Posted on 02/14/2014 5:13:40 AM PST by Impala64ssa
A Russian Member of Parliament (MP) burst out in an anti-Semitic tirade last Thursday, attacking other Russian lawmakers as "Jews" responsible for the 1917 Communist revolution and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Oleg Bolychev, an MP from the ruling United Russia party, called his opponents "Jews, mired in opposition," during a debate at the regional parliament in Kaliningrad, reports AFP.
"At the start of the 1990s foreign spies were infiltrated into our government who oversaw the destruction of our state," claimed Bolychev. "You destroyed our country in 1917 and you destroyed our country in 1991."
The Russian Jewish Congress said it was "indignant" over the anti-Semitic blaming of Jews for Russian failures, and called for an investigation.
Alexander Khinstein, a fellow United Russia MP, also spoke out against his party member, saying "it is incredible that a public figure can make such extremist statements."
Meanwhile Bolychev struck back, saying labels of extremism were "ravings and provocations." He also claimed his blaming of the Jews for "destroying Russia" was not anti-Semitic, saying "I was not talking about Jews but about the situation in the country. I was speaking about traitors who destroyed a great state twice."
According to Alexander Verkhovsky of the NGO Sova, which studies racism in Russia, "xenophobia is such in Russia that it now appears in the official discourse which was controlled up until now."
Russia has also embraced the enemies of the Jewish state, sealing a $1 billion energy deal with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in late January. During his visit to Russia during which the deal was signed, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas called on Russia to play a greater role in peace talks between Israel and the PA.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Its not complex. Its a plain as the nose on your face and again, you make the point yourself. The Communists were not just spies in the FDR Administration, they his most trusted advisers and making policy. Same thing with Wilson. Same thing with this creep currently in the White House.
I don't know how Hitler was worse than the Communists. The Communists had already slaughtered tens of millions of Christians, openly boasted of their determination to overthrow Christianity and Western Civilization and to that end spent the previous fifty years bombing and assassinating Western leaders and instigating bloody revolts the world over, including in the USA.
My hated conspiracy, huh? What did Winston Churchill say about this "conspiracy theory"-
"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide 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. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920
Churchill must have been one of those tin-foil hat wearing anti-Semites that lived in his mothers basement.
Your view of conspiracies is childish. There is no single conspiracy. There are competing conspiracies such as the Transnational Corporatist conspiracy (managed neoliberalism), communism, Sunni Islamists, Shia Islamists. These groups will work with each other towards common short term ends. The Nazis were their own conspiracy.
The banking families from the early renaissance through today are the power behind national governments.
During that time they have always had deep ties with espionage, and information in general, such as obtaining the concession to run early post office systems in Europe (since at the time that was a key way of getting information) and have always been intimiate advisors to governments.
They migrated from Spain and Italy northward into Europe, and changed their family names to local names. Eventually the most powerful groups selected the City of London as the leading center of international banking. Continued efforts throughout the centuries at melding into the aristocracy of the UK (and Europe) and gaining greater control over its government and industry had, by the mid-19th century, effectively turned the UK government into little more than a front for the bankers.
A study of the British East India Company and other major corporations of the day, for instance, railroads, reveals the patterns of control that mirror America today.
The bankers, first of all, do not use only their own capital. In fact, only a small percentage of the total capital (both debt and equity instruments) is actually owned by them. The EIC had many investors, all of which, of course, were wealthy, and many were politicians. It had many bondholders, with EIC bond debt well into the millions of pounds.
The EIC project starts out with great promises to the government as to the gains that it can make for the Empire, and in return wins powerful concessions, some of which make it a de facto sovereign. As the aristocracy and government and wealthy persons are allowed to buy in, there develops an enormous political desire to see the firm do well, and it does remarkably well for quite some time for its investors. This gives the board of directors and key executives tremendous political clout, given the relationship of the investors, i.e., what’s good for EIC is good for the Empire. The international bankers simply maintain close control over the board and senior executives; a relatively small set of people. They simply choose new members from amongst trusted associates who will work on the same goals as they have.
