Anglosubversion: how London (not ‘the Jews’) manufactured Communism and Zionism

Political hammers, sickles, fasci, hexagrams, and swastikas: produced by your outstandingly local + friendly Jesuit-Masonic “color revolution” mobilization unit.

Dualist propaganda traps of binary thinking are difficult to evade now and then, and for this reason there is all the more necessitated a cause to address the problems’ roots. Within the broad anti-imperialist community primarily centered around the “hard left,” there exists a recurring tendency to coalesce around Marxist/Communist ideologies and their shills under the presumption these movements pose a menace to the reactionary empire if only sufficient backing was obtained and the catechumen weren’t so hesitant at the prospect of Real Socialist Revolution™. Ignored in this convenient narrative, however, is the historical reality implicating Communism as an arm of the reactionists. These fallacious assumptions are commonplace in modern “anti-imperialist” discourse:

1. the myth Communism has always opposed Zionism

2. the myth Karl Marx was a champion of “progressive” values

3. the myth Bolshevism was organically representative of some “proletariat”

4. the myth Marxist Communism was barrier to Fascist incursion

5. the myth Communism will ever “succeed”

Prologue: why Communism is ‘left-wing’

It is typically assumed in the average mind the “left-wing” attributed designation of revolutionary Marxist/Communist ideology is owed to their popular representation on behalf of working class interests against the affluent bourgeois. This is false—the Marxist umbrella and its offshoot ideologies are “left-wing” because Hegel’s dialectic is inverted, thereby reversing its direction 180 degrees. From the horse’s mouth:¹

“The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.” —Karl Marx

For simplicity sake—because the philosophical word salads of Marxist and Fascist rabble-rousers are too headachingly atrocious to further sift through and dissect—all you need to know is that Hegelian dialectic is grounded on preservation of the status quo and therefore fundamentally “right-wing,” preserving the core of a reactionary construct perpetually. (this is why Fascism is based on “regular” Hegelianism in contrast to Marxism which inverts it—the two are ideologically opposed in their structural application of the dialectic) If the “standard” trajectory of Hegelian dialectic as represented in Fascism points “rightward,” then an inversion turning it “right side up” therefore points “left” on the political spectrum.

From the Hellenistically dualist yin-yang perspective embraced by Gnostic agitators including G. W. F. Hegel that reality is created by contradictions, the opposite dialectical structures between Marxism and Fascism create a complimentary whirlpool of unending psyop manipulation:

1. Communism rises in popular support guaranteeing progressive socialist utopia

2. the failure of Communism to implement socialist utopia is seized upon by Fascism vowing the success of creating of its own “real socialism” (in actuality hierarchical authoritarianism, albeit branded “socialism” in duplicity)

3. Fascism “succeeds”… in nakedly propagating the construct of subjugation it intended all along, falsely disguised as progressive socialism

4. the culminated and exposed reactionary nature of Fascism is seized upon by Communism to justify itself as the progressive socialist bulwark against the despotic authoritarianism of Fascism

5. [repeat cycle at step 1]

Simply put, the combination of Communism and Fascism creates an infinite loop because if only one consistently applied version of dialectical manipulation transpired, the “direction” would traverse in a singular line. Since Communism by its very own design, however, inverts and turns upside-down the “organic statism” of Hegelianism, its existence ensures the conclusion of Fascism’s course will always return to the proliferation of Communism, thereby creating over and over new phases of Marxist agitation always producing additional unaccomplished misery fueling subsequent generations of rebranded fascist ideology. The two constructs feed off of and rely upon each other: if one entirely vanished into the air, abruptly the other would dissipate also, finding no significant “threat” to justify itself a bulwark against. This is precisely why the “alt-right” terrorist threat has dangerously spiked in recent years: a massive influx of neo-Marxism created the breeding ground for neofascism. Cultural Marxism mutually feeds towards and from Cultural Nazism.

I: England and Marx

Anton Chaitkin

, expert of British history, explains:²

Marxism—the communist movement—was one of a number of weapons created by British strategists to counter the spread of American System political ideas and nationalist economic organization to the European continent.

British imperialism’s most glaring obstacle at the economic dimension was the influence of Hamiltonian “American System” industrialism across the Americas, Western Europe, Russia, and sections of Asia. Nationalism on the basis of bilateral unity uniting capitalists and workers towards modernized prosperity for all preached the upliftment of impoverished nations into independent success interlocked upon a common interest of safeguarding one’s sovereignty against foreign intrusion, values most hateful to Anglo-“Liberal” imperialism’s desired objectives.

Communist philosophy was—despite its nominal association to Russia—created in Germany, where reactionary elitism of both British and Germanic flavors railed against the 6,000-member industrialists’ association of modernization proponent Friedrich List challenging London’s “free trade” imperialist economics.³ List found refuge in the United States by invitation of Marquis de Lafayette and Pres. John Quincy Adams’s State Department, in his years at America studying Alexander Hamilton’s prescribed blueprint for the amassing of prospering nation-states before returning to Germany and recommending its republican government enact protectionist tariffs against Britain’s conniving thievery.⁴

British intelligence for the devoted intent of countering Hamiltonian eocnomics propelled the careers of controlled-opposition “radicals”—Anglo-Masonic Foreign Minister Lord Palmerston hatched the subversive “Young Germany” movement at Switzerland in 1831 where Friedrich Engels was trained.⁵ One “socialist” biographer notes “[Engels] was attracted first to the Young Germany movement, whose literature and ideas expressed the youthful hopes of a new generation.”⁶

