Labouring under an illusion: Neoliberalism and Britain’s Labour Party

Labouring under an illusion: Neoliberalism and Britain’s Labour Party

by William Bowles

Note: This is in the way of a continuation of my last essay ‘In the belly of the beast’.

Nothing could illustrate the paradox better than ‘the party of labour’, financially supported largely by Britain’s biggest trade unions (representing around five million public employees) bankrolling the party which has led the way in attacking what’s left of the gains made since 1945. In a word, a traitorous political party that once again, faces the task of reinventing itself.

For the umpteenth time I’m hearing the same, tired old cliches pouring forth from the annual Labour Party conference, replete with the odd ‘we got it wrong but now we’re going to get it right’. The economy that is.

Allegedly attacking the institutions that the Labour government wholeheartedly embraced–principally the financial sector and their “fast buck” culture–Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, which even more than Thatcher created the conditions for today’s economic meltdown, now expects us to forget thirteen years of neoliberal, imperial rule under the ‘party of labour’ with exhortations by the party faithful to return to ‘our roots’.

I might add that Ed Miliband’s call to tax the bankers and accusing them of being ‘predatory’, the tag ‘Red Ed’ that appeared at last year’s Labour Party conference has resurfaced at this year’s conference, a farce heaped on farce. (see my ‘‘Not Red Ed’ – reinventing Labour, again and again… ‘)

The BBC was quick to point out the error of ‘Not Red Ed’s’ ways:

“Ed Miliband has denied that his Labour conference speech – in which he attacked “predatory” firms and a “fast-buck” culture – was “anti-business”.” — ‘Labour conference: Miliband denies being anti-business’, BBC News Website, 28 September 2011.

After a raft of people attacking ‘Red Ed’ for, amongst other things, “kicking business in the teeth” we get definitely ‘Not Red Ed’s’ groveling retraction for daring to accuse Big Business of being predatory!

“In a round of interviews on Wednesday morning, Mr Miliband said Labour would not lurch to the left and would be “firmly in the middle ground” – but argued that the middle ground was changing.

“He said it was not a left-wing idea that there should be responsibility at the top of society, and pointed out that he had also pledged to reward good behaviour in the welfare system, by suggesting those who contribute to their communities should get preferential treatment with social housing.

“Speaking to the BBC Mr Miliband said he had been talking about “good business practices” and “bad business practices” in his reference to “predators” interested only in the “fast buck”.” — (ibid)

So, if only we’d had ‘good business practices’ (like laws?) we wouldn’t be in deep doo-doo now? Problem sorted, sort of… but it illustrates just how events are determined and controlled by the corporate/state media’s stranglehold on what it laughingly calls ‘news’. Note too, the derisory reference the BBC dropped in the piece about “not lurching to the left”, a clear warning to ‘Not Red Ed’ to remember which class put him where he is now. That which the ruling class ‘giveth’ it can also taketh away as the rest of us are learning to our literal cost.

With a never-ending stream of speakers talking of ‘reinstating Labour’s values’, a call to some kind of return to what? According to ‘Not Red Ed’:

“Unless we reform our economy, unless we find ways of tackling these issues – and this has been a problem for the Labour Party for decades – unless we get that political economy right, we are not going to get the change we want to see.” — (ibid)

Note that there are no actual plans for ‘getting the economy right’ merely empty platitudes, not about how Labour would specifically attack the crisis of capital but that it would do ‘something’, though what is not revealed.

What is clear from the travesty called the Labour Party is that whilst it may be bankrolled by organized labour, it long ago gave up representing them (if it ever really did).

Yet sections on the Left seem still to be calling for ‘returning the Labour Party to its core values’ (whatever they may be). Is such an enterprise possible and if so, what would be the outcome in the current situation?

In an attempt to answer this, it’s worthwhile reminding ourselves that virtually since its inception the Labour Party’s ‘core values’ have been Imperialist. Successive Labour governments have wholeheartedly embraced the UK’s imperial colonial ‘enterprises’ overseas whilst it allegedly defended the rights of workers at home, initially using the name of socialism in order to sell itself (a word it finally abandoned when in order to retake power, it dropped any pretence of being a party of socialism, as if it ever was).

