Red Symphony - Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor

[Laura]

... and you see that this is merely an additional explication of "the financial international", i.e. "world bank."

No, that is not correct. Even here in the words you've posted above the misreading is clear.

That is your opinion. The point holds that, without knowing the original text from which the Spanish version was translated, we cannot make a final determination. I queried the Spanish translator about the term in Spanish and she pointed out that it was written in a form that did not necessarily imply a "formal organization," though it could.

The terms "They," Them" refer the "Finance International," whereas when speaking of the "world bank" the text specifically says that not of "Them" belongs to the "world bank."

See above.

The context in which this arises is that, after mentioning the assassination of Walter Laqueur, he tells us that Laqueur was one of "Them" and this convinced "Them" to not hold any public positions hereafter. Therefore the lesson for the reader is that the "world bank" is a dummy institution which stands before the public while the "Finance International" sits in the background out of sight. Hence, we should be able to identify a public institution which existed in that time of 1938 and was known to the public as the "world bank."

Faulty premise. As noted, the translator pointed out that, in the Spanish version (and we are at one remove from the original French already), the term did not necessarily imply a formal organization.

It is your opinion that the book is a fraud and it hinges, mainly, on the use of this term.

The error made with the reference to the "world bank" is an interesting kind of technical point, but we shouldn't overplay the degree to which the evidence that this document is a fallacy depends upon it.

I'm not the one overplaying it.

It reads textually like something written by a Right-winger using phrases and ideas that would never be used by any of the actual Russian revolutionaries of that era.

Again, you are arguing points you cannot claim are well-founded since the book was allegedly written in French and the only version we know has been translated into Spanish and then into English. That is why I had a professional translator go over it carefully. This translator is, as it happens, a native Spanish speaker, and also a qualified French teacher in France which should suggest to you the level of command of French. English is her third language. So, her views on the Spanish can be relied upon and I questioned her closely. She noted that there were a few places where the translation into English was a bit awkward and even, considering the context, possibly erroneous. Otherwise, it is generally correct in conveying ideas, though it is difficult to translate idiom.

Upon what do you base your claim that "phrases and ideas" used in the text would never be used by any of the "actual Russian revolutionaries"? Are you a professional translator and can you read the text in Spanish and compare it to a deep, personal knowledge of what "actual Russian revolutionaries" would know and say?

If not, please cite your authority or method of reading and understanding the text. (I have pointed out that I sought the services of an expert translator.)

The idea that Trotsky had any type of working arrangement with such wealthy families as the Rothschilds during the 1930s will appear immediately absurd to anyone familiar with the actual treatment of Trotsky as a political exile during this time. Most countries on the planet simply refused to give him refugee status and the few which did usually held him under tight constraints with the condition that he should find another country to seek refugee status in as rapidly as possible. White officers like Generals Denikin or Wrangel had no settling abroad in reasonable comfort after their defeat in the civil war. But now we're saying that the big Rothschild agent is refused refuge or held in custody wherever he gains refuge? That's preposterous.

Not necessarily. If one studies the history of such "relations," one easily sees that there are two possibilities here: 1) Useful Idiot; 2) self-sacrifice for the objective.

This is difficult to understand when one is not fully aware of the problems of psychopaths as a distinct taxon. However, once one grasps this problem, a great deal of fog clears away.

Bottom line is this: there is NO possibility of comprehending ANYTHING that plays out on the global political stage without a deep and comprehensive understanding of pathological deviance.

To take another related example, we're told that the alleged "Rakovsky" says that:

"Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective. A personal synthesis, truth: the Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one."

This typically follows the way that political conservatives used to assert that the Soviet Union was "Communist" even though it was quite specifically not called such. In the actual arguments which Trotsky spent time writing up he rejected Stalin's claim that the Soviet Union had become "Socialist" and maintained instead that it was a "bureaucratically degenerated workers' state." But if we replace the word "Communist" in the above sentence with whatever our preferred term might be, we get an idea which may be partially compared with themes popular among German Social Democrats such Eduard Bernstein or Karl Kautsky, as well as other parties in the Second International such Norman Thomas' Socialist Party in the USA, but which has no similarity to anything which Trotsky would ever utter.