Engels’s gatekeeping for imperial free trade on behalf of the British oligarchy is evident in his journalistic writings: in the late 1830s, the ideologue published a sarcastically phrased polemic on his hometown blaming “poverty, sickness, illiteracy, superstition, drunkenness, and general ugliness, not on the low level of industrial and scientific development, but on ‘factory work’ itself. He also calls for atheism as a means of freeing popular consciousness.”⁷ In addition:⁸

That he was no friend of the pro-American List’s republican movement may be seen in Engels’ Reports from Bremen, published in August 1841: ‘It is the German [emigrants] in the cities who have taught the Americans their deplorable contempt for our nation. The German merchant makes it a point of honor to discard his Germanness and become a complete Yankee ape... When he returns to Germany he acts the Yankee more than ever.’

Karl Marx in 1842 met Engels, who was sent by his father that year to England.⁹ The next year, Engels published Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy where the horse’s mouth admits his preferential sympathies for Angloimperialist free trade:¹⁰

Modern liberal economics cannot comprehend [allow] the restoration of the mercantile system by List… On all points where it is a question of deciding which is the shortest road to wealth—i.e. in all strictly economic controversies—the protagonists of free trade have right on their side.

Marx himself endorsed free trade as a catalyst for Communist revolution:¹¹

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Crucial groundwork for British-stringpulled, controlled-opposition Communist revolution was propagated by Engels and Marx; the baton was then passed to a subsequent generation of Jesuitical militants implementing London’s nefarious agenda conducted by Lenin, Trotsky, and their financial controller Gelfand.

II: Alexander ‘Parvus’ Gelfand

For the record, because diversionary propaganda spreads rampant: Communism was NOT a “Jewish” creation and Jews were far from consistent beneficiaries under Bolshevik rule—Leninist and especially Stalinist rule handed disappointment to any hope of “national and cultural emancipation” among the Russian Jewish population whose attributed high participation in helping create “the Communist State… [was] mainly due to the policy of pogroms.”¹² Lenin had already banned Talmudic Jewish institutions, ordering synagogues and Hebrew schools officially closed, repressing rabbis into “show trial.”¹³ Stalin expanded Communist anti-Judaism into a large-scale purge of even Bolshevism’s old guard Jewish leaders:¹⁴

Kamienev, Zinoziev were executed… By and large the Communist rulers, following Marx, saw in the Jewish mentality the typical outgrowth of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie. The Communists saw in the posture of the Jew a strong resistance against the claims of the totalitarian and authoritarian all-embracing State. The Jew was accused of internationalism, of maintaining links with the outer world.

So, to clear the age-old “Judeo-Bolshevism” fabrication out of the way: Communism at its root is not in any meaningful sense “Jewish” and was not manufactured by a “Jewish” conspiracy; see here for a longer recension of details. Author

Richard Poe

also compiled a lengthy sheet of evidence dismantling the Judeo-Bolshevik canard.

Pt. I: Young Turks’ bitter fruits

In his Middle East activities, Alexander Parvus—a subordinate of Venetian oligarch and future Italian Fascist finance minister Giuseppe Volpi¹⁵¹⁶—“became an advisor to the Young Turk movement.”¹⁷ “Parvus” was the alias of A. Lvovich Gelfand (surname also spelled/translated “Helphand”), a revolutionary activist from Eastern Europe infamous for his involvement in several subversive umbrellas, including establishing a Germany liaison to spearhead Bolshevism against Russia.

Despite Vladimir Jabotinsky’s later “anti-Communism” expressed in his development of ideologically fascistic Revisionist Zionism, his presence in the Young Turks crossed paths with future Bolshevist controller Parvus’s in the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP).¹⁸ The plot thickens¹⁹—Jabotinsky ran the Zionist newspaper Le Jeune Turc (“The Young Turk”) Parvus contributed towards!²⁰ The pair operated as joint agents for British imperial goals of divide-and-conquer:²¹

Helphand played a central role in the betrayal of the German Social Democracy; teamed up with another British agent, the Zionist revisionist Jabotinsky, in promoting the Young Turk revolution against the dying Ottoman Empire…. An arms trafficker, in league with the British firm Vickers [which was one of the major arms manufacturers], Helphand/Parvus amassed a personal fortune, while stoking the fires of permanent war and permanent revolution throughout Eurasia.

Per EIR, Vladimir Jabotinsky “took the Parvus idea that there should be a Greater Israel; that that would be the basis of stability for the British Empire in the region.”²² Both men played their respective roles also fomenting back-and-forth manufactured strife in the late Russian Empire between British-influenced Okhrana police-state autocrats and British-funded revolutionaries of socialist/anarchist stripes: Jabotinsky while detained by the Okhrana became an indoctrinated controlled-opposition asset under police supervision for several years while Parvus and Leon Trotsky purchased a liberal newspaper then usurped into a front for radicalist provocation handing the Okhrana the additional pretext needed to repress “the entire social democratic scene.”²³

Jabotinsky was:²⁴

…a wholly owned and created asset of the British Empire. He was controlled by a political network led by Leo Stennet Amery, who became Britain’s most prominent Imperial spokesman and political organizer. Amery’s circle included the greatest names of British imperialism: Cecil John Rhodes, the self-avowed enemy of the American republic; the Coefficients group; and Alfred Milner, Rhodes’ mentor, who ran Rhodes’ secret society.

