Red Symphony - Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor


FOTCM Member
Thank you for the connection to Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. A quick review noted that it was a 1951 publication and the following;

“Perhaps the most important insight in the book--and it is very hard to settle on just one--is that the members of mass movements, who ostensibly seek to better the lot of all mankind, are motivated not by altruism but by selfishness. They join such movements not because they believe in any particular ideals or goals but because they do not believe in themselves"


FOTCM Member
Red Symphony cont…

In the prior post, had a few quote references to books with the intention to complete this in a future post, but upon reflection of this Red Symphony subject, one quickly realises that answer’s seem like looking for a particular snowflake in a storm.

In the last post a few books were quoted from which had been given me by an old Norwegian acquaintance; some of said books seemed completely at odds with the others and given my present understanding of things at that time, what could I make of this contradictory selection. One in particular upon review was immediately destined for the trash-can, yet it remained as a textual paradox upon the bookshelf, maybe thinking that at least it should be studied at some future point were a small particular might stand out. Perhaps the following quote will shed light on why this book was not discarded out of hand. The following quotes, although not originally contextual (esoteric) to this subject, they seemed somewhat fitting in disusing truths of this like;

Boris Mouravieff
Let us repeat that we live inside the Mixtus Orbis, where we find real and imaginary facts and phenomena inextricably intermixed.
We [emphasize] the precept of discernment, without which nothing tangible can be acquired on the esoteric path. The difficulty lies in the fact that it is not given to man to have an absolute concept of Good and Evil. Each light which shines in his eyes brings with it some shadow. This misleads even beings of good faith who are gifted with subtle intelligence. In all equity, even when we sincerely want to solve a problem, we always find an almost equal percentage of arguments for or against the proposed solution. So much is this so that we are unable to decide on anything; we are immobilized and wait ad majorem diaboli gloriam ...
In regards to Red Symphony (RS), so much that we know today is riddled in layer after layer and unravelling often leaves one more perplexed than before and in this, as Laura quoted of Fulcanelli;

one must pass one's thinking through the furnace many times, to be sure. One should think with a hammer, rather than with a brain, as one shapes our thought from dross matter
So the above quotes reminded me, especially when grasping possibly only fractions of a percent or two of knowable knowledge, which might be generous at that, in regards to following certain tenets that have been put forth in discovery of them and they’s of our past, as a focal point in thinking we can so easily solve the mysteries of things like global wars and the elixirs that make them so, including our present disposition in our global socioeconomic village. That said; people like Icke seem to offer us much pudding that gets stirred around and never congeals into something recognizable – perhaps it is only “dross matter” as was said above.

In the last post after quoting and discussing a few things that dealt within the milieu of RS, if not from different directions, and although not quantifiable, there is just so much information to analyse. There are book shelves of great breadth written on similar subjects, some seemingly conclusive and many not. Nevertheless, new to this genre as a very major contributing factor must surely be encapsulated the views of Andrew Lobaczewski in his book entitled ‘Political Ponerology’ as catalytically pointing perhaps to the exact human toxin that readied humanity for years of the most heinous of global warfare’s and abuse. Despite the above and as mentioned in the last post, hyperdimensional influences just cannot be discounted; and this was far from mind all those years ago prior to this ideas registry of mind, which would never of even crossed it had it not been for the work of LKJ. Hyperdimensionality without being a man of physics seems just so intuitively a vessel that explains the anomalous, even though the ‘influence’ is anomalous in of itself to our thinking. Perhaps as an explanation this could be viewed as looking at what has been propagated in the main as the anomalous explanations, including, although perhaps not fictitious at all, Red Symphony itself. In the splintered main we have been courting for much time now the ideas of oppositions solely in the guise of groupings like the Illuminate, Masons of many types, Zionists etcetera. We can understand that each of these plays a part, each has a role, but are we to believe as has been suggested that they together or of themselves are the director/producers? It seems that this is what is generally thought of within the splintered main as has been suggested and focused upon. If one makes inquisitive inquiry of the anomalous, then these convenient lambs and strawmen are offered as explanation and the futility of tracking these to the core is perhaps the intention - spinning of wheels.

With the above said, singled out here was an answer to a question put to the C’s;

…The True Master understands the nature of the "worlds" in terms of real, Hyperdimensional Interpenetration
And from Laura and her writing:

… That is to say, we, human beings, are the "playing pieces" in vast and complex Secret Games of the Gods, and our actions or lack of action represent the moves and maneuvers of said denizens of hyperdimensional space who most desperately do NOT want us to unite in our awareness of their existence, and who exert great effort to confuse and obfuscate humanity to that end. Because certainly, if we know of their existence, and their games, we will stop playing.
Now to emphasis the part about the ‘Influences’ (groups) offered as putty for the anomalous cracks of conditions, Laura quotes Gary Allen in ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’ with the following;

Some conspiratorialists do indeed overdraw the picture by expanding the conspiracy (from the small clique which it is) to include every knee jerk liberal activist and government bureaucrat. Or, because of racial or religious bogotry they will take small fragments of legitimate evidence and expand them into a conclusion that will support their particular prejudice, i.e., the conspiracy is totally "Jewish," "Catholic," or "Masonic." These people do not help to expose the conspiracy, but, sadly play into the hands of those who want the public to believe that all conspirartorialists are screwballs.
This might be a good quote for the Icke thread describing his possible means to an end of his managed fixations?

However, add a few other names to the above quote and as Laura says “..who exert great effort to confuse and obfuscate humanity to that end.” This in terms of vectoring our attention, just enough of the truth upon a pallet of lie’s keeps us interested for as much time is as needed until the next part truth strawman is weaved together.

In this light, just what is it about our history that is described within the RS story and so many others of that era both prior to the Great War and post WWII, what is being pointed out? It feels to me as if there in front of us is this proverbial wooden pallet of round holes and a pile of square pegs looking for places to fit into; like a key meshing to the tumbler. The more the pieces are examined, their geometrical measures interpreted, trials initiated, the more it seems that even as the edges are sanded down in close proximity of a nice fit, they fail to interlock, becoming jammed or just fall through, not fitting really at all.

Of all that has been described in time of war, it befalls me to give even conclusive cardinal directions. It feels like my compass is bearing in on True North only to realize that the magnetic pull has vectored me askew, with no declination tables to correct the true alignment.

In the prior post it was conveyed that a number of publications were given by an older gentleman of Norwegian decent, some of these seemed in opposition (duality) to the others and caused me to question a great deal. One was an exposé of historical revolutions and the political and monetary constructs of those; still another was the underground architectural future movements of a Third Reich. One book discussed was a careful study of Stalin’s clandestine involvement with the Okhrana czarist secret police and his move for control. What seems evidently possible is that whichever direction a person goes, the focal point seems to stem from a group of they/them(s). This is why as discussed above, the thinking, the sliver of understanding of hyperdimensional (HD) space/time helps in the anomalous, a third influence and an unseeing conductor setting the tempo and bringing in the instruments one by one. Detractors will easily paint HD thinking in these matters not differently then we may look to Icke’s reptilian morphing English Queen, however, evidence of the former is there for anyone who cares to see and much tampering by PTB stand in plain view, although the view may be slightly abstract.

Within RS, therein is described the revelations to the good Dr. Landowski of such a nature that black becomes white and white black and the tone seems set, depending on your perception and bent, to look to the designing hand of the International, the Zionist or somebody else pulling the strings. As for what we read, such as RS, here is an example of just how difficult it was for me to read one of the books presented by the Norwegian. Most of the books were in sync with my present understanding, yet all pointed to a them/they equation in different ways. Most described as said, a communist revolutionary twist which leads some to a purely Zionist type manipulation or one by International design, which says little, or they don’t quite say, things are left hanging. In the allusion to Zionists, this can be difficult because of internal programming in many of us that links Zionism and a Jewish people as being synonymous; which they are not. Nevertheless, when this is discussed as being a root causation, all the mechanisms of a just and religious society come to bear within the mind calling for immediate dismissal of this tact of thinking; guilt burns for even considering.

That being said, one of the books was written by a Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay called the Nameless War published in 1952 – see _
Note: he is not flattered here in Wikipedia whatsoever and as an aside he seemed quite enamoured by the Nazi’s and his boss, PM Chamberlin before Churchill took over the rains and from the very day the war started until its end he was removed as a sitting member of parliament and jailed without due process and even a legal charge, then released on the day of Germany’s surrender/defeat whereby he returned to Parliament and remained a sitting member.

In thinking about Ramsey, he was undoubtedly well versed in history and the body politic amongst others. His blindness, if it can be described as such, seems to be his daunting pursuit of the Zionist equation, which does not mean it was not truth, but perhaps just part truth by manufacture and to him a very real truth that fitted with some documented histories. For this, his possible thinking, it seems he could not see behind any other doors and the one behind Hitler he did not even see as containing the wraiths of black intention. How does one not see these things, was it because his thinking was in real time, during real time events with a war on the precipice? Although he wrote about this time only after the war, perhaps in anger over his imprisonment, but like us reading back to those times, researching the different historical geometry, we have the luxury of that real time distancing and disassociation, however as one can see, we have that very problem today e.g. 911/Gaza/Iraq/Afghanistan etc., with our real time global problems and emotional attachments making it tricky to have proper discernment. But as for Ramsay, perhaps in the end, even what came to be, he refused to abandon the Zionist ultra factions and the visible threat of the Communist regime he knew to be building; he must have been well aware of what each nation was doing and the economics of their military involvements.

From his prospective, being fervently Christian, Right leaning, his position within Parliament, his connections and his read of history within the British realm and of other countries, his words required much filtering.

Ramsay quoting and speaking of Isaac Disraeli:

It was fate that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not yet finished.

With these cryptic words Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin Earl of Beaconsfield, commenced his two volume life of Charles I published in 1851. A work of astonishing detail and insight, much information from which, he states, was obtained from the records of one Melchior de Salom, French envoy in England during that period.

The scene opens with distinct glimpses of the British Kingdom based upon Christianity, and its own ancient traditions; these sanctions binding Monarchy, Church States, nobles and people in one solemn bond on the one hand; on the other hand, the ominous rumblings of Calvinism.

Calvin, who came to Geneva from France, where his name was spelt Cauin, *possibly a French effort to spell Cohen, organized great numbers of revolutionary orators, not a few of whom were inflicted upon England and Scotland. Thus was laid the groundwork for revolution under the cloak of religious fervor.
This continues to discuss the entrenchment of the Calvinists until a section about letters between Oliver Cromwell (O.C.) and Ebenezer Pratt (E.P.), in return for financial support advocating admission of Jews to England, which was impossible while Charles was living;

Plain English – weekly review - by North British Publishing, edited by Lord Alfred Douglas 1921:
The learned Elders have been in existence for a much longer period than they have they have perhaps suspected. My friend, Mr. L. D. van Valckert, of Amsterdam, has recently sent me a letter containing two extracts from the Synagogue at Mulheim. The volume in which they are contained was lost at some period during the Napoleonic Wars, and has recently come into Mr. van Valckert’s possession. It is written in German, and contains extracts of letters sent and received by the authorities of the Mulheim Synagogue. The first entry he sends me is of a letter received:

16th June, 1647. - From O.C . to E.P.

Charles cannot be executed without a trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be Assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.
In Reply was dispatched the following;

12th July, 1647 - To O.C. by E.P.

Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given the opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.
Well that’s interesting; the word craft seems right in the exchange but code was not unknown for writing, especially of this nature – curious? However, an escape by Charles did take place on November 12th of that year.

Isaac Disraeli states:

Contemporary historians have decided that the King from the day of his deportation from Holmby to his escape to the Isle of Wight was throughout the dupe of Cromwell.
This goes on as history tells of the Boy Charles coming back, but as Ramsay says;

The enemies of Kingship were now entrenched within his kingship and the stage set…The next attack would aim at placing the control of the finances of both kingdoms in the hands of the Jews, who were now firmly ensconced within.
Thus the bank of England was set up and the institution of the National dept.

In discussing Money, and as a quick diversion; just reviewed Niall Ferguson’s relatively new book, ‘The Ascent of Money’. This is a well researched book of Money and the historical roots and some of the present day (now past tense) stories about Enron etc. Curiously, upon reflection, this book had lots of press and is well renowned for its scholarly take, however, something seemed missing. It seems it’s not what Ferguson says but rather what he does not say and he does not say a lot IMO. Of all the things about our current time, there is no real mention of the architecture of monetary things like the Fed and much more. He stays well clear from the roaming financial gangs of Warburg’s and their likes – knowing his academic station perhaps that is why?

Back to Ramsay in discussion of the French Revolution of 1789, he says;

…was the most startling event in the history of Europe since the fall of Rome. Never before had a mob apparently organized successful revolution against all other classes in the state, under high sounding, but quit nonsensical slogans, and with methods bearing not a trace of principles enshrined in those slogans. Never before had any one section of any nation conquered all other sections; and still less swept away every feature of national life and tradition, from King, religion, nobles, clergy, constitution, flag, calendar and place of names to coinage.

Such a phenomenon merits the closest of attention; especially in view of the fact that it has been followed by identical outbreaks in many countries…The main discovery that such an examination will reveal is this fact: the revolution was not the work of Frenchmen to improve France. It was the work of aliens, whose objective was to destroy everything, which had been France.
Protocols of Zion No 7 boast about this Revolution states Ramsay. However, what exactly are those and from whom exactly?