Eduard Bernstein had founded the concept of "evolutionary socialism" which hypothesized that, without a proletarian revolution occurring as theorized by Karl Marx, working just through the apparatus of the capitalist form of republican state, it would be possible for socialists to enact enough legal measures so as to cause the state to metamorphosize into a socialist society without any need for an actual revolution by the proletariat to occur. A prime reason why Trotsky was rejected as a political refugee by so many nations on earth was that it was known that he firmly held to the orthodox Marxist view that only a proletarian revolution would achieve the goal. Stalin allowed this idea to be played down quite a bit during the 1930s as a way of inviting liberals hostile to Hitler to be friendly towards the Soviet Union. In his memoirs Andrei Gromyko describes some friendly exchanges with Bernard Baruch, but that was possible because Baruch knew that as Stalin's representative Gromyko would not be stirring up any revolution. Trotsky in his search for political refugee status was rejected by the Roosevelt administration because they regarded him as a potential trouble-maker. The Socialist Workers Party was prosecuted under the Smith Act before the United States had even entered World War II, because the Roosevelt administration knew that Trotsky's followers treated the war as an inter-imperialist war. Now we're being asked to believe that Rakovsky claims that there is some type of "Capitalist-Communist" synthesis. That type of talk (without the word "Communist," but making a more direct reference to the Soviet Union's claim to building socialism) was normal among people who advocated the view that capitalism could simply evolve into socialism without any actual revolution occurring. This does not fit with Leon Trotsky, or anyone connected with him such as Christian Rakovsky, but it does fit with disinformation popularized among the Right-wing in the 1950s and '60s. There was back then a chain of faked quotes attributed variously to either Lenin or other Soviet leaders which ascribed something like Bernstein's evolutionary concept to them. Many of these were intended to target would-be social reformers with the charge that they were secretly working for "Communism." That line of conservative argument is consistent with the introduction of such terms as "Capitalist-Communist synethesis." But neither the real Rakovsky or the real Trotsky ever talked like that.

All of the above is useless argumentation because you do not seem to understand the nature of pathological deviance.

Let us consider "ideologies" for a moment, in terms of deviance.

First of all, the complete remarks from which you extracted the end point are as follows:

R. - If it is necessary to end, then I can only express myself in this way. Let us see if I shall not be able yet to help to understand. It is known that Marxism was called Hegelian. So this question was vulgarised.Hegelian idealism is a widespread adjustment to an uninformed understanding in the West of the natural mysticism of Baruch Spinosa. "They" are Spinosists: perhaps the matter is the other way round, i.e. that Spinosism is "Them," insofar as he is only a version adequate to the epoch of "Their" own philosophy, which is a much earlier one, standing on a much higher level. After all, a Hegelian and for that reason also the follower of Spinosa, was devoted to his faith, but only temporarily, tactically. The matter does not stand as is claimed by Marxism, that as the result of the elimination of contradictions there arises the synthesis. It is as the result of the opposing mutual fusion, from the thesis and anti-thesis that there arises, as a synthesis, the reality, truth, as a final harmony between the subjective and objective. Do you not see that already? In Moscow there is Communism: in New York Capitalism. It is all the same as a thesis and anti-thesis. Analyze both. Moscow is subjective Communism, but Capitalism objective - State Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective. A personal synthesis, truth: the Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one. "They."

Now, a quick lesson:

There is a statistically small number of pathological deviants in any given population. Some populations have statistically higher numbers of deviants due to specific pressures that I won't go into right now. These deviants, as a function of their deviance, generally seek power and control over others. They also, as a function of their deviance, generally have the skills to achieve this desired power and control.

The WAY they do this is where we find the issues with so-called ideologies. Such deviants tend to group together (also a natural function of their deviance and feeling "different" from birth. They "seek out their own kind." They also tend to marry within their "taxon.")

Such groups, as mentioned, seek power and control and this is generally done via political activities.

In order to achieve their goals, they understand that a suitably prepared ideology is necessary.

Ideologies, however, must appeal to large numbers of people so that the deviants can obtain the support they need to achieve their goals. Since they cannot create those ideologies, (being deviants, they lack the perceptions necessary to create a convincing ideology, generally), they must co-opt already existing ideologies to their own uses.

And so, if there is some organization already in existence, with social or political goals and an ideology with some creative value that is accepted by a large number of normal people, the deviants will infiltrate - again, as a natural function of their genetic deviance - and submit the organization to a gradual process of subversion.

The primary traditional or ideological values will then protect the pathological deviants that have infiltrated it for a very long time because most people are simply unaware of the true nature of the pathology in question, and that it can wear so convincing a "mask of sanity."

Nevertheless, once this process of subversion has begun, it proceeds in a characteristic manner that is similar to a disease process that can be observed and analyzed. The original ideological values will succumb to characteristic degeneration, the practical function becoming completely different from the primary one, but few people will realize it because the names and symbols of the original ideology will be retained.