In mid-July 1937, Jabotinsky stated before an audience of British military-intelligence oligarchs commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Jewish Legion’s creation in that evening’s concluding toast:²⁵²⁶

I believe in Freedom and the ultimate triumph of freedom. I believe in England, and the brotherhood between England and Israel.

Pt. II: kinships, cont.

Trotsky and Jabotinsky

Commonly assumed is the binary narrative of Bolshevik-Zionist mutual antipathy, that Communism unequivocally rejected Zionism and faced the same treatment of eschewal from the Palestine colonization movement. However, Lev Davidovich “Leon Trotsky” Bronstein and Vladimir “Ze’ev” Jabotinsky originated from the same Odessa²⁷ network of revolutionary fervor, both “inhabited to varying degrees of Russification.”²⁸ Trotsky and Jabotinsky were both quite notably attendees of the 1903 Sixth Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland, Bronstein charting out his pursuit of “universalist socialism and permanent revolution” while the future Revisionist leader decidedly threw his support to “particularist Zionism.”²⁹

Jabotinsky’s persona notably paralleled that of Trotsky’s—notwithstanding his arch-Zionist pet project at the mere surface level differing from Trotsky’s ambitions:³⁰

Jabotinsky was even more persuasive as a speaker than as a correspondent. In this respect, he was often compared with the great Bolshevik Leon Trotsky.

A publication of Trotsky’s at one point against both Zionism and the (anti-Zionist left-wing) Jewish Labor Bund was “quoted liberally” by Jabotinsky.³¹ Labor rival David Ben-Gurion notably designated Jabotinsky the “Zionist Trotsky.”³²³³

Helphand and Bronstein

As you read above, Trotsky pursued a path of “permanent revolution”—this idea entailed for instance the notion of the Russian Revolution operating as the forerunner to international socialist revolution.³⁴ This very theory of “permanent revolution”—by the way British-favored³⁵—was jointly articulated by Trotsky and Parvus.

The annals of synarchist (Nazi-Communist) treachery, in a nutshell:³⁶

Who gave Trotsky the idea of permanent revolution? Parvus. Alexander Helphand. What was Helphand? Helphand was a British agent, of Russian extraction, tied to a famous character, Colonel Zubatov, in Russia—the chief of the Okhrana, the secret police. And with Jabotinsky, Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky. These were the people who set up fascism in Europe.

Pt. III: America and MI6 astroturf Real Socialism™

Woodrow Wilson signals green light to Trotsky

Leon Trotsky departed from New York and into Petrograd in 1917 for the purpose of organizing the Bolshevist coup against the Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky’s Socialist Revolutionaries, and left with $10,000.³⁷ The Overman Committee failed to document the source of Trotsky’s ten thousand dollars into the Senate record, and the plot continues to thicken: future New York Soviet Bureau member Gregory Weinstein had gathered funds for Trotsky originating in Germany through a German-American newspaper “subsidized by the German government.”³⁸

The return of (still-exiled) Bolshevik leaders to Russia necessary to foment the October Revolution encompassed the fact Bronstein-Trotsky ultimately traversed back to Russia with an American passport. In spite of protests from British police, American president Woodrow Wilson granted Trotsky an American passport; Wilson supporter and financier Charles R. Crane—involved in the February Revolution—in the middle of 1917 traveled to Russia alongside American Communist supporter Lincoln Steffens, an associate of both the president and Menshevik leader.³⁹

MI5 saboteurs derail Trotsky; MI6 comrades to the rescue!

Trotsky in late March of 1917 boarded a New York ship with his wife and children for Russia and en route faced detainment by the Security Service (MI5) authorities in Halifax, Canada.⁴⁰ This isn’t the end of the story, though. Not only did the American president Wilson demand Trotsky’s safe travels to Russia, but the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS/MI6) became entangled into this schematic ploy cleaning up the mess created by MI5.⁴¹⁴²

Anglo-Canadian Major General Willoughby Gwatkin and R. M. Coulter (Canada’s deputy postmaster general), while seldom remembered today, were figures in an intelligence communication exchange resulting in Leon Trotsky’s release from Canadian internment in Apr. 1917. Coulter wrote to Gwatkin on the subject of Trotsky and his fellow detained associates:⁴³

These men have been hostile to Russia because of the way the Jews have been treated, and are now strongly in favor of the present Administration, so far as I know. Both are responsible men. Both are reputable men, and I am sending their telegrams to you for what they may be worth, and so that you may represent them to the English authorities if you deem it wise.

Nicholas Alienikoff, a New York attorney, subsequently sent of a letter of heartfelt relief to Mj. Gen. Coulter curiously admitting:⁴⁴

Happily I know Mr. Trotsky, Mr. Melnichahnsky, and Mr. Chudnowsky… intimately.

Historian Antony C. Sutton in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974) observes that “if Aleinikoff knew Trotsky ‘intimately,’ then he would also probably be aware that Trotsky had declared his intention to return to Russia to overthrow the Provisional Government and institute the ‘re-revolution.’”⁴⁵ An order originating from London demanded Trotsky unchained from internment in light of Gwatkin writing to Coulter on Apr. 21, 1917:⁴⁶

Our friends the Russian socialists are to be released; and arrangements are being made for their passage to Europe.

