Truly a brilliant article that is both eye opening and sobering, lending a fresh perspective on the historical background of current situation in the Ukraine and the complex British-Russian relationship. Rarely have I read an essay that has opened my mind to such an extent regarding modern history. Many thanks for this work.
An excellent, comprehensive and well-sourced essay covering this period in history. I must say that I was unaware of much of what is disclosed here, especially of the role that Great Britain played in all of this. Thank you.
Where to begin....this is a huge white wash of the role of the Rothschilds and the jewish banking elites, in all the events described. It focuses on the strategic events and not the money and motivations behind the scenes. I recommend the book 'A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind' by Stephen Mitford Goodson, to understand the money power behind the world events described. An audio version is available on Bitchute.
Focusing on the Jewish banking elites and ignioring the Christians is disgustingly racist. In fact, Poe's work reveals the Brits were the actual string pullers and puppet masters. Perfidious Albion is where it all started.
First, Warburg and Schiff were the main banking interests in America. Second, the author ignores the profoundly disproportionate role of ethnic Jews in Bolshevik leadership, the NKVD, etc. The History of Central Banking is a great book. So is Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together, of which an uncensored version is difficult to find in PDF online. It's revealing to say the least.
Essentially if you follow your narrative, the British aimed to overthrow itself.
If you conclude Semitic's had a major role, it seems you're basically levying the same accusation but in reverse. In hindsight it seems this did not go as planned: whatever coordination or pretext for aggressions is besides the point. Because the results were not in the interests of the British. Karl Marx and his ilk had the hatred for the Tsar's. It was not the British. I would instead suggest it was Marx, using the British government, to further his own plans.
This article was very interesting for historical details, and for the glaring omissions of Jewish involvement and an almost apologetic version of Marx. Also omitted was any mention of the Catholic Church. Why? Are we to believe that only the British are capable of manipulating the rest of the world yet never mentioning who was financing all of those wars?
Did the author even consider that Marx could have married into aristocracy as a spy?
I would like the author to tell us why the 2012 Olympics in Briton used a logo that looked more like “ZION” than “2012”, and why their opening ceremony had a sinister quality that ended up seemingly an omen to the past few years? Even the girl in pigtails looked curiously like Greta. And curiously, why was this show was launched in Great Britain? To make the Brits look creepy?
Who controls the MSM, banking and finance, US Government, Big PHARMa, the porn industry, big corporations, etc? Why does Congress have to seek approval from Israel for so many things? Cui bono?
The article was so carefully written to ignore Jewish involvement, one could imagine that this writer is an agent of the Rothschilds.
You bring up RC org, but then turn around and attack Jews. Vatican indeed financed commie revolution in Russia, but made it look like "it's the Jews". Until you understand perfidy of popish persons and his stormtroopers, the Jesuits, you will forever be stuck in blaming "the Jews", even though they're just patsies firmly controlled by the Vatican state.
Warburg and Schiff were major financial backers of the Bolsheviks, who were profoundly disproportionately ethnic Jews; as were Bolshevik leadership and NKVD. Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together is quite clear on this and it's the reason you can't find it anywhere.
… Who controls the MSM, banking and finance, US Government, Big PHARMa, the porn industry, big corporations, etc? Why does Congress have to seek approval from Israel for so many things? Cui bono?
An amazing interpretation of history but, unfortunately, that is all it is.
Constantly blaming 'the British' indicates an ignorance of the influence of the City of London based Venetian Black Nobility that is so astonishing that it must be contrived deliberately to conceal the truth. How sad.
Further - Communism originated in Paraguay under the Jesuits and was perfected slowly for 200 years before being taught to Jesuit educated Marx. Needless to say the Jesuits are also under the influence of the Venetian Black Nobility to this day.
Came here to bring up the reductions, glad you beat me to it. For as good as Chung and Matt are I really question some of their interpretations. I don’t wanna be too swift in saying they’re acting as a limited hangout but… I know they know about the Jesuits and black nobility so their attempts to constantly steer attention back towards the Anglo Empire (which is just a political body of the aforementioned) is pretty suspect. there’s no way they don’t know about the reductions or the Jesuit influence on Marx. So that’s kind of shady. I’ve also heard them talk really optimistically about the horrific communist regimes of the East. I guess I would just caution readers to use discernment with all sources, no matter how much truth they put out initially.
The Venetian oligarchy transpanted it's system to England between 1530 and 1714 according to several articles by former associates of Lyndon Larouche.. Several English members of the nobility embraced the venetian thinking and this also had an impact on how to create an empire inspired by the venetians.
City of London could never retain it's special status without this being what the british elites desire.
City of London's special role is a feature, not a liability for an empire aspiring to hegemonic power.
A hegemonic power doesnt want financiers to be international.
Ie to get along with a multipolar context.
All talk of international financiers by Churchill is deliberately misleading.
“Some call it Communism; I call it Judaism.” — Pro-Communist, “Red Rabbi” Stephen Wise, advisor to Presidents Wilson and F.D.R., when asked in 1935 by a reporter to comment on Communism. Wise, a staunch Jewish supremacist, was also known as a “Father of Zionism” for his help in securing the Zionist Balfour Declaration, thus another representation of how Communism (just like neoconservatism) originated as a Trojan Horse for Jewish supremacism in America !!!
.
“The Jewish serpent will show its hydra’s heads everywhere, blocking the way to a relaxation of international tensions. We Jews will not allow peace in the world, however hard statesmen and peace advocates try to bring it about.”
— London Jewish Chronicle, March 3, 1939
.
“Judaism and Communism are one and the same.” ~ HILARY COTTER, author of Cardinal Minszenty, The Truth About His Real “Crime,” page 6
.
“Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 Russia.” ~ H.H. BEAMISH, N.Y. speech, 1937 (“The Secret Force” by Maurice Pinay) !!!
.
“The Jew is an inborn communist”! Otto Weininger, a Jew, Sex & Character, pp 311 !
.
“Zionism is Judaism, and Judaism is unthinkable without Zionism.” (Harper’s Encyclopedia of United States History, Vol. X, “Zionists”).
.
“Some call it Marxism (Communism), I call it Judaism.” – Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise – The American Bulletin, May 5, 1935. (Judaism is nothing but disguised, camouflaged Communism, therefore, Zionism is nothing but Communism) !!!
.
“Bolshevism and Communism, were Jewish proposed, Jewish financed, Jewish led and Jewish operated. The most muderous regime this planet has ever known, was Jewish through & through.” ~ (“The Secret Force” by Maurice Pinay) !!!
.
Theodore Herzl, one of the Jewish founders of Zionism, on the Judeo-fascist question:
“The Jews control the world, in our hands lies the fate of governments and nations. The Jews set governments one against the other. When the Jews play, the nations and the rulers dance. One way or the other, the Jewish Race gets rich.”
The conflict of Judaism with Christianity –
.
Jewish supremacist rabbi, Harry Waton, confessed that not only is Communism Jewish, but that it is simply a mechanism for Jewish world dominion and the subjugation of all non-Jews — a fulfillment of the megalomaniacal messianic vision of the Torah and the Talmud. In his 1939 book, “A Program for The Jews and An Answer To All Anti-Semites: A Program for Humanity”, the racist rabbi wrote:
.
“It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews. The Jews should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth; we must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within us,” (p. 148) “Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews,” (p. 99) “Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race.” (p. 100) [pdf 2012 Feb] The Jew World Order Unmasked
.
Matthew 20:27 Context
.
24And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. 29And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. 30And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
.
The "Jews" were a mixture of Canaanites, Edomites (Herod was an Edomite) and others, but Christ was a pure blood of the tribe of Judah. The inscription written over Him meant "This is the King of the tribe of Judah". Luke 23:38 Moultons Greek Dictionary.
.
Spitting Superstitions
Spitting, according to Pliny, was superstitiously observed in averting witchcraft and in giving a shrewder blow to an enemy.
‘……………Spitting on Palestinians is now de rigueur. Business as usual. Sadism on a grand scale. Whence the motivation? And the collective psychological reward? The Jewish God is a militant deity………….”
Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head. And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified." Mark 15:16-20 NKJV "Then the soldiers led Him away into the hall called Praetorium, and they called together the whole garrison. And they clothed Him with purple; and they twisted a crown of thorns, put ...