The process whereby the original content of an ideology is transformed into a pathological counter-part operates according to observable principles no matter what the social and/or historical scale of the group or the phenomenon. What is important is the fact that any deviant group needs an ideology which justifies its activities and furnishes certain propagandized motives for action.

"Human nature demands that vile matters be haloed by an over-compensatory mystique in order to silence one’s conscience and to deceive consciousness and critical faculties, whether one’s own or those of others."

When such a group is stripped of its ideology, as Rakovsky did above, nothing remains except psychological and moral pathology, naked and unattractive. This is repellent and I see that you recoil from this truth. The stripping has provoked your sense of “moral outrage” even though, things being equal, you strike me as an individual who would normally condemn an "immoral ideology".

As noted, when an ideology has been taken over by pathological deviants, a process of gradual adaptation of the primary ideology to functions and goals other than the original formative ones takes place over time. As this process continues, "circles within circles" begin to form in a more or less "natural" way; at any event, a pathodynamically similar process can be observed again and again.

The outer circle of "believers" only knows the ideology in the terms closest to the original content. This circle is utilized for the inner group’s propaganda purposes; it is the interface with the outside world.

The next circle within the organization is one where the ideology is replaced by slipping a different meaning into the same names. Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, we observe that a kind of "doubletalk" develops, and this can have multiple layers. If you are a pathological deviant, you understand words differently than a normal person does, so this is a given.

Average people believe in the "ordinary" interpretation of the doubletalk - perceiving no hidden meanings - for a very long time before experience teaches them that all is not as it seems. Pathological types, of course, immediately perceive the "hidden meanings" and make a bee-line for the "inner circle." This very duality of language, however, is a pathognomonic symptom indicating that the group in question has been subverted.

The ideology of groups affected by such degeneration has certain constant factors regardless of their quality, quantity, or scope of action: namely, the motivations of a wronged group, radical righting of the wrong, and the higher value of the individuals who have joined the organization. These motivations facilitate sublimation of the feeling of being wronged and different, caused by one’s own psychological failings, and appear to liberate the individual from the need to abide by uncomfortable moral principles. This works on several levels.

In the world full of real injustice, the arising of such ideologies is common. It is also common that in such a world, ideologies will be subjected to, and succumb to, the described co-opting and degradation.

At any given time, those people with a tendency to accept the better version of the ideology will also be strongly motivated to justify the ideology no matter how apparent it is that it has degraded.

"The ideology of the proletariat, which aimed at revolutionary restructuring of the world, was already contaminated by a schizoid deficit; small wonder, then, that it easily succumbed to a process of typical degeneration in order to nourish and disguise a macro-social phenomenon whose basic essence is completely different."

The bottom line is: ideologies do not need pathological deviants; deviants need ideologies in order to subject them to their own deviant goals.

At the same time, the fact that some ideology or other was co-opted and degenerated along with its related social movement, later serving goals which the originators of the ideology would have abhorred, does not prove that the ideology was worthless, false, and fallacious from the start.

Any human created ideology will likely include errors of human thought and emotion.

The greater and truer the original ideology, the longer it may be capable of nourishing and disguising from human criticism that phenomenon which is the product of the already known specific degenerative process. In a great valuable ideology, the danger for small minds is hidden; they can become the factors of such preliminary degeneration, which opens the door to invasion by pathological factors.

Thus, if we intend to understand the process [of infiltration] and [how] human associations [degenerate], our consciousness should separate that original ideology from its counterpart, or even caricature, created by the [degenerating] process. Abstracting from any ideology, we must, by analogy, understand the essence of the process itself, which has its own etiological causes which are potentially present in every society, as well as characteristic developmental patho-dynamics.

In short, it is really not a good idea to even try to talk about these matters without a thorough knowledge of Ponerology and pathological deviance.

 

[Yossarian]

It feels like Mr. McNally side-railed much discussion of this extremely important document. There's much that can be said, hopefully later, but at this point, as a student of history, politics, economics and now objective reality and psychological deviance--this seems to me to be one of the most enlightening, fascinating pieces that I've ever read! There is so much here. It's not all new or shocking, but it sure puts history and events of the last few hundred years into a different perspective! I hope to give this work some serious time and thought.

Douglas Reed's "Controversy of Zion" seems to go well with this material and to back it up.

Now, finally, within the Context of Laura's podcast, "The Assassination of JFK" and the commentary by Laura and Michael Collins Piper, where they speak of George Bush senior as leader of the Worldwide Communist Revolution, I can make sense of what they're saying.