Of his personal time of reference, Ramsay says;

When we begin to draw parallels between France of 1789, Britain of 1640, Russia of 1917, Germany and Hungary of 1918-19, and Spain of 1936, we feel that the drama grips us with a new and personal sense of reality.
Would he, if still alive, add to this list?

Ramsay again;

Revolution is a blow struck at a paralytic.

Even so, however, it must be obvious that immense organization, and vast resources, as well as cunning and secrecy far above the ordinary are necessary for its successful preparation…The process of organizing a revolution is seeing to be firstly the infliction of paralysis; and secondly, the striking of the blow or blows. It is for the first process, the production of paralysis, that the secrecy is essential. Its outward signs are debt, loss of publicity control, and the existence of alien-influenced secret organizations in the doomed state.

Debt, particularly international debt, is the first and over-mastering grip. Through it men in high places are suborned and alien powers and influences are introduced into the body politic. When the grip of debt has been firmly established, control of every form of publicity and political activity soon follows, together with the full grip on industrialists. The stage for the revolutionary blow is set. The grip of the right hand of finance established the paralysis; while it is the revolutionary left that holds the dagger and deals the fatal blow. Moral corruption facilitates the whole process.
Now for some reason this seems kind-of indicative of our state of affairs now?

Ramsay speaks of many things but the root of his objectionable thinking is directed towards the Jew/Zionist and by extension the communists and all he could see was Hitler and his jackbooted brethren as the answer to this question. Of the Jew, they seemed just so scapegoated and intermixed with the Zionist who may only be a convenient manifestation made of straw; yes they exist, some even profess this title, but are they just one piece of fabric of cloth of something else that remains unrecognizable?

For reasons not of mathematics, the following Quote of Mr. Arkadiusz Jadczyk came to mind when thinking about them/they and all that is implied;

Here is my reasoning: it goes via "reductio ad absurdum" - which is often used in logic and in mathematical proofs. You assume something to be true, and then by a chain of logical deductions you come to the conclusion that your assumption cannot be true. Somewhat tricky - but useful.
This is a interesting quote and applying it to RS let alone Them/They’s – “Tricky” indeed.

In offering to the reader many points of view from various authors of works attributed to the era of war; ideology, military complex(s), economics etc. of the past, through perhaps the abstract lens of Ponerology of They/Them(s). The intent is not to ‘Vector’, rather it is to augment the innuendo’s of a piece such as Red Symphony, while thinking about the events of our present day all wrapped in the ideas centered around hyperdimensional influences that has been so well detailed in the Works of Laura Knight-Jadczyk .

When first researching the words of others in respect to some of the above themes, the realization of which was probably just like any of us when confronted with paradoxical information of such a horrific nature, to realize the nature of things behind our daily lives, shocks us with such a start. The deep trouble with all of this, for me anyhow, was the alignment of things; my naiveté compounded with the magnitude of differing informational sources. Truly, of all that can be said of these things, the only logical explanation was when the concept of hyperdimensional influences was added, not only that, but when 3rd density Psychopathy becomes a dominant controlling factor too.

Without the influence of the Works presented by Laura in terms of the two latter influences/factors, IMO, it feels that nothing would really ever make sense, and in terms of sense, I can only describe a window slightly ajar, allowing light to fill the dark historical void and allow fresh air to abate the stagnant torpidity.

The story of I.G. Farben is of critical importance to socioeconomics, wealth and power and the unprecedented industrial military complex from its inception to its breaking apart during the first half of the last century (if it ever really broke apart). This was the firm who built the foundations of Auschwitz; this was the firm that enslaved humans to their bones of death.

Yet, the industrial might and economic camouflage of this firm permeated all military industrialized countries; in times of military opposition, even those who knew better, gladly slid between the I.G. sheets and coupled with the chemical behemoth to the delight of shareholders the world over. This is no different now; the phoenix rises from the ashes, different feathers, different perches, but the prey is the same – and there are so many more!

Nevertheless, the story is well written in the book by Joseph Borkin, who as he explains became enthralled and dedicated to its telling. The following explains just a portion of this;

…early summer of 1934…I had just been hired by the United States Senate Special Committee to investigate the Munitions Industry as an investigator-researcher. By luck, my immediate supervisor was H. C. Engelbrecht, whose book Merchants of Death had been an important factor influencing Senator Gerald P. Nye to press for the investigation.
Now if you notice here, during a previous post, a few details were added from the author of the Merchants of Death book, which is a fascinating description of the industry as described prior to WWII.

Borkin continues;

To ease me into the job, Engelbrecht handed me an agreement between the Standard Oil Company (N.J.) and I.G. Farben. My assignment was to summarize this involved contract so that it would be intelligible to the senators on the Committee. I had never heard of I.G. Farben before. But for the next forty four years, it was my Moby Dick.
In 1943 Borkin co-authored Germany’s Master Plan; patent pooling, cross-licensing;

… as head of the Patent and Cartel Section, under the great Thurman Arnold, I instituted the cartel program in which the attack against I.G. Farben continued throughout the course of World War II…After the war, when I had read the transcripts of the trial of the I.G. war criminals at Nuremberg, I knew that someday I would write the present book.
For those who don’t realize the expanse of this company, here is a quick descriptor by Borkin;

I.G. truly a mighty industrial colossus. So huge were its assets admitted and concealed, so superior its technological know-how, and so formidable its array of patents that it dominated the chemical business of the world.

I.G. fortified this commercial leadership by constructing a maze of cartels whose membership included such industrial giants as Kuhlmann of France, Imperial Chemical Industries of Great Britain, Montecatini of Italy, Aussiger Verein of Czechoslovakia, Boruta of Poland, Mitsui of Japan, and Standard Oil (New Jersey), Du Pont, and Dow Chemical of the United States.
I.G. say Borkin, produced;

…synthetic s of oil, rubber, nitrates, and fibres…vaccines, sera, and drugs such as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa drugs, as well as poison gases and rocket fuels. Few universities could match the profusion of Nobel Prizes earned by its scientists: Paul Ehrlich for Salvarsan, Fritz Haber for the fixation of nitrogen, Carl Bosch for synthesizing saltpetre and gasoline, and Gerhard Domagk for the sulfa drugs.
Of note in the book is one Hermann Schmitz who worked initially for Wilhelm Merton (of Merton fame) and convinced him to purchase as an outpost The American Metal Company and later he became chief financial advisor when Merton merged with I.G. then under the control of Carl Bosch. There is also a very interesting Law case, United States vs. Daugherty (Judge) and Miller, whereby I.G. bribes were in the wind and deals were being cut in order to charge the reported corrupt Judge working under then President Harding.

IMO this book by Borkin is a particularly valuable book that discusses the industrial side of the wars and the economic subterfuge that went on at that time.

As a side note on I.G. Farben and chemicals in this vein, a reader is thus directed to a very scary account called ‘Deadly Allies’, by John Bryden that details the chemical and biological warfare from 1937 – 1947; mostly in Canada. Note some of the bullets describing the contents:

. Canada, with American help, mass produced deadly anthrax for use in British bombs at a secret island research station in the St. Lawrence.

. Most of the major open-air field trials with the deadly germs and poison gases developed by the Allies were done at Suffield, a military research station near Medicine Hat, Alberta [interesting choice of city name for this work?].

. Britain undertook to do human experiments with poison gases in Australia, India, and especially Canada, where at least one thousand Canadian soldiers were injured by deliberate exposure to mustard gas (there is also an account of injuries and death to over 500 American servicemen that was covered up).
. Lord Louis Mountbatten, King George VI’s cousin, was duped into bringing a notorious communist scientist to a Quebec conference in 1943, where the man became Churchill’s acting scientific advisor and privy to the secret discussions between the British prime minister and Roosevelt on the development of the atomic bomb.

. In 1945 Canada was poised to launch a germ warfare attack against Japan. In 1946, when Prime Minister Mackenzie King feared an attack by Russia was imminent, Canada stockpiled more than a ton of botulinus toxin, then the most deadly biological or chemical agent known.
Now of interest, concerning the Quebec conference written above, here is a quote of a small passage by Bryden on Page 156;

Churchill arrived in Canada first, to be entertained by Mackenzie King with a visit to the Quebec Legislature and tours of the Old Town. The two leaders talked about the progress of war and the invasion proposals. Churchill also reported his discussion with Roosevelt on the need to move quickly as possible on developing an atomic weapon (code-named Tube Alloys) because he did not want the Russians in particular to get ahead with the process.
Bryden than describes;

A few days later, in the limestone bastion of Quebec’s Citadel overlooking the St. Lawrence. Roosevelt and Churchill signed the ‘Articles of Agreement Governing collaboration between the authorities of the U.S.A. and the U.K. in the matter of Tube Alloys.’ Right at their elbows, figuratively at least, was Bernal, dedicated communist, admirer of all things Soviet and close friend of Britain’s notorious traitors-to-be, Anthony Blunt, Guy Burgess and Kim Philby, who were already busily burrowing into their country’s secrets on behalf of Stalin.
A couple of interesting comment; Bryden discusses the Canadian National Research Council (NCR) and the inception of the Bacteriological Warfare Committee of 1937 under Flood and Banting (insulin Nobel Prize). It seemed that there was criticism of the program; however, Banting got some encouragement and later on some funding which is interesting;

Says Bryden;
The only bit of encouragement Banting got was from the urbane Lord Victor Rothschild, a multi-millionaire and Cambridge graduate attached to military intelligence. Banting appreciated that he was in favour of bacterial warfare research, but bridled under the younger man’s condescension. He also recorded in his diary that Rothschild “seems to be familiar with all ideology of Communism”.
Then with war in France in 1940 and running low on funds he applied to wealthy Canadians “who might be willing to make some patriotic donations”, as Bryden puts it. Bantin lines up John David Eaton of T. Eaton Co., Sir Edward Beatty of Canadian Pacific Railways and later Sam Bronfman of the distillery giant Seagram’s and other corporate entities anteed-up too.

However, the following seems quite unorthodox;
The group formed to administer the money was called the War Technical and Scientific Development Committee. Mackenzie (PM), Maass and Banting represented NRC, and there were six appointees from the major government departments, Defence, Supply, External Affairs and so on, plus three one-year non-voting members representing the private benefactors. Because they had contributed the most, these were John Eaton, Sam Bronfman and R.E. Stavert on behalf of Beatty.

As a war committee it was unique. And amazing. It placed three civilians, Eaton, Bronfman and Stewart, at the focus of the Allies’ most closely guarded secrets. They had to take an oath of secrecy and an oath of allegiance and only four copies of the minutes of meetings were made. Mackenzie even had momentary misgivings, warning Beatty and presumably Eaton and Bronfman after the fact that certain projects he described were highly secret and they were not to breathe a word of them to anyone. These were RDF, the early code letters for radar; Asdic, the acoustic detection of submarines; Uranium 235 as a possible super-explosive; and bacteriological warfare. These became the four biggest scientific secrets of the Allies.

Some here are well versed with these characters so further elaboration is not necessary, however, during the last post there was a few quotes from ‘Airplanes to Alaska’, written by Blake W. Smith. This book is probable not a well circulated or published volume; I found mine by chance in a gas station in the middle of nowhere, however, as stated prior, this is a well researched book which the author was obviously touched with passion for the subject. That being said, the book, which discusses the NKVD etc., makes references to an untouchable Soviet arm operating out of the Great Falls air base and heavily guarded Diplomatic luggage on C-47 transports in Fairbanks Alaska. Now previously, I passed-by an obvious reference which should have been included, making the picture become a little clearer; perhaps one of the learned physicists specialist reading this can make an educated assumption as to what is being transported; although in general, it seems obvious without knowing the raw compounds or configurations that it is a ionizing radiation of some type - maybe. Smith, says of one particular Ferry pilot, Ben L. Brown;

… recalls the reaction his curiosity received when inquiring about the nature of the cargo he was about to carry on a northern flight [Smith says of Brown]. “Some of the pilots had talked about some of the special flights that had been made in C-47s. It seemed that on board were some Russian guests said to be going along for the ride. These guests turned out to be running shotgun as they were guarding some large wooden boxes. Each box measured about 5 feet wide by seven feet long (1.5m by 2.1m), and there were two in each C-47. Two Russians accompanied these boxes on each flight. They were dressed in civilian clothes and carried small submachine guns and one was always on guard if the other took a sleep break. No one knew what this was all about and if any questions were asked we all got the same answers, ‘no comment.’ Was it top secret cargo, or as some said, just high priority spare parts.”
Continuing Brown says;
On my particular C-47 flight I picked up the plane at east base (Great Falls) and found it was one of these secret flights with Russian guards. I examined the aircraft and when checking the weight and balance, I found the two boxes weighed in higher than usual for their size. There were no visible markings on the boxes but I did notice some kind of visible residue on the floor. One of the boxes had a split and some brownish black sandy substance had spilled out, not much, perhaps about a table spoon full. The one Russian guard ordered me away from it. Speaking little English, he motioned me away by swinging his submachine gun back and forth and saying, ‘Nyet, Nyet-burns hands!’ Kind of curious thing to say I thought.

Brown goes on to say that he made protest and inquiry;

…was it flammable, explosive or what.
Brown was not happy and pressed the issue, and soon after the Gore Field Intelligence office came to see him, which he was politely told to
…back off as this was a very secret affair and that he didn’t even know what it was all about. He also indicated that the subject could not even be discussed and if I pursued the subject I would be making a whole lot of trouble for myself. He very frankly told me to shut up and fly the damn plane and forget the whole thing…
Without filling the forum post with endless writings, many which very well highlight war and its mechanisms of control by powerful forces behind the proverbial curtain, with reams of particulars of influences, we tend to settle as if inflicted with disassociated sympathetic traumas with the historical short version.

