The Many (illuminati) Faces of Communism
July 15, 2019
by Rollin Stearns
(henrymakow.com)
Thanks to the research of people like Anthony Sutton ("Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution") we now know that the international bankers -- the Illuminati -- financed Communism.
They did so to create a dialectic, a dynamic of opposing forces they could manipulate to advance their own control over the world.
But there's a still unanswered question. What is their end game? Are they Communists? To answer this, let's look at who the Communists are.
THE MARXIST-LENINISTS
Communists have many faces -- and facades. The Marxist-Leninists are just one kind, and they were bitterly divided between Stalinists and Trotskyites.
In America, the Stalinists were represented by leaders such as William Z. Foster, author of "Toward Soviet America." In the '30s and '40s, he preached social revolution (e.g., women's liberation, no-fault divorce, abortion), but said this would come after an armed revolution by the working class.
The Trotskyites were revolutionaries too, but they hated Stalin. They thought he had betrayed the revolution by working to secure the Soviet Union. They wanted a "permanent revolution" free from any national compromises. (Think of the difference between Castro and Che Guevara.)
FABIAN SOCIALISTS
In addition to the Marxist-Leninists, there are the Fabian Socialists. Contrary to popular view, they are not just reformers content with a welfare state.
George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society, wrote that the purpose of the welfare state was to bankrupt society, leading to economic collapse. This in turn would lead to Communism. These days it looks as if Shaw knew what he was talking about.
Today, most "Stalinists" or "Trotskyites" have morphed and adopted new labels.
It's estimated that 20 percent of Congress are "progressives," a code word for neo-Stalinists. They dominate the Democratic part. They occupy the White House.
The Trotskyites on the other hand are now "neoconservatives," and their chosen vehicle is the Republican party.
As for "liberals" (Democrats) and "moderates" (Republicans), they are Fabian socialists. Most of them may not be as cynical as Shaw, but what does it matter? They're on board.
GRAMSCI, ALINSKY, FANON
Antonio Gramsci co-founded the Italian Communist part in the 1920s. His ideas were largely rejected at the time, but today his influence is great. He turned the model that William Z. Foster used on its head.
Instead of working to overthrow the economic "foundation" of society and then change the social and cultural "super-structure," he argued that the cultural level (values, morals, etc.) should be subverted first. The rest would then fall into the Communists' hands "like an overripe fruit."
This view influenced a whole generation of student radicals in the 1960s. Bill Clinton, for example, always maintained close ties to the "Euro-Communist" party in Italy.
Hillary, on the other hand, was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, the community organizer and author of "Rules for Radicals."
He was not a member of the Communist party (the large majority of Communists are not), but he had the same goals: abolition of private property, the total transformation of society, and the total empowerment of the state to carry this out.
Today, of course, the best known disciple of Alinsky is not Hillary but Barack Obama. And no doubt Obama is also influenced by another figure from the '60s: Frantz Fanon.
Author of "The Wretched of the Earth," Fanon was a "French" (from Martinique) radical. Driven by racial hatred, he saw revolutionary violence as cathartic, a means by which the non-white world could not only gain its independence, but redeem its soul from the humiliations it had suffered.
Today there is a working synthesis of all these influences. The old internecine rivalries are muted. Depending on circumstances, and where one is positioned, one can choose an appropriate model or mix them. A "liberal" today, a revolutionary tomorrow. Or vice versa.
WHAT ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI?
The Illuminati -- the Judeo-Masonic international bankers and their minions (e.g. Fearless Fosdyke) -- not only promote Communism, they share its goals.
They believe in the degradation of culture, the abolition of private property, the reduction of the world's peoples to a state of equality (serfdom), and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the state (controlled by themselves).
Communism may be defined in practice as state capitalism. The state owns everything and claims to do so in the name of "the people." Of course, the state is supposed to one day "wither away." But it can't and won't, because the communist state is a blind behind which the Illuminati bankers control all wealth and power.
So are the Illuminati communists? Yes, they are, in the sense that they are willing to have the communists take power and to rule through them. But they are not committed to that. They ride all horses, or almost all.