[edit: The transcript of that interview can be found here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=5964.0
and here is the relevant quote from the interview:

"I mean I've actually, I can make a strong case, if I sit down and work for on it for couple of hours that Lee Harvey Oswald was a forerunner of the modern day neo conservative. (laughing) [Laura: Yeah] He could have been a genuine Trotskyite in the employ of the CIA who was manipulated by the Mossad [Laura: Uh mm] which may have been acting for a faction within Soviet Russia. [Laura: Yeah] I mean sometimes things are not as cut and dry as they appear to be and....

Laura: Well it also leads us to the obvious conclusion that the Bush gang are working for the so called the communist revolution.

MCP: Exactly, see that's the funny thing about it, people, you know when I was a kid, when I first started getting politically orientated, off course it was Republican versus the Democrats and then I kind of wizen up it a little bit and then I kind of said ohh,well it was really liberal versus conservative, and then I began to see something that maybe it had to do with more power and money and then you start digging into it a little deeper and it gets into areas that are beyond the average persons comprehension [Laura: Exactly.] Yeah, you see, and it's funny they do this studies, the development of political awareness in people, starting at this age and advances to this and this, I don't think that the average person in the United States at least, based upon my traveling aboard and my conversation here in this country with people from abroad, I get a sense that non American have better understandings of affairs in their own country and even really in the United States. [Laura: They do] But the average American I would say on a scale of zero being total ignorance and 10 being perhaps the broadest understanding, most Americans probably don't get beyond level 2. [Laura: Yeah, I was gonna] Something like zero to ten scale, the average person, doesn't even, I don't think the average person even reaches the point of serious part of the ship. [Laura: No] There is the hard core Democrats and the Republicans [Laura: Well there..] but yes, so most Americans are totally out of their realm and then to try to conceive of the idea that George Bush is the leader of the communist revolution, [Laura: Uh hmm] the man who they call the new Ronald Reagan, [Laura: Right] when you say that to somebody it's just like, they look at you like “What the hell are you talking about?�

Laura: And yet it seems to be true. What do you think about the Bush connection to the Kennedy assassination?"

edit continued-- within the context of the quoted interview, it seems that Mr. McNally is seeking to influence persons of relatively low political understanding as identified on the scale by MCP. However, to those that have begun to awaken and see how horrible things are, Mr. McNally starts to reek like some sort of dis-info agent. The above quoted interview is a good example. If you can grok the implications of the JFK assassination--and RFK and MLK, John Lennon, Diana, JFK Jr., etc., etc., etc.--ad infinitum--that it was clearly a conspiracy and an inside job-- and the fact that those that benefited from it are the very same ones pulling the strings today--then the facile--even simple minded explanations of Mr. McNally seem very disingenuous.]

 

[bedower]

The mention here of bankers Schiff and Warburg reminded me of this article which links the present Bush family with both of these men:

_http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm

It's hard to visit any independant website these days without coming across the idea that Jewish (aka Zionist) bankers funded both world wars. Here is a video by Eustace Mullins, for instance, which from the blurb seems to confirm everything Rakovsky said:

_http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7644857907453201814

although I haven't watched it myself yet.

Apologies if either of these links have been posted before.

 

[PatrickSMcNally]

It feels like Mr. McNally side-railed much discussion of this extremely important document.

It's a fabrication which seems to likely have been put together by exiled Nazis in Spain. At least that's the best explanation of its origins that anyone has. If we wish to go back again on the details of it, how would you explain the story given at the beginning where it is asserted that a Spanish volunteer fighting in the area of Leningrad finds a body in a hut and then they proceed to give an alleged lifestory of a Dr. Joseph Landowsky, describing his family background and career as a doctor. In the real world bodies around Leningrad at the time of the siege were a dime a dozen and it would have been fairly impossible for any investigation on the spot to discover the details of the life of a man whom no one has ever heard of outside of the single book produced in Franco's Spain which allegedly is based on "several copybooks" found directly on the alleged body. The more likely scenario is that this an invented story and hence no one has ever been able to produce any original copybooks or documents of the alleged Landowsky.

If one simply goes by the way the text reads, it clearly repeats logical errors which are common on the political Right, but puts them into the mouth of an alleged Rakovsky. The reference to a "world bank" as a publicly known institution is an illustration of how talk about something created in 1944 is written back into the Rakovsky trial of 1938. But it fits with the classical Right-wing view of the World Bank and so is accepted.

 

[PatrickSMcNally]

Here is a video by Eustace Mullins, for instance, which from the blurb seems to confirm everything Rakovsky said:

I got the message "We're sorry, but this video may not be available." In any case, Eustace Mullins is another old hoaxer from way back and not a good source for confirming anything.

 

[go2]

Things like the reference to a "World Bank" which I'd noted before are clearly false in a very specific way since no World Bank existed in 1938.