In the context of the current situation, the Labour Party, reinvented again, or not, is structurally incapable of returning to anything except its own miserable, traitorous past. It represents no one except itself as an integral part of the political class, united in their defence of Imperialism and their own preservation as part of the UK’s political elite.

‘Not Red Ed’s’ speech at the conference is a wonder to behold. It’s as if the thirteen years of Labour rule never existed! But the Labour Party’s fundamentally reactionary policies are revealed by the following extracts where ‘Not Red Ed’ applauds Thatcher for unleashing capital’s attack on working people:

“Some of what Margaret Thatcher did – such as council house sales, punitive tax rates and ending the union closed shop and strikes without ballots – had been “right”.

“And New Labour also achieved much, he argued, but “we did not do enough to change the values of our economy,” said the Labour leader.

“And the result was a society in which vested interests such as the energy companies and banks prospered and the wrong people – such as Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin – got the most rewards, argued Mr Miliband.” — ‘Labour conference: Miliband vows ‘new bargain’ for UK’, BBC News Website, 28 September 2011

What does he mean when he talks of “changing the values of our economy”? What values is he talking about changing? More to the point, what economy? What does any of it mean? It’s empty, meaningless rhetoric that tells us nothing about the nature of the crisis. Instead ‘Not Red Ed’ blames it on the greed of individuals, thus by implication, it’s not the way our economy is (dis)organized but the failings of individuals that are the cause of the crisis.

So, according to university graduate ‘Not Red Ed’ Miliband (son of well known leftie Ralph Miliband) thinks the “wrong people” benefited from thirteen years of Labour rule. So who are the right people? Surely not us, we who have been stripped not only of our rights under the guise of the ‘war on terror’ but also had our collective wealth stolen from us by the corporations the political class represents.

So Miliband is saying that some corporations don’t have the right values. Okay, what values should they have instead? After all, isn’t the objective to get the highest return on investment for the shareholders? That’s what makes capitalism tick. But of course corporations are rarely owned by individuals these days. The major investors/shareholders are other corporations such as pension funds and banks. So to talk even of one corporation having the ‘wrong values’ inevitably questions the values (such as they are) of all corporations. It’s called Capitalism. It purports to run under an operating system called the free market. Investment flows to where there is profit to be had. And note, that corporations, including banks are making huge profits even as the country is meant to be broke. It’s lots of small- to medium-sized businesses that are going broke, not the corporations.

So even ‘Not Red Ed’s’ throwaway line opens up a can of worms for capitalists; no wonder the ex-CBI boss Lord Jones said the speech was a “kick in the teeth” for capitalists.

For as long as the ‘socialist’ Labour Party refuses to acknowledge that the central obstacle to resolving the crisis remains capitalism itself, talking of a change in values of the banks and energy companies is totally pointless. ‘Not Red Ed’s’ rejection of a turn to the left, seals not his fate, but ours. Unless there is a radical rejection of capitalist ‘values’ I fear we are doomed. And it’s not as if we don’t have viable, sustainable economic alternatives to capitalism (once we’ve broken up the big corporations and nationalized the banks, the two main obstacles, plus of course the entrenched political class, probably the UK’s most intractable menace).

We have had sixty-six years of tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum politics, masquerading as democracy. Every five years we kick out one ‘party’ and replace it (or not) with the other one. Each government either does it its way or, if we exert enough pressure, we can make small changes to the system, that may or may not become permanent features of society, eg the National Health Service. In truth of course it has never really been ours to own and cherish as a valued member of our society (like it is in Cuba for example).

Instead, free healthcare for all has become a political football, to be kicked back and forth between successive governments, depending on which way the wind is blowing. Yes, the Labour government pumped billions of funny money into the NHS, much of it going to corporations and ‘consultants’, all part of ‘Not Red Ed’s’ “culture of greed”. Basically Labour’s version of neoliberalism was gangster capitalism abroad and larceny and fraud at home. Life was great, don’t think about tomorrow. Don’t think about what havoc you are wreaking on our culture and economy. Now here’s a fundamental capitalist value: not thinking beyond today. And believe me, this is an intrinsic and inescapable feature of capitalism, borne out most dramatically by the events now playing themselves out. To change it you’ll have to get rid of capitalism.