The Illuminati support any movement that promises to advance the New World Order, in which all wealth and power will be concentrated in a global state. By the same token, they support any movement that promises to destroy the values, morals, and faiths that stand in the way.
As a result, they support fascism too. After all, fascism is a variant of socialism. Mussolini allowed private property to exist, but only under the control of the state. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
What does it matter if you "own" your property if it can be taken away by eminent domain, or because of property taxes, or cannot be used because of environmental regulations?
Mussolini, like Lenin, was a member of the Second International. Roosevelt's New Deal was modeled on Mussolini's policies. And just as Obama is a racial (anti-white) socialist, so Hitler was a racial (anti-Jewish) socialist.
It doesn't matter who's put into power; they're all puppets (or are meant to be). The Illuminati operate from a higher level, above labels and ideology. The issue of communism or fascism is secondary.
As Wilhelm Reich observed: Politically mankind moves from right to left and left to right, like a man shifting from one foot to another -- but never a step forward!
CONCLUSION
As Fosdyke says, we should not fear. The Illuminati are not as powerful as they'd like us to believe. Their power rests on two pillars: 1) indirect control through a usurious (and "mysterious") financial system, and 2) deception through control of mass propaganda.
These pillars are inherently vulnerable, as were the pillars that Samson was chained to. They and the temple they support can be destroyed by power applied directly and deliberately.
To put it in terms of another Biblical image: "Mystery" Babylon will be destroyed by the beast she rides. And this beast will be destroyed as well. The Illuminati's doom is sure. One little word will fell them.
--
Rollin Stearns is a former book editor who lives in Maine.
(from Dec 19, 2010)
(henrymakow.com)
Thanks to the research of people like Anthony Sutton ("Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution") we now know that the international bankers -- the Illuminati -- financed Communism.
They did so to create a dialectic, a dynamic of opposing forces they could manipulate to advance their own control over the world.
But there's a still unanswered question. What is their end game? Are they Communists? To answer this, let's look at who the Communists are.
THE MARXIST-LENINISTS
Communists have many faces -- and facades. The Marxist-Leninists are just one kind, and they were bitterly divided between Stalinists and Trotskyites.
In America, the Stalinists were represented by leaders such as William Z. Foster, author of "Toward Soviet America." In the '30s and '40s, he preached social revolution (e.g., women's liberation, no-fault divorce, abortion), but said this would come after an armed revolution by the working class.
The Trotskyites were revolutionaries too, but they hated Stalin. They thought he had betrayed the revolution by working to secure the Soviet Union. They wanted a "permanent revolution" free from any national compromises. (Think of the difference between Castro and Che Guevara.)
FABIAN SOCIALISTS
In addition to the Marxist-Leninists, there are the Fabian Socialists. Contrary to popular view, they are not just reformers content with a welfare state.
George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society, wrote that the purpose of the welfare state was to bankrupt society, leading to economic collapse. This in turn would lead to Communism. These days it looks as if Shaw knew what he was talking about.
Today, most "Stalinists" or "Trotskyites" have morphed and adopted new labels.
It's estimated that 20 percent of Congress are "progressives," a code word for neo-Stalinists. They dominate the Democratic part. They occupy the White House.
The Trotskyites on the other hand are now "neoconservatives," and their chosen vehicle is the Republican party.
As for "liberals" (Democrats) and "moderates" (Republicans), they are Fabian socialists. Most of them may not be as cynical as Shaw, but what does it matter? They're on board.
GRAMSCI, ALINSKY, FANON
Antonio Gramsci co-founded the Italian Communist part in the 1920s. His ideas were largely rejected at the time, but today his influence is great. He turned the model that William Z. Foster used on its head.
Instead of working to overthrow the economic "foundation" of society and then change the social and cultural "super-structure," he argued that the cultural level (values, morals, etc.) should be subverted first. The rest would then fall into the Communists' hands "like an overripe fruit."
This view influenced a whole generation of student radicals in the 1960s. Bill Clinton, for example, always maintained close ties to the "Euro-Communist" party in Italy.