Therefore the lesson for the reader is that the "world bank" is a dummy institution which stands before the public while the "Finance International" sits in the background out of sight. Hence, we should be able to identify a public institution which existed in that time of 1938 and was known to the public as the "world bank."

The Bank For International Settlements(BIS) existed in 1938. It coordinates certain activities of Central Banks.
The Central Banks creat money from "thin air", thereby using economics to fulfill their passion for controlling
humanity.

The establishment of the BIS

The Bank for International Settlements was established in 1930. It is the world's oldest international financial institution and remains the principal centre for international central bank cooperation.

The BIS was established in the context of the Young Plan (1930), which dealt with the issue of the reparation payments imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles following the First World War. The new bank was to take over the functions previously performed by the Agent General for Reparations in Berlin: collection, administration and distribution of the annuities payable as reparations. The Bank's name is derived from this original role. The BIS was also created to act as a trustee for the Dawes and Young Loans (international loans issued to finance reparations) and to promote central bank cooperation in general.

The reparations issue quickly faded, focusing the Bank's activities entirely on cooperation among central banks and, increasingly, other agencies in pursuit of monetary and financial stability.

The changing role of the BIS

Since 1930, central bank cooperation at the BIS has taken place through the regular meetings in Basel of central bank Governors and experts from central banks and other agencies. In support of this cooperation, the Bank has developed its own research in financial and monetary economics and makes an important contribution to the collection, compilation and dissemination of economic and financial statistics.

In the monetary policy field, cooperation at the BIS in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War and until the early 1970s focused on implementing and defending the Bretton Woods system. In the 1970s and 1980s, the focus was on managing cross-border capital flows following the oil crises and the international debt crisis. The 1970s crisis also brought the issue of regulatory supervision of internationally active banks to the fore, resulting in the 1988 Basel Capital Accord and its "Basel II " revision of 2001-06. More recently, the issue of financial stability in the wake of economic integration and globalisation, as highlighted by the 1997 Asian crisis, has received a lot of attention.

Apart from fostering monetary policy cooperation, the BIS has always performed "traditional" banking functions for the central bank community (eg gold and foreign exchange transactions), as well as trustee and agency functions. The BIS was the agent for the European Payments Union (EPU, 1950-58), helping the European currencies restore convertibility after the Second World War. Similarly, the BIS has acted as the agent for various European exchange rate arrangements, including the European Monetary System (EMS, 1979-94) which preceded the move to a single currency.

Finally, the BIS has also provided or organised emergency financing to support the international monetary system when needed. During the 1931-33 financial crisis, the BIS organised support credits for both the Austrian and German central banks. In the 1960s, the BIS arranged special support credits for the French franc (1968), and two so-called Group Arrangements (1966 and 1968) to support sterling. More recently, the BIS has provided finance in the context of IMF-led stabilisation programmes (eg for Mexico in 1982 and Brazil in 1998).

The Central Banks are privately owned and granted exclusive right to creat money. This power has always
always been coveted and is famously described by Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.

Richard Russell eloquently describes the Central Bank monetary magic enforced by the police powers
of the state.

“I still can’t get over the whole Federal Reserve racket.”

Consider the following - - let’s take a situation where the U.S. government needs money. The U.S. doesn’t just issue United States Notes, which, of course it could. These notes would be dollars backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. No, the U.S. doesn’t issue dollars straight out of the U.S. Treasury.

This is what the U.S. does - - it issues Treasury Bonds. The U.S. then sells these bonds to the Fed. The Fed buys the bonds. Wait, how does the Fed pay for the bonds? The Fed simply creates money “out of thin air” (book-keeping entry) with which it buys the bonds. The money that the Fed creates from nowhere then goes to the U.S. The Fed holds the U.S. bonds, and the unbelievable irony is that the U.S. then pays interest on the very bonds that the U.S. itself issued. The mind boggles.

The damnable result is that the Fed effectively controls the U.S. money supply. The Fed is …not even a branch of the U.S. government. The Fed is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. No Constitutional amendment was ever created or voted on to accept the Fed. The Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve has never come before the Supreme Court. The Fed is a private bank that keeps the U.S. forever in debt - - or I should say in increasing debt along with ever rising interest payments.

How did the Fed get away with this outrage? A tiny secretive group of bankers sneaked through a bill in 1913 at a time when many in Congress were absent. Those who were there and voted for the bill didn’t realize what they were voting for.
Richard Russell, “Richards Remarks,” dowtheoryletters.com, March 27 2007

The Central Bank cabal is a "world bank" operating under the umbrella of a publically visible entity, BIS,
and has been since 1930. The focus on the absence of a "world bank" does not support PatrickSMcNally's contention that the Red Symphony is a hoax. Whoever wrote this document clearly had extensive and inside
information.