Assuming society survives pretty much intact by the time of the next election, are we as a people to put ourselves through yet another replay of the same? Surely enough is enough of this bullshit of governments paying off banks with our money and resources, when none of it is necessary, if we take the brave step of challenging the pirates and demanding, as a people, that we take over the banks. They did it in Iceland for example. Treat it like the NHS, as a public service, here to supply the necessary wherewithal for development and holidays on the Costa Brava. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about lining the pockets of a few thousand fat cats and pumping up pension funds. Screw the shareholders, they’re not people, they’re corporations that screw us every day. We have done it before so we can do it again.

William Bowles is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by William Bowles


Surely the Government is in control of the country and its supply of money? Surely money is only a symbolic token to facilitate the production, exchange and distribution of goods and services? Not so, say the Third Positionists, who reject both Capitalism and Communism…

In the old days there was no paper money. The accepted token of exchange was precious metal minted into coins by the Church and the Crown. Because there was only a limited amount of gold and silver available, the economic life of the nation had a certain regularity.

An even greater restriction existed throughout Christendom. This was a prohibition against usury, or charging interest. The Church held it to be a grave sin and the code was upheld by the civil powers. There were harsh penalties for those who broke the law.

The regulation of usury was to prevent the separation of money from reality. Money is not a good, it is a measure. It is fraud to pretend otherwise, and constitutes theft. Usury is making money from lending money; it is making money from nothing. This is exactly what is happening today on a colossal scale.

Several important things arose from the prohibition of usury in medieval Christendom. Firstly Jews, who had taken to wandering around Europe in the Middle Ages, began to specialize in money-lending and other practices which were forbidden to Christians. Exploited Christians, both peasants and aristocracy, found themselves being bled dry by usurers, which is why there were sporadic uprisings, imprisonments and expulsions of Jews throughout Europe. It is one reason why King Edward I expelled these perfidious people from England in 1290. Oliver Cromwell allowed them back when the moral authority of the Church was undermined and the King was beheaded in 1649.

Secondly, gold coins, jewels and other valuables were deposited with people who held strongboxes. This was usually with goldsmiths and money-lenders who, more often than not, were one and the same. These loan-sharks and scriveners realized that, without much chance of being found out, they could charge people for looking after their deposits and then use those deposits – which did not belong to them – to make loans to other people at interest. They soon became rich and powerful.

Gold coins are heavy and awkward to carry around so the custom arose whereby the money-lenders would issue credit notes to depositors who began to trade these notes between themselves in commercial transactions. Paper money had come into existence.

A new form of usury developed as the swindling money-lenders realized the immoral benefits that could be obtained from such a situation. It became apparent to these thieves that they could go one step further than dishonestly using other people’s money for financial advantage at no cost to themselves. They could invent money from absolutely nothing. They could issue credit notes with nothing to back them up and put them into circulation as interest-bearing debts. No-one would be any the wiser. They calculated that they could safely issue notes for up to ten times more than the gold deposits they held, because the depositors would never ask for their deposits back all at the same time.

The principle of modern banking was thus established: invent money from nothing, put it into circulation as “running cash notes” that have to be paid back with real wealth that is produced from our labour, sit back and become unbelievably wealthy and powerful men: hidden rulers of nations.

In England this deceitful system was officially sanctioned in 1694. The usurper of the throne, William of Orange, had overthrown the legitimate King James II with the financial backing and plotting of powerful Jewish financiers in Amsterdam. In return he gave the sovereignty of England to a group of financiers by means of a Charter allowing them to call themselves the Bank of England. The Charter made no mention of issuing the nation’s money, but within minutes of signing the new Bank officials were discussing the form of their “running cash notes.” The same system was adopted in every country by a process of Masonic revolution and manipulation.