Hillary, on the other hand, was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, the community organizer and author of "Rules for Radicals."
He was not a member of the Communist party (the large majority of Communists are not), but he had the same goals: abolition of private property, the total transformation of society, and the total empowerment of the state to carry this out.
Today, of course, the best known disciple of Alinsky is not Hillary but Barack Obama. And no doubt Obama is also influenced by another figure from the '60s: Frantz Fanon.
Author of "The Wretched of the Earth," Fanon was a "French" (from Martinique) radical. Driven by racial hatred, he saw revolutionary violence as cathartic, a means by which the non-white world could not only gain its independence, but redeem its soul from the humiliations it had suffered.
Today there is a working synthesis of all these influences. The old internecine rivalries are muted. Depending on circumstances, and where one is positioned, one can choose an appropriate model or mix them. A "liberal" today, a revolutionary tomorrow. Or vice versa.
WHAT ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI?
The Illuminati -- the Judeo-Masonic international bankers and their minions (e.g. Fearless Fosdyke) -- not only promote Communism, they share its goals.
They believe in the degradation of culture, the abolition of private property, the reduction of the world's peoples to a state of equality (serfdom), and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the state (controlled by themselves).
Communism may be defined in practice as state capitalism. The state owns everything and claims to do so in the name of "the people." Of course, the state is supposed to one day "wither away." But it can't and won't, because the communist state is a blind behind which the Illuminati bankers control all wealth and power.
So are the Illuminati communists? Yes, they are, in the sense that they are willing to have the communists take power and to rule through them. But they are not committed to that. They ride all horses, or almost all.
The Illuminati support any movement that promises to advance the New World Order, in which all wealth and power will be concentrated in a global state. By the same token, they support any movement that promises to destroy the values, morals, and faiths that stand in the way.
As a result, they support fascism too. After all, fascism is a variant of socialism. Mussolini allowed private property to exist, but only under the control of the state. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
What does it matter if you "own" your property if it can be taken away by eminent domain, or because of property taxes, or cannot be used because of environmental regulations?
Mussolini, like Lenin, was a member of the Second International. Roosevelt's New Deal was modeled on Mussolini's policies. And just as Obama is a racial (anti-white) socialist, so Hitler was a racial (anti-Jewish) socialist.
It doesn't matter who's put into power; they're all puppets (or are meant to be). The Illuminati operate from a higher level, above labels and ideology. The issue of communism or fascism is secondary.
As Wilhelm Reich observed: Politically mankind moves from right to left and left to right, like a man shifting from one foot to another -- but never a step forward!
CONCLUSION
As Fosdyke says, we should not fear. The Illuminati are not as powerful as they'd like us to believe. Their power rests on two pillars: 1) indirect control through a usurious (and "mysterious") financial system, and 2) deception through control of mass propaganda.
These pillars are inherently vulnerable, as were the pillars that Samson was chained to. They and the temple they support can be destroyed by power applied directly and deliberately.
To put it in terms of another Biblical image: "Mystery" Babylon will be destroyed by the beast she rides. And this beast will be destroyed as well. The Illuminati's doom is sure. One little word will fell them.
--
Rollin Stearns is a former book editor who lives in Maine.
(from Dec 19, 2010)
Derek said (December 21, 2010):
just wanted to agree with your correspondent Dick about Ben Franklin. The "human remains" was most likely framed as slander against Franklin; it's circumstantial "evidence" against him anyway.
"You shall know them by their fruits": and Franklin was a true light for liberty (as were Jefferson, Adams, and so many of the brilliant founders). Franklin's writings, recorded conduct, and legacy prove that.
George Washington was another of the "good", pre-Jacobin Masons. The Illuminati Masonic slime tried to claim him as one of their own, after the fact: fat chance. (Just as many "Jews" try to claim Jesus as one of their own: if you can't beat his message, try to co-opt his memory, seems to be the perverse tactic.)
'I would hope you'd apply the same level of skepticism and research to conspiracy theories and satanic propaganda that you would to "official" history.' Wow: that's a good one!