Both Coulter and Gwatkin heralded from the Anglo-Masonic umbrella, the former listed as a “liberal… Freemason… Odd Fellow” and the latter a clear scion of “British military tradition.”⁴⁷

Pt. IV: Anglo-Germanic help(ing)-hand

From the horse’s mouth:⁴⁸

“The interests of the German government are identical with those of the Russian revolutionaries. The Russian Democrats can only achieve their aim by the total destruction of Tsarism. On the other hand, Germany would not be completely successful if it were not possible to kindle a major revolution in Russia.” —Alexander “Parvus” Gelfand to [German diplomat and Armenian genocide apologist] Hans von Wangenheim (Jan. 1915)

Gelfand-Parvus was of course a paid operative of the German government during World War I to carry out its Anglosubversive shenanigans against Czarist Russia. The future Nazi-Communist spokesperson Karl Radek—who by the way was (un)ironically “ethnically” Jewish—cir. 1914 had been quite fully aware of Parvus’s egregiously controversial affrontery from misappropriation of Social Democratic Party (SPD) funds to illicit dealings with women, though acknowledged Parvus’s “brilliant mind” albeit lacking any ability to “stick to one thing for any length of time.”⁴⁹ Keep in the back of your head for the present moment this recurring theme of Bolshevik annoyance towards Parvus’s conspicuous wobbliness.

Pumped full of jubilation assisting the Central Powers’ crusade against Orthodox Russia, Parvus—“who had lived in Constantinople for several years before [WWI]”—organized a Turkish-Germanic recruit of Georgian war prisoners into special units on the Caucasian front against the Czar’s forces.⁵⁰ Per Lenin biographer David Shub:⁵¹

Parvus was both an ardent German patriot and a contractor for the German Army. Speculation during the war added to his earnings. He went to Germany from Constantinople and then on to Stockholm, always maintaining liaison with the German Government, and — according to Radek — with the German Army as well. One of the men who worked for him was [Yakov] Ganetsky. Radek, who remained in constant contact with both Parvus and Ganetsky, had no part in Parvus’s commercial and financial affairs, but the Parvus—Ganetsky link and Parvus’s ties with Berlin were to play an important role in Lenin’s later actions.

Germanic-Jesuit nexus secures Lenin’s sealed train

Lenin’s Apr. 1917 transference to Russia in time for revolutionary preparation was made possible by the “backdoor” dealings of Parvus and Jesuit priest Diego von Bergen, using Germany’s government as the vital medium. Prussian diplomat Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau—a future ambassador of Germany to the Soviet Union—was encouraged by Helphand-Parvus to deploy “Lenin and the Socialist extremists into Russia,” a proposal “supported by Count von Maltzan and Erzberger, then the chief of German military propaganda”; Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, then “accordingly advised the General Staff of Parvus’s ‘brilliant manoeuvre.’”⁵²

Helphand-Parvus within the next few months continued to propagand on Germany’s behalf “in various allied and neutral countries through a spurious ‘scientific institute’ in Denmark,” although Russian counterintelligence in Copenhagen unearthed his clandestine activities subsequently exposed in Petrograd newspapers cir. mid-July of that year.⁵³ Vladimir Lenin was reportedly in frequent correspondence with Parvus (via Yakov Ganetsky) during this interlude, and the handwriting of three intercepted letters—all from a Russian individual written to Ganetsky—was conclusively determined by a team of handwriting experts as Lenin’s.⁵⁴

It of course not only Parvus who paved the October Revolution’s groundwork—Germanism-affiliated clerical reactionaries in the Vatican proved their value. The “devout Roman Catholic” Carl-Ludwig Diego von Bergen—a documented pupil of Jesuit instruction—abided his time until “the most appropriate moment… to hurl the revolutionaries like a bomb upon Petrograd.”⁵⁵ A criminally implicating fact public high school probably never taught you in World History: it was Foreign Ministry official von Bergen serving as a relay between Parvus and the Germanist aristocracy, the Jesuit-Catholic who after receiving the Anglosubversive help-hand’s hasty amends “agreed to transport not only Lenin but the majority of his Bolshevik associates.”⁵⁶ Bergen was of course the senior official “in charge of political subversion in Russia”⁵⁷; he sent emissary Georg Sklarz to seek out Lenin from Zurich, provide false papers, effectively smuggle both Lenin and Grigory Zinoziev from Switzerland leaving no trace until the revolutionaries reached Petrograd.⁵⁸

For Germano-Vatican Jesuit diplomat Diego von Bergen and Richard von Kühlmann, his new Foreign Minister:⁵⁹

…the Bolshevik takeover of Petersburg was the crowning success for a policy that the Foreign Office had been conducting since the day Parvus had appeared in the Wilhelmstrasse in January, 1915. The Sealed Train and the millions of marks that had followed it had produced results almost beyond the Germans’ fondest hopes.

No serious interference was made by the Anglo-American military-intelligence complex against the Bolshevist conspiracy aspiring speedy obliteration of Kerensky’s Provisional Government. State Department files demonstrate Wilson Administration diplomat David R. France—then-Ambassador to Russia—possessed promonitorily elaborative knowledge of Bolshevik activities; that preparations for the October coup were understood by the State Department at least six weeks before its transpiration; and that doubt of Kerensky’s ability to “suppress outbreak” was strong.⁶⁰ Also at least six weeks prior to the outbreak of the October Coup, British residents in Russia were warned by their government to leave the country, and American Pres. Wilson on Nov. 28, 1917, ordered “no interference with the Bolshevik Revolution.”⁶¹

Warburg–Parvus connection?