Socialist theorists and ideologues have never attacked the essential mechanism of capitalism. Although the injustices of the capitalist system have been attacked in volume after volume, and rightly so, they have never even hinted at the usury upon which the whole system is built and from which all the other injustices stem.

Perhaps this is because so many Communist leaders are Jewish. Most of the ‘Russian Revolutionists’ of 1917 were actually Jews from the lower east side of New York City. Two hundred and seventy-five of them were conveyed to Russia aboard the S.S. Christiana, led by Trotsky and financed by Kuhns, Loebs, Schiffs and Warburgs. This cosy circle of Jews and Freemasons financed both sides of the Great War.

Marx and Engels, two more Jews, wrote the Communist Manifesto on behalf of a secret society calling themselves ‘The League of Just Men.’ This secret society was an arm of the Illuminati, whose power and influence was the catalyst of the French Revolution. One of the founding members of the Illuminati was the House of Rothschild, the Jewish banking house which practically invented supra-nationalism for personal profit.

Nowadays banking has become extremely sophisticated but the hidden and usurious mechanism behind it remains the same. After a big enquiry, hushed up as much as possible, the Bank of England was nationalised in 1946. In theory control of the Bank of England should then have passed from a group of private individuals to the British Government, but this is still not the case. Nationalisation only added a thin veneer of respectability.

The British Treasury, in conjunction with the Bank of England’s advisers to the Government, determine how much paper money and coin will be issued each year. This has to accord with the wealth of the nation for that year. But because banknotes and coins only account for a tiny percentage of financial transactions, it makes no difference to the bankers at all. Most financial transactions are carried out with abstract figures on a computer screen that have no relationship to real wealth. Everything has to be paid for at interest though – even when it doesn’t exist!

The Government still has to pay interest on old and new loans from the Bank. Only a few years ago it was announced that the interest debt on a loan taken during the Napoleonic War had just been paid off! This is where much of our tax money goes.

The next stage of development for international finance is to get rid of cash altogether. Then the token accountability of the bankers will disappear along with the cash. Their intention is that everyone will have to use credit/debit cards for every type of commercial transaction.

Electronic technology, when used this way, and when it is not merely widespread but compulsory, will give them complete control of every man, woman and child in the world. If you cannot buy or sell – food, petrol, clothes – without a card you are completely at their mercy. If you lose the card or it doesn’t work for some reason you will suffer until issued with a replacement. If you make a protest against some particular injustice they could invalidate your card. The next time you go to the supermarket your card may not work. You won’t officially exist!

Who benefits from such a scheme? The politicians or the bankers? To ask the question is to answer it. The Bank of England is the real, but hidden, government of the country. The Government and the politicians are merely puppets controlled by the Bank – or, more accurately, the international banking families. None of our cowardly politicians dare stand up to these hidden and unelected rulers of the world, so powerful have they become. Two American presidents, possibly three, were assassinated for attempting to do so. It is far easier for them to submit to the system and enjoy a rich life than expose the real tyrants: tyrants who cause high taxes, unemployment, war, famine and misery for the rest of us. But these despots of the New World Order forget that Truth is more powerful than they could ever become. And Truth brings Justice!



3 responses to “Labouring under an illusion: Neoliberalism and Britain’s Labour Party


    By Serge J. Van Steenkiste (Atlanta, GA) – See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME) This review is from: Capitalism and the Jews (Hardcover)
    Professor Jerry Muller makes a compelling case in showing that the attitude of Jews towards capitalism was overshadowed by the contemptuous view that Christianity held about trade and commerce for a long time (pp. 33; 158). Until the 19th century C.E., anti-Semitism was predominantly religious in nature, grounded in the sympathy that the Christian churches had for peasants and artisans, the sources of “sweat” labor (pp. 18; 28; 54; 70; 116).

    At the same time, these churches failed to understand the economic value of gathering and analyzing information (pp. 19; 116; 205-206). Christianity officially regarded trade and money lending as “unproductive,” “parasitic,” and “usurious” best left to those outside the community of the faithful, i.e., the Jews (pp. 8; 15; 23-25; 27; 37-38; 43; 116-117).