In thinking about a summary, which would be leagues to short and could only touch on these above writings, including Red Symphony as a precursor, perhaps in the end this would not bring anyone closer to the true particulars but merely only point to influences behind wars generality. It sometimes so truly befalls me to say that to follow the writings of various sources of these things leaves me in the same place I started. Knowing that influences cannot discount people and groups like Rothschild’s, Rockefellers, CFR, Builderburg, Illuminate, Zionists, Masonic leagues, Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Marx, Churchill, spies behind the scenes like Hiss, Philby, Internationals, Financiers, Military Complexes, Industrialists, Psychopathic predispositions of human kind, etcetera, etcetera, is just so damned convoluted that it seems no wonder at all why we spin our wheels. The they/them equations seems like a pendulum swinging all over the map and the noise is deafening with kaleidoscopic lenses as filters that just seem to exacerbate the problems. Churchill who made a good study of Bolshevism was completely perplexed by Stalin, calling his regime as history’s greatest “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, Inside an Enigma”.

It seems probable that things like shadowy forces directing global events is a given. Mrs. Rosenberg was executed for passing atomic secrets to the Russians, the fact that they had gotten these things was apparent and Rosenberg and others perhaps only conveniently filled in the whys of this. But it is also very clear that military factions controlled by shadowy forces made this possible as was discussed above by professional airmen out of Great Falls who could only scratch their heads in confusion about things visually recalled but knowing nothing about. These things are not possible by the likes of a Mrs Rosenberg alone, they are calculated agreements between nations by unknown powerful forces that operate often in plain sight but by reasons of command they cannot be questions and thus in so doing, it is quickly ploughed into the ground, never to see the light of day.

There must indeed be a powerful force that makes decree to all nations and is the global epicentre of power and have been for possibly a very long time. These forces think nothing whatsoever of creating conditions of economic, social and ethnic Genocide upon merely a whim. These powers will engineer changes when and wherever they feel a need and may in fact have their own power struggles as has been suggested and is quite logical to conceive. But to think of this as purely the doings of mortal man must be seen as naively a human blindness. People like LKJ, Richard Dolan, Jessup and so many others have described inter/hyper-dimensional interpenetration that seems so starkly apparent. HD entities seem to have comingled within our space time for eons and most probably manipulate our conditions as easily as a child plays with toys, they may in fact be the masters, the gods communicating and directing our earth bound Them/They powers that in reality are no more than pawns to them such as we to them.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The Masons are referred to some 48 times on the first page of this thread.

"In the Shadow of Hermes by Jüri Lina (2009)" provides rare footage along with a presentation that ties the network of the Masons into the mosaic of events that made up the advent of the Russian revolution and the establishment of the Sovjet state. Later the film follows the historical events of the Sovjet Union highlighting the destruction of human lives and ending with the collapse of the Sovjet Union (1:54:30) and the surprising initiation of many leaders of the former leadership into the Masonic lodges. There are videoclips of Masonic initiation Ukraine at 1:55:45, with the person in the middle actually resembling Poroshenko, who followed Yanukovich in 2014.

Even though some of the footage is unique, there are also claims about the number of dead that in some cases are somewhat larger than what can be found in other sources and which do seem exaggerated. A note of WARNING: In the film, there are passsages with descriptions of violence and mutilations that are absolutely horrible, in other places there are violent scenes borrowed from movies, that were pretend to portray the events.

Below are a few quotes from page one of the thread which tie in with what is in the film.
[...]After Landowski returns, Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil) wants to know all the details about the meeting and Goldsmith. He is surprised to hear that he is Russian, and not Jewish. Then he asks Landowski:

“This could have to do with Masonry. What do you think?”

Landowski replies that for the little knowledge he has, this idea seems ridiculous. But Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil) goes on saying that this is not as ridiculous as one can suppose…[...]
Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil) talks to Landowski about Karl Radek. He mentions a recent trial in which Radek is included:

“This Jew was one of the first figures of the Revolution. He had been a revolutionary since he was a child. He invested his knowledge in chemistry in the specialty of explosives, giving himself the same airs of terrible mystery among the terrorists and conspirators as an alchemist in the Middle Ages.

“Stalin knew him well and he exploited the aura of this terrible man, even if he knew he was [very] cowardly. (…) In some secret meetings, Stalin always managed to have Radek follow him very closely. (…) The elections were always won in unanimity. Stalin was the winner, followed by the sinister shadow of Radek. (…)

“But not everything is theatre and farce in Radek (…). He has a double personality. He has been for a long time in emigration, very close to the revolutionary chiefs as if he was their own shadow. He was always involved in professional revolutionary activities, simultaneous with the fact of being a mason. As a Jew he could belong to the “Bhay Brit” (if it’s well pronounced) , an exclusively Jewish masonry; but which allows its members to belong to the ordinary masonry. Radek possessed the highest ranks in both. Due to this, his fraternal relationships are significant and of an extremely high level in the non-communist world. It’s possible that his only personality is that one, to be a mason, and that the farce and cynicism that makes up his life was part of this disguise, which could be the only serious and important thing in his life. Anyway, all this is very complicated. But it’s true that his life has been spared. Some unexpected, extremely high-ranked characters have been interested in him. It’s even alleged that there is a certain blackmail coming from the finance and journalistic circles.”[280]
Landowski: “However, [292] (…) the collaboration of the German ‘junkers’ with the Red Army exists since the first years of the Soviet Republic. I suppose you are not trying to tell me that the Party already had such a perfect organization.”

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil): “Indeed, it didn’t; but you mustn’t forget that we’ve also had allies, especially during the first years when Trotsky with all his Jewish and Masonic clan hoped to inherit Lenin. Through them who worked inside Germany for so long, we received much information. Furthermore, the men that they had had since the conspiratorial time started giving their services to the Soviet State. When we threw Trotsky out of here, which is natural, we still owned them. [293]
“In a few words, this was about eliminating Hitler and the Party, to create a military dictatorship based in the advanced social policy. This is more or less known; the interesting part now is to bear in mind what happened with the conspiracy for international intervention, since it is from that intervention that my mission comes.

“As you might know, the conspiracy against Hitler was dual; in one front, the military; in the other, the SA directed by Röhm. There wasn’t any direct contact between them. That’s how it had to be, given that our ideas and political goals were diametrically opposed. Röhm wanted to destroy the Reicheswer and we wanted to destroy the Party. The link between both fronts (…) was at a foreign country: it wasn’t the Germans who formed what could be named as the Head of the putsch; (…) If we both have different goals in the interior politics, we always followed without complaints the directions of those who supported and directed us from the outside.”

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil): And who were they?

Krámer: A very wide front; first, there were England and France, more precisely the ‘Intelligence and the Second Bureau’. (…) no evidence was left; the contacts were established in Czechoslovakia.

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil): Masonry? [304]

Krámer: Yes, that is what could be assumed from the techniques that were applied. But, in short, our main compromise of international character was to create a serious military threat against the USSR. (…) We failed (…) I spent more than one year without any contact with our allies form abroad.”[305]

Then he meets an English agent who seemed to know everything about him, and who asks him to go to Moscow to establish once again the contacts with the high authorities of the OKW who hadn’t been discovered.

“[My mission now] is about re-establishing this contact with the Stalinist elements of the Soviet Army, through this person that must come to me. (…)
They discuss Tujachevsky, who is one of Stalin’s favourites, but who, in reality, is helping Trotsky. Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil) says that Tujachevski owes his position in the Red Army to Trotsky. The only reason for this, says Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil), is that Tujachevski was already a mason at the age of 18.

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil): “We know very well that the stupid “white” generals were in the hands of the allies. They accepted the imposition of implanting democratic governments and they had to put the bourgeois from the left, “cadets”, socialists, Mensheviks and anarchists in some positions: for example Spiridonova and Savinkov, Kerensky and Gutchkov.

“This is an old story”, says Lidya. Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil) replies:

“Yes, old. But without any solution of continuity with today’s story. It is known that the Masonry dominated among the bourgeois and socialists, and that it controlled the anarchists. This, when the opposition seems sure of having the Soviet Power with Trotsky, owner of the Military body, his superior rank, from what it seems, Masonic-financial-racial, makes Wilson impose on the Allies non-intervention in the civil war, and, at the same time, it makes its Masonic agents betray the white generals.” [349]

Landowski interrupts him saying that all this seems ridiculous. It’s not possible for him to imagine:

“that those masons from the white army would betray just because of an order from an invisible and far away command, unless they are all hypnotized robots. (…) It seems absurd that they would betray the whites in favour of the red, for the bolshevist triumph meant that they were putting themselves in danger of losing their own lives.

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil) does not agree:

“It is precisely because they are not robots that it was necessary that the one to destroy the “whites” was a mason; this was the guarantee that the defeat of the reactionary generals would benefit, not communism but the Masonry.”

Landowski: Is it possible that they believe such a stupidity?

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil): Why not? This Masonic stupidity was already present in the French Revolution, and it repeats itself in all the successive ones. It could be said that the masons are destined to die in the hands of the revolutions caused and served by them. [349]

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil) gives an example:

“Here you have Maisky, our brilliant ambassador in London and… Menshevik minister in Samara, one of those who gave the absolute power to Kolchack.

Landowski: Converted to communism?

Gabriel (Duval - Gavriil): He is a Jewish Menshevik, who betrayed the “white” but he’s not a figure for that; he also betrayed Trotsky in time.

[Another example] is Skoblin, now serving the NKVD.

Another Navachin, who was a Trotskyite mason.

“He was never a communist; he was a typical man of the Masonic infiltration in the Bolshevik revolution, infiltrated by Trotsky and commanded by him.”[350]
The chekist: “Because he is the only English agent in a high position; I also wonder why he is still alive. Maybe for an international reason, leaving a hope to London that it can still dominate here, and thus we can preserve its diplomatic help. (…)There is also an anarchist chief, old, insignificant and pacific in his appearance (…); he commands all he wants over the little anarchist chiefs; but the interesting thing is that he also commands the left bourgeoisie. He is a mason [453] of the highest category and hates us with a quiet, hypocritical but ferocious hatred. He’s got direct international relationships, he knows everything. He talks about a reaction in Paris and London, but not of a warlike reaction; he does not predict the war. (…) The facts confirm his words… (…) This mason guy, a co-anarchist, has been extremely worried with the last military “purge”. (…) he became furious when he received the news of the execution of Tujachevski and the other generals. This is paradoxical! And to this picture we can add that he has told with great reserve to the informant, also a mason, that Franco, the chief of the Spanish fascism, is not fascist… [454]
To me this material remains completely relevant as we see the same type of social engineering and culture creation used to "soften" the Russian people prior to the evil "Bolshevik Revolution" aka Banker's Revolution being wrought upon the unsuspecting and dumbed down populations of the West today. As a wise person once said, history doesn't repeat itself, but the manipulators of history tend to repeat what worked for them in the past.

Here's a link to parts of Juri Lina's book, "Under the Sign of the Scorpion," that's the basis for the above linked film, in thorbiorn's post. Lina seems to have a good handle on the material.
Under The Sign of The Scorpion - Rise and Fall of The Soviet Empire

Here's a link to a decent essay about "The Red Symphony." Red Symphony Freemasonry Final Revelation (1950)/docs/Rothschilds Conduct Red Symphony.pdf


Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Very timely for this thread to come forward again. Particularly Laura's post (#31) is a good reminder about ideologies, considering the times we are living in now.
It's been on my mind strongly since the push for Revolution seems to be building rapidly in the U.S.

I'm adding a shameless plug for the above linked UNDER THE SIGN OF THE SCORPION It is well researched and documented and VERY eye opening, if you haven't studied these "devo-lutions" aka revolutions very much, as I had not.

I found the below commentary attached to one of the internet versions of Red Symphony to be very useful:
Commentaries on Red Symphony

By Peter Myers and others, December 31, 2003;

updated November 26, 2006

From the Neither Aryan Nor Jew Web site

I know of no way of proving the veracity of this material. But it does bear on the fact that
Communism seems to be continuing, despite the fall of the USSR.

Open Borders, Gay Marriage, the World Court, "Hate" Laws which suppress open discussion,
these are the signs. The Kyoto Protocol is another; whatever its merits, it is an instrument of
World Government. These are policies of the Trotskyist/Fabian/Green "New Left".

Public ownership is not a feature; yet the Trotskyists in Australia published a book calling for
Free Trade. The leaders of the demonstrations against Capitalism, themselves urged the
dismantling of the protective economy we used to have:

"Perhaps the worst aspect of the adoption of protectionism as a policy for fighting
unemployment is that it is seen as a substitute for a class-struggle approach" (Socialism or
Nationalism, p. 29):

The booklet called Hitler's Secret Backers, by "Sidney Warburg", like the statements
attributed to Ravoksky in Red Symphony, attests that Western bankers gave money to Hitler to
help him get into power.

In Red Symphony, "Rakovsky", interrogated by Stalin's agents in 1938, states that the reason
for this was that these Jewish bankers, having established Bolshevism, had found it stolen from
them by Stalin, a "Bonapartist" akin to Napoleon (p. 36).

The bankers were trying to promote International Communism, Trotsky being their man;
Rakovsky himself was in their camp.

But Stalin was promoting National Communism. That system had to be brought down, so that
International Communism could be restored. The means of bringing it down, was by assisting the
rise of Hitler.