Matthew 27:30-31
30 They spat on Jesus. Then they took his ·stick [reed; staff] and began to beat him on the head. 31 After they ·finished [had mocked him], the soldiers took off the robe and put his own clothes on him again. Then they led him away to be crucified.
I first listened to your recent conversation with Tom Luongo, and then read this article. This historical view was reflected in Hidden History by Docherty and MacGregor, and also Antony Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Also, the historians in the LaRouche camp, like Matt Ehret and Anton Chaitkin have clued me into the British role in the French Revolution and other aspects of British malfeasance. I am very glad to have discovered your work which complements these others very well.
Hi Richard, Great to discover you on Substack. I have been a fan of your work for some time and been busy reading my way through your insightful work. Particularly about how the western (fascist) capitalists created communism. Do you have any essays on the links of the Anglo-American empire to the creation of communism in China? And any insights into what they were trying to achieve? From where I sit it looks like they used the CCP to take down the old power structure, and to utterly impoverish the people and set the stage for Henry Kissinger to open China up and flood it with foreign capital, technology and skills to raise China up and suck out the wealth from the western world, and divert it to both China, and into the bank accounts of the World Economic Forum's cartels corporations in tax havens, in order to wage economic and social warfare on the world by using their neo-monarchies the global institutions and swamp around the UN. The Roman Empires global fascists are at it again.
There are definitely some interesting points raised in this article especially about the strange outcome of the Russian civil war and entire the Gallipoli affair - as well as Marx’s ties to the British Establishment. But I’m afraid that you do not make a persuasive case for Britain being behind the SOVIET revolution of October 1917 and completely ignore all of the evidence for Jewish overrepresentation (at the very least) in this movement.
To start with I don’t think that the article makes it sufficiently clear that there were TWO separate revolutions in 1917- one in February that put the ‘Provisional’ government’ in power and one in October which replaced it with Lenin’s Bolsheviks. The geopolitical influence of Britain behind the first does, indeed, seem clear but is tenuous, at best, for the second. Yet your article gives the impression these were one single event. For example it suggests that Trotsky might have been a British agent and then suggests that this was the reason that he repudiated Russia’s prior treaties and territorial claims (as part of the Brest-Litovsk agreement with the Germans).
But the revolution that placed Trotsky in power wasn’t the February one backed by Britain but the October one which was backed by the germans NOT the British. In fact the British clearly had a geopolitical interest in keeping the Provisional Government or at least something like it in power as the Bolsheviks promised to withdraw Russia from the war completely, removing the need for Germany to fight on two fronts and potentially risking total British defeat in WW1 - which a British controlled government would certainly never have done.
The other problem with the argument is that whilst highlighting possible British support for the network of freemasons and liberals who led the FIRST revolution in (who, as I said, were not at all the same as Bolsheviks and actually fought against them in many cases) it completely ignores the PROVEN involvement of many Jews in the latter.
To name just a few - Maxim Litvinov (ambassador minister of foreign affairs), Lev Kamenev (key ally of Stalin), Zioniviev (key ally of Stalin, advocate of mass terror), Genrikh Yagoda (head of secret police), Moisei Uritsky (head of secret police), Lazar Kaganovich (key architect of Ukrainian famine), Naftaly Frenkel (architect, with Yagoda, of the Gulag Slave Labour prison system), Jakov Sverdlov (influential early Bolshevik who formulated policy of terror against peasants before his death) and many, many others…
(Of course Stalin later seemed to ‘turn on’ many of these people but, in the period of Lenin’s rule and before Stalin had assumed total power they preached and executed mass terror against the Russian population without any apparent external pressure to do so).
Besides this when subsequent revolutions break out on the ’Soviet’ model - such as that of Bela Kuhn in Hungary - we find Jewish individuals once more to be massively overrepresented in the key organs of power, especially in the hated security services that were responsible for the systematic murder of anyone who posed a threat to them (and specifically the old, Christian elite i.e teachers, priests, patriotic and liberal intelligentsia etc) which is precisely the same thing we find in the Soviet government itself during this period (and was a major part of the reason there was such a backlash against the Jewish community across Europe in the years that followed). These are historical facts, even if they have subsequently become controversial.
Now I certainly think that Britain’s (and even more so Germany’s) irresponsible geopolitical brinksmanship and meddling played a major role in the overall deterioration of Russia and the rise to power of Lenin. I also agree that certain groups in the British ruling class and intelligentsia almost certainly desired the kind of nihilistic, slave-labour regime that arose in Russia and used their influence to back it internationally afterwards - as did many ‘progressive’ Americans as well, including President Roosevelt himself.
But I’m afraid that the evidence you have provided does not at all prove that Britain was uniquely or even largely responsible for the rise of Communism in Russia nor that the Jewish community (or at the very least a radical section of it) was a mere scapegoat that took no active part in the Bolshevik conspiracy and later dictatorship. On the other hand you have left out a lot of other evidence that suggests that a disproportionate number of Jewish individuals willing took part in both the revolution itself and the mass terror that followed.
Excellent comment, Charlie. I am glad someone knows their history around here. After hunting down a hard to find, uncensored, pdf of Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together, I was shocked at how over-represented ethnic Jews were in running the NKVD and Gulag system.
It ought to occur to those studying this context that the overrepresentation of jews may simply have been preplanned and arranged by the same british elite circles.
What about Bnai Brith (Jewish freemason order) or the undeniable power of Jewish bankers like the Rotschilds, Jacob Schiff etc. I'm not saying that there weren't alliance between these various groups but to claim that there was no 'mysterious jewish power' is simply false. (Also why do you think freemasonic ritual is literally centred around rebuilding Solomon's temple and is littered with Hebrew terms, Knight Kadosh etc, and also pushed for acceptance of Jewish members is this also just an elaborate ruse to throw people of the 'real' culprits?)
Palmerston was behind everything with modern zionism but freemasonry, the maltese order, cabbalism and Talmud was already introduced to England by the venetians in the 1500s.
There has been a symbiosis meaning there was no separate jewish power.
It is Churchill who correctly called it mysterious because it would have been a mystery if they were free to use the money they were handling on behalf of the empire.
Palmerston was secretely the grand patriarch.
So said the catholics. George F Dillon wrote that Palmerstons associate Mazzini murdered Palmerstons italian predecessor.
When I researched it I found that Palmerstons subordinate masons on the continent wrote letters to Palmerstons italian predecessor for over ten years after his death!
One of those masons Piccolo Tigre said in 1846 as I try to interpret his obscure words, that he wouldnt write more letters if he didnt get paid.
Those ten years were from 1837 and Palmerston organised zionism between 1843-1860 including B'nai B'rit.
Thus there are signs that Britain hided that they controlled the masonic networks just when modern zionism emerged.
And many writers instead believed that freemasonry was controlled by the jews.
Benjamin Disraeli encouraged that view but maybe he believed it and wasnt among the enlightened.
Palmerstons anglosaxon relative Shaftesbury, a Christian Zionist or British Israelite is known to have talked in 1839 of Palestine as a land without people for a people without land.
And Shaftesbury wasnt subservient to the jews.
He called them a darkhearted and stiffnecked people
When I corresponded with a blogger it ocurred to me while writing what Jack Ripper in 1888 was all about.
Officially there were various versions involving a relative of the prince of Wales Edward.
But the bodies of the prostitutes, they refer to as the canonical five showed signs of a masonic murder ritual.
It must have been intended as a warning to high masons.
And the investigator Macnaghten who got involved the year after insisted that Jack Ripper murdered precisely five despite there being several other murder victims in that period.
I guessed that it was meant to be associated with the five canonical branches of the house of Rothschild.
Warning the bankers not to collaborate with Germany and other among Britains rivals.
2 years later Hannah Rothschild 39 years old died in 1890, officially from typhoid fever but the doctor explained that she suffered from a kidney ailment that would have killed her within two years anyway.
Maybe she had been slowly poisoned.
That might have caused the kidney illness.
Her british husband Lord Archibald Roseberry inherited 100M pounds=$500M
He became prime minister later.
Another Rothschild by birth inherited the same sum and both belonged to Cecil Rhodes environment.
The Jack Ripper investigation was deliberately bungled by people related to Darby's Plymouth Brethren and directly involved in the archeological excavations in Palestine.