There are vague assertions charging prominent bankers of the Prussian-“Jewish”⁶² Warburg family of flooding considerable piles of money to the Trotsky/Parvus circle prior to the October coup. Executive Intelligence Review for instance briefly claims:⁶³

[Max] Warburg earlier bankrolled Parvus and Leon Trotsky, in the run-up to the Bolshevik Revolution.

Similarly, E. M. Josephson in The ‘Federal’ Reserve Conspiracy & Rockefellers (1968) alleges the Warburg brothers to be among the conspirators’ proxies aiding the German General Staff’s Bolshevik plot against Russia.⁶⁴

Out of the Sisson Documents (published as The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy), Doc. #57 insinuates a connection between Max M. Warburg and Alexander Parvus, the two listed side-by-side as proxies between the Zinoviev/Lunarcharsky Bolsheviks and German Imperial Bank—here’s the verbatim extract from Document 57:⁶⁵

Zinovieff addressed himself to Rubenstein and Lunacharsky through Altvater to Warburg, through whom he found support in Parvus.

NOTE. — Lunacharsky is the present People’s Commissioner of Education. Parvus and Warburg both figure in the Lenin and Trotsky documents. Parvus is an agent at Copenhagen (see ‘New Europe,’ January 31, 1918, pp. 94-95). Warburg is believed to have been lately in Petrograd.

Exact authenticity of this claim, let alone whether Parvus was directly funded by Max Warburg, might be confined to the grayzone. The Sisson Documents, while grounded partially in legitimate facts at various points demonstrating access to “some unusually good information,” are forgeries; historian Sutton briefly alludes to Document 57’s mention of Max Warburg and broadly summarzies that “hard supportive evidence is more elusive.”⁶⁶ Sutton does however note elsewhere in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution that Max Warburg as a vassal of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. facilitated the nominally “American” bank’s loans to Germany during World War I:⁶⁷

The major German loans raised in the United States between 1915 and 1918, according to Heynen, were as follows: The first loan, of $400,000, was made about September 1914 by the investment bankers Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Collateral of 25 million marks was deposited with Max M. Warburg in Hamburg, the German affiliate of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Captain George B. Lester of U.S. Military Intelligence told the Senate that Heynen’s reply to the question ‘Why did you go to Kuhn, Loeb & Co?’ was, ‘Kuhn, Loeb & Co. we considered the natural bankers of the German government and the Reichsbank.’

Whether Max Warburg established a financial liaison specifically to Alexander Parvus may not be as relevant as the fact he ultimately served the same Imperial Germanic regime furnishing Parvus-Lenin revolutionary insurrection against Russia. Charges of the Warburg-Schiff/Kuhn Loeb Anglo-American nominally “Jewish” bankers directly funding Bolshevik activity are frequently regurgitated without solid evidence by right-wing antisemitic psyops cherry-picking questionable assertions out of context, so we need not mindlessly speculate that much in light of solid evidence perhaps lacking in the very meantime amidst far greater concerns to prioritize.

Bolshevism catalyzes Labor Zionism

Thanks entirely to the October Revolution and subsequent White Terror, Russian Jews faced with pogromist onslaught became sufficiently desperate to emigrate in greater droves than ever. The same Anglo-American racist, antisemitic elites promoting Zionism ever-conveniently held no interest of welcoming those Eastern European Jews into a new Western home and rather imposed viciously cruel immigration restrictions, diverting new migrant hopefuls effectively towards Palestine.

As briefly explained in Anglosubversion 303, sec. III, pt. II, Bolshevist consumption of Russia (into a full-blown civil war) initiated the Third Aliyah.⁶⁸ Zionism’s Revisionist flavor had not yet existed at this time, so the ideology’s dominant branch was Marxist, Labor “socialism” inspired by revolutionary promises awash in the Russian Empire’s final Czarist decades prior to its demise. A “good number” of Russo-Jewish emigrants to Palestine endorsed the October Revolution’s spirit,⁶⁹ especially 18-22 year-olds boasting membership in the Communist-Zionist “Labor Legion.”⁷⁰

Historical records document very clearly the Communist ideological orientation of pro-Zionist Russian “Jews” who flocked to Palestine in the Third Aliyah.⁷¹ Nakedly Marxist “Poale Zion” activists, epitomizing this trend, made their best effort to ride both fences as they sought recognition from the Comintern amidst endorsing nationalistic Zionist endeavors.⁷² The superficially⁷³ “anti-Zionist” Vladimir Lenin instituted no significant policy—unlike the pre-1940s policy of Stalin—to stifle Zionist emigration currents.