Hitler's Secret Backers says (in the commentary part at the end) that the bankers did not
think that Hitler would implement his rhetoric about excluding Jews. They disagreed with the anti-
German boycott inaugurated by the New York Zionists, and felt that this induced Hitler to institute
harsh measures against Jews.

In Hitler's Secret Backers, the bankers' motives are stated as being, not connected with
Trotsky, but anger at France for its insistence on continued German repayments to it in Gold, as
per the Treaty of Versailles. These payments were keeping Germany paralysed, and with it the
European economy.

But it could be argued - if the booklet be genuine in some way - that this is merely the excuse
the bankers told to their courier, "Sidney Warburg".

Hitler's Secret Backers is available at .

In Red Symphony, Rakovsky states that Jewish Bankers gave money to Hitler to help him get
into power (p. 36), knowing that he would attack the Soviet Union (as laid out in Mein Kampf).
These donations were anonymous; Hitler had no idea that the source was Jewish Finance.

In keeping with the strategy of Revolutionary Defeatism, Stalin would fall, upon losing the
war, as the Tsar had fallen after losing World War I, and Trotsky would be restored to power (p.

They changed their minds because Hitler's destruction of the Soviet Union would mean (they
decided, after seeing him in power) not the restoration of Trotsky, but the abolition of
Communism altogether; whereas their aim was to keep Communism going. Despite this switch,
they still hoped to erase the Stalinist "National" variety: "we shall succeed in taking it over and
then converting it into real Communism" (p. 37).

The interrogator says to Rakovsky,

"if your defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has as its object the restoration of
Socialism in the USSR, real Socialism, according to you - Trotzkyism, then, insofar as we
have destroyed their leaders and cadres, defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has
neither an objective nor any sense. As a result of defeat now there would come the


enthronement of some Fuhrer or fascist Tsar." (p. 11).

Rakovsky agrees with this assessment; the Moscow Purges thus provides a rationale for the
bankers' change of plan.

In keeping with this change, Rakovsky says, they want Stalin to propose to Hitler the partition
of Poland. As a result, Hitler would find himself at war with the West, and eventually in a war on
two fronts.

In the late 1930s, Trotsky was a fugitive. After writing The Revolution Betrayed in Norway in
1936 (it was published in 1937), Trotsky was forced to leave Norway, and found refuge in

Pressure from Stalin persuaded most governments to refuse him entry. Even the United
States, with Roosevelt in power, shut its doors.

This would cast doubt on Red Symphony's claim that Roosevelt and Trotsky were leading
figures in the same conspiracy. However, the US Government wanted to maintain diplomatic
relations with the Soviet Government, especially since Hitler was in power in Germany.

Two years after the alleged interrogation in Red Symphony took place, Stalin had Trotsky
murdered, ensuring that no restoration could occur.

Whilst Trotsky's murder is well known, Stalin's murder is covered up, because it involves
Jewish politics.

There are two anachronisms in Red Symphony. It says it is a record of interviews which took
place in 1938, but mentions the World Bank (p. 24), which was not established until 1944.
However, the League of Nations had predecessor organizations:
League of Nations Materials at Princeton University Library .

Red Symphony also speaks of "the Commonwealth" (p. 39); but surely it was known as the
"British Empire" in 1938?

However, Carroll Quigley wrote in The Anglo-American Establishment that 'the Rhodes
secret society' (p. 4) 'publicized the idea of and the name "British Commonwealth of Nations" in
the period 1908-1918' (p.5). .

Lionel Curtis, a leading ideologist of the Empire, and a member of Rhodes' secret society,
published in 1916 a book titled The Commonwealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature of
Citizenship in the British Empire, and into the Mutual Relations of the Several Communities
Thereof, PART I (MacMillan and Co, London, 1916).

Red Symphony points out that Point 6 of Wilson's 14 Points welcomed the USSR into "the society
of free nations", and offered it assistance, thus undermining the "White" side during the Civil War.

Red Symphony says the Jewish financiers promoting "real" Communism (not Stalin's
Bonapartism) are "Spinosists", followers of the natural mysticism of Baruch Spinosa. This is a
reformulation for our times, of Jewish religious philosophy; Hegelianism is a vulgarized version of

Spinoza established the atheistic variant of the Jewish religion.

Hitler manipulated by Bankers whose agenda he didn't understand

Part I: Hitler Didn't Want World War, by Henry Makow Ph.D.

March 21, 2004

Hitler Didn't Want World War

Hitler didn't want a world war, and had no stomach for fighting England, according to Pulitzer
Prize winning journalist Louis Kilzer, author of Churchill's Deception (Simon & Schuster, 1994).

Hitler believed the future of Western civilization depended on the cooperation of Germany
and her Aryan cousins: England and the United States. His territorial demands were limited to
Communist Russia, which he regarded as a proxy for Jewish world ambitions. He was
determined to avoid fighting a war on two fronts.

The "miracle at Dunkirk" was in fact an extraordinary peace overture to England. We don't
normally associate Hitler with such magnanimity.


In May 1940, the British were on the verge of defeat. The English army was trapped at
Dunkirk. Rather than take them prisoner, Hitler halted his generals for three days allowing
330,000 men to escape.

"The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed," Hitler said. "Our two
people belong together racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim,
even if our generals can't grasp it." (Kilzer, p. 213)

This is not an attempt to exonerate Hitler. His ideology of Aryan racial supremacy and his
enslavement/extermination of "inferior races" (mainly Jews and Slavs) are abhorrent to me. (Do I
need to say this?) My own grandparents were murdered by the Nazis. I believe people can take
pride in their race or nationality without seeking to dominate others.

Nonetheless we should understand that our view of Hitler is influenced by propaganda. The
Allies were also guilty of atrocities and war crimes. Furthermore, Hitler was created, manipulated
and destroyed by the same llluminist clique that runs the world today.


According to Kilzer's well-documented book, Hitler was trying to convince the English to make
peace. In exchange, he was ready to retreat from Western Europe and from much of Poland.

Kilzer describes how British Intelligence (an arm of the llluminati) took advantage of Hitler's
racist ideology to divert his energies against Russia and trap him in a two-front war. They
convinced him that a large pro Nazi (anti Communist) "Peace Party" was prepared to unseat the
"war monger" Churchill.

This party consisted of the Duke of Windsor (the former King Edward VIM) and appeasement-
minded elitists known as the "Cliveden Set." The Nazis had longstanding social ties with this
group and confided in them. Hitler seemed to overlook the fact that Windsor went to stay at the
Rothschild castle in Austria after he abdicated.

Rudolph Hess, the Deputy Leader of Nazi Germany, was in contact with the Cliveden group
and flew to England May 10, 1941 to negotiate peace. According to Kilzer, Hess had Hitler's

Coincidentally this was the worst night of the Blitz. Afterward, there was a long lull in both
Nazi and British bombing raids. It appears the Nazis thought they had an understanding with the
British and turned their attention to the invasion of Russia the following month (June 22, 1941.)

Hitler didn't understand that the Anglo American elite was (and still is) intimately connected
with international (i.e. Rothschild) finance. Anglo American imperialism is in fact a front for the
families that own the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. These Jewish and non-Jewish
families are connected by money, marriage and Lucifer worship (i.e. Freemasonry). Both
Roosevelt and Churchill were their flunkies. (All our "leaders" are.)

In 1776 Meyer Rothschild financed the llluminati, a Masonic secret society that in turn
spawned the major revolutions of the modern era including the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The
ultimate aim is to establish the banker world dictatorship, which is at an advanced stage today.

In the 1930's their purpose was to incite a two-front war that would leave the great nation
states (England, Germany and Russia) prostrate. Like all wars, the purpose was to kill millions of
people, traumatize humanity, increase public debt and private profit, and make "world
government" (the future UN) seem essential for "peace."

The 1930's British Policy of Appeasement was probably designed to encourage Hitler's
expansionist tendencies and to provoke war. Douglas Reed, the (London) Times Correspondent
in Berlin, was first tipped off to something fishy when his newspaper suppressed his warnings of
the Hitler menace. (See his Controversy of Ziori)



Why would the financial elite also want to destroy Russia, which they created?

The transcript of the 1938 NKVD interrogation of C.G. Rakowsky (a.k.a Chaim Rakeover)
provides the answer. Rakowsky was an intimate of Trotsky's and former Soviet ambassador to

Rothschild's agent Leon Trotsky was supposed to succeed Lenin but got sick at the critical
moment. Stalin was able to assume power and divert Russia from Rothschild control.

In order to control Stalin, international finance was forced to build up Hitler and the Nazi
party. Rakowsky confirms that Jewish financiers backed the Nazis although Hitler was not aware
of this.

"The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even
guess his race ... he also lied regarding whose representative he was... Our aim was to
provoke a war and Hitler was war.. .[the Nazis] received. ..millions of dollars sent to it from
Wall Street, and millions of Marks from German financiers through Schacht; [providing]
the upkeep of the S.A and the S.S. and also the financing of the elections..."

Unfortunately for the bankers, Hitler also proved intractable. He started to print his own money! ...

The book "Financial Origins of National Socialism" (1933) by "Sydney Warburg" provides
another glimpse of how the llluminist clique supported Hitler. This 70-page booklet was
suppressed for many years but was republished in 1983 as "Hitler's Secret Backers."

"Warburg" describes a July 1929 meeting with "Carter," the President of J. P. Morgan's
Guarantee Trust, the Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks, "the young Rockefeller" and
"Glean from Royal Dutch." These are all Rothschild dominated .

It was determined that Warburg who spoke German should travel to Germany and ask Hitler
how much money he needed to overthrow the state. The only stipulation was that Hitler adopts
"an aggressive foreign policy."

"Warburg" details five meetings with Hitler between 1929 and 1933. The first took place in a
beer cellar and Hitler calculated his needs on the back of a paper plate. About $25 million was
transferred. This was extremely important in the depth of the depression because the Nazis
provided food and shelter to many of their supporters.

Hitler wasn't told the reason for this support and did not ask. On two occasions, he wondered
out loud if "Warburg" was himself Jewish but dismissed the idea before "Warburg" could reply.

There is no "Sydney Warburg" but the internal evidence suggests the author could be James
Warburg , son of Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg . Many people dismiss this monograph
as yet another fraud but the wealth of accurate detail and anecdote suggests otherwise. ...

Peter Myers Comments: Henry Makow interprets Red Symphony, and Hitler's Secret Backers,
as meaning that the llluminati gave money to help Hitler gain power, once they had completely
lost control of Russia to Stalin, the intention being to restore Trotsky once Stalin had fallen.

You can obtain a copy of Hitler's Secret Backers for US$5 at .

The author of this book, apparently written in 1933, says that he was invited to be a courier to
Hitler, at a meeting on July, 1929 (p. 5). He says that New York financiers wanted to bring France
into line (to renounce Versailles reparations claims), and wanted Hitler to pursue an aggressive
foreign policy. In the document, Hitler says that he would use Stalin to help subdue France, then,
with his back thus covered, tackle the eastern question, the implication being that he would
implement the lebensraum in the Ukraine, as envisaged in Mein Kampf.

Isaac Deutscher says, in The Prophet Outcast, that Trotsky was expelled from the USSR on
10 February, 1929 (p. 1}.

So, the connection is plausible, but can't be proven.


F. William Engdahl on Hitler's "fundamental miscalculation"
In Halford MacKinder's Necessary War.
http://arno.daastol.eom/history/EnqdahlMackinder.html# Toc34729241

... On May 10, just in the hours the German Wehrmacht launched the blitzkrieg against
Holland and Belgium, Churchill was called by the King to form a new government. ...

Shortly before dawn on the morning of May 10 the greatest concentration of tank forces ever
seen in warfare stood poised on the border of Luxembourg, ready for a seventy mile strike to
Sedan on the French side, through the Ardennes forest. ...

"A fundamental miscalculation"
General Guderian had advanced an astonishing 250 miles across enemy terrain in only 11 days.
Then, with his Panzer forces at Gravelines, only ten miles from Dunkirk, orders came down on
May 24, that his tanks were to halt.

Guderian's forces had been within hours of capturing more than 300,000 of the best-trained
professional soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force, along with some 100,000 of France's
best-trained and equipped men. Guderian at first read the order with disbelief. His commander,
General von Kleist, stated that, on receiving the order, "I decided to ignore it, and to push on
across the canal. But then came a more emphatic order that I was to withdraw behind the canal.
My tanks were kept halted there for three days."

The order had come directly from Hitler. The three days pause was intended, though Hitler
did not tell his generals at the time, to allow Britain's best fighting force escape by ship across the
Channel to England. He intended it as a clear gesture of good will towards his British adversary.

That was the "miracle of Dunkirk," which Churchill's strictly censored wartime press
propaganda in England portrayed as divine providence smiling down on the chosen British
people. The British population would have been no doubt quite surprised, had they been allowed
to learn the truth, that the one who had smiled on their army at Dunkirk had in fact been Hitler.

A week later, referring to this "miracle of Dunkirk," Churchill told the House of Commons and
the entire nation over the BBC radio, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be; we
shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in
the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."

It wasn't exactly the response Hitler had in mind. ...

Dunkirk was to be only one of several unusual military decisions by the German Fuehrer in
those critical days. His message each time was intended as a clear signal to his opponents. He
was determined to give England convincing proof of his ultimate good will towards the British
Empire, by allowing the elite of Britain's fighting forces to escape to England. ...

