Feb 10, 2023Liked by Richard Poe

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Sep 3, 2023·edited Sep 3, 2023

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.

Expand full comment
Feb 13·edited Feb 13

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

… 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?

Expand full comment
Feb 13·edited Feb 13

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.

Expand full comment

“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


‘……………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.

Expand full comment

Obviously you paid bno attention to Poe and you repeat the bs. You are just another cancerous vector of hate and lies.

Expand full comment

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.


Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.


Expand full comment

Well researched article BUT you have a blind spot for Jewish power. Have a look at "The nameless war" by Cap. Archibald Maule Ramsay


Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Wow...just wow!!! So good!

Expand full comment

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:


I'm afraid they are going under the bus again.

Expand full comment
Apr 19·edited Apr 19

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Any evidence for this?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?)

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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!”

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Thank you, yes you are right. Appreciate your taking the time to comment!


Expand full comment