So Jack Ripper looks like it has a connection to Britains christian zionists.
In 1907 according to a document previously available on the web Edward VII threatened the Rothschilds. It was most certainly about having fruitful contacts with Britains rivals.
And unlike before 1871 when Britain needed Bismarck to attack France, Germany was now the strongest rival. So unlike in 1858 when Bismarck collaborated with the Rothschilds through a middleman, Germany and Russia were off limits.
Edward VII who earlier had Palmerston as his mentor was also the worlds leading freemason.
Masonic bankers are oathbound to the leader and serious disobedience means death.
Thus before the establishment of the FED there was a crisis for the bankers.
In the period between that time and 1915 the situation was stabilised since from then on it was possible to accomodate Britain's rules(based order)
Before the FED it would have been impossible.
Both Germany and Russia offered more promising business opportunities.
Both for the Rothschilds and the Rockefeller and yet in 1907 the Rothschilds divested from Russia.
Britains wellcome laboratories were established and the Rockefellers started their modern medicine projects, later involving medical experiments on military guinea pigs believed to have lead to the pandemic known as the spanish flu.
Seems to me they were desperate to gain fresh profits (after having left the Russian economy?)
Compare with the Covid drama.
It also came when the competition became hard to handle for the angloamaerican empire and just like before win-win was off -limits?
On the other hand both Webster Tarpley around 2015 and our host Richard Poe have claimed that Britain has been collaborating with China to weaken the US.
So perhaps the situation is at least slightly different now?
The source for the information about Shaftesbury's role in 1839 was Donald Wagner's Christian Zionist Primer part 1 from 2002.
In 2022 Wagner confirmed that he said the christian zionist's were behind that early phase but this time said "When I did my earlier research and writing, I figured that all these early speakers who were calling for support for the Jews and a homeland were Christian Zionists. I’ve decided to change that. So now I would say that these early forerunners—like John Nelson Darby, Lord Shaftesbury and many others—they are precursors because their movements were religious on behalf of the Jews calling for some kind of a homeland. A solution. But they did not have a political plan until about 1888."
According to Diana Muir in "The slogan that wasn't"
concerning the phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land”
The earliest published use of the phrase appears to have been by Church of Scotland clergyman Alexander Keith in his 1843 book, The Land of Israel According to the Covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
Keith was aware that the Holy Land was populated because he had travelled to Palestine in 1839 on behalf of the Church of Scotland and returned five years later.
In July 1853, British statesman and social reformer Lord Shaftesbury wrote to Foreign Minister George Hamilton Gordon, Lord Palmerston, that Greater Syria was “a country without a nation” in need of “a nation without a country… Is there such a thing? To be sure there is: the ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews!”
If you want to know who was actually behind the Russian revolution read Anthony C. Sutton’s work. He covers the political and funding side of the operation but misses the Jesuit/Vatican side of the same coin. That said, of course the Juden played a part, the “court Jews” (such as the Rothschild Vatican banks and papal knights) are always used as middle management in these operations. This serves several purposes a main one being plausible deniability and an easy scapegoat when people start “noticing”. It’s actually brilliant and the main reason Rome has managed to retain control over the world despite the changing of empires and shifting sands of culture. The Vatican + court Jew axis will create the final global empire. It’s hinted to in prophecy in Daniel’s vision of gentile world empire. The final phase (kingdom of antichrist) being iron (rome) mixed with clay (Jerusalem).
Yes the Vatican was involved but the Venetian oligarchy in parallell with their migration to northern Europe, also managed to launch both the Jesuits and the Calvinists whose leading characters Ignatius Loyola and John Calvin got their instructions in Venice and Genua before going on their missions in Rome and Geneva.
Thus the same oligarchy that installed itself in England was at thar time already infiltrating the Vatican.
I dont know everything about this but the above mentioned details are ALWAYS avoided by those who bring up the Vatican as a culprit.
One more thing: Donald Phao apparently instructed by Lyndon Larouche mentions that Christopher Marlowe in connection with his play The Jew of Malta told the audience that the evil Jew Barrabas had a higher power above him, the Knights of Malta, who in the play pretended to be critical of the evil Barabbas but secretly was his superior.
Venice funded the Knights of Malta at the time and introduced them to Britain along with introducing the Kabbala, Talmud and Freemasonry to the english elites.
The late Peter Farey who belonged to a group of people who diligently researched and discussed the Marlowian authorship theory of William Shakespeare.
Farey about 2 decades ago attemped to decode the text on the purported grave of Shakespeare and in my view succeeded in proving that Marlowe had left a message in code on the grave indicating it was Marlowe not any Shakespeare from Stratford.
Cynthia Morgan belonged to that mentioned environment where that debate was going on.
She has recently summarised that debate in a book.
Christopher Marlowe:
Every word doth almost tell my name
27 essays from the Marlowe Studies
Why this matters is that Marlowe officially was murdered in a pub in 1593 while Shakespeares works by the several researchers and many respected people are believed to have been Marlowe's using the name Shakespeare. The reason would be that he had not been murdered, as was officially maintained but had fallen from grace for blasphemy and was sent into exile abroad with the condition that he would be assumed dead and was not allowed to ever contest that.
Apparently he was exiled in Spain.
His foe, the archbishop Whitgift, died in 1604, at the time when Shakespeares works began to appear, a suitable time for Marlowe to return under a new name.
I havent heard anybody suggest that his outing of the Knights of Malta as a higher power above the money lenders would have been the reason for his exile if it happened.
But, if so, one would expect the Anglo-venetian elites to want to hide that reason and to present some other convenient excuse. Just in case.
I don’t deny the black nobility, my assessment is that they are royal families within the Vatican system. After all most of the popes came from those families during the dark ages. These days I think they are less involved in direct governance of the situation but are still very powerful nevertheless. I assume that their retreat to the background is likely because the power core of the Vatican has serious leverage over them in one way or another. You’re correct that many of the Calvinists were just “reformed Catholicism” and were still bloody murderers killing those they deemed heretics in places like Geneva. A lot of their symbology gives them away, specifically that of the Huguenots that fled into Africa (iirc). I personally believe Shakespeare was actually the frontman, Rosicrucian/Freemason Francis Bacon and that all the works were written by a Jesuit collective for the purpose of memetic cultural warfare (often called Jesuit theater). On that point “Eric777” from YT covers it (tangentially) in his video about the Jesuit roots of freemasonry.
The point I like to make is that I dont buy the idea that the Vatican is a separate power.
They dont have any magic spell by themselves to make Italy act against it's own interests. They are a subbranch, not the trunk.
...
If it was it wouldnt make sense that it let Italy be subjected to what happened in WWI.
...
Germany offered Italy everything they were open about demanding as conditions if they stayed out of the war.
Yet Italy entered the war and had something like 600 thousand KIAs and totally had 1.7M casualties.
This was because the British promised them part of Tyrolia. That was not official and Germany probably didnt know.
...
After the war Britain didnt hold the promise and maybe never intended to.
So all the misery did not provide any advantages.
...
And that isnt an isolated detail in the interaction between the anglosaxons and the catholics.
...
The catholics a part from their anglosaxon branch have consistently lost for many centuries.
...
And the anglosaxons have many jesuits and catholic educational centers.
In that manner the anglosaxons are able to put on a mask of being under Vatican control just like they pretend today to be under their evil stooge Netanyahu's control.
Mearsheimer is an official figure who supports that so it is important for the establishment to maintain appearances.
That is, in my view, an obvious parallell to Richard Poe's book.
...
My impression is that serious students of history (not court historians ie most of the ones who gain a wide following) tend to understand how much wrongdoing was caused by the anglosaxons that they are, when they desire to make the anglosaxons look better, desperate to find scapegoats.
...
The general technique is to recruite a group that isnt strong enough to take charge and give that group some freedom to act. The next step is to blame that group for being a separate power.
...
This is examplified by the present work by Richard Poe but since the anglosaxons who discuss the Vatican, mostly without mentioning how it was originally infiltrated by the same oligarchy that obtained its most powerful center of inertia in the UK and US.
...
It makes perfect sense that the oligarchy would act in this manner if one accepts that the independent power is its branch in the US/UK but the other branches having been weakened to be subsidiaries always acting in concert.
...
The collaboration is invisible outside the secret societies.