Once France had proposed armistice, yet again, Hitler refused to follow the logic of the
military situation to its conclusion. He agreed to the basic French terms of Petain, and allowed
two-fifths of France to the south, including the major Mediterranean port city, Marseilles, to
remain unoccupied Vichy France, under Petain and Laval and their own French military and
police control. The colonies and the formidable French naval fleet were left untouched by Hitler,
in his bizarre gesture of good will.

Allowing Petain's Vichy government to hold the colonies in French North and West Africa was
an astonishing concession from any military standpoint. Had Germany taken the African colonies
in the fall of France, that would have closed the Mediterranean to British ships, allowing Italy free-
hand to invade Egypt from Libya, blocking the Suez Canal and the route to the Mideast, as well
as India. German U-boats, operating out of the French colonial port of Dakar on the west coast of
Africa, could have blocked British ships en route to India via South Africa.

That would have choked off vital British oil supplies from Iran and the Middle East, and cut off
her access to goods and soldiers from India, placing her naval fleet and her economy in a
devastating disadvantage at a time when many in top British political circles, even some in
Churchill's Cabinet such as Beaverbrook, were resigned to the inevitability of a peace deal with

At a meeting June 17 in Munich, the day France's armistice offer was received, Hitler told


Mussolini that he would not impose oppressive conditions on France. When Mussolini suggested
the demand that France turn over its naval fleet, Hitler rejected that idea outright as well.

This concession too, allowing the Petain government to hold on to the French fleet, was no
small thing. At the time, the French naval fleet, unlike other parts of its defense arsenal, was of
high quality. Two new battleships, 'Richelieu' and 'Jean Bart' had just been built. Were the French
fleet to be added to the combined Naval capacities of Italy and Germany, it could quite well have
destroyed British sea defenses and likely have forced a British surrender within months. The
entire American fleet, even had they wanted to come to England's aid, was unavailable. It had
been shifted early in 1940 to Hawaii and the Pacific, far away from Europe, in order to defend
against a growing Japanese threat.

What could be of such over-riding importance in Hitler's thinking as to justify so extraordinary
concessions as the colonies, the fleet and almost half of French territory?

Hitler, after refusing Mussolini's demand for the French fleet, turned to the real subject on his
mind -- England. In a discussion witnessed by Hitler's official interpreter, Paul Schmidt, Hitler told
Mussolini, he was convinced it would not serve any useful purpose to destroy the British Empire.
"It is, after all, a force for order in the world," insisted Hitler.

Hitler's thoughts seemed to be returning to the early lessons in geopolitics he had learned
from Karl Haushofer and Rudolf Hess almost two decades before, in 1924, in his jail cell at
Landsberg near Munich. Hitler had written then in "Main Kampf," about Germany's future and the
need for Lebensraum. "If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only
have been done at Russia's expense, and then the new Reich would again have to start
marching along the road of the Knights of the Order of former times.

"For such a policy, however," wrote Hitler, "there was only one single ally in Europe-
England. With England alone, one's back being covered, could one begin the new
Germanic invasion ... To gain England's favor, no sacrifice should have been too great.
Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare British
industry our competition."

To be continued . . .
Continuation of above commentary on Red Symphony:

In 1940, Hitler's outlook had changed very little. Rudolf Hess was constantly at his side to remind
him as well of his earlier lessons in geopolitics. As Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, half
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and now most of France all had been incorporated into the New
European Order of the Third Reich, Italy, and Spain bound to it by alliance, Hitler came back to
the idea of recarving the world between a land empire of Eurasia dominated by Germany, and a
global oceanic empire dominated by Britain.

Hitler was preparing for the great battle, and it was to be in the east, not the west. He wanted
England's assurance that she would "cover Germany's back," or at least not embroil the Reich
once more in a catastrophic two front war. ...

Isaac Deutscher on the possibility that
Hitler's war would lead to Trotsky's return

If Red Symphony is genuine, Stalin himself would have had access to it. It says that the Anglo-
American elite helped to fund Hitler's rise, so that he could make war against Stalin. This would
explain Stalin's obsession with the idea that British Intelligence was behind Hitler.

It would also explain Stalin's decision to have Trotsky murdered, a couple of years later.
Isaac Deutscher points out that the return of Trotsky to power after the defeat of Stalin was a
prospect raised seriously at the time:

Isaac Deutscher, THE PROPHET OUTCAST: Trotsky: 1929-1940 (London : Oxford University
Press, 1970):

{p. 510} Postscript: Victory in Defeat

... And perhaps never yet had any man lived in so close a communion with the


sufferings and the strivings of oppressed humanity and in such utter loneliness as
Trotsky lived.

{p. 511} ... Trotsky asserted his conviction that in the future, after Soviet Society had
progressed towards socialism, Stalinism would be seen as merely 'an episodic relapse'.

{p. 514} Trotskyism attempted to preserve the norm or to strike a temporary balance
between norm and reality until revolution in the West resolved the conflict and restored
harmony between {Marxist} theory and {Communist} practice. The failures of revolution in
the West were epitomized in Trotsky's defeat.

{p. 515} How definite and irrevocable was the defeat? We have seen that as long as
Trotsky was alive Stalin never considered him to have been finally vanquished. Stalin's
fear was no mere paranoiac obsession. Other leading actors on the political stage shared
it. Robert Coulondre, French ambassador to the Third Reich, gives a striking testimony in
a description of his last interview with Hitler just before the outbreak of the Second World

Hitler had boasted of the advantages he had obtained from his pact with Stalin, just
concluded; and he drew a grandiose vista of his future military triumph. In reply the
French ambassador appealed to his 'reason' and spoke of the social turmoil and the
revolutions that might follow a long and terrible war and engulf all belligerent
governments. 'You are thinking of yourself as victor ...', the ambassador said, 'but have
you given thought to another possibility - that the victor may be Trotsky?'

At this Hitler jumped up (as if he 'had been hit in the pit of the stomach') and
screamed that this possibility, the threat of Trotsky's victory, was one more reason why
France and Britain should not go to war against the Third Reich. Thus, the master of the
Third Reich and the envoy of the Third Republic, in their last maneuvers, during the last
hours of peace, sought to intimidate each other, and each other s governments, by
invoking the name of the lonely outcast trapped and immured at the far end of the world.
'They are haunted by the spectre of revolution, and they give it a man's name', Trotsky
remarked when he read the dialogue.

Were Hitler and the ambassador quite wrong in giving the spectre Trotsky's name? It
may be argued that although their fear was well grounded, they should have given the
spectre Stalin's name, not Trotsky's - it was, at any rate, Stalin who was to triumph over
Hitler. Yet as so often in history so here the underlying realities were far more confused
and ambiguous than the surface of events. Stalin's victory over Trotsky concealed a
heavy element of defeat while Trotsky's defeat was pregnant with victory.

The central 'ideological' issue between them had been socialism in one country - the
question whether the Soviet Union would or could achieve socialism in isolation, on the
conceivable only as an international order of society. The answer events have given is far
less clear-cut than were the theoretical arguments, but it comes much closer to Trotsky's
view than to Stalin's. Long before the Soviet Union came anywhere near socialism,
revolution had spread to other countries.

History, it might be said, did not leave the Soviet Union alone long enough to allow a
laboratory experiment with socialism in a single country to be carried into any advanced
stage, let alone to be completed. In so far as in the struggle between Trotskyism and
Stalinism revolutionary internationalism had clashed with Bolshevik isolationism it is
certainly not Stalinism that has emerged with flying colors: Bolshevik isolationism has
been dead long since. On the other hand, the staying power of the Soviet Union, even in
isolation, was far greater than Trotsky sometimes assumed; and, contrary to his
expectations, it was not the proletariat of the West that freed the Russian Revolution from
isolation. By a feat of history's irony, Stalinism itself malgre lui-meme broke out of its
national shell.

In his last debate Trotsky staked the whole future of Marxism and socialism upon the
sequel to the Second World War. Convinced that war must lead to revolution - the
classical Marxist revolution - he asserted that if it failed to do so Marxism would be
refuted, socialism would lose once and for all by default, and the epoch of bureaucratic
collectivism would set in. This was, in any case, a rash, dogmatic, and desperate view;
historic reality was once again to prove immeasurably more intricate than the theorist's



The war did indeed set in motion a new series of revolutions; yet once again the
process did not conform to the classical pattern. The western proletariat again failed to
storm and conquer the ramparts of the old order; and in eastern Europe it was mainly
under the impact of Russia's armed power, advancing victoriously to the Elbe, that the
old order broke down. The divorce between theory and practice - or between norm and
fact - deepened further.

This was not a fortuitous development. It represented a continuation of the trend
which had first announced itself in 1920-1 when the Red Army marched on Warsaw and
when it occupied Georgia.*

With those military acts the revolutionary cycle which the First World War set in
motion had come to a close. At the beginning of that cycle Bolshevism had risen on the
crest of a genuine revolution; towards its end the Bolsheviks began to spread revolution
by conquest. Then followed the long interval of two decades, during which Bolshevism
did not expand. When the next cycle of revolution was set in motion by the Second World
War, it started where the first cycle had ended - with revolution by conquest. In military
history there exists, as a rule, a continuity between the closing phase of one war and the
opening phase of another: the weapons and the ideas about warfare invented and
formed towards the end of one armed conflict dominate the first stage of the next conflict.

A similar continuity exists also between cycles of revolution. In 1920-1 Bolshevism,
straining to break out of its isolation, tried, rather fitfully, to carry revolution abroad on the
point of bayonets. Two and three decades later Stalinism, dragged out of its national
shell by war, imposed revolution upon the whole of eastern Europe.

Trotsky had expected the second revolutionary cycle to begin in the forms in which
the first had begun, with class struggles and proletarian risings, the outcome of which
would, in the main depend on the balance of social forces within each major nation and
on the quality of national revolutionary leadership. Yet the new cycle started not where
the previous one had begun, but where it had ended, not with revolution from below, but
with revolution from above, with revolution by conquest.

As this could be the work only of a great power applying its pressure in the first
instance to its own periphery, the cycle ran its course on the fringes of the Soviet Union.
The chief agents of revolution were not the workers of the countries concerned, and their
parties, but the Red Army. Success or failure depended not on the balance of social
forces within any nation, but mainly on the international balance of power, on diplomatic
pacts, alliances, and military campaigns. The struggle and the co-operation of the great
powers superimposed themselves upon class struggle, changing and distorting it. All
criteria by which Marxists were wont to judge a nation's 'maturity' or 'immaturity' for
revolution went by the board. ...

David North on the Consequences of Trotsky's Defeat

[The following was delivered as the opening lecture to the International Summer School on
Marxism and the Fundamental Problems of the 20th Century, organized by the International
Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Party of Australia. The school
was held in Sydney from January 3-10, 1998. David North is the national secretary of the
Socialist Equality Party in the US]

... if Stalinism was not the outcome of Bolshevism, but its antithesis; and if the rise of
Stalinism was, in fact, opposed by Marxists, then the historical situation of revolutionary

See Isaac Deutscher, The Prophet Armed: Trotsky, 1879-1921 (London, New York : Verso, 2003), pp. 463-


socialism is very different. The International Committee of the Fourth International
upholds the second position.

... Especially among those who were influenced by Stalinism, the collapse of the
Soviet Union - an event they had utterly failed to foresee - has radically changed their
attitude toward the October Revolution and its place in history. Reaction, as Leon Trotsky
once noted, not only conquers, it also convinces. Many long-time friends of the Soviet
Union, or, perhaps more precisely, of the Soviet bureaucracy, who professed great
admiration for Lenin and the "Great October Revolution" - and thought of themselves as
very progressive people for doing so - now look upon the October Revolution as a
disaster that should not have happened. ... This is the perspective that emerges from a
new book by the British historian, Eric Hobsbawm, who was for many years a member of
the Communist Party.

... The conflict between the Stalinist bureaucracy and the Left Opposition, about
which Hobsbawm says not one word, "happened."

... Hobsbawm seeks to minimize, to the very point of denying, the role of
consciousness in the revolutionary process.

... This portrayal of Lenin as a simple realpolitiker, reacting pragmatically and
intuitively to events as they arose, hardly makes sense even within the terms presented
by Hobsbawm. The defense of the revolution was, in itself, a strategic conception; and its
successful realization depended upon a conscious insight into the class structure and
dynamics of Russian society.

... Indeed, in a 300-page book of essays and lectures whose central theme is the
place of the October Revolution in the history of the 20th century, Trotsky's name
appears only once.

... the defeat of Trotsky and the Left Opposition set the stage for all the subsequent
tragedies that were to befall the Soviet Union, the international working class and the
socialist movement, and beneath whose shadow we still live today.

I wish to add a further point: No discussion on the fate of socialism in the 20th
century deserves to be taken seriously unless it considers, with the necessary care, the
consequences of Trotsky's defeat. It is essential to consider, in other words, not only
"what happened" under Stalin; but also "what well might have happened" had Trotsky

... Until 1924 the unquestioned premise of Soviet policy - indeed, that which underlay
the entire revolutionary project undertaken by the Bolsheviks in October 1917 - was that
the seizure of power in Russia was only "the first shot" of the world socialist revolution. A
nationally self-contained socialist state, especially one based on a country as
economically and culturally backward as Russia, could not be viable. Stalin's
introduction, in the autumn of 1924, of the "theory" of "socialism in one country" - which
was not really a "theory" at all, but rather a crudely pragmatic response to the defeat of
the German revolution during the previous year and the temporary decline of the
revolutionary movement in Western Europe - ran counter to the internationalist
orientation propounded by the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky.