 

[PatrickSMcNally]

The focus on the absence of a "world bank" does not support PatrickSMcNally's contention that the Red Symphony is a hoax. Whoever wrote this document clearly had extensive and inside information.

The fact that the World Bank did not exist is only one of many reasons why this piece reads falsely. For example, we're given what is purported to be a long-winded discussion by the alleged Rakovsky of Capitalism and Communism, but no significant mention of socialism. This is consistent with the way the classical Right-wing talked about the Soviet Union as "Communism," but not with the way the real Rakovsky or anyone interrogating him would ever speak. In Marxist theory, communism is postulated as a stage of history which human society will one day reach after a long period of first developing socialism. Socialism itself requires an extended historic period to develop and does not appear the day after the overthrow of capitalism. In an underdeveloped country such as Russia was in the early part of the last century, the problems of developing any kind of socialism out of a partly feudalistic society are complicated further. Even if we briefly allow ourselves to assume that Rakovsky or any of the other revolutionaries were in fact purely cynical about Marxist theory, in any real conservation they would have to proceed from this in order to be at all coherent.

For example, THE RED SYMPHONY script features Rakovsky as claiming to his interrogator that:

"the disappearance of Trotsky gave Stalin the possibility automatically to transform real Communism into the formal one..."

The real Rakovsky would never talk like that, and if he did he would get a response something like "what on earth are you talking about? Communism is at least a century off if not more! We're still building socialism. Even Trotsky knows that and refers to the Soviet Union as a bureaucratically degenerated workers state in his writings abroad. He's never called it Communism and no Marxist would." Instead we're given a response like "Yes, of course..." Pure rubbish. This was written for a Right-wing audience which doesn't care anything about Marxist theory and uses the word "Communism" casually in a manner that no one in the Soviet Union or among the old revolutionaries of a century ago would have used it. That type of gibberish is all over the transcript.

 

[Laura]

The fact that the World Bank did not exist is only one of many reasons why this piece reads falsely.

Well, actually, as I am wading through Hanna Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism," even though she does not come right out and say there was a "World Bank" with that name, she pretty well says that there WAS a "world bank" and by the way she talks about it, it very well may have been called that casually, by insiders.

For example, we're given what is purported to be a long-winded discussion by the alleged Rakovsky of Capitalism and Communism, but no significant mention of socialism. This is consistent with the way the classical Right-wing talked about the Soviet Union as "Communism," but not with the way the real Rakovsky or anyone interrogating him would ever speak.

I understand your "technical" arguments, but I think you are missing the bigger picture here. What seems obvious to me - or at least highly likely - is that someone who had collected a lot of data and information and who MAY have had links to insiders, and who may have had some direct or indirect knowledge of the scenario he was portraying respective of Rakovsky, is the author of this work. It may even have had several authors.

It doesn't appear to me that it was ever intended to be a popular book for the masses, so that suggests that it was written with a purpose for a rather limited audience. Was that purpose propagandistic? Possibly. Was that purpose disinformation? Possibly. Was that purpose to also convey information in such a way that plausible deniability was maintained? Possibly. Was it written with deliberate errors so that the true authors could not be recognized? Even more probable, considering the nature of the revelations.

Also, referring back to the book about the Romanovs, as I already mentioned, there is a powerful LOT of motive on the side of pathocrats to have people conclude what is presented in that book. One must always consider that. And one must also consider the ability of pathocrats to cover up, to create illusions, to "suicide" people when necessary, and basically, to do whatever is necessary to maintain their power and control. So, when looking at any "explanation" or interpretation of facts, one must always keep this in mind and constantly ask "cui bono?" That's not to say that things cannot innocently benefit the PTB, but more often, that benefit is planned and deliberate.

Mr. McNally, I would like to know a bit more about you if that is possible?

 

[PatrickSMcNally]

she pretty well says that there WAS a "world bank" and by the way she talks about it, it very well may have been called that casually, by insiders.

Perhaps there was, but that pretty well misses the point about what is being said in the RED SYMPHONY manuscript. The alleged Rakovsky tells us that:

"I think I shall not be wrong if I tell you that not one of 'Them' is a person who occupies a political position or a position in the world bank. As I understood after the murder of Rathenau in Rapollo, they give political and financial positions only to intermediaries."