And the oligarchy being united, always acts symbiotically when important matters are at play. Like economical decisions.
...
Once the Habsburgs were a strong actor but the anglosaxons beat Spain and Holland and took over.
And since it appears England was already a node in the ancient oligarchy after 1066 there are things that haven't been wellcovered.
...
At least not that I know of.
...
I learnt from the americans4innovation that the Seljuc Turks in 1055 made the Babylonians flee and it appears that was the rationale for the oligarchy's recruiting of the varangians for attacking England to establish themselves there
...
And the moon landings were simulated in a large Hangar in Bedfordshire in Britain and the instructions to Stanley Kubrick were regularly handed over inside the NATO HQ Northwood in London!
...
Not one nation is officially contesting the official story.
...
Mussolini was sponsored by Britain in 1917 while he obviously went through a huge change in 1914 turning prowar after having until then been a poor socialist. He did notice that some revolutionaries were suspiciously wellfunded always seemingly having resources to spend so he may have thougt of a career change to be able to benefit.
The following extract from Larouchepub illustrates how Venice was a helper of the British empire's machinations.
"It was in the setting of the Russo-Japanese War, that Venetian interests orchestrated the Russian Revolution of 1905. The exemplary figure of that operation was Alexander Helphand (Parvus). Parvus, who controlled Trotsky in 1905, and many others, including the Bolshevik leaders Radek, Bukharin, Rakovsky, and so forth, in 1917, was the property of the leading Venetian political figure of that period, Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata. This was the Misurata who created the Venetian colony known as Libya from three wasted portions of Africa, which is de facto a Venetian colony down to the present day under Colonel Qaddafi. This was the same Volpi di Misurata who later brought Benito Mussolini to power, and acted as the fascist government’s finance minister, pioneering in the policies implemented by Nazi Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht. Volpi di Misurata coordinated the Balkan wars leading into World War I, in which his agent Parvus performed a key, leading role."
I assume that those proanglosaxon writers who go on a bout the Vatican as a separate power will immediatelt interpret this extract as more evidence for their untenable scapegoat-theisis.
Great Britain (and until 1910 Edward VII, the official leader of world Freemasonry) was the instigator of WWI. The following events were jsu as much the work of the British. The only party whose elites had much to gain from all the evil events was Great Britain.
America was invaded by the British elites agents of influence and hasn't acted like an independent party ever since.
We would probably just disagree as the mechanics of the system then. The anglos have been completely under Vatican/jesuit/black noble control for a very long time specially via freemasonry, and the knights Malta. All the dictators of the last century were set up by the Vatican (the book behind the dictators shows this well iirc). Obviously the anglo political arm funded most of that situation, Anthony C Sutton shows that well in his books, but they were all knights of Malta, Columbus, and Freemasons working for the same central power base. Same thing happened in Vietnam, affectionately referred to as Spelly’s war after Cardinal Francis Spellman. I agree with your assertion that Italy wouldn’t have signed on to WW2 if they knew the part they would play and I think that’s a valid point. I would suggest that the outcomes of the wars are not decided prior to initiation but rather that they play both sides and pull the plug when whatever social engineering and global reordering goals have been met and they cut the loss on the other side. All the assets stay firmly in their hands anyway, this can be seen with Germany in the post war where the only losers were the German people and culture. As far as Poe goes, I haven’t researched him too far but I am not quick to trust him as he makes the anglos out to be the creators of communism which is patently false, it was created and perfected in the Jesuit reductions of South America and then given to Marx as an export model when he was trained by them in the Anglosphere. It was then funded by the aforementioned powers, and sent into Russia with heavy help from the Jesuits, all the industry was rebuilt by knights and their corporate America assets (and lend lease) then it was all pinned on “the Jews”. I would have to look more into what Poe teaches but if his thesis is really that the British created communism, that’s pretty easy to disprove with a look into the history of the reductions in Paraguay.
You better read Poe's book before you become judgemental and call it patently false. He has been rather cautious about speculating and has provided weighty arguments since it appears he is conscious about how proffesional historians tend to react.
But a great deal of Larouche and associates publications add a lot of context where Britain's vast conspiracies related to the whole spectrum of politics shows how the British through their secret masonic networks was on all sides from right to left radicalism.
That obliterates any belief in Britain being anything closely related to their official statements.
Nothing but deception and perception management!
And what you mention doesnt say anything about what direction the dependence goes. It just functions as that clever pereception management. The anglosaxons being Knights Jesuites and so forth has all along been a way to INFILTRATE the other way. To acquire the superficial traits to employ the symbiotic partners symbols.
What does tell you about that relation is how the anglosaxons took over the world while the catholics were pushed backwards to less power. Anglosaxons dont provide any answer to why this is so when they claim the Vatican could control anything.
Same thing with Netanyahu controlling the US.
It is an anglosaxon way to manage our perceptions
And Paraguay. It was the result of the British empires struggle to prevent independent nation states following the example of the american system of political economy from the earler phase of the republic. France Germany Russia and China all embraced this system at one point. At different times. But the commonality is that for all of them Britain manipulated the world to war for eliminating such republican forces.
Lord Shelburne was a jesuit. He organised the French revolutionaries.
Not a chance he was working under the Vatican.
The revolution made the catholic church loose 6% of its possessions to private owners.
Just another example of the catrholics being pushed backwards.
Cecil Rhodes wanted to organise his angloamericans after a Jesuit model. Not a chance the British intended to become second to anybody.
I'm bookmarking to finish it. Very lengthy but it's a fascinating story. So the question then becomes "Who controls British intelligence?" doesn't it? The Rothschild's would be my bet given that Victor served in the intelligence service (I'm sure it was just love of king and country, LOL).
It is interesting watching the Jews get used as a shield (shout anti-semite at everyone who questions us/you) and thrown under the bus by the Zionists (The old shall have to suffer their fate. We don't need them for the Palestine project). You would hope they would catch on and refuse to go along. Sadly I'm afraid that most Jews still are not aware of the danger their own leaders have put them in:
very informative, deep-dive article, much appreciated. However, questions remain: Churchill's "the Jews did it" sounds disingenuous at best and doesn't explain the involvement of the British (Buchanan; SIS) with the initial uprising (culminating in the Tsar's abdication, etc) and the subsequent, but interwoven violence of the Revolution-proper. It may be that many Bolshevik leaders, from Lenin all the way to Trotski were Jewish, but how did they get to that position? why, how and by whom were they financed? True, British geo-political, colonial strategies ("Empire") needed a scapegoat and in that respect "the Jews" were useful; Churchill's eloquence and the timely publication of the Elders of Zion-papers served to lubricate this further.
Marx' apparent closeness to the anti-bourgeois ideas of Urquhart and the Young Englanders is another intriguing detail; however, isn't the middle-class, according to communist dogma, an enemy of the proletariat? Marx himself came from a prosperous Jewish family in Holland (later: Trier, Germany) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henriette_Pressburg and was related (through his great-grandfather) to the Rothschild family - https://wideawakegentile.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/cousin-karl-the-blood-ties-between-karl-marx-and-the-rothschilds/ The world's a stage and we're in the audience, watching the actors play their role(s), wondering who's in the wings, directing it.
Your work is very important, thank you. But you need to edit the many repetitions and eliminate them. I have done this myself, so I understand, but eliminating those will make your message more powerful.
Truly a brilliant article that is both eye opening and sobering, lending a fresh perspective on the historical background of current situation in the Ukraine and the complex British-Russian relationship. Rarely have I read an essay that has opened my mind to such an extent regarding modern history. Many thanks for this work.
An excellent, comprehensive and well-sourced essay covering this period in history. I must say that I was unaware of much of what is disclosed here, especially of the role that Great Britain played in all of this. Thank you.
Where to begin....this is a huge white wash of the role of the Rothschilds and the jewish banking elites, in all the events described. It focuses on the strategic events and not the money and motivations behind the scenes. I recommend the book 'A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind' by Stephen Mitford Goodson, to understand the money power behind the world events described. An audio version is available on Bitchute.
Focusing on the Jewish banking elites and ignioring the Christians is disgustingly racist. In fact, Poe's work reveals the Brits were the actual string pullers and puppet masters. Perfidious Albion is where it all started.