Pt. V: dialectically manufactured ‘fallout’

The crucial Parvus link to the German-Bolshevik conspiracy proved too embarrassing to publicly stomach—in late July 1917, Lenin wrote a profuse denial of any connection with Parvus nor Ganetsky.⁷⁴ Effectively, the dialectical relationship between the Anglo-Germanic-Vatican axis and Bolshevik revolutionaries underwent prompt inversion (if you do not comprehend what I’m talking about, read this) when the October Revolution commenced—whereas initially the two parties converged in mutual pragmatic support at a direct level, following the Bolshevik Coup those external financiers of Lenin and Trotsky 180ed themselves into the most publicly expressed savage opponents of Communism, wiping their own hands clean by blaming Nov. 1917’s upheaval on “the Jews.” (nothing new under the sun)

British geopolitics’ next phase was the installation of fascism in continental Europe—centered in Germanist revival—to dialectically “cancel out” the Russian bastion of Bolshevism and complete the manufactured enmity between those two regional empires (this summary is, yes, highly euphemistic). The same Anglo-Germanic reactionaries clashing head-on in an “inverted dialectical” relationship with Communism engaged in “direct dialectical” policy support for Zionism, and so the 1920s-era currents of the Zionist movement transitioned into an outward distancing from its Communist roots—the Labor mainstream under Ben-Gurion’s lead outwardly abandoned revolutionary Marxist ideological planks, and Jabotinsky’s Revisionists exhibited ever-strongly professed anti-Red credentials. Just as Young Turks vassal Alexander “Parvus” Gelfand gravitated to fascist⁷⁵ “anti-Communism,”⁷⁶ likewise did London’s Warburg/Kuhn Loeb proxies facilitate the insurgency of Europe’s “third position” umbrella.

III: Nazism’s Warburgian red carpet

It is notable that—like Baron Louis de Rothschild (recall my popular exposé of Rothschild–Hitler?)—Fritz M. Warburg was in 1938 detained by the Nazis (when Austria was annexed) and decidedly released.⁷⁷ One of Fritz’s brothers was of course Max, a board member of I.G. Farben as I covered in that earlier Stack.

Pt. I: Emil Georg von Stauss, Rothschild–Hitler supplier

One pivotal joint accomplice between the Rothschild and Nazi factions was German financier Emil Georg von Stauss, aristocratic head of Deutsche Bank⁷⁸ (which as you may remember from sec. II, pt. I, of the Rothschild–Hitler analysis, was entangled financially with the Rothschild-controlled banking axis). Von Stauss also facilitated the exact same “pan-European” German-Austrian movement whose early 1924 successes were attributable to:⁷⁹

…generous sponsorship by the German-Jewish banker Max Warburg who donated 60,000 gold-marks, arranged through the mediation of Baron Louis Rothschild.

How merely coincidental! It so happens the very same Max Warburg—who notoriously partook in Zyklon B-producing chemical syndicate I.G. Farben—and the very same Baron Louis de Rothschild—who over a decade later was kidnapped and released by the Nazis—here in 1924 worked directly hand-in-hand to financially undergird the exact same pet project of Hitler-backer von Stauss!

Another instance of the Rothschild syndicate and von Stauss “crossing paths” pertains to the financial intersection in Deutsche Petroleum A.G. (an ally of the very financial cabal (consisting i.e. of Standard Oil) which funded Hitler)—“Dr. E. G. von Stauss” is listed as a director of this petroleum corporation which was:⁸⁰

…[i]ncorporated under German laws, Jan. 21, 1904, to acquire control of Steaua Romana A.G. für Petroleum-Industrie, in Bucarest. In 1906, Europaische Petroleum-Union G.m.b.H. was organized at Bremen as selling agency for company; also acquired tank fleet of Caucasian Steamship Co. and tank equipment in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, England and Scandinavia, which had been owned by Nobel-Rothschild group of Russia.

The Rothschilds—who “played a significant part in Deutsche Bank”—are quite blatantly listed as “a friend and colleague” to von Stauss (who, remember, was running Deutsche Bank), appointed by DB to:⁸¹

…manage the Steaua Romana company. [Von Stauss] was Managing Director of the Rothschild/Nobel/Deutsche Bank oil consortium, the Europaische Petroleum Union (EPU), which had originally been set up to counter the ever ambitious Standard Oil. Thus, in the pre-war years, a strategy emerged to guarantee Germany's future oil supplies under the benign direction of the Rothschilds.

It was von Stauss⁸² “who loaned Hitler the Remington typewriter on which Mein Kampf was written.”⁸³ In Dec. 1930, Stauss “invited [Hjalmar] Schacht to a dinner with Hermann Göring, a top Nazi leader who had asked to meet him.”⁸⁴

Pt. II: Warburg-Sulzberger ‘court Jews’ save Hitler

In 1933, Jewish communities around the world rightfully horrified at the specter of Nazism organized a boycott against Germany. The Zionist federations and British-controlled court Jews, however, came to Hitler’s rescue to deliver the neoteutonic degenerates from economic ruin: Erich Warburg—the son of I.G. Farben board member and Bush/Harriman associate Max Warburg—told his cousin Frederick Warburg to end anti-Nazi activity in the United States.⁸⁵⁸⁶ This was the telegram cabled to Frederick on Mar. 29:⁸⁷

Today’s boycott threats against Jewish firms in Germany will be carried out if atrocities news and unfriendly propaganda in foreign press mass meetings, etc., does not stop immediately. Repeat, therefore, urgent request to use all your influence so that all that ceases. Utmost speed necessary as boycott otherwise starting Saturday morning.

