the reader of such shifts in different periods: the period when Lenin sought aid from Germany to overthrow the Provisional Government; the period when the Bolsheviks had taken power but had not signed at Brest-Litovsk and British intelligence agents like Bruce Lockhart were hoping that the Bolsheviks could be aided in stirring up a revolution within Germany; the period after Brest-Litovsk when Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks was decided upon. All of the distinctions between such periods is blurred out in Sutton's book so that an event from one period may be used to extrapolate false conclusions about another period. But even in the 4-month period when someone like Lockhart advocated that the British government reach a consensus with Lenin, the motives for this had nothing to do with Zionism. British strategy, like German strategy which allowed to return to Russia, was totally centered on achieving victory in World War One.
The later developments which Loftus & Aarons claim occurred are something different since they involve World War II. Without a doubt most Zionists (though not all) leaned at this time towards aiding a Soviet victory over the Third Reich and the claims by Loftus & Aarons that Ben-Gurion achieved some important contacts within Soviet intelligence networks formed out of the war are quite plausible.
great title
from lil ole katie here hanging in my kiosk