First, Warburg and Schiff were the main banking interests in America. Second, the author ignores the profoundly disproportionate role of ethnic Jews in Bolshevik leadership, the NKVD, etc. The History of Central Banking is a great book. So is Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together, of which an uncensored version is difficult to find in PDF online. It's revealing to say the least.
Historically, this makes little sense to me.
Essentially if you follow your narrative, the British aimed to overthrow itself.
If you conclude Semitic's had a major role, it seems you're basically levying the same accusation but in reverse. In hindsight it seems this did not go as planned: whatever coordination or pretext for aggressions is besides the point. Because the results were not in the interests of the British. Karl Marx and his ilk had the hatred for the Tsar's. It was not the British. I would instead suggest it was Marx, using the British government, to further his own plans.
This article was very interesting for historical details, and for the glaring omissions of Jewish involvement and an almost apologetic version of Marx. Also omitted was any mention of the Catholic Church. Why? Are we to believe that only the British are capable of manipulating the rest of the world yet never mentioning who was financing all of those wars?
Did the author even consider that Marx could have married into aristocracy as a spy?
I would like the author to tell us why the 2012 Olympics in Briton used a logo that looked more like “ZION” than “2012”, and why their opening ceremony had a sinister quality that ended up seemingly an omen to the past few years? Even the girl in pigtails looked curiously like Greta. And curiously, why was this show was launched in Great Britain? To make the Brits look creepy?
Who controls the MSM, banking and finance, US Government, Big PHARMa, the porn industry, big corporations, etc? Why does Congress have to seek approval from Israel for so many things? Cui bono?
The article was so carefully written to ignore Jewish involvement, one could imagine that this writer is an agent of the Rothschilds.
You bring up RC org, but then turn around and attack Jews. Vatican indeed financed commie revolution in Russia, but made it look like "it's the Jews". Until you understand perfidy of popish persons and his stormtroopers, the Jesuits, you will forever be stuck in blaming "the Jews", even though they're just patsies firmly controlled by the Vatican state.
Warburg and Schiff were major financial backers of the Bolsheviks, who were profoundly disproportionately ethnic Jews; as were Bolshevik leadership and NKVD. Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together is quite clear on this and it's the reason you can't find it anywhere.
… Who controls the MSM, banking and finance, US Government, Big PHARMa, the porn industry, big corporations, etc? Why does Congress have to seek approval from Israel for so many things? Cui bono?
Part of my comments seem to be missing.
… The article was so carefully written to ignore Jewish involvement, one could imagine that this writer is an agent of the Rothschilds.
An amazing interpretation of history but, unfortunately, that is all it is.
Constantly blaming 'the British' indicates an ignorance of the influence of the City of London based Venetian Black Nobility that is so astonishing that it must be contrived deliberately to conceal the truth. How sad.
Further - Communism originated in Paraguay under the Jesuits and was perfected slowly for 200 years before being taught to Jesuit educated Marx. Needless to say the Jesuits are also under the influence of the Venetian Black Nobility to this day.
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/black-nobility-101
Came here to bring up the reductions, glad you beat me to it. For as good as Chung and Matt are I really question some of their interpretations. I don’t wanna be too swift in saying they’re acting as a limited hangout but… I know they know about the Jesuits and black nobility so their attempts to constantly steer attention back towards the Anglo Empire (which is just a political body of the aforementioned) is pretty suspect. there’s no way they don’t know about the reductions or the Jesuit influence on Marx. So that’s kind of shady. I’ve also heard them talk really optimistically about the horrific communist regimes of the East. I guess I would just caution readers to use discernment with all sources, no matter how much truth they put out initially.
The Venetian oligarchy transpanted it's system to England between 1530 and 1714 according to several articles by former associates of Lyndon Larouche.. Several English members of the nobility embraced the venetian thinking and this also had an impact on how to create an empire inspired by the venetians.
City of London could never retain it's special status without this being what the british elites desire.
City of London's special role is a feature, not a liability for an empire aspiring to hegemonic power.
A hegemonic power doesnt want financiers to be international.
Ie to get along with a multipolar context.
All talk of international financiers by Churchill is deliberately misleading.
“Some call it Communism; I call it Judaism.” — Pro-Communist, “Red Rabbi” Stephen Wise, advisor to Presidents Wilson and F.D.R., when asked in 1935 by a reporter to comment on Communism. Wise, a staunch Jewish supremacist, was also known as a “Father of Zionism” for his help in securing the Zionist Balfour Declaration, thus another representation of how Communism (just like neoconservatism) originated as a Trojan Horse for Jewish supremacism in America !!!
.
“The Jewish serpent will show its hydra’s heads everywhere, blocking the way to a relaxation of international tensions. We Jews will not allow peace in the world, however hard statesmen and peace advocates try to bring it about.”
— London Jewish Chronicle, March 3, 1939
.
“Judaism and Communism are one and the same.” ~ HILARY COTTER, author of Cardinal Minszenty, The Truth About His Real “Crime,” page 6
.
“Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 Russia.” ~ H.H. BEAMISH, N.Y. speech, 1937 (“The Secret Force” by Maurice Pinay) !!!
.
“The Jew is an inborn communist”! Otto Weininger, a Jew, Sex & Character, pp 311 !
.
“Zionism is Judaism, and Judaism is unthinkable without Zionism.” (Harper’s Encyclopedia of United States History, Vol. X, “Zionists”).
.
“Some call it Marxism (Communism), I call it Judaism.” – Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise – The American Bulletin, May 5, 1935. (Judaism is nothing but disguised, camouflaged Communism, therefore, Zionism is nothing but Communism) !!!
.
“Bolshevism and Communism, were Jewish proposed, Jewish financed, Jewish led and Jewish operated. The most muderous regime this planet has ever known, was Jewish through & through.” ~ (“The Secret Force” by Maurice Pinay) !!!
.
Theodore Herzl, one of the Jewish founders of Zionism, on the Judeo-fascist question:
“The Jews control the world, in our hands lies the fate of governments and nations. The Jews set governments one against the other. When the Jews play, the nations and the rulers dance. One way or the other, the Jewish Race gets rich.”
The conflict of Judaism with Christianity –
.
Jewish supremacist rabbi, Harry Waton, confessed that not only is Communism Jewish, but that it is simply a mechanism for Jewish world dominion and the subjugation of all non-Jews — a fulfillment of the megalomaniacal messianic vision of the Torah and the Talmud. In his 1939 book, “A Program for The Jews and An Answer To All Anti-Semites: A Program for Humanity”, the racist rabbi wrote:
.
“It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews. The Jews should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth; we must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within us,” (p. 148) “Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews,” (p. 99) “Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race.” (p. 100) [pdf 2012 Feb] The Jew World Order Unmasked
.
Matthew 20:27 Context
.
24And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. 29And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. 30And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
.
The "Jews" were a mixture of Canaanites, Edomites (Herod was an Edomite) and others, but Christ was a pure blood of the tribe of Judah. The inscription written over Him meant "This is the King of the tribe of Judah". Luke 23:38 Moultons Greek Dictionary.
.
Spitting Superstitions
Spitting, according to Pliny, was superstitiously observed in averting witchcraft and in giving a shrewder blow to an enemy.
Read the post
http://www.renegadetribune.com/spitting-superstitions/
‘……………Spitting on Palestinians is now de rigueur. Business as usual. Sadism on a grand scale. Whence the motivation? And the collective psychological reward? The Jewish God is a militant deity………….”
https://ahtribune.com/world/4105-israel-and-world-jewry.html
Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head. And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified." Mark 15:16-20 NKJV "Then the soldiers led Him away into the hall called Praetorium, and they called together the whole garrison. And they clothed Him with purple; and they twisted a crown of thorns, put ...
Matthew 27:30-31
30 They spat on Jesus. Then they took his ·stick [reed; staff] and began to beat him on the head. 31 After they ·finished [had mocked him], the soldiers took off the robe and put his own clothes on him again. Then they led him away to be crucified.
Obviously you paid bno attention to Poe and you repeat the bs. You are just another cancerous vector of hate and lies.
Poe is spreading disinformation. As for this comment, note that he posts quotes from actual historical figures, not his own opinion.