Max, by the way, had in late Mar. 1933 this to say of the Hitlerite regime:⁸⁸

“For the last few years business was considerably better than we had anticipated, but a reaction is making itself felt for some months. We are actually suffering also under the very active propaganda against Germany, caused by some unpleasant circumstances. These occurrences were the natural consequence of the very excited election campaign, but were extraordinarily exaggerated in the foreign press. The Government is firmly resolved to maintain public peace and order in Germany, and I feel perfectly convinced in this respect that there is no cause for any alarm whatsoever.” —Max M. Warburg (Mar. 27, 1933)

For context: Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman were unrepentant Nazi financiers; equally shameless Warburg scion Frederick directed the Harriman railroad system as a demonstration of how fascistically complicit the Prussian-“Jewish” family was in abetting the rise of Adolph Hitler.⁸⁹ The Warburg family, in control of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) while ADL parent organization B’nai B’rith was “heavily influenced by the Sulzbergers” who ran The New York Times, orchestrated on Anglo-Nazis behalf the astroturfed sabotage of the Jewish boycott against Third Reich thugs: both the AJC and B’nai B’rith “continued with this hardline, no-attack-on-Hitler stance all through the 1930s, blunting the fight mounted by many Jews and other anti-fascists.”⁹⁰

Frederick Warburg, receiving Erich’s cable, then telephoned AJC president and Sulzberger tycoon Cyrus Adler, who compiled a paragraph “disavowing atrocity stories and any boycott” forwarded then to Morris Waldman, the Committee’s secretary.⁹¹ This statement met immediate approval by Waldman:⁹²

The American Jewish Committee declares that to its knowledge most of the so-called atrocity stories which were reported from Germany to have appeared in the American press did not so appear. No threats of boycott in America have been made by any responsible Jewish bodies. They were irresponsible sporadic outbursts. It is impossible to tell what would happen, however, if the threatened boycott against all Jews in Germany is carried out on April 1st.

Another Warburg scion, Felix—a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. alongside his brother Paul⁹³ (an architect of the U.S. “Federal” Reserve)—“carried out the Hitler finance plan in New York.”⁹⁴ No Warburg collaborator for Hitlerism was ever held accountable for his role abetting crimes against humanity—Max evaded prosecution during the post-WWII trials of neoteutonic mass-murderous savages.⁹⁵

Once the Nazi mass-murder program by Zionist design obliterated European Jewry’s anti-Zionist backbone, the Anglo-Jesuit-Masonic syndicate was able to emigrate the continent’s surviving Jewish remainder in packed hordes to Palestine.

Epilogue: it’s the controlled opposition, stupid

Don’t expect modern Communist ideologues and their jargon to deliver you from fascism’s iron tentacles; it was always by Anglosubversive design the existence of Marxist/Communist movements paving the way for fascist reaction to begin with.

“Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!” —Isaiah 31:1

1. Karl Marx (1873), “Capital,” vol. I, Afterword to the Second German Edition.

2. Anton Chaitkin (1998), “Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman,” sec. III, ch. XIII, p. 291.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., pp. 291-92.

5. Ibid., pp. 293-94.

6. Lindsey German (1994), “Frederick Engels: Life of a Revolutionary,” International Socialism.

7. Chaitkin (1998), op. cit., p. 296.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., pp. 296-97.

10. Ibid., pp. 298-99.

11. Karl Marx (Jan. 9, 1848), “On the Question of Free Trade.”

12. Ferdynand Zweig (1969), “Israel: the Sword and the Harp: The Mystique of Violence and the Mystique of Redemption; Controversial Themes in Israeli Society,” p. 279.

13. Lloyd P. Gartner (1978), “History of the Jews in Modern Times,” p. 281.

14. Zweig (1969), op. cit., pp. 279-80.

15. Scott Thompson (Sep. 6, 1985), “Armand Hammer: Soviet ‘fixer’ from Lenin to the present,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XII, no. XXXV, p. 33.

16. Michael Minnicino (Dec. 2, 1988), “The ‘authoritarian personality’: an anti-Western hoax,” pt. III, Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XV, no. XLVIII, p. 49.

17. Dmitriĭ A. Volkogonov (1994), “Lenin: A New Biography,” p. 113.

18. York Norman (Jul, 29, 2021), “Celal Nuri: Young Turk Modernizer and Muslim Nationalist,” p. 6.

19. Robert W. Olson (1996), “Imperial Meanderings and Republican By-Ways: Essays on Eighteenth Century Ottoman and Twentieth Century History of Turkey,” p. 108.

20. Muriel Mirak-Weissbach (2009), “Through the Wall of Fire: Armenia-Iraq-Palestine, from Wrath to Reconciliation,” ch. I.

21. Harley Schlanger (May 17, 2024), “Some Important History of Israel, Palestine and the British ‘Great Game,’” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. LI, no. XX, p. 36.

22. Ibid.

23. Jeffrey Steinberg, Allen Douglas, Rachel Douglas (Sep. 23, 2005), “Cheney Revives Parvus ‘Permanent War’ Madness,” vol. XXXII, no. XXXVII, pp. 10-11.

24. Steven P. Meyer (Jan. 23, 2009), “Netanyahu’s Godfather: How British Imperialists Created the Fascist Jabotinsky,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XXXVI, no. III, p. 38.

25. Ibid., p. 51.

26. Joseph B. Schechtman (1961), “The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story: Fighter and Prophet: The Last Years,” sec. V, ch. XVI, p. 311.

27. Neal Ascherson (1995), “Black Sea,” p. 157.

28. Colin Shindler (Nov. 23, 2005), “The Triumph of Military Zionism: Nationalism and the Origins of the Israeli Right,” pp. 64-65.

29. Ibid.

30. Stanley A. Blumberg, Gwinn Owens (1981), “The Survival Factor: Israeli Intelligence from World War I to the Present,” ch. III, p. 48.