... It may seem paradoxical that Trotsky, the great protagonist of world revolution,
placed greater emphasis than any other Soviet leader of his time on the overriding
importance of close economic links between the USSR and the world capitalist market.
Soviet economic development, he insisted, required both access to the resources of the
world market and the intelligent utilization of the international division of labor. The
development of economic planning required at minimum a knowledge of competitive
advantage and efficiencies at the international level. It served no rational economic
purpose for the USSR to make a virtue of frittering away its own limited resources in a
vain effort to duplicate on Soviet soil what it could obtain at far less cost on the world
capitalist market.

... It is helpful to keep in mind that Trotsky belonged to a generation of Russian
Marxists who had utilized the opportunity provided by revolutionary exile to carefully
observe and study the workings of the capitalist system in the advanced countries. They
were familiar not only with the oft-described "horrors" of capitalism, but also with its


positive achievements. ... Trotsky argued that a vital precondition for the development of
the Soviet economy along socialist lines was its assimilation of the basic techniques of
capitalist management, organization, accounting and production.

... Indeed, the claim is often made that collectivization arose out of Stalin's adoption,
in the late 1920s, of the Left Opposition's program of rapid industrialization. In actual fact,
Trotsky opposed and denounced the frenzied collectivization campaign launched by the
Stalinists. Despite the pseudo-socialist demagogy that accompanied it, Trotsky warned
that the policy, implemented with reckless disregard of the real productive capabilities of
both industry and the countryside, proceeded from the same nationalistic and anti-
Marxist conceptions of "socialism in one country" that underlay the previous failed
economic programs of the Stalinist bureaucracy.

In a critique of Stalinist collectivization written in 1930, Trotsky acknowledged that he had
previously advocated a more rapid tempo of industrialization, and the use of heavier taxation of
wealthier sections of the peasantry (the kulaks) to provide resources for the development of
heavy industry.

... The initial setback suffered by the Left Opposition in the late autumn of 1923 was
definitely bound up with the defeat of the German Revolution, which dimmed hopes that
European workers would in the near future come to the aid of the USSR. This was the
climate that created a broader audience for the nationalist perspective of socialism in one
country. The political disorientation produced by the nationalist line of the Soviet leaders
inside the Communist International led, in turn, to more defeats for the working class
outside the USSR.

... In April 1932 Trotsky issued a statement warning that the victory of Hitler would
make war between Germany and Soviet Russia inevitable. Choosing his words carefully,
Trotsky explained how he would respond, were he in power, to a fascist victory in

"... Upon receiving the telegraphic communication of this event, I would sign an order
for the mobilization of the reserves. When you have a mortal enemy before you, and
when war flows with necessity from the logic of the objective situation, it would be
unpardonable light-mindedness to give that enemy time to establish and fortify himself,
conclude the necessary alliances, receive the necessary help, work out a plan of
concentric military actions, not only from the West but from the East, and thus grow up to
the dimensions of a colossal danger." 1

... we have attempted to demonstrate that the victory of Trotskyism - that is, of
genuine Marxism - would have in all probability profoundly altered the course of Soviet
history and that of the international socialist movement. ... I would like to cite a valuable
work entitled The Birth of Stalinism by the German historian Michal Reiman .

"The importance of the left opposition is often underestimated in the literature ...
[M]any authors doubt that the opposition had any substantial influence on the mass of
party members and even less on broader sections of the population. One can hardly
agree with such views: they seem paradoxical indeed in light of the mountain of
ammunition expended on the opposition by the party leadership in those years - the
multitude of official declarations, reports, pamphlets, and books, not to mention the mass
political campaigns that penetrated even the remotest parts of the USSR.

"In the spring of 1926 the united opposition, based on a cadre of old and experienced
party leaders, conquered some fairly significant positions. It consolidated its influence in
Leningrad, the Ukraine, Transcaucasia, and the Urals region; in the universities; in some
of the central government offices; in a number of factories of Moscow and the central
industrial region; and among a section of the command staff of the army and navy, which

1 Writings of Leon Trotsky 1932 (New York: 1973), p. 82


had passed through the difficult years of the civil war under Trotsky's leadership.
Repression by the party leadership prevented the opposition from growing, but its
influence was still much greater than indicated by the various votes taken in the party
cells." 2

Trotsky and the other principal leaders of the Left Opposition were expelled from the Russian
Communist Party at a plenum of the central committee held in July and August 1927. This failed
to silence the Opposition.

"Even after the plenum," writes Reiman, "the party organizations continued to be flooded
- especially in the large urban centers and the two capitals - with opposition literature and
leaflets. Reports of heightened opposition activity came one after another from various
cities and from entire provinces - Leningrad, the Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Siberia, the
Urals, and, of course, Moscow, where the greater number of opposition political leaders
were working. There was a steadily growing number of illegal and semi-legal meetings
attended by industrial workers and young people.

The influence of the opposition in a number of large party units became quite
substantial. It hampered the former free functioning of the Stalinist party apparatus. The
army was also strongly affected by opposition activity. Reports on a significant rise in the
authority of the opposition came from the Leningrad military district and the garrison in
Leningrad, from Kronstadt, and from troop units in the Ukraine and Byelorussia. "The
main problem was not the increase in opposition activity, however, but the overall
balance of power within the party. Quite a large number of famous political leaders were
on the opposition side. The weakened authority of the party leadership, especially of
Stalin and Bukharin, was insufficient to turn the setbacks and failures of party policy into
gains." (Saunders, Birth of Stalinism: pp. 28-29 )

How, then, did the Stalin faction overcome the challenge represented by the Left Opposition?
Reiman explains: "The leadership could not cope with the situation without bringing the GPU into
the fight." ... the Stalinist terror was the means by which it was annihilated. ... Stalin's victims
were, in their collective activity, the representatives of an extraordinary socialist culture that
imparted to the revolutionary movement of the Russian working class a world historical

In Trotsky, this culture found its highest expression. As Victor Serge explained so brilliantly,

"For a man like Trotsky to arise, it was necessary that thousands and thousands of
individuals should establish the type over a long historical period. It was a broad social
phenomenon, not the sudden flashing of a comet ... The formation of this great social
type - the highest reach of modern man, I think - ceased after 1917, and most of its
surviving representatives were massacred at Stalin's orders in 1936-37. ...

Stalin's Great Terror: Origins and Consequences AND Leon Trotsky and the Fate of Marxism in
the USSR BY Vadim Z. Rogovin: Contains lectures delivered by Russian Marxist historian
Vadim Rogovin in Australia in 1996. Rogovin's central thesis is that there was and remains a
Marxist alternative to Stalinism. He demonstrates that Stalin's Great Terror was not the irrational
response of a paranoid tyrant, but was precipitated by the need for the Stalinist bureaucracy to
eradicate the growing socialist opposition to its rule, led by Trotsky and the Left Opposition. 1996,
39p, ISBN 1-875639-13-6

(c) 1998 by World Socialist Web Site (TM) All rights reserved

2 The Birth of Stalinism: The USSR on the Eve of the "Second Revolution" Tr. George Saunders
(Bloomington: 1987), pp. 19-20


Ravoksky's evidence at the Moscow Trials

Report of Court Proceedings in the case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites"


Moscow, March 2-13, 1938









{background: at the time, Korea and Manchuria were part of Japan's empire. The following

should be compared with the statements purportedly made by Rakovsky under his first

interrogation, and recorded in Red Symphony. However, Red Symphony states that its material is

too secret to be publicly disclosed at the trial}


COMMANDANT OF THE COURT: The Court is coming, please rise.

THE PRESIDENT: Be seated. I declare the session of the Military Collegium of the
Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. open.

The trial is of Nikolai Ivanovich BUKARIN, Alexei Ivanovich RYKOV, Genrikh Grigorievich
YAGODA, Nikolai Nikolayevich KRESTINSKY, Khristian Georgievich RAKOVSKY,
Arkady Pavlovich ROSENGOLTZ, Vladimir Ivanovich IVANOV, Mikhail Alexandrovich
CHERNOV, Grirori Fedorovich GRINKO, Isaac Abramovich ZELENSY, Sergei
Alexeyevich BESSONOV, Akmal IKRAMOV, Faizulla HODJAYEV, Vasily Fomich
SHARANGOVICH, Prokopy Timofeyevich ZUBAREV, Pavel Petrovich BULANOV, Lev
Grigorievich LEVIN, Dmitrv Dmitrievich PLETNEV, Ignaty Nikolayevich AZAOV,
Venvamin Adamovich MAXIMOV, and Pyotr Petrovich KRYUCHOV on charges of
treason to the country, espionage, committing acts of diversion, terrorism, wrecking,
undermining the military power of the U.S.S.R. and of provoking a military attack of
foreign states upon the U.S.S.R., i.e., of crimes covered by Articles 581a, 587, 588, 588,
589 and 5811 of the Criminal Code of the R.S.F.S.R.

... THE PRESIDENT: Accused Rakovsky, Khristian Georgievich, have you received a
copy of the indictment?


THE PRESIDENT: Accused Rakovsky, do you desire to have Counsel for Defence?


... the German fascist, mainly military, circles, on the matter of jointly fighting the
U.S.S.R., not only personally negotiated for support for the anti-Soviet conspiracy with
DAITZ, ROSENBERG'S closest colleague in the foreign affairs department of the fascist
party, but was kept informed of the meetings and negotiations between L. TROTSKY and
HESS, NIEDERMEIER and Professor HAUSHOFER, with whom L. TROTSKY reached
an agreement on the terms mentioned by PYATACOV at the trial of the Anti-Soviet
Trotskyite Centre. The accused BESSONOV testified:

... As is evident from these terms ... the main emphasis in the underground work of the
Trotskyites was placed on undermining, espionage, diversion and terrorist acts in the
U.S.S.R." (Vol. XI, p. 106.)


The existence of an agreement between L. TROTSKY and the Trotskyite organization in the
U.S.S.R., on the one hand, and the fascist circles, on the other, and the carrying on in the
U.S.S.R. of undermining defeatist activities on the instructions of the German intelligence service
was admitted during the investigation by other accused in the present case.

However, the defeatist activities of the Trotskyite hirelings were not limited merely to
connections with German fascism. In conjunction with other participants in the anti-Soviet
conspiracy, in conformity with L. TROTSKY'S line, they orientated themselves also on another
fascist aggressor - Japan.

The factual side of the treasonable connections of the anti-Soviet conspirators with the
Japanese intelligence service is presented in the materials of the investigation in the following

As was testified by the accused KRESTINSKY, at a meeting he had with L. TROTSKY in
Meran in October 1933, TROTSKY urged the necessity of establishing closer connections with
the Japanese intelligence service.

KRESTINSKY conveyed TROTSKY'S instructions to PYATAKOV and other leaders of the
conspiracy, who through the medium of the accused RAKOVSKY and other participants in the
conspiracy entered into treasonable connections with representatives of Japan, the latter
undertaking to render the conspiracy armed assistance in overthrowing the Soviet government, in
exchange for which the conspirators promised to surrender the Soviet Maritime Region to Japan.

As has been established by the investigation, the accused RAKOVSKY, in view of his
departure for Japan in the summer of 1934, received from PYATACOV instructions to the effect
that it was

"... necessary at the same time to increase activities abroad in the sense of establishing
contact with governments hostile to the U.S.S.R. ... necessary to make efforts to take
advantage of the visit to Tokyo and probably — - will take the necessary steps in this
direction." (Vol. IV, p. 19)

The accused RAKOVSKY carried out this instruction, and while in Tokyo did indeed enter into
criminal connections with — - circles.

On this matter the accused RAKOVSKY testified as follows:

All these circumstances had as their logical and practical consequence the fact that I ...
when I was in Tokyo became a direct spy-agent of — -, being enlisted for this purpose, on

the instructions of , by Mr. N, a most influential political figure in capitalist-feudal

Japan and one of her biggest plutocrats. " (vol. IV, p. 186)

The aforementioned accused RAKOVSKY, speaking of the connections of enemy of the people
L. TROTSKY with the British Intelligence Service, testified as follows:

"I knew that TROTSKY has been an agent of the Intelligence Service since the end of
1926. TROTSKY himself informed me of it." (Vol. IV, p. 363.)

The groups of bourgeois nationalists which belonged to the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" were
also very closely connected with foreign intelligence services.

Thus, the accused GRINKO, who was an agent of the German and Polish intelligence
services, in dealing with the anti-Soviet activities of the Ukrainian national-fascist organization of
which he was one of the leaders, testified as follows:

"... In 1930, we in our organization discussed the necessity of coming to an agreement
with Poland about obtaining military assistance for an insurrection in the Ukraine against
the Soviet government. As a result of these negotiations with Poland an agreement was
reached and the Polish General Staff increased the quantity of arms and the number of
diversionists and PETLIURA emissaries sent to the Ukraine." (Vol. IX, p. 18.)

To Be Continued . . .
Continuation of Commentary on Red Symphony:
And he said further:

"At the end of 1932 I, in connection with my nationalist activities, entered into treasonable
connections with Mr. N. We met in my office, where Mr. N used to come to see me on
business concerning a German concession.

THE PRESIDENT: Accused Rakovsky. {Rakovsky's final plea}

RAKOVSKY: Citizen President of the Court, Citizens Judges, yesterday I listened with
great and rapt attention to the speech for the prosecution delivered by the Procurator of
the Union, not because I intended to enter into a controversy with him. I had no such
intention. I confessed to all my crimes. What would it matter for the substance of the case
if I should attempt to establish here before you the fact that I learned of many of the
crimes, and of the most appalling crimes of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites," here in
Court, and that it was here that I first met some of the participants? It is of no import
whatever. I am connected with the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites,' of course within the
limits defined by the Criminal Code, by that complicity, both political and juridical, which
follows from the fact that I belonged to this bloc.