The "world bank" which is referenced here is not a hidden affair, but a public institution whose positions the group of "Them" have sought to avoid since the Rathenau murder. Rathenau was murdered by some of the early fascists in Germany because he held a public position which made him conspicuous and turned him into an object of wrath by some early Nazis. So the "world bank" in question is not, according to this text, a hidden network which insiders operate but a public institute with the potential to draw attention the way Rathenau had. For this, it's meaningless to speculate about any hidden network anywhere. The "world bank" being referenced should be publicly identifiable for it to fit the text.

 

[Laura]

Meanwhile, regarding Eustace Mullins, I find the following here:

http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/errata.html

Eustace Mullins' book about the Federal Reserve System, Secrets of the Federal Reserve (SFR) is cited on these pages. Since publishing the book, we have learned that Eustace Mullins penned the 1968 book The Biological Jew, which contains the passage:

The Jew has always functioned best as a panderer, a pornographer, an enemy of the prevailing sexual standards and prohibitions of the Gentile community.... We must remember that there is no Jewish crime per se, since the existence of the Jewish parasite on the host is a crime against nature, because its existence imperils the health and life of the host.... This religious ceremony of drinking the blood of an innocent gentile child is basic to the Jew's entire concept of his existence as a parasite, living off the blood of the host.... The Jews do not want anyone to know what Nazism is. Nazism is simply this: a proposal that the German people rid themselves of the parasitic Jews. The Gentile host dared to protest against the continued presence of the parasite, and attempted to throw it off. It was an ineffectual reaction, because it was emotional and ill-informed.

The contrast between this venemously racist tract and SFR is striking. SFR is a scholarly work free of racist statements. If The Biological Jew reflects Mullins' beliefs, they why doesn't he express those beliefs in some form in SFR? Since SFR appears to be the most comprehensive exposure of the Federal Reserve System, many researchers have referenced it as a primary source of information without being aware of Mullins' less-known book The Biological Jew. Is Mullins' partially-concealed anti-semitism expressed there a booby-trap planted to discredit other exposures of the FED?

I have to agree that what Mullins wrote is/was despicable. Even the fact that the statistical number of schizoid psychopaths among Jews is about 2% higher than among other ethnic/social groups does not justify such a filthy series of remarks.

Does that mean that his work on the Federal Reserve is compromised? Well, it certainly suggests that he could very well have cherry picked his information to support his bigoted perspective. After all, I have long suspected that the Jewish/Zionist bankers themselves helped Hitler to power and financed him, because it is hard to explain what he did otherwise, much less the outcome that was highly desirable to the Zionists. So, when Red Symphony makes such a suggestion, because it is the only source I've ever found that comes right out and says something I've long suspected based on other data, I am inclined to be somewhat more receptive to it overall and to look for reasons that it might be a source of reliable information, even if the mode of delivery relies on some measures of concealment of the author and the sources. So, certainly, I have something of a bias there.

In the end, we can't really use Red Symphony as a validated source, that is clear. But we can certainly keep some of the ideas it presents in mind and continue looking for hard evidence. And most of all, we have to keep in mind that hard evidence CAN be both manufactured and destroyed.

This history business is a minefield.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The "world bank" which is referenced here is not a hidden affair, but a public institution whose positions the group of "Them" have sought to avoid since the Rathenau murder. Rathenau was murdered by some of the early fascists in Germany because he held a public position which made him conspicuous and turned him into an object of wrath by some early Nazis. So the "world bank" in question is not, according to this text, a hidden network which insiders operate but a public institute with the potential to draw attention the way Rathenau had. For this, it's meaningless to speculate about any hidden network anywhere. The "world bank" being referenced should be publicly identifiable for it to fit the text.

Your entire argument rests on flimsy foundations. If the alleged story behind the document is true, it was first in French, then Russian, then Spanish. The English version we have is translated from Spanish (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, how are you so certain that the original French made reference to "The World Bank" and not something more general, as in, "the international banking network"?

 

[PatrickSMcNally]

If the alleged story behind the document is true, it was first in French, then Russian,

That already is odd, given that it was supposedly found in the area of Leningrad written by a Russian.

The most likely explanation for the item's authorship is that many former Nazis took refuge in Franco's fascist Spain after WWII, which is where the piece was printed in the 1950s. Such Nazi exiles would have had a lot of time on their hands sitting around with nowhere to go. This would provide the time for putting together a lengthy book which reads like it was made for a small audience. The type of propaganda which classical fascists used to put together is so yesterday that we wouldn't normally identify it as typical FOX/CNN opium. Put in the context of Franco's Spain of the 1950s it would not be out of the ordinary. Franco began moving away from classical fascism in the 1960s as he sought more integration in the west European economy and that paved the way for the restoration of the republic in the 1970s. But as an item produced in the early 1950s, most likely through the work of exiled Nazis, the RED SYMPHONY piece would be more in keeping with the temperment of Franco's Spain then, as opposed to Ruppert Murdoch today.