There are fascinating connections all over the place that point to the UK being a “small world” for these financial elites. One of the key players in EIC was Jeremy Bentham. A key part of the economy at the time, sort of the “internet” of the day, was the burgeoning textile industry. As cotton plantations grew in the US, later on, largely financed by the UK financial elites, the British textile industry was one leg of the slave trade “triangle” (the slave trade was not so much an “American” institution but an institution of the financial elites who financed and profited from it, but I digress). The largest company of its kind were the textile mills at New Lanark, owned by a David Dale. Robert Owen, the supposed “socialist”, married Dale’s daughter and organized a buyout of the mills from Dale, who accepted a note from Dale. In 1806, Dale died, and Owen then continued to pay back Dale’s trustees. Owen was a bit shafty with one of his bankers, and he was fired from his position as manager of the mill. The mill struggled financially and was put up for auction on the last day of 1813. Owen craftily organized a partnership which bought it at auction, and he was back to running the mill. One of the key partners in the buyout - Jeremy Bentham.
If you read up on Jeremy Bentham, you’ll find all the perverted and immoral thinking, the pride and delusion of today’s new world order. Further reading on EIC will reveal that the leadership of the enormous firm started their own universities to have people trained in their secular-humanist ideas, avoiding entirely the established universities which were under the auspices of Churches. Thus the students they turned out were “freed” from any and all Biblical morality, and could readily accept the suggestion that man could be his own “god”. All one has to do to verify this is research the history of each university and find out who its founders were; who financed it and who the first presidents/provosts were - and who they worked for prior to that job. The trails for many leading universities lead back to the same financial elites and their minions.
There were many economic ties within the UK economy to EIC, as it imported a tremenous amount of goods for various UK industries, it issued a lot of securities and paid returns to the owners of them, and it required a large amount of products and services that it purchased from UK companies. Being a supplier to EIC was practically an industry in and of itself.
And EIC, large as it was, is of course just one company. The other large businesses of the day, rail, shipping, etc., are also controlled at the top by people cut from the same mold, having the same thinking as the EIC board and management. It’s all about “extending the Empire” on the one hand, but on the other hand, the major capital markets firms (like Wall Street of today), closely controlled by the banking families, place those families quite firmly in control of who gets capital and who does not - and makes them the go-to people for the wealthy elites of the nation, since they are analagous to the “private wealth management” sector today.
With some research, you’ll find also that the banking elites carefully corrupted politicians, reducing them in many cases to pawns, and they maintained sophisticated espionage networks so their information was, on the whole, far better than that of the governments of Europe.
The “conspiracy” element greatly magnifies when one considers that the banking families in the UK operated in concert with those on the Continent; international banking knows no national loyalty - though they frequently pander or make pleas to the citizens of particular nations on the basis of “patriotism”.
What is really amazing is that the textile industry in early “industrial revolution” UK - is essentially simply a replay of how banking families operated in Italy in the preceding centuries. It was the same: international trade, set the townsfolk busy making things for you to sell and buying things from you, and become the areas banker, finally becoming the banker to the government itself.
Of course, near its end, EIC had financial woes - and then of course made the appeal to be, in essence, bailed out by the government. This, of course, is thought of as “the Crown” - but in truth, it’s ultimately the taxpayer. Does this all not ring a bell in terms of today ?
Many of the famous “English” names of the “enlightenment” period in business and politics - were actually transplants from Spain and Italy and were born into banking families, who simply Anglicized their names. Of course, the same is true on the Continent as well. We see the same power gained through being both lendors and intimate, top-ranked advisors. The same practice of making secular-humanist schools, the very well-cloaked financial pattern of “nationalization”, the same aristocratic roots of communism and socialism, all whitewashed in history with most of they key historical revolutionary leaders cutting their documented ties with their wealthy families. Once the ideas took hold, many simply ran with them, and did not understand how the revolutions and nationalizations could be of use to the very monopolist “capitalists” that they were theoretically “revolting” against. Those at the top of the revolutions, of course, knew of the ties to banking elites, such as with the “Red Cross” mission to the Bolshevik revolution, the majority of the membership of which consisted of American bankers bringing millions of dollars to keep the revolutionary effort afloat. The elites, of course, never want this publicly acknowledged in either America or Russia.