31. Colin Shindler (Jul. 29, 2015), “The Rise of the Israeli Right: From Odessa to Hebron,” p. 47.

32. As’ad Razzūq (Dec. 1970), “Greater Israel: A Study in Zionist Expansionist Thought,” p. 236.

33. Alan R. Taylor (1974), “The Zionist Mind: The Origins and Development of Zionist Thought,” p. 89.

34. David Shub (1948), “Lenin: A Biography,” p. 103.

35. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (Jan. 16, 1979), “How Brzezinski Is Linked to the Jones Cult,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. VI, no. II, p. 15.

36. Steinberg, Douglas, Douglas (Sep. 23, 2005), op. cit., p. 22.

37. Antony C. Sutton (1974), “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists,” ch. II, p. 23.

38. Ibid., p. 24.

39. Ibid., pp. 25-27.

40. Benjamin Isitt (2010), “From Victoria to Vladivostok: Canada's Siberian Expedition, 1917-19,” p. 20.

41. Richard Norton-Taylor (Jul. 5, 2001), “MI5 detained Trotsky on way to revolution,” The Guardian.

42. Jim Marrs (Jun. 24, 2008), “The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America,” p. 9.

43. Ibid., pp. 29-30.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid., p. 31.

47. Ibid.

48. Volkogonov (1994), loc. cit.

49. Shub (1948), op. cit., pp. 163-64.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid., p. 211.

53. Ibid., p. 243.

54. Ibid.

55. Robert Payne (1964), “The Life and Death of Lenin,” sec. III, ch. II, pp. 286-87.

56. Michael Occleshaw (2006), “Dances in Deep Shadows: Britain’s Clandestine War in Russia, 1917-20,” p. 6.

57. Michael Pearson (1985), “The Sealed Train: Journey to Revolution, Lenin—1917,” p. 63.

58. Payne (1964), loc. cit.

59. Pearson (1985), op. cit., p. 282.

60. Sutton (1974), op. cit., pp. 44-45.

61. Ibid.

62. Emanuel M. Josephson (1968), “The ‘Federal’ Reserve Conspiracy & Rockefellers: Their ‘Gold Corner,’” ch. IX, p. 40.

63. Steinberg, Douglas, Douglas (Sep. 23, 2005), op. cit., p. 13.

64. Josephson (1968), op. cit., p. 75.

65. Edgar Sisson, George Creel (Oct. 1918), “The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy,” p. 27.

66. Sutton (1974), op. cit., pp. 43-44.

67. Ibid., p. 64.

68. Anita Shapira (1992), “Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948,” pt. II, ch. IV.

69. Sondra M. Rubinstein (Sep. 5, 2019), “The Communist Movement In Palestine And Israel, 1919–1984,” p. 108.

70. Ibid., pp. 193-94.

71. Eliezer Schweid (2024), “A History of Modern Jewish Religious Philosophy, Vol. V: Creating New Jewish Centers. The Visionaries of First Fulfillment in the Land of Israel,” ch. III, p. 95.

72. Sondra M. Rubinstein (Sep. 5, 2019), “The Communist Movement In Palestine And Israel, 1919–1984,” pp. 55-56.

73. B. Morozov (1999), “Documents on Soviet Jewish Emigration,” p. 12.

74. Shub (1948), op. cit., p. 246.

75. Dean Andromidas (Aug. 15, 2008), “British Empire’s ‘Young Turks’ Are Gunning for Turkey,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XXXV, no. XXXII, p. 40.

76. Allen Douglas (Fen. 4, 2005), “Italy’s Black Prince: Terror: War Against the Nation-State,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XXXII, no. V, p. 57.

77. Oct. 16, 1964, “Dr. Fritz M. Warburg Dead in Israel; Last of Five Famous Brothers,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

78. Peter F. Kapnistos (Apr. 8, 2015), “Hitler’s Doubles: Fully-Illustrated,” p. 167.

79. Bo Strath, Hans-Åke Persson (2007), “Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space,” p. 99.

80. 1926, “Moody’s Manual of Investments: American and Foreign: Transportation,” p. 1,430.

81. Jim Macgregor, Gerry Docherty (2018), “Prolonging the Agony: How The Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years,” ch. XXI.

82. Kapnistos (2015), loc. cit.

83. George M. Taber (Dec. 25, 2014), “Chasing Gold: The Incredible Story of How The Nazis Stole Europe’s Bullion,” ch. III.

84. Ibid.

85. Glen Yeadon, John Hawkins (2008), “The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century,” p. 51.

86. Antony C. Sutton, Howard Altman, Kris Millegan, Ralph Bunch, Anton Chaitkin, Webster G. Tarpley (2003), “Fleshing Out Skull & Bones: Investigations Into America’s Most Powerful Secret Society,” pp. 272-73.

87. Moshe Raphael Gottlieb, “American Anti-Nazi Resistance, 1933-1941: An Historical Analysis,” ch. V, pp. 42-43.

88. Sutton, Altman, Millegan, Bunch, Chaitkin, Tarpley (2003), loc. cit.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Edwin Black (1984), “The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Zionist Rescue of Jews from the Third Reich to Jewish Palestine,” pt. I, ch. VI.

92. Ibid.

93. Josephson (1968), op. cit., p. 40.

94. Sutton, Altman, Millegan, Bunch, Chaitkin, Tarpley (2003), op. cit., p. 275.

95. Antony C. Sutton (Dec. 31, 1976), “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler: The Astonishing True Story of the American Financiers Who Bankrolled the Nazis,” ch. II, pp. 33-34.