I first listened to your recent conversation with Tom Luongo, and then read this article. This historical view was reflected in Hidden History by Docherty and MacGregor, and also Antony Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Also, the historians in the LaRouche camp, like Matt Ehret and Anton Chaitkin have clued me into the British role in the French Revolution and other aspects of British malfeasance. I am very glad to have discovered your work which complements these others very well.
Well researched article BUT you have a blind spot for Jewish power. Have a look at "The nameless war" by Cap. Archibald Maule Ramsay
https://archive.org/details/the-nameless-war-captain-archibald-maule-ramsay/page/n97/mode/2up
Blind spot is an understatement...
Hi Richard, Great to discover you on Substack. I have been a fan of your work for some time and been busy reading my way through your insightful work. Particularly about how the western (fascist) capitalists created communism. Do you have any essays on the links of the Anglo-American empire to the creation of communism in China? And any insights into what they were trying to achieve? From where I sit it looks like they used the CCP to take down the old power structure, and to utterly impoverish the people and set the stage for Henry Kissinger to open China up and flood it with foreign capital, technology and skills to raise China up and suck out the wealth from the western world, and divert it to both China, and into the bank accounts of the World Economic Forum's cartels corporations in tax havens, in order to wage economic and social warfare on the world by using their neo-monarchies the global institutions and swamp around the UN. The Roman Empires global fascists are at it again.
Ivan
Thank you Mr Poe for all of your work, and especially for sharing it with us here on substack in such great detail and depth.
I am extremely grateful for these insights and hope that your writing may reach as great an audience as possible.
Wow...just wow!!! So good!
There are definitely some interesting points raised in this article especially about the strange outcome of the Russian civil war and entire the Gallipoli affair - as well as Marx’s ties to the British Establishment. But I’m afraid that you do not make a persuasive case for Britain being behind the SOVIET revolution of October 1917 and completely ignore all of the evidence for Jewish overrepresentation (at the very least) in this movement.
To start with I don’t think that the article makes it sufficiently clear that there were TWO separate revolutions in 1917- one in February that put the ‘Provisional’ government’ in power and one in October which replaced it with Lenin’s Bolsheviks. The geopolitical influence of Britain behind the first does, indeed, seem clear but is tenuous, at best, for the second. Yet your article gives the impression these were one single event. For example it suggests that Trotsky might have been a British agent and then suggests that this was the reason that he repudiated Russia’s prior treaties and territorial claims (as part of the Brest-Litovsk agreement with the Germans).
But the revolution that placed Trotsky in power wasn’t the February one backed by Britain but the October one which was backed by the germans NOT the British. In fact the British clearly had a geopolitical interest in keeping the Provisional Government or at least something like it in power as the Bolsheviks promised to withdraw Russia from the war completely, removing the need for Germany to fight on two fronts and potentially risking total British defeat in WW1 - which a British controlled government would certainly never have done.
The other problem with the argument is that whilst highlighting possible British support for the network of freemasons and liberals who led the FIRST revolution in (who, as I said, were not at all the same as Bolsheviks and actually fought against them in many cases) it completely ignores the PROVEN involvement of many Jews in the latter.
To name just a few - Maxim Litvinov (ambassador minister of foreign affairs), Lev Kamenev (key ally of Stalin), Zioniviev (key ally of Stalin, advocate of mass terror), Genrikh Yagoda (head of secret police), Moisei Uritsky (head of secret police), Lazar Kaganovich (key architect of Ukrainian famine), Naftaly Frenkel (architect, with Yagoda, of the Gulag Slave Labour prison system), Jakov Sverdlov (influential early Bolshevik who formulated policy of terror against peasants before his death) and many, many others…
(Of course Stalin later seemed to ‘turn on’ many of these people but, in the period of Lenin’s rule and before Stalin had assumed total power they preached and executed mass terror against the Russian population without any apparent external pressure to do so).
Besides this when subsequent revolutions break out on the ’Soviet’ model - such as that of Bela Kuhn in Hungary - we find Jewish individuals once more to be massively overrepresented in the key organs of power, especially in the hated security services that were responsible for the systematic murder of anyone who posed a threat to them (and specifically the old, Christian elite i.e teachers, priests, patriotic and liberal intelligentsia etc) which is precisely the same thing we find in the Soviet government itself during this period (and was a major part of the reason there was such a backlash against the Jewish community across Europe in the years that followed). These are historical facts, even if they have subsequently become controversial.
Now I certainly think that Britain’s (and even more so Germany’s) irresponsible geopolitical brinksmanship and meddling played a major role in the overall deterioration of Russia and the rise to power of Lenin. I also agree that certain groups in the British ruling class and intelligentsia almost certainly desired the kind of nihilistic, slave-labour regime that arose in Russia and used their influence to back it internationally afterwards - as did many ‘progressive’ Americans as well, including President Roosevelt himself.
But I’m afraid that the evidence you have provided does not at all prove that Britain was uniquely or even largely responsible for the rise of Communism in Russia nor that the Jewish community (or at the very least a radical section of it) was a mere scapegoat that took no active part in the Bolshevik conspiracy and later dictatorship. On the other hand you have left out a lot of other evidence that suggests that a disproportionate number of Jewish individuals willing took part in both the revolution itself and the mass terror that followed.
Excellent comment, Charlie. I am glad someone knows their history around here. After hunting down a hard to find, uncensored, pdf of Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together, I was shocked at how over-represented ethnic Jews were in running the NKVD and Gulag system.
It ought to occur to those studying this context that the overrepresentation of jews may simply have been preplanned and arranged by the same british elite circles.
Any evidence for this?
Your implicit assumption is that anything like that could happen even if the angloamerican establishment hadnt decided it.
The masonic bankers were oathbound to lojalty and the leaders of freemasonry were Lord Palmerston from 1837 and Albert Pike and Edward VII.
There was no mysterious jewish power although the British had a motive to make everybody believe there was.
What about Bnai Brith (Jewish freemason order) or the undeniable power of Jewish bankers like the Rotschilds, Jacob Schiff etc. I'm not saying that there weren't alliance between these various groups but to claim that there was no 'mysterious jewish power' is simply false. (Also why do you think freemasonic ritual is literally centred around rebuilding Solomon's temple and is littered with Hebrew terms, Knight Kadosh etc, and also pushed for acceptance of Jewish members is this also just an elaborate ruse to throw people of the 'real' culprits?)
Palmerston was behind everything with modern zionism but freemasonry, the maltese order, cabbalism and Talmud was already introduced to England by the venetians in the 1500s.
There has been a symbiosis meaning there was no separate jewish power.
It is Churchill who correctly called it mysterious because it would have been a mystery if they were free to use the money they were handling on behalf of the empire.
Palmerston was secretely the grand patriarch.
So said the catholics. George F Dillon wrote that Palmerstons associate Mazzini murdered Palmerstons italian predecessor.
When I researched it I found that Palmerstons subordinate masons on the continent wrote letters to Palmerstons italian predecessor for over ten years after his death!
One of those masons Piccolo Tigre said in 1846 as I try to interpret his obscure words, that he wouldnt write more letters if he didnt get paid.
Those ten years were from 1837 and Palmerston organised zionism between 1843-1860 including B'nai B'rit.
Thus there are signs that Britain hided that they controlled the masonic networks just when modern zionism emerged.
And many writers instead believed that freemasonry was controlled by the jews.
Benjamin Disraeli encouraged that view but maybe he believed it and wasnt among the enlightened.
Palmerstons anglosaxon relative Shaftesbury, a Christian Zionist or British Israelite is known to have talked in 1839 of Palestine as a land without people for a people without land.
And Shaftesbury wasnt subservient to the jews.
He called them a darkhearted and stiffnecked people
When I corresponded with a blogger it ocurred to me while writing what Jack Ripper in 1888 was all about.
Officially there were various versions involving a relative of the prince of Wales Edward.
But the bodies of the prostitutes, they refer to as the canonical five showed signs of a masonic murder ritual.
It must have been intended as a warning to high masons.
And the investigator Macnaghten who got involved the year after insisted that Jack Ripper murdered precisely five despite there being several other murder victims in that period.
I guessed that it was meant to be associated with the five canonical branches of the house of Rothschild.
Warning the bankers not to collaborate with Germany and other among Britains rivals.
2 years later Hannah Rothschild 39 years old died in 1890, officially from typhoid fever but the doctor explained that she suffered from a kidney ailment that would have killed her within two years anyway.