    The “cultural capital” of Jews positioned them well to play a disproportional role in (early) modern capitalism for the following reasons (pp. 4; 9; 209; 213):

    1. Judaism was more favorably disposed toward commerce than Christianity which was inclined to glorify poverty (pp. 5; 77; 81-85; 110-115).

    2. Jewish culture prized “religious intellectualism” which was easily transferred from religious to secular learning (pp. 70; 87-89).

    3. Judaism favored a lifestyle based on discipline, the conscious planning of action, and the avoidance of intoxication (p. 88).

    4. Jewish success in the market was based upon longer time horizons. Success for those Jews starting at the low end of commercial life required a willingness to work long and hard and to save in order to accumulate capital (pp. 58-59; 61; 88-89).

    5. The propensity to develop social networks was due, in part, to the exclusion of Jews from the larger, gentile society, which provided both a form of collective self-policing and a proto-social security system (pp. 7; 53; 91-92).

    6. Jewish culture put much emphasis on high familial investment in children (pp. 92-93).

    With the industrial revolution firing on all cylinders, anti-Semitism shifted its emphasis by attacking the Jews as capitalists bent on destroying and despoiling the traditional society (pp. 41; 44; 56-57; 158). The social and economic stratification in which Jews were placed made many of them economically successful, which created resentment among social losers in a given capitalist society (pp. 65-66; 129; 189; 204-205; 213-214). To reduce the resentment created by their success, Jews supported 1) tzedakah (= philanthropy) whose beneficiaries also included non-Jews and 2) income redistribution through governmental income transfers (pp. 126; 130-131).

    After WWI, anti-Semites came to the outlandish realization that Jewish capitalists would participate in their own destruction by cooperating with their communist counterparts to topple Christian civilization (p. 161)!

    To his credit, Professor Muller brilliantly shows why Milton Friedman’s argument, that Jews played a prominent role in disparaging capitalism while profiting from it enormously, clearly lacks nuance (pp. 73; 124). To come to this conclusion, Professor Muller looks at the range of Jewish political responses to capitalism that he labels integrationist, isolationist, socialist, and nationalist, respectively (pp. 10-12; 104; 190).

    1. The majority of Jews in Europe and North America opted for integrating themselves into the broader capitalist economy without repudiating their distinct Jewish identity (pp. 39; 104; 109; 115; 215).

    2. The isolationist (or Orthodox) Jews found niches in the capitalist economy that would reduce, to the strict minimum, their social interactions with gentiles and less orthodox Jews (p. 105).

    3. The socialist Jews believed in the substitution of the untried communism to the failing capitalist system for the same reasons that non-Jews espoused this ideology (pp. 35; 80; 105-107). Furthermore, these Jews naively hoped that abolishing capitalism would take care of anti-Semitism which was often linked to anti-capitalism (pp. 42; 133). The disastrous role that some Central and Eastern European Jews played in different communist revolutions in the wake of both WWI and WWII, reinforced the prevalent anti-Semitism that did not need additional oil to burn brightly in the hearts of anti-Semites (pp. 124; 140-141; 151; 158; 165-170; 174; 183; 188). The identification of Jews with communism was based upon a distortion similar to the exaggeration of the reality that Jews were more successful capitalists (pp. 135; 147; 152-153; 163; 175-177). Most Jews did not embrace communism because of its atheism and its economic policy (pp. 140; 174). Most communists were not Jews (p. 160). To their credit, these socialist Jews, however, debunked the stereotype of the Jews as “greedy” and “materialistic” (pp. 126; 137).