Much as been said here of Churchill and FDR - but nothing has been said of their real ancestry, their family finances, and their relationships with the financial “powers behind the throne”. FDRs grandfather was an opium trader, for example. All the talk about politicians is really quite meaningless without talking about the underreported money and power that was the real driver of their actions. Their public statements are simply fluff for the masses to slurp up.
Regarding WWII...
General Electric, Standard Oil, IBM, etc., various Wall Street banks - were intimately involved and essential to Germany getting prepared for WWII. After complete economic desolation after WWI - its quite preposterous to think that international banking was not essential to the reestablishment of relative prosperity just a decade later. It takes capital investment to make such things happen. For the German military, specifically, it took capital plus some key technology, which the American firms supplied with full knowledge of their key leadership that Germany was being prepared for another war. Not only do we know the types of technology transferred, but we also know that leaders of such large corporations with international operations were far more in the know about national strategies and capabilities than politicians were in those days, due to the information flow up the the corporate hierarchy, and the business operations going on in all the various nations and their knowledge of their own industries, i.e., who is buying what.
As a side note, international banking does indeed back all the global governance organizations, i.e., United Nations, UNESCO, etc. The Rockefellers donated the money to purchase the land the UN sits on. Without WWII, there would be no United Nations. In terms of “communism”, there are actual old NY Times articles that ran stories on how closely Wall Street was tied with communism. These ties make absolutely no sense other than if communism is simply the idea of elite banking families having an entire nation as a captive slave state. There is no rational reason why “capitalists” would support a regime that supposedly “nationalizes” industries and “confiscates” wealth. Unless the nationalized industry is financed by the elite bankers, and their wealth is never confiscated, only that of the “little people”, so ensure there is never any competition from them.
How glaringly open do the wealthy have to be in their support of “socialism” and “communism” for the sheeple to admit that those “isms” are of, by and for the elites ?
Once again - the financial elites do not equal “Jews”. The financial elites are a relatively tiny group; there are millions of Jews. Financial elites will throw their best friend under the bus to work one of their own plans; they view EVERYONE else as cattle for them to make use of and slaughter if they see fit. The financial elites see themselves as having the right to choose who lives and who dies; who can afford their food and who can’t; who gets medicine and who doesn’t. The true financial elites are at the very top of a very large structure of minions, like Jeremy Bentham, that work for them in one capacity or another. It may be at a Wall Street firm, it may be at one of their tax-exempt foundations, it may be at a large, publicly-held manufacturing company, it may be in the military or CIA, it may be at a university or in the government, or in some “activist” organization, etc.; in any case, it’s only a select few in top, key positions who realize that their particular organization is taking its cues from international bankers. The rest are just part of their organization, working towards its internal goals; they have no “need to know” anything other than that.
Just to make the connection between Communism / Socialism and Robert Owen mentioned above, that is, the connection from the elites’ perspective...
Keep in mind that Owen and Bentham were close enough to be business partners.
New Lanark was not a small mom-and-pop, but an immense factory that employed much of the local population.
Owen was wealthy once his deals came to fruition, and he was rubbing elbows with executives from the enormous East India Company.
Owen was always looking for efficiences, i.e., to increase the profitability of shareholders, and was very adept at it. In business dealings he was clever to the point of pushing ethics to the limit of what was acceptable at the time.
New Lanark involved company housing for workers. When companies provide housing for employees, the portion of their pay they would spend on housing is thus paid by the company at cost; this is the lowest possible cost.
Jeremy Bentham proposed a prison system he called the Panopticon, a building designed to basically house convicts like hamsters in a work-eat-sleep circular structure, and allow a contractor to run the cage at a profit.
Viewed in this light, despite what typical biographies of Robert Owen lead one to believe, Owen’s later efforts at establishing communes take on a whole new character.