Maybe she had been slowly poisoned.
That might have caused the kidney illness.
Her british husband Lord Archibald Roseberry inherited 100M pounds=$500M
He became prime minister later.
Another Rothschild by birth inherited the same sum and both belonged to Cecil Rhodes environment.
The Jack Ripper investigation was deliberately bungled by people related to Darby's Plymouth Brethren and directly involved in the archeological excavations in Palestine.
So Jack Ripper looks like it has a connection to Britains christian zionists.
In 1907 according to a document previously available on the web Edward VII threatened the Rothschilds. It was most certainly about having fruitful contacts with Britains rivals.
And unlike before 1871 when Britain needed Bismarck to attack France, Germany was now the strongest rival. So unlike in 1858 when Bismarck collaborated with the Rothschilds through a middleman, Germany and Russia were off limits.
Edward VII who earlier had Palmerston as his mentor was also the worlds leading freemason.
Masonic bankers are oathbound to the leader and serious disobedience means death.
Thus before the establishment of the FED there was a crisis for the bankers.
In the period between that time and 1915 the situation was stabilised since from then on it was possible to accomodate Britain's rules(based order)
Before the FED it would have been impossible.
Both Germany and Russia offered more promising business opportunities.
Both for the Rothschilds and the Rockefeller and yet in 1907 the Rothschilds divested from Russia.
Britains wellcome laboratories were established and the Rockefellers started their modern medicine projects, later involving medical experiments on military guinea pigs believed to have lead to the pandemic known as the spanish flu.
Seems to me they were desperate to gain fresh profits (after having left the Russian economy?)
Compare with the Covid drama.
It also came when the competition became hard to handle for the angloamaerican empire and just like before win-win was off -limits?
On the other hand both Webster Tarpley around 2015 and our host Richard Poe have claimed that Britain has been collaborating with China to weaken the US.
So perhaps the situation is at least slightly different now?
The source for the information about Shaftesbury's role in 1839 was Donald Wagner's Christian Zionist Primer part 1 from 2002.
In 2022 Wagner confirmed that he said the christian zionist's were behind that early phase but this time said "When I did my earlier research and writing, I figured that all these early speakers who were calling for support for the Jews and a homeland were Christian Zionists. I’ve decided to change that. So now I would say that these early forerunners—like John Nelson Darby, Lord Shaftesbury and many others—they are precursors because their movements were religious on behalf of the Jews calling for some kind of a homeland. A solution. But they did not have a political plan until about 1888."
According to Diana Muir in "The slogan that wasn't"
concerning the phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land”
The earliest published use of the phrase appears to have been by Church of Scotland clergyman Alexander Keith in his 1843 book, The Land of Israel According to the Covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
Keith was aware that the Holy Land was populated because he had travelled to Palestine in 1839 on behalf of the Church of Scotland and returned five years later.
In July 1853, British statesman and social reformer Lord Shaftesbury wrote to Foreign Minister George Hamilton Gordon, Lord Palmerston, that Greater Syria was “a country without a nation” in need of “a nation without a country… Is there such a thing? To be sure there is: the ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews!”
If you want to know who was actually behind the Russian revolution read Anthony C. Sutton’s work. He covers the political and funding side of the operation but misses the Jesuit/Vatican side of the same coin. That said, of course the Juden played a part, the “court Jews” (such as the Rothschild Vatican banks and papal knights) are always used as middle management in these operations. This serves several purposes a main one being plausible deniability and an easy scapegoat when people start “noticing”. It’s actually brilliant and the main reason Rome has managed to retain control over the world despite the changing of empires and shifting sands of culture. The Vatican + court Jew axis will create the final global empire. It’s hinted to in prophecy in Daniel’s vision of gentile world empire. The final phase (kingdom of antichrist) being iron (rome) mixed with clay (Jerusalem).
Yes the Vatican was involved but the Venetian oligarchy in parallell with their migration to northern Europe, also managed to launch both the Jesuits and the Calvinists whose leading characters Ignatius Loyola and John Calvin got their instructions in Venice and Genua before going on their missions in Rome and Geneva.
Thus the same oligarchy that installed itself in England was at thar time already infiltrating the Vatican.
I dont know everything about this but the above mentioned details are ALWAYS avoided by those who bring up the Vatican as a culprit.
One more thing: Donald Phao apparently instructed by Lyndon Larouche mentions that Christopher Marlowe in connection with his play The Jew of Malta told the audience that the evil Jew Barrabas had a higher power above him, the Knights of Malta, who in the play pretended to be critical of the evil Barabbas but secretly was his superior.
Venice funded the Knights of Malta at the time and introduced them to Britain along with introducing the Kabbala, Talmud and Freemasonry to the english elites.
The late Peter Farey who belonged to a group of people who diligently researched and discussed the Marlowian authorship theory of William Shakespeare.
Farey about 2 decades ago attemped to decode the text on the purported grave of Shakespeare and in my view succeeded in proving that Marlowe had left a message in code on the grave indicating it was Marlowe not any Shakespeare from Stratford.
Cynthia Morgan belonged to that mentioned environment where that debate was going on.
She has recently summarised that debate in a book.
Christopher Marlowe:
Every word doth almost tell my name
27 essays from the Marlowe Studies
Why this matters is that Marlowe officially was murdered in a pub in 1593 while Shakespeares works by the several researchers and many respected people are believed to have been Marlowe's using the name Shakespeare. The reason would be that he had not been murdered, as was officially maintained but had fallen from grace for blasphemy and was sent into exile abroad with the condition that he would be assumed dead and was not allowed to ever contest that.
Apparently he was exiled in Spain.
His foe, the archbishop Whitgift, died in 1604, at the time when Shakespeares works began to appear, a suitable time for Marlowe to return under a new name.
I havent heard anybody suggest that his outing of the Knights of Malta as a higher power above the money lenders would have been the reason for his exile if it happened.
But, if so, one would expect the Anglo-venetian elites to want to hide that reason and to present some other convenient excuse. Just in case.
I don’t deny the black nobility, my assessment is that they are royal families within the Vatican system. After all most of the popes came from those families during the dark ages. These days I think they are less involved in direct governance of the situation but are still very powerful nevertheless. I assume that their retreat to the background is likely because the power core of the Vatican has serious leverage over them in one way or another. You’re correct that many of the Calvinists were just “reformed Catholicism” and were still bloody murderers killing those they deemed heretics in places like Geneva. A lot of their symbology gives them away, specifically that of the Huguenots that fled into Africa (iirc). I personally believe Shakespeare was actually the frontman, Rosicrucian/Freemason Francis Bacon and that all the works were written by a Jesuit collective for the purpose of memetic cultural warfare (often called Jesuit theater). On that point “Eric777” from YT covers it (tangentially) in his video about the Jesuit roots of freemasonry.
The point I like to make is that I dont buy the idea that the Vatican is a separate power.
They dont have any magic spell by themselves to make Italy act against it's own interests. They are a subbranch, not the trunk.
...
If it was it wouldnt make sense that it let Italy be subjected to what happened in WWI.
...
Germany offered Italy everything they were open about demanding as conditions if they stayed out of the war.
Yet Italy entered the war and had something like 600 thousand KIAs and totally had 1.7M casualties.
This was because the British promised them part of Tyrolia. That was not official and Germany probably didnt know.
...
After the war Britain didnt hold the promise and maybe never intended to.
So all the misery did not provide any advantages.
...
And that isnt an isolated detail in the interaction between the anglosaxons and the catholics.
...
The catholics a part from their anglosaxon branch have consistently lost for many centuries.
...
And the anglosaxons have many jesuits and catholic educational centers.
In that manner the anglosaxons are able to put on a mask of being under Vatican control just like they pretend today to be under their evil stooge Netanyahu's control.
Mearsheimer is an official figure who supports that so it is important for the establishment to maintain appearances.
That is, in my view, an obvious parallell to Richard Poe's book.
...
My impression is that serious students of history (not court historians ie most of the ones who gain a wide following) tend to understand how much wrongdoing was caused by the anglosaxons that they are, when they desire to make the anglosaxons look better, desperate to find scapegoats.
...
The general technique is to recruite a group that isnt strong enough to take charge and give that group some freedom to act. The next step is to blame that group for being a separate power.