Like a galley-slave fettered to his galley, I am fettered to the "bloc of Rights and
Trotskyites" with the heavy chain of my crimes. I participated in the underground counter-
revolutionary Trotskyite organization up to the last moment, to the moment of my arrest.

I was an active member of the "block of Rights and Trotskyites." I committed the
gravest crimes against the state. I am doubly a spy. In 1924 I established criminal
connections with the British Intelligence Service, and in 1934 I established criminal
connections with the Japanese intelligence service. In 1927 I carried on negotiations with
some of the Right capitalist circles in France, the object of these negotiations being in the
long run also directed against the Soviet Union. In 1935 I took advantage of the fact that
the French Minister Laval was on a visit in Moscow, accompanied by French journalists,
in order to attempt in a conversation with one of them (I mentioned his name) to hinder,
to disrupt, the Franco-Soviet rapprochement.

Citizens Judges, I informed you about Trotsky's letter of July 1934, in which he wrote
of the necessity of isolating Stalin internationally, that is to say, of strengthening,
consolidating the capitalist encirclement around the Soviet Union. I belonged to the so-
called "Fifth Column" of which the Procurator spoke yesterday, and I have deserved all
those maledictions which are now sweeping from all corners of the Soviet land against us
sitting here in the dock, maledictions of which the speech for the prosecution delivered by
the Procurator, however severe and trenchant it was with regard to us, was perhaps but
a weak reflection.

Citizens Judges, I share the State Prosecutor's regret that the enemy of the people,
Trotsky, is not here in the dock alongside of us. The picture of our trial loses in
completeness and depth because of the fact that the ataman of our gang is not present
here. Nobody will suspect me of saying this from a selfish desire, from a base motive to
shift on to Trotsky a part of that guilt and that responsibility which I myself bear. I am
older than Trotsky both in years and in political career, and I probably have no less
political experience than Trotsky. I regret his absence here for considerations of a
political nature. I am sorry, because Trotsky's absence in this dock means that no matter
how his opportunities may be limited, his activities will continue, and this presents a
danger, even if a small one for the international labour movement. It is true that even
beyond the Mexican meridian Trotsky will not escape that complete, final, shameful
ignominy which we all are undergoing here.

This, in substance, covers everything relating to the legal, juridical aspect of my
case, and I would have even foregone my last plea had I not considered it necessary,
after what was said here by the Procurator, to try in my turn to point out the exceptional
political importance of the present trial. But it seems to me that Citizen the Procurator


dwelt on only one aspect of the case. Yes, he stressed the monstrosity of the crimes
which we committed, but I should like to turn your attention,

Citizens Judges, to the fact that the monstrosity of this is also determined by the
persons who committed these crimes. Who were those who committed espionage,
wrecking, acts of diversion, terrorism, murder? They were committed not by candidates
for criminal court records, people living in slums and cellars. The criminals sitting here
had to be taken from the house of the government. And thus the question which arises
and to which I, as one of those involved, feel the necessity to find an answer, is the
question as to how former members of the Central Committee, former members of the
government, former ambassadors have ended up here. What form of insanity brought
them to this dock of political infamy?

I think that this is all the more necessary since this question faces every one of us
and every one is searching for an explanation. I shall mention one explanation which is
widely current. After all, this is not the first trial. I remember how this question was
answered in connection with the other trials. People are satisfied with the trite and
shallow bourgeois explanation, according to which all revolutions finish by devouring their
own children. The October Revolution, they say, did not escape this general law of
historical fatalism.

It is a ridiculous, groundless analogy. Bourgeois revolutions did indeed finish -
excuse me if I cite here some theoretical arguments which, however, are of significance
for the present moment - bourgeois revolutions did indeed finish by devouring their own
children, because after they had triumphed they had to suppress their allies from among
the people, their revolutionary allies of the Left.

But the proletarian revolution, the revolution of the class which is revolutionary to the
end, when it applies what Marx called "plebeian methods of retaliation, " it applies them
not to the advanced elements, it applies them to those who stand in the way of this
revolution, or to those who, as ourselves, were with this revolution, marched along with it
for a certain time, and then stabbed it in the back.

And I, an active Trotskyite, a very close personal friend of Trotsky (the Procurator
has established that our friendship was of 34 years' duration), a man who after many had
returned (true, with duplicity) into the Party, continued for many more years to carry on an
open struggle against the Party leadership. I want to answer this question. Permit me to
share with you my thoughts, on this subject.

Citizens Judges, why indeed did it happen that I turned against my Party and in the
end sank to the status of a criminal? What did we Trotskyites represent in the Party? We
were what is known as an alien body in the living Party organism. Trotsky joined the
Bolshevik Party only a few months before the October Revolution, his Ideology took
shape in the fight against Bolshevism. I joined the Party at the end of 1917, after I had
belonged for more than a quarter of a century to the Second International, which
developed under entirely specific conditions, under the conditions of peaceful
development of capitalism, and, although I belonged to its Left wing, I was permeated by
its opportunism. If you trace back the history of other Trotskyites, if I take Radek,
Pyatakov Preobrazhensky as examples, you will find that both before the October
Revolution and after the October Revolution every one of them as guilty of a number of
serious deviations.

And it must be said that from the very first moment we Trotskyites adopted the
attitude of antagonists of the Party leadership. From the very first moment. Brest-Litovsk.
I shall not refer here to the testimony (you know it) which clarifies Trotsky's role during
the period of the Brest-Litovsk negotiations. The discussion about the trade unions. What
was that? It was a trial of forces. The accused Zelensky mentioned facts here which will
perhaps reveal that there was in general another attempt there, only, as far as
remember, all the persons whom he mentioned did not belong to the Trotskyite faction,
but to the so-called D. C. faction, the faction of Democratic Centralism. We suffered
defeat and immediately adopted an orientation toward foreign states. It is sufficient just to
remind you of the fact which was here established. We suffered defeat in 1921 in the
discussion on the trade unions. The Party in its striving to consolidate its internal unity


removed a number of Trotskyites from the Central Committee.

In 1921 Trotsky already gave his first instruction about establishing criminal
connections with the German intelligence service. In 1926 came the second instruction.
The first instruction was given to Krestinsky, the second to Rosengoltz. At the end of
1924 a recruiting aent of the intelligence service called on me; I could have thrown him
down the stairs, because he resorted to blackmail. But when he said: "Do not forget that
we obtained the agreement for you because we learnt that you were a Trotskyite, " this
touched the Trotskyite strain in me. I gave no answer at the time, I talked it over with
Trotsky. We knew the position we were in. I had been removed from the Ukraine, some
had been removed from the Central Committee, Smirnov had been removed from the
Siberian Revolutionary Committee, Radek and Pyatakov were also at loose end, and
Trotsky was saying that in the very near future, within the next few days, he would have
to quit the Revolutionary Committee, unless he wanted to be ousted from it with a bang.

I am arraying all these facts so that the picture may become clear. In 1926 we
already established connections with the foreign intelligence service. In 1927 it became
apparent that we were suffering defeat, and that it would be a defeat after which no
maneuver would succeed, because before that defeat the Zinovievite-Trotskyite
opposition stood at attention before the Party and remained in the Party while continuing
to work against the Party; we knew that at the Fifteenth Congress of the Party, at the very
latest, we would be expelled, if not all of us, at any rate Trotsky. Now we had to pass on
to work in secret. After that I left for France. In August and September I carried on
negotiations about uniting the opposition and about what we could obtain from certain
French circles in order to gain victory.

I shall not relate the history of Trotskyism, it is well known. I only want to speak about
the formation of the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites. " The formation of the "bloc of Rights
and Trotskyites " was, if we may put it that way, "a marriage of convenience, " each party
contributing its dowery. We Trotskyites contributed our connections with foreign
intelligence services, the Rights contributed their cadres, their connections with the
nationalist, Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary and other elements, their connections
with the kulaks. Of course, in addition to this fixed capital of ours, each could contribute
something else. We did not hesitate before perfidy, before deceit, treason, bribery,
murder by means of poison or the revolver instead of the traditional dagger.

I shall not speak of any ideology of this bloc. You heard here the platform of my
fellow-accused in this trial, N. I. Bukharin . This, of course, represents restoration of
capitalist relations in two leaps, through opening the sluices for free trade with abroad,
through the return of the kulaks, through the liquidation of the collective farms, through
opening the doors wide for concession capital. We calculated that we would achieve
complete the triumph of capitalism in an extremely short period of time.

Ours was, of course, a counter-revolutionary ideology. We wanted to rely for support
on the elements which had already been doomed by the Five-Year Plans, the elements
which had been swept away, cast out. Of course there is nothing surprising in the fact
that these old ruins came down with a crash and we found ourselves buried under the
debris. I think that this is not enough. In my opinion, there is no precedent of politically
minded people, people who had a definite political past, experience, and so forth,
displaying such naivete, such self-delusion, such illusions as those which held sway over
them. Yes, it was raving, real raving, the ravings of a madman to think that way, but we
did think that way. We thought that with our insignificant forces, not only without any base
of support, but with the working class against us, with the Party against us - we thought
that we could achieve some results. These were ravings, calculating on some kind of
foreign assistance. Ravings in what sense? This foreign assistance would utilize us and
then throw us overboard. From a political force, we became a tool.

Ravings in every respect. Our misfortune was that we; occupied responsible posts,
that power had made us dizzy. We were blinded by that passion, by that ambition for
power. This cannot be explained by "ideology" alone. These two factors, taken together
and acting in combination, brought us to the dock.

We considered ourselves to be people sent by providence, we consoled ourselves


with the thought that we would be summoned, that we were needed. This is what both
the Trotskyites and the Rights said. We did not notice that the entire development of the
Soviet Union swept over us, that the peaceful revolution which transformed our
countryside swept over us, that this immense growth of the cultural and political level of
the masses of the people and the creation of new cadres of politically trained people from
among the Stakhanovites swept over us. All this swept over us, unnoticed by us.

The sobering moment had to come. Perhaps I will somewhat contradict what the
Procurator said, but I am of the opinion that the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" was
doomed to disintegration. Of course, this does not absolve the bloc of the responsibility
for the crimes which were committed.

There was no political future whatever in store for us. For many of us the moment of
sobering had not arrived, because it began only after we had been arrested.

Citizens Judges, I told everything that I committed, without concealing or holding
back a single fact. Both during the Court investigation, during the preliminary
investigation, and during the trial (I think I will not be mistaken if I say so) I was not found
guilty of a single contradiction or of concealing any fact.

I think that this proves that I revealed myself before you fully and entirely, that I stand
fully and entirely exposed.

I wish to make one appeal to you, an appeal which would never have escaped my
lips if this were a different court. But I make this appeal to you because I see in your
persons the Soviet Court, the proletarian Court. It is an appeal for mercy. Yesterday the
State Prosecutor made this task in a certain sense easier for me, inasmuch as he did not
demand the supreme penalty for me. But I must say that in the gradation of the minimum
and maximum which the citizen Procurator mentioned here, there is a certain limit which
exceeds the limits of my age. I want to mention this only: that, in applying the appropriate
articles of the law to me, you may consider this circumstance and form your decision in
accordance, so to speak, with the physiological limitations of the accused who stands
before you.

Citizens Judges, from my young days I honestly, truthfully and devotedly performed
my duty as a soldier of the cause of the emancipation of labour. After this bright period a
dark period set in, the period of my criminal deeds, of treason to the fatherland, a series
of dark crimes which I briefly summed up before you today. I told you all I knew, I told
everything, I concealed nothing, I held back nothing, I repent deeply and sincerely, and I
ask you to give me the opportunity to redeem even if an insignificant part of my guilt,
even by the most modest work, no matter under what circumstances. I have finished.

THE PRESIDENT: The accused Rosengoltz may make his last plea.

On Trotsky's second wife, Natalya Sedova

http//www. acts 17 11. com/red symphony. htm
As far as Trotsky's ties to the world financial elite are concerned, they were well-known long
before the publication of The Red Symphony. In 1919 the French government received from its
informer in Washington a detailed report (1618-6 No. 912), where "Red Leon's" New York
banker-sponsors were listed. It was noted that Trotsky established his connections with the
financiers after his marriage to the daughter of banker Abram Zhivotovsky . One of the main
financiers of the Revolution Felix Warburg compromised himself to such a degree by his
connections with the Bolsheviks that it was decided to remove him from the US Federal Reserve
Board, in order to "cover the traces" of American bankers' ties to the Russian Revolution.

Dmitri Volkogonov deals with Trotsky's time in New York in 1917 on pp. 64-5 of his biography
Trotsky: the Eternal Revolutionary.

He says that Trotsky spent 2 months there giving lectures & meeting other revolutionaries.
Then he returned to Russia.

His wife (2nd, Natalya Sedova) went to New York with him on the boat. (p. 63).


At first, I thought that the Red Symphony claim was that Trotsky married a Warburg daughter
in New York in 1917. But it is Natalya Sedova who it refers to - the claim being that she was
"associated with" Abram Zhivotovsky. Trotsky married her about 1904 (whether common-law or
formal, is not known).

