Friday, December 16, 2011

Socialists admit there was a conspiracy of Jewish bankers behind communism, but deny communism was instigated as another Jewish-serving racket

America's Unknown Enemy:Beyond Conspiracy

(American Institute for Economic Research) -- by the Editorial Staff --

V. What Do International Bankers Want?

Although reliable evidence supports several of the claims made in conspiracy literature, the preoccupation among conspiracy proponents with the distant historical "connection" between Wall Street bankers and the Bolshevik Revolution may also have diverted attention from banking policies that influence international events. According to conspiracy theory, that Wall Street banking firms with Jewish managers helped to finance the Bolshevik Revolution is proof that many international bankers were Jewish Communists in league with the "bigger conspiracy to control the world." These conspirators allegedly had (and have) little fear of Socialists because they are confident they could (and can) control them. We agree that the policies advocated today by some international bankers, academicians, and multinational corporate leaders, if implemented, would introduce central control over global economic activity. But while the Bolshevik precedent may have indicated the bankers' willingness to engage in commerce with totalitarian regimes (as they evidently have throughout recorded history), there simply is no other relevant and demonstrable relationship to link that past episode with present policy. The case against "global management" will not be strengthened, in our opinion, by tortuous attacks against "Jewish plotters" or "Wall Street Communists." The case against central management of economic activity (with its overriding importance to individual sovereignty) can be supported with much more telling argument and evidence than that offered by conspiracy theorists.

There is, to be sure, corroborating evidence from a variety of sources indicating that Wail Street bankers did help to finance the Bolshevik Revolution. But this does not establish that they, themselves, were Communists. According to Antony C. Sutton, in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, three independent sources, including his grandson, maintain that Jacob Schiff (who was Senior Partner in Kuhn, Loeb, and Company and father-in-law of Felix Warburg) provided an approximately $20 million loan to the Bolsheviks. Sutton also offers documentation that a consortium of banking interests, including inter alia the Morgan group and the Rockefeller-Standard Oil group, were involved in providing financial support for the new regime. Gary Allen attempts to implicate Paul Warburg also. According to Allen, Lenin "took some $5 to $6 million in gold" into Russia through a deal "arranged by the German High Command and Max Warburg." "The picture," he writes, "takes on another dimension when you consider that the brother of Max Warburg was Paul Warburg."

Contrary to conspiracy notions, however, such financial deals are not necessarily evidence that the bankers were Communists, or even that they wanted the Bolsheviks to triumph. While it is understandable that conspiracy theorists express disbelief that international bankers would finance a regime whose professed goal was to strip men such as themselves of their wealth unless they were committed Socialists themselves or expected to direct the course of revolution, there are several other possibilities.

For example, that the German banker Max Warburg participated with the German High Command in arranging financial backing for Lenin seems consistent with the aims of German military strategy. The Germans wanted Russia out of the war, and they obtained such assurances from Lenin in return for financial aid. However, there is no evidence that Paul Warburg -- who resigned from the Federal Reserve Board as a result of combined anti-German and anti-Semitic sentiment -- played any role whatsoever in the matter, or that he acted in any other treasonable way. He may have, but the fact of opportunity does not establish a fact of culpability. Indeed, many Americans had close relatives fighting for enemy countries at that time, yet those Americans were not thereby guilty of treason

The Ethnic Element

Nor was the aid that Jewish American bankers gave to the Bolsheviks conclusive evidence that they sympathized with the Communist cause. Antony Sutton suggests that individuals such as Jacob Schiff were willing to invest millions of dollars in the hope that such aid might contribute to the emancipation of Russian Jewry, which for centuries had suffered discrimination at the hands of czarist regimes. An illustrative telex message appealing for aid from Russian Jewish bankers to prominent New York Jews (Jacob Schiff, Louis Brandeis, Oscar Strauss, Louis Marshall, and Henry Morgenthau) conveys an innocent context in which financial aid might have been extended:[1]
We Russian Jews always believed that liberation of Russia meant also our liberation. Being deeply devoted to country we placed implicit trust [in] temporary Government. We know the unlimited economic power of Russia and her immense resources and the emancipation we obtained will enable us to participate [in the] development [of our] country. We firmly believe that [a] victorious finish of the war owing [to the] help [of) our allies and United States is near.
When, a year after the Revolution, Schiff learned from Russian Jewish bankers of "Bolshevik devastation," he appealed to the U.S. State Department to give consideration to pleas for allied intervention against the Bolsheviks.

Although some Jews no doubt were Communists, widespread early Jewish support for the Bolshevik Revolution apparently was prompted not by ideological sympathy for the Communists but by sympathy for the oppressed members of the Russian Jewish community and by expectations that as Jews they might get preferential treatment should Jewish bankers attain positions of influence in the new regime. Russian bankers who appealed to Schiff and others for aid to the Bolsheviks may have had a special interest in the cause -- but not necessarily because they subscribed to Communist dogma. As events transpired, the Communist regime perpetuated anti-Semitism, and many of the same bankers in Russia who initially supported the revolution subsequently suffered death, exile to Siberia, or deportation. They paid a dear price for their miscalculation...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

The fact that Zionist elements of communism were later hoisted upon their own petard by non-Jewish elements of communism does not disprove the fact that totalitarian communism (as opposed to 19th Century anarchism hijacked by Jews Karl Marx and Moses Hess from libertarians like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin, and turned into totalitarian communism) was originated for Jewish-serving purposes, just as Jewish neoconservatism and partners first hijacked liberal centrist Democrats and later Wall Street Republicans in order to triangulate the American political system for the purposes of serving Zionist interests.

Organized Jewry originates all manner of "secular," crypto-Zionist intellectual movements in order to co-opt ignorant Gentile useful idiots or corrupt, greedy and venal Gentile partners in crime into doing its bidding; that's part of its modus operandi.

This would be obvious to everyone by now if Jewry and its partners hadn't been able to get away with shouting down critics of their various totalitarian enterprises (Western statist-leftism, neo-fascist Zionism) with shouts of "anti-Semitism" for so long.

At this point, anyone who plays the "anti-Semitism" card should be assumed to be part of an organized Jewish racket, either as a material beneficiary or an ignorant, programmed useful idiot.

1 comment:

Aservant said...

Very well put. Social/political influence isn't nearly so much about percentages of a population involved in activism, but rather what key positions do they occupy, when do they occupy them, who do they influence and how.