    4. The nationalist (or Zionist) Jews emphasized first and foremost the need for a homeland over which Jews would exercise sovereign power without coming to an agreement on the prevailing economic system (p. 106). Zionism was a reaction to the rise of ethnic nationalism that had a basis in the politics of capitalist economic transformation of others (pp. 190-191; 194-199; 202; 208-210). These nationalist Jews faced two unique and formidable obstacles compared to most other ethnic groups: 1. Re-(acquire) a territorial base on which to form a nation-state and 2. Transform themselves from an economically and socially specialized stratum into a combination of “peoplehood” and “statehood” needed to re-(acquire) sovereignty over a distinct territory (pp. 215-218). Professor Muller observes on this subject that the Israeli economy transitioned much faster from its agrarian, socialist beginnings to its present-day highly commercial nature than older Western capitalist economies did (pp. 122-123). The recently published book “Start-Up Nation” by Dan Senor and Saul Singer is illuminating on this subject.

    Professor Muller acknowledges that the high representation of Jews in intellectual professions makes them stand out as standard bearers of almost any political ideology (p. 125). The concept of “tikkun olam” (= repairing the world) in Judaism is not alien to this development.

    In summary, Professor Muller realizes a tour de force in remaining as objective as possible in his examination of the multidimensional relationship that Jews have had with capitalism.

  2. Communism Was Jewish

    “When one lives in contact with the functionaries who are serving the Bolshevik Government, one feature strikes the attention, which, is almost all of them are Jews. I am not at all anti-Semitic; but I must state what strikes the eye: everywhere in Petrograd, Moscow, in provincial districts, in commissariats, in district offices, in Smolny, in the Soviets, I have met nothing but Jews and again Jews…The more one studies the revolution the more one is convinced that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement which can be explained by the special conditions in which the Jewish people were placed in Russia.” (L’Illustration, September 14, 1918).

    “The Gulag Archipelago, ‘he informed an incredulous world that the blood-maddened Jewish terrorists had murdered sixty-six million victims in Russia from 1918 to 1957! Solzhenitsyn cited Cheka Order No. 10, issued on January 8, 1921: ‘To intensify the repression of the bourgeoisie.'” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago) )

    The names behind the Bolshevik (Russian/Communist) revolution

    The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925. He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:

    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Ouritski Jew
    Volodarski Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Krylenko Russian
    Lounatcharski Russian

    “The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:

    President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
    Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
    Agriculture Protian Armenian
    Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Food Schlichter Jew
    Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    State Control Lander Jew
    State Lands Kauffman Jew
    Works V. Schmidt Jew
    Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
    Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
    Religions Spitzberg Jew
    Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Hygiene Anvelt Jew
    Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
    Press Volodarski Jew
    Elections Ouritski Jew
    Justice I. Steinberg Jew
    Refugees Fenigstein Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
    Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew

    “The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:

    Sverdlov (president) Jew
    Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
    Bruno Lett
    Babtchinski Jew
    Bukharin Russian
    Weinberg Jew
    Gailiss Jew
    Ganzburg Jew
    Danichevski Jew
    Starck German
    Sachs Jew
    Scheinmann Jew
    Erdling Jew
    Landauer Jew
    Linder Jew
    Wolach Czech
    Dimanstein Jew
    Encukidze Georgian
    Ermann Jew
    Joffe Jew
    Karkline Jew
    Knigissen Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Krylenko Russian
    KrassikofSachs Jew
    Kaprik Jew
    Kaoul Lett
    Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
    Latsis Jew
    Lander Jew
    Lounatcharski Russian
    Peterson Lett
    Peters Lett
    Roudzoutas Jew
    Rosine Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Stoutchka Lett
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Sosnovski Jew
    Skrytnik Jew
    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Teodorovitch Jew
    Terian Armenian
    Ouritski Jew
    Telechkine Russian
    Feldmann Jew
    Froumkine Jew
    Souriupa Ukranian
    Tchavtchevadze Georgian
    Scheikmann Jew
    Rosental Jew
    Achkinazi Imeretian
    Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
    Rose Jew
    Sobelson (Radek) Jew
    Sclichter Jew
    Schikolini Jew
    Chklianski Jew
    Levine (Pravdine) Jew

    “The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:

    Dzerjinski (president) Pole
    Peters (vice-president) Lett
    Chklovski Jew
    Kheifiss Jew
    Zeistine Jew
    Razmirovitch Jew
    Kronberg Jew
    Khaikina Jewess
    Karlson Lett
    Schaumann Jew
    Leontovitch Jew
    Jacob Goldine Jew
    Glaperstein Jew
    Kniggisen Jew
    Latzis Lett
    Schillenkuss Jew
    Janson Lett
    Rivkine Jew
    Antonof Russian
    Delafabre Jew
    Tsitkine Jew
    Roskirovitch Jew
    G. Sverdlof Jew
    Biesenski Jew
    Blioumkine Jew
    Alexandrevitch Russian
    I. Model Jew
    Routenberg Jew
    Pines Jew
    Sachs Jew
    Daybol Lett
    Saissoune Armenian
    Deylkenen Lett
    Liebert Jew
    Vogel German
    Zakiss Lett

    Although Lenin is described as a “Russian,” in fact he was a mixture of various nationalities. It is likely that he was one-quarter Russian, one-quarter German, one-quarter Jewish and at least one- quarter Kalmuck (Mongol), which accounts for his Mongol appearance. Various authorities allege that his wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya was a Jewess and that her family spoke Yiddish in the home. A report sent to the British government in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke, the Dutch consul in St. Petersburg, said that “Bolshevism is organised and worked by Jews.”

    The report was included in a pamphlet published as a government White Paper in April 1919 entitled Russia No. 1 (1919) A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. However, the pamphlet was quickly withdrawn and reissued with various excisions and alterations made. In the War Records Division of the United States National Archives there is filed a report from an American Intelligence operative in St. Petersburg. Under Record Group 20; Records of the American Expeditionary Forces Capt. Montgomery Schuyler, G2 Intelligence wrote, “The Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type.”

    Also in the U.S. National Archives are two telegrams sent by American diplomats in Russia. State Department document 861.00/1757 sent on 2 May 1918 by U.S. Consul Summers in Moscow relates, “Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population.” Document 861.00/2205 from Consul Caldwell in Vladivostock on 5 July 1918 describes, “Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of worst type.”

    In January, 1924, Lenin died from causes variously described as ‘a heart attack,’ brain hemorrhage’ and ‘syphilis.’ His comrades immediately began fighting amongst themselves to see who was to become his successor. A relative outsider, Joseph Stalin, came to the fore and purged all competition either by exiling or executing them. Since Stalin was not Jewish, yet nearly all his opponents were, it is often suggested that Stalin was anti-Semitic. This is far from the truth. Stalin had three wives, all of them Jewesses. The first was Ekaterina Svanidze who bore him one son, Jacob. His second wife was Kadya Allevijah. She bore him a son Vassili and a daughter Svetlana. His second wife died in mysterious circumstances, either by committing suicide or murdered by Stalin. His third wife was Rosa Kaganovich, the sister of Lazar Kaganovich, the head of Soviet industry.

    Stalin’s daughter (who in 1967 fled to the USA) then married Lazar’s son Mihail i.e. her step-mother’s nephew. Svetlana Stalin had a total of four husbands, three of them Jewish. Stalin’s vice-president Molotov was also married to a Jewess, whose brother, Sam Karp, runs an export business in Connecticut. Just to complicate things even more, the Molotov’s (half-Jewish) daughter also called Svetlana was engaged to be married to Stalin’s son Vassili. After the death of Stalin, his successors kept up the tradition, for a report in the B’nai B’rith Messenger relates: “To show that Russia treats its Jews well, Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev this week remarked at a reception at the Polish Embassy that not only he himself and Soviet President Klementi Voroshilov, but also half the members of the Praesidium have Jewish wives.

    Mr. Kruschev made this remark to Israeli Ambassador Joseph Avidar, who was amongst the guests.” (Kruschev’s wife was yet another Kaganovitch.) According to a report in The Canadian Jewish News of 13 November 1964 the present Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev is married to a Jewess, and his children are brought up as Jews. There are a number of prominent Jews in the Soviet government, including Dimitri Dymshits in charge of industry, Lev Shapiro regional secretary of Birobidjan, and Yuri Andropov in charge of the secret police, the KGB. In fact, every secret police chief in Soviet history has been a Jew, from the first Uritsky to the most recent, the murderous Beria. A Jew is also in charge of the Soviet economy – Leonid Kantorovich. It is a well-known fact that the Bolsheviks were and are financed by Jewish interests in the West.