The surname "Zhivotovsky" does not show up in the index of Volkogonov's book. Natalya
Sedova left her husband, for Trotsky; Trotsky's children with her were given the surname
"Sedov". Natalya may have kept her first husband's name. Alternatively, she may have kept her
mother's surname, just as Trotsky's children did.

There is only one reference to Natalya in Red Symphony, and it does not say that she is the
daughter of Zhivotovsky, although that is one of the interpretations.

It reads,

Sedova. Do you know who she is? She is associated with Zhivotovsky, linked with the
bankers Warburg, partners and relatives of Jacob Schiff, i.e. of that financial group which,
as I had said, had also financed the revolution of 1905.

The claim, thus put, is worth investigating.

Rakovsky's credibility at the Moscow Trials

From internet searches, I found that after Trotsky's expulsion, Rakovsky was his chief
representative in Russia, although he always remained an independent thinker. In searches, look
for C. G. Rakovsky , Christian Ravoksky , and Khristian Rakovsky .

Later, after the rise of Hitler, Rakovsky endorsed Stalin as the lesser evil; Trotsky then broke
with him. I found this information on a Trotskyist website.

Although witnesses at the Moscow Trials would have been subject to torture, this break
between Trotsky & Rakovsky gives added credibility to Rakovsky's evidence.

The official English transcript of the Moscow Trials, dealing with Rakovsky, contains an anti-
Trotskyist line, but says nothing of the llluminati.

But Red Symphony purports to be raw data, an interrogation in French - so that Russians
present would not understand - and in which the interrogator wants Rakovsky to tell much more
than could be disclosed later at the Trial, and in official documents.

In it, Rakovsky persists in an anti-Stalin line, saying that what passes for "Communism"
under Stalin is really Bonapartism, and that he - Rakovsky - stands for Socialism instead (this
makes it sound genuine to me). But, he says, Sedova's marriage wrought a tie between Wall
Street and Trotsky. Lenin and the other Jewish Bolsheviks did not know about it, but Lenin's wife

It says that the rise of Stalin wrecked the Wall Street plan to control and use Communism, via
Trotsky. So they helped fund Hitler's rise to power - not that they controlled Hitler - partly because
he talked of attacking the USSR, and partly because War creates opportunities for the

According to Rakovsky, their message for Stalin was that he should divide Poland with Hitler.
If he did so, the West would attack Germany only. If he did not, they would let Germany attack
the USSR, without coming to its aid.

Illuminatus and the llluminoids - "Rowan Berkeley" on Red Symphony

Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:15:50 +0100

From: "Rowan Berkeley" <>

> You take an equally hard line on Makow,

> Israel Shamir and Barry Chamish ...

> Do you accept that Mordecai Vanunu is

> genuine, or does he get caught up in


> your "fakery" net too? Aren't 18 years

> in jail (10 in solitary confinement)

> enough evidence?

... I hope I have never suggested or implied that Mordecai Vanunu was some sort of
plant. As for Barry Chamish and Henry Makow , though, I stick to my view, which is that
they have a discernable agenda, namely to minimize the apparent Jewish domination of
today's global elite, and to argue by means of whatever patter suits their respective
audiences that the masters of the elite are not Jews. The range of substitute evil elites
which has been created by the llluminoid disinformational chorus is quite stunning, really,
when you add it up: Sabbatians, Frankists, Satanists, Nazis, Freemasons, British Titled
Thugs and Monarchs, the European Black Nobility , the Jesuits , the Vatican , the
Merovingians , Lizards from Zeta Reticuli ... let the inner circle be composed of anything
other than Jews, is the golden rule, and you will be allowed to rant to your heart's

In Barry's case, this is achieved by means of a highly inventive linguistic shell game,
which progressively defines Sabbatians and Frankists as bad Jews, then as non-Jews,
and finally as anti-Jews, so that the religious and ethnic elements in the definitions
become hopelessly mixed up. He learned this trick, ironically, from ultra-Orthodox Rabbis
who originally invented it to delegitimise Labour Zionists for being too preoccupied with
profane nationalism, but have now turned it round so as to delegitimise Labour Zionists
for not being preoccupied enough with profane nationalism, which therefore has to be
protected by religious Zionist fanatics of the Kachist sort. For an even more crass
example of Zionist propaganda masquerading as anti-NWO radicalism, see:

A bit of Googling has indicated that the Spanish text "Sinfonia en Rojo Major",
produced by Editorial E.R.S.A. under the well-known publisher Senor Don Mauricio
Carlavilla , etc etc, does after all exist, albeit untranslated. However, since this gentleman
is the publisher of George Knupffer's own works in Spanish translation, it is impossible to
determine who really is responsible for the book - Landowsky, Carlavilla, the 'Spanish
volunteer' ("This is the result of a painstaking translation of several copybooks found on
the body of Dr. Landowsky in a hut on the Petrograd front by a Spanish volunteer"), or
Knupffer himself.

I think I will stick with Anthony Sutton , actually, though I do enjoy the dialectical
elegance of "Red Symphony" and I am only indulging in sour grapes about it because I
have wasted money trying to get the full English version, which definitely doesn't exist
yet. There is a job here for a translator, if they can find a copy of the Spanish edition.

But Henry Makow is one of those who argue that Red Symphony is genuine, and important for
understanding the continuance of Communism post-Soviet Union, via the Feminist, Gay, and
other "minority" movements.

Makow put the "llluminati Defector" material on his website, which claims that the conspiracy
is 'Aryan' Illuminati Defector Details Pervasive Conspiracy , but later agreed with me that it writes out the
Jewish role. It's possible that the defector is genuine, but unaware that she's in the lower ranks,
and is deceived herself.

Trotsky in Norway, accused of co-operating with the Gestapo

Trotsky explicitly promoted Radical Feminism, Youth Rebellion, Communal Childrearing and the
Destruction of the Family, in his book The Revolution Betrayed.

It was written in 1936, when Trotsky was living in Norway, and was first published in 1937.
The English translation is by Max Eastman.

How do you like your Trotsky - hot or cold?

The Revolution Betrayed is hot - a fiery manifesto, and the author comes across as a fearful
warrior wreaking social havoc; one is glad that he was contained. Yet his account of his time in


Norway is cold - it reads like a traveller's diary, and I cannot help feeling sympathy for him.
Trotsky in Norway: .
In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky mentions Rakovsky as a close ally:

{p. 86} Chapter 5 THE SOVIET THERMIDOR

{p. 101} Christian Rakovsky, former president of the soviet of People's Commissars of

the Ukraine, and later Soviet Ambassador in London and Paris, sent to his friends in

1928, when already in exile, a brief inguiry into the Soviet bureaucracy, which we have

guoted above several times, for it still remains the best that has been written on this

subject. ...

It is true that Rakovsky himself, broken by the bureaucratic repressions,
subseguently repudiated his own critical judgments. But the 70-year-old Galileo too,
caught in the vise of the Holy Inguisition, found himself compelled to repudiate the
system of CopernicusNwhich did not prevent the earth from continuing to revolve around
the sun. We do not believe in the recantation of the 60-year-old Rakovsky, for he himself
has more than once made a withering analysis of such recantations.

Rakovsky features prominently in Red Symphony, as a prisoner at the Moscow Trials - which
were under way when Trotsky was in Norway (after writing The Revolution Betrayed). According
to Red Symphony, Rakovsky remained a Trotskyist, but confessed that High Finance was behind
Trotsky, through his wife Natalya Sedova, and that the powers thus promoting Trotsky, having
lost control of the Soviet Union to Stalin, would back Hitler, in order to destroy the wrong kind of
Communism Stalin was creating.

Could this be why, just before Trotsky left Norway, the Soviet Government accused him of
co-operating with the Gestapo?

Trotsky expresses his astonishment at this charge. Trotsky in Norway: .

Trotsky calls Stalin a Bonapartist

In the paragraphs below, from The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky calls Stalin a Bonapartist,
likening him to Napoleon I and Napoleon III. But he also likens him to Hitler, saying that all of
them were defeaters of the democratic forces. Trotsky never admits the covert Jewish leadership
of those "democratic" forces.

Contrary to Trotsky's position, what Napoleon I, Napoleon II, and Stalin have in common is
that they defeated Jewish and/or Freemasonic revolutionary movements from within, yet carried
the revolution forward; Hitler did the same from the outside.

Some may object over the Freemasonry claim. But Trotsky himself agreed, in his
autobiography, that the French Revolution had been launched by Freemasons or llluminiati. He
studied this topic when in Odessa prison.

The hardback edition is My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator (Thornton Butterworth
Limited, London 1930); the paperback edition is My Life (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1975).

{hbk p. 106, pbk p. 124} It was during that period that I became interested in

{hbk p. 107} In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant
policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the llluminati, who were the forerunners of the
revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their
members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern
Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court
of Catherine the Great it was a masguerade reflecting the {pbk p. 125} aristocratic and
bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason
Empress. ...

{hbk p. 108, pbk p. 126} I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study


of Marxian economics. ... The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these
hypotheses. ... I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development.

{Stalin resembles Napoleon 1}


{p. 197} Napoleon I, after radically abandoning the traditions of Jacobinism, donning the
crown, and restoring the Catholic cult, remained nevertheless an object of hatred to the
whole of ruling semi-feudal Europe, because he continued to defend the new property
system created by the revolution. Until the monopoly of foreign trade is broken and the
rights of capital restored, the Soviet Union, in spite of all the services of its ruling stratum,
remains in the eyes of the bourgeoisie of the whole world an irreconcilable enemy, and
German National Socialism a friend, if not today, at least of tomorrow.

{Stalin also resembles Napoleon III}

Chapter 11


Bonapartism as a Regime of Crisis ...

{p. 277} Caesarism, or its bourgeois form, Bonapartism, enters the scene in those
moments of history when the sharp struggle of two camps raises the state power, so to
speak, above the nation, and guarantees it, in appearance, a complete independence of
classes in reality, only the freedom necessary for a defense of the privileged. The Stalin
{p. 278} regime, rising above a politically atomized society, resting upon a police and
officers' corps, and allowing of no control whatever, is obviously a variation of
Bonapartism - a Bonapartism of a new type not before seen in history.

Caesarism arose upon the basis of a slave society shaken by inward strife.
Bonapartism is one of the political weapons of the capitalist regime in its critical period.
Stalinism is a variety of the same system, but upon the basis of a workers' state torn by
the antagonism between an organized and armed Soviet aristocracy and the unarmed
toiling masses.

As history testifies, Bonapartism gets along admirably with a universal, and even a
secret, ballot. The democratic ritual of Bonapartism is the plebiscite. From time to time,
the question is presented to the citizens: for or against the leader? And the voter feels the
barrel of a revolver between his shoulders. Since the time of Napoleon III, who now
seems a provincial dilettante, this technique has received an extraordinary development.
The new Soviet constitution which establishes Bonapartism on a plebiscite basis is the
veritable crown of the system.

{Stalin resembles Hitler}

In the last analysis, Soviet Bonapartism owes its birth to the belatedness of the world
revolution. But in the capitalist countries the same cause gave rise to fascism. We thus
arrive at the conclusion, unexpected at first glance, but in reality inevitable, that the
crushing of Soviet democracy by an all-powerful bureaucracy and the extermination of
bourgeois democracy by fascism were produced by one and the same cause: the
dilatoriness of the world proletariat in solving the problems set for it by history. Stalinism
and fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical
phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious
revolutionary movement in Europe would im-

{p. 279} mediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism. In turning its back to
the international revolution, the Stalinist bureaucracy was, from its own point of view,
right. It was merely obeying the voice of self-preservation.


A Dating Anomaly

Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:57:34 -0400 From:

... As for the alleged "Rakovsky interview" which appears in "Red Symphony," that, at least in its

present form, is clearly a fake. The World Bank was formed out of the Bretton Woods conference

of 1944. Christian Rakovsky himself died in 1941 and his trial occurred in 1938. There is no way

that the real Rakovsky could have made a comment such as '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


This comment was obviously written as bait for a paleo-conservative audience of the 1950s,
many of whom liked to charge that the World Bank and any other internationally functioning
organizations were 'Communist.' Whether that means that the actual script was written by a
paleo-conservative of the 1950s or by someone else with an altogether different motive, who
really knows? But it certainly wouldn't have been the authentic Rakovsky making such a
comment about the World Bank 6 years before the Bretton Woods conference.

Patrick S. McNally

Red Symphony remains intriguing because of its advocacy of Convergence as a policy. This
developed in detail many years later. Gorbachev, for example, was following that path.

Now that Stalinism has completely fallen, other variants of Communism - Trotskyist, New
Left, the Frankfurt School, Postmodernism, George Soros & Maurice Strong's Green/"New Age"
one - are making a comeback. They are all, broadly, in Trotsky's camp.

The Trots, even though "for the poor against the rich", are even more for "unifying the world".
Under themselves, of course. That's why they published a book in favour of Free Trade.

Convergence between Communism and Capitalism was supported by H. G. Wells and by
David Ben Gurion, when he predicted World Government by 1987, as well as by Gorbachev - via
his talk of a single "World Civilization"

In each case, they wanted to get rid of Stalinism in the USSR, and "Anti-Semitism" in the

Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, invited in 1962 to predict what the world would
be like in 25 years' time, wrote in LOOK magazine, Jan. 16, 1962:

The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing
of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more
freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a
gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence
of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may
transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and
Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and
democratic regime.

With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other
continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an
international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more
wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of
the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of
the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated
continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every
person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural
increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach
100 years.

Top Bottom