...
This is examplified by the present work by Richard Poe but since the anglosaxons who discuss the Vatican, mostly without mentioning how it was originally infiltrated by the same oligarchy that obtained its most powerful center of inertia in the UK and US.
...
It makes perfect sense that the oligarchy would act in this manner if one accepts that the independent power is its branch in the US/UK but the other branches having been weakened to be subsidiaries always acting in concert.
...
The collaboration is invisible outside the secret societies.
And the oligarchy being united, always acts symbiotically when important matters are at play. Like economical decisions.
...
Once the Habsburgs were a strong actor but the anglosaxons beat Spain and Holland and took over.
And since it appears England was already a node in the ancient oligarchy after 1066 there are things that haven't been wellcovered.
...
At least not that I know of.
...
I learnt from the americans4innovation that the Seljuc Turks in 1055 made the Babylonians flee and it appears that was the rationale for the oligarchy's recruiting of the varangians for attacking England to establish themselves there
...
And the moon landings were simulated in a large Hangar in Bedfordshire in Britain and the instructions to Stanley Kubrick were regularly handed over inside the NATO HQ Northwood in London!
...
Not one nation is officially contesting the official story.
...
Mussolini was sponsored by Britain in 1917 while he obviously went through a huge change in 1914 turning prowar after having until then been a poor socialist. He did notice that some revolutionaries were suspiciously wellfunded always seemingly having resources to spend so he may have thougt of a career change to be able to benefit.
The following extract from Larouchepub illustrates how Venice was a helper of the British empire's machinations.
[From 1983 https://larouchepub.com/lar/2023/5025-dr_karl_marx_refuted-lar.html]
"It was in the setting of the Russo-Japanese War, that Venetian interests orchestrated the Russian Revolution of 1905. The exemplary figure of that operation was Alexander Helphand (Parvus). Parvus, who controlled Trotsky in 1905, and many others, including the Bolshevik leaders Radek, Bukharin, Rakovsky, and so forth, in 1917, was the property of the leading Venetian political figure of that period, Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata. This was the Misurata who created the Venetian colony known as Libya from three wasted portions of Africa, which is de facto a Venetian colony down to the present day under Colonel Qaddafi. This was the same Volpi di Misurata who later brought Benito Mussolini to power, and acted as the fascist government’s finance minister, pioneering in the policies implemented by Nazi Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht. Volpi di Misurata coordinated the Balkan wars leading into World War I, in which his agent Parvus performed a key, leading role."
I assume that those proanglosaxon writers who go on a bout the Vatican as a separate power will immediatelt interpret this extract as more evidence for their untenable scapegoat-theisis.
Great Britain (and until 1910 Edward VII, the official leader of world Freemasonry) was the instigator of WWI. The following events were jsu as much the work of the British. The only party whose elites had much to gain from all the evil events was Great Britain.
America was invaded by the British elites agents of influence and hasn't acted like an independent party ever since.
We would probably just disagree as the mechanics of the system then. The anglos have been completely under Vatican/jesuit/black noble control for a very long time specially via freemasonry, and the knights Malta. All the dictators of the last century were set up by the Vatican (the book behind the dictators shows this well iirc). Obviously the anglo political arm funded most of that situation, Anthony C Sutton shows that well in his books, but they were all knights of Malta, Columbus, and Freemasons working for the same central power base. Same thing happened in Vietnam, affectionately referred to as Spelly’s war after Cardinal Francis Spellman. I agree with your assertion that Italy wouldn’t have signed on to WW2 if they knew the part they would play and I think that’s a valid point. I would suggest that the outcomes of the wars are not decided prior to initiation but rather that they play both sides and pull the plug when whatever social engineering and global reordering goals have been met and they cut the loss on the other side. All the assets stay firmly in their hands anyway, this can be seen with Germany in the post war where the only losers were the German people and culture. As far as Poe goes, I haven’t researched him too far but I am not quick to trust him as he makes the anglos out to be the creators of communism which is patently false, it was created and perfected in the Jesuit reductions of South America and then given to Marx as an export model when he was trained by them in the Anglosphere. It was then funded by the aforementioned powers, and sent into Russia with heavy help from the Jesuits, all the industry was rebuilt by knights and their corporate America assets (and lend lease) then it was all pinned on “the Jews”. I would have to look more into what Poe teaches but if his thesis is really that the British created communism, that’s pretty easy to disprove with a look into the history of the reductions in Paraguay.
You better read Poe's book before you become judgemental and call it patently false. He has been rather cautious about speculating and has provided weighty arguments since it appears he is conscious about how proffesional historians tend to react.
But a great deal of Larouche and associates publications add a lot of context where Britain's vast conspiracies related to the whole spectrum of politics shows how the British through their secret masonic networks was on all sides from right to left radicalism.
That obliterates any belief in Britain being anything closely related to their official statements.
Nothing but deception and perception management!
And what you mention doesnt say anything about what direction the dependence goes. It just functions as that clever pereception management. The anglosaxons being Knights Jesuites and so forth has all along been a way to INFILTRATE the other way. To acquire the superficial traits to employ the symbiotic partners symbols.
What does tell you about that relation is how the anglosaxons took over the world while the catholics were pushed backwards to less power. Anglosaxons dont provide any answer to why this is so when they claim the Vatican could control anything.
Same thing with Netanyahu controlling the US.
It is an anglosaxon way to manage our perceptions
And Paraguay. It was the result of the British empires struggle to prevent independent nation states following the example of the american system of political economy from the earler phase of the republic. France Germany Russia and China all embraced this system at one point. At different times. But the commonality is that for all of them Britain manipulated the world to war for eliminating such republican forces.
Lord Shelburne was a jesuit. He organised the French revolutionaries.
Not a chance he was working under the Vatican.
The revolution made the catholic church loose 6% of its possessions to private owners.
Just another example of the catrholics being pushed backwards.
Cecil Rhodes wanted to organise his angloamericans after a Jesuit model. Not a chance the British intended to become second to anybody.
I'm bookmarking to finish it. Very lengthy but it's a fascinating story. So the question then becomes "Who controls British intelligence?" doesn't it? The Rothschild's would be my bet given that Victor served in the intelligence service (I'm sure it was just love of king and country, LOL).
It is interesting watching the Jews get used as a shield (shout anti-semite at everyone who questions us/you) and thrown under the bus by the Zionists (The old shall have to suffer their fate. We don't need them for the Palestine project). You would hope they would catch on and refuse to go along. Sadly I'm afraid that most Jews still are not aware of the danger their own leaders have put them in:
https://i.postimg.cc/8zdNzFyQ/Israel-Netanyahu-Bennett-Bourla.png
I'm afraid they are going under the bus again.
very informative, deep-dive article, much appreciated. However, questions remain: Churchill's "the Jews did it" sounds disingenuous at best and doesn't explain the involvement of the British (Buchanan; SIS) with the initial uprising (culminating in the Tsar's abdication, etc) and the subsequent, but interwoven violence of the Revolution-proper. It may be that many Bolshevik leaders, from Lenin all the way to Trotski were Jewish, but how did they get to that position? why, how and by whom were they financed? True, British geo-political, colonial strategies ("Empire") needed a scapegoat and in that respect "the Jews" were useful; Churchill's eloquence and the timely publication of the Elders of Zion-papers served to lubricate this further.
Marx' apparent closeness to the anti-bourgeois ideas of Urquhart and the Young Englanders is another intriguing detail; however, isn't the middle-class, according to communist dogma, an enemy of the proletariat? Marx himself came from a prosperous Jewish family in Holland (later: Trier, Germany) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henriette_Pressburg and was related (through his great-grandfather) to the Rothschild family - https://wideawakegentile.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/cousin-karl-the-blood-ties-between-karl-marx-and-the-rothschilds/ The world's a stage and we're in the audience, watching the actors play their role(s), wondering who's in the wings, directing it.
Great article, thank you for all the research!
Your work is very important, thank you. But you need to edit the many repetitions and eliminate them. I have done this myself, so I understand, but eliminating those will make your message more powerful.
Thank you, yes you are right. Appreciate your taking the time to comment!
d
The Jews and the British Empire - Lesley Fry (1935)
https://archive.org/details/FRYLesleyTheJewsAndTheBritishEmpire1935/page/n1/mode/2up