    At a Bolshevik celebration rally in New York’s Carnegie Hall on the night of 23 March 1917, a telegram of support from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was read out. The telegram was reprinted in the next morning’s New York Times. Schiff later tried to deny his involvement, but thirty years later his grandson John admitted in the New York Journal-American (3 February 1949) that the old man had sunk twenty million dollars into the Bolshevik cause. Another Western bankers who poured funds into Bolshevik Russia was Olaf Ashberg of the Stockholm Nia Banken. He remained the Soviets’ paymaster until the late 1940s. The London Evening Standard of 6 September 1948 reported a visit by Ashberg to Switzerland “for secret meetings with Swiss government officials and banking executives. Diplomatic circles describe Mr. Ashberg as the ‘Soviet banker’ who advanced large sums to Lenin and Trotsky in 1917.

    At the time of the revolution, Mr. Ashberg gave Trotsky money to form and equip the first unit of the Red Army.” The Bolsheviks also received assistance from Armand Hammer, who still commutes back and forward between New York and Moscow to take care of his business interests in both communities. Hammer’s Occidental Oil Company is at the moment building a 1600 mile chemicals pipeline in southern Russia. He is also on such good terms with the Soviets that he personally arranges for Soviet art galleries to lend paintings to America. Another American-based businessman to help out the Soviet economy is Michael Fribourg, who owns the massive Continental Grain Company.

    Together with the Louis Dreyfus Corporation, these Jewish speculators were able to buy up vast quantities of cheap American grain in 1972, sell it to the Soviets at a vast profit, and collect an export subsidy from the U.S. taxpayer. In every other East European country, it is exactly the same story: In Hungary a Communist revolution was staged in 1919, instigated by the Jew Bela Kun (Cohen). During the three month regime, the country was turned upside down in a reign of murder and terror. Here again, the government was composed almost entirely of Jews. And it was this factor which brought about the regime’s downfall, as the ordinary Hungarians detested Jewish dictatorship. Kun was deposed and fled to the Soviet Union, where he became chief of the secret police, the Cheka, in southern Russia. It was not until 1945 that the Jews were able to regain control.

    Three Russian Jews were installed as the ruling triumvirate, Matyas Rakosi (Rosencranz), Erno Gero (Singer) and Zoltan Vas. Both Rakosi and Gero had been members of Kun’s bloody government. In Germany, the Jews also tried to take over there in the chaos that followed the First World War. Aided by funds from the Soviet Ambassador Joffe, Rosa Luxemburg’s Spartacus Bund attempted to overthrow the government. The revolt was quelled and its leaders Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht executed. The post-war dictator of Roumania, Anna Pauker, was the daughter of a Bucharest kosher butcher. For a time she earned her living teaching Hebrew. her father and brother now live in Israel. Although Tito was the only non-Jewish dictator behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1940s, he was tutored by the Jew Mosa Pijade. According to John Gunther in Behind the Iron Curtain, “He is Tito’s mentor…

    Whatever ideological structure Tito may have, he got it from the shrewd old man.” Moscow’s puppet government in Czechoslovakia in the late 1940s was run by another Jew, Rudolph Slansky. In Poland too, Jews occupied virtually every position of authority in the post-war Communist regime. Prominent among these were Minc, Skryesewski, Modzelewski and Berman. Jacob Berman gradually eclipsed the others until he became supreme dictator by himself. Also, Gomulka’s wife was a Jewess. Even in China, Soviet Jews were at work helping Mao Tse Tung. High up in the Political Department of the Red Army in China were W. N. Levitschev and J. B. Gamarnik. [Source: Let My People Go!, Empirical Publications, Northern Ireland, circa 1976]
    Disclaimer:~~For educational purposes only without compensation~~




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s