Undoubtedly the partners that lorded over the employees of the New Lanark mills, creative and “driven” as they were, continued to seek a way to stay competitive with the prices of their products while trying to come up with innovative ways to increase their margin on labor. They were already getting employees to work for as little as possible... if only they could go that little bit further, and instead of only providing housing, why not provide everything they would need. Schools for children (which they did), all food, clothing, etc. Why, they could make the mill a small village that was basically self-sufficient. Have some employees assigned to farming and food production, have company doctors, etc. If the workers could be convinced that life in the mill/commune was so promising... perhaps they would rather simply join up and work their entire life there, in exchange merely for cradle-to-grave services. If absolutely everything needed (wanted ?) was provided - like an all-inclusive cruise vacation - they would not need cash. Why bother - they could have a “wonderful-enough” life with what the forward-thinking company provided. And they’d never have to worry about saving for their own retirement; they’d simply see their workload expectations decrease as they aged, and be able to live out their life in relative comfort while the working-age folks shouldered the burden.
Employees could be paid in company scrip instead of cash; the employee salaries expense would go to zero, replaced with just the costs of providing what was needed to keep the hamsters weaving cloth.
All that nameless “rabble” of “simple workers” would have no thought of the balance sheet accounts of their factory operation that stands in as their hometown, no idea of the bonds it issues to finance its capital equipment purchases and building construction, nor interest it pays on them. Of course, they’d have no idea of the profits realized each year by the partners who owned it, since those owners would simply parade around as if they were simply high-level managers themselves.
Of course, Robert Owen’s future attempts at his own communes failed, as he misjudged the productivity and availability of such folks as would entertain giving up their personal possessions in exchange for an open-ended promise of three hots and a cot.
But alas, that same vein of thinking persisted throughout the leading “thinkers” of Europe in the 19th century, especially those in the employ of or attending the universities of the financial elites, the patriarchs of the international banking world. The mid 19th century saw communist/workers revolutions, as well as socialist views spreading rampant throughout Europe, amongst the lower classes - and the upper classes and intellectuals as well.
And when we consider the notion of the communist or socialist nation - what is it but the factory town or commune writ large ?
It solves the problem of individual citizens not wanting to join the “company” or “town” commune.
The whole nation turns into a giant commune, and the citizenry is entirely forced into the scheme.
It’s simply international banking with enough capital raising capability, enough diplomatic and espionage connections to ensure the non-interference or support of other nations, enough of a revolutionary organization inside the target nation - and enough audacity - to consider inciting a revolution to the end of placing people loyal to them as a puppet government to rule over a newly “free” and completely unsuspecting population.
Ping.
You can search the web for
flag of British East India Company
Here’s an interesting article from 1937...
“The STRIPED FLAG of the EAST INDIA COMPANY, and its CONNEXION with the AMERICAN “STARS and STRIPES””
Article by Sir Charles Fawcett
https://flagspot.net/flags/gb-eic2.html
Russian Lawmaker: ‘Jews Destroyed Russia’
INN | 2/14/2014, 12:13 AM | Ari Yashar
Posted on 2/13/2014 7:40:43 PM by Olog-hai
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3122726/posts
'Jews Destroyed Russia'
Heck, the Jews destroyed everything when they introduced the world to the Ten Commandments.
Thou shalt not murder, steal, or covet didn't go over too well with the pagans.
5.56mm
Very interesting reading. Quite well known in Russia contemporary historian says similar things.
Forgot to mention name my bad - Anatoly Fursov
Can you provide any further information about Anatoly Fursov? Are English translations required?
Sorry for delay. Not often have possibility to visit FR . There are plenty of Fursov lectures on youtube and he has written works, in Russian of course but may be in English too this I do not know yet. He reads much, about 400 pages of texts per day and his works are digest of numerous sources. He lived one time in USA, is acquainted with many Western historians and politologists so deserves attention. Here is link to article about his new book in Russian but may be translator will be of help. http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=de+conspiratione+%D1%84%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2&clid=2008269&lr=75
In one of his recent lecture he mentioned new book by Sam Huntington and other authors where they came to conclusion that democracy today does not gives answer to new challenges
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.