The Communist Hoax

150px-communist_star-svgOh those awful Communists and their Communism!!!

Many generations of Americans and Europeans have grown up hearing about the ‘Reds’ or ‘Commies’ and their goal to rule the world.

The ‘Cold War’ was all about the battle between the Capitalist Western nations and the Communist nations with a particular emphasis on The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

Once the ‘Atomic Bomb’ hoax was perpetrated by both the West and the Soviets, it was only a short time until virtually everyone on the Earth became indoctrinated and terrorized with the notion that nuclear war was just around the corner, with the impending conflict seen as taking place between the US and the Soviet Union.

01-rothschild-familyAnd as can be expected, the Communism project was concocted by the same ongoing group of financier/Oligarchs that brought us the fake nuclear bomb hoax, with both operations supporting each other, along with the fake ‘space race’.

The financier/industrialist/Oligarchs, of course, never get their own hands dirty, leaving the dirty work to ‘Intelligence’ organizations, which have morphed over time into what we currently know as:

ASIS – Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Australia)

BND – Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service) (Germany)

seal_of_the_central_intelligence_agency-svgCIA – Central Intelligence Agency (USA)

DGSE – Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (General Directorate for External Security) (France)





GRU – Glavnoye Razvedyvatel`noye Upravleniye (Main Intelligence Agency) includes (SVR – Sluzhba vneshney razvedki (Foreign Intelligence Service)& FSB – Federal’naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii (Federal Security Service) (Russia)

ISI – بین الخدماتی مخابرات (Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence) (Pakistan)

MI6 – Directorate of Military Intelligence Section 6 (UK)  (SIS- Secret Intelligence Service)

Mossad – הַמוֹסָד (Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations) (Israel)

ministry_of_state_security_of_the_peoples_republic_of_china-svgMSS – Ministry of State Security (China)

RAW – Research and Analysis Wing (India)

And many others.



Communist Ideology

“In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, “common, universal”) is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism (anarchist communism), and the political ideologies grouped around both.

pyramid_of_capitalist_systemAll these hold in common the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class – who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society – and the capitalist class – a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through both private ownership of the means of production (the physical and institutional means with which commodities are produced and distributed), and private ownership of property (land), and that political, social and economic conflict between these two classes will trigger a fundamental change in the economic system, and by extension a wide-ranging transformation of society.(1)

The primary element which will enable this transformation, according to this analysis, is the social ownership of the means of production and common ownership of private property (primarily land).

garmentThose who fear that the abolishment of private property means they would have to share their underpants, don’t yet understand the reasoning here.

It’s important to distinguish between simple possessions and property that is used to exploit others.

The ideal here is that people would be entitled only to that property, including land and machinery, that they could use employing only their own labor.

Landlords and capitalists are parasites who use property to profit not from their own work, but from that of others. It is, after all, the farm worker, not the landlord, who makes the land productive. It is the factory worker, not the employer, who produces the goods.

The landlord did not create the land; the capitalist did not build the factory or the machinery. They may have purchased land and machinery, but their money represents nothing more than the expropriated labor of others.

2893_srcCapitalists and landlords have no moral claim to property, for property is a legal fiction maintained by a state they have created of themselves, by themselves, and for themselves.

Anyway, that gives a brief overview of the basic ideology of Communism.

In a nutshell the idea underlying Communism is common ownership of property, a classless society, and a stateless society.

The positive or negative aspects of this ideology are not going to be discussed here, but possibly in