 

[Yossarian]

Mr. McNally,

It seems that you get some if it, enough to argue against it, but you just don't "get it." It doesn't seem to be a problem with your intelligence, so what else could be going on here?

For example, you complained about the use of "pathocrats" as a general term related to "ideological criterion," when it is very clear that psychopaths use ideology and philosophy (edit: and religion--of course!) and morality purely--as cover--camouflage--as a weapon and a tool against the "masses," that they so detest and feel so superior to. Yet, you want to come back and argue about the specifics of ideology. Rakovsky makes the psychopathic use of ideology quite clear--if you are able to "get it" and understand what he's saying. You seem too literal and obtuse to get it. The masses argue about fine points of ideology, while the pathocrats rob and murder them blind!

IMHO, there is lots in Symphony that deserves serious thought and attention--for example, I'm going to have to dig around in the text for the exact spot, but Rakovsky quite correctly points out the economic miracle that was Nazi Germany. Nothing in conventional wisdom or conventional economics can explain the miraculous economic expansion of the German economy in the few short years--something like eight--between the Versailles destroyed German economy circa the Reichstag fire and the triumphant juggernaut that invaded Poland. The idea that the Bankers gave Hitler all the gold he needed doesn't explain it. The faith (in their system), credit, ingenuity, cooperation of the German people had a lot to do with it. Clearly, as Rakovsky points out, if people understood the economic principles that underlay the German economic miracle--then the parasitical bankers could be done away with pronto!!!! That was Rakovsky's point. Why not put your mind to explaining in detail what happened in Germany economically, instead of trying to discredit something that in and of itself (without the ability to interpret clearly what it's saying)--has little meaning?

 

[mudrabbit]

Mr. McNally, I would like to know a bit more about you if that is possible?

I would too, but it seems Mr. McNally is avoiding this question.

 

[SeekinTruth]

The Central Bank cabal is a "world bank" operating under the umbrella of a publically visible entity, BIS, and has been since 1930. The focus on the absence of a "world bank" does not support PatrickSMcNally's contention that the Red Symphony is a hoax. Whoever wrote this document clearly had extensive and inside information.

Yes, whoever wrote this document put his finger on some unavoidable and observable realities. Is it just me or is there a "Chompskyesque flavor" to many of PatrickSMcNally’s arguments, not just in this thread but also elsewhere such as the Protocols of the Pathocrats discussion? I notice that he just completely ignores all of Laura’s points that thoroughly show the problems with PatrickSMcNally’s arguments and perspective (or lack thereof) and has done this repeatedly. Specifically he totally ignores the Ponerological aspect of Laura’s explications and does not respond to the questions of how he concludes that this is a hoax given the questions of translations and lack of his analysis of the texts at each stage. Conspicuously, he responds to later posts selectively, repeating his "refuted" assertions while totally ignoring Laura’s post.

In the case of the "Protocols," notice the cunning of the authors to attribute this system to a "Jewish conspiracy" for world domination, but as has been noted by Laura and others in several articles, that it is really the playbook of Pathocracy. PatrickSMcNally’s rather glib dismissal of Douglas Reed’s "Controversy of Zion" has that same flavor that shows a certain pattern. Reed’s research is augmented to a great degree by the work of Israel Shahak, especially the fact that the Jewish ghettos were always a construct of the Talmudic Rabbinate and emancipation for Jews everywhere came from gentiles against all efforts of the Talmudic Rabbinate.

In terms of "World Revolution" conspiracies, as Reed shows, the "Protocols" have many aspects that go back to the Weishaupt "Illuminati" exposure and were not originally formulated at the time the Protocols were supposed to have been written. And as Reed and others have pointed out, there are uncanny predictions of how the western "democracies" will be controlled and the events of the First World War and beyond that play out in the decades following the "exposure" of this mysterious document (Protocols).

It is strikingly obvious that whoever wrote the Red Symphony and Protocols documents and whatever the circumstances of their public exposure, they give a very deep insight into the mindset of whoever it is that controls events from behind the curtains, another angle to look from into the problem of pathological deviants, their quest for total world domination and a society created in their image, and the resulting Pathocratic reality we find ourselves in.

This quote from Woodrow Wilson from 1912 illustrates all of this quite well:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

It seems in the following years, Wilson may have got to know that power a little more "up close and personal" as far as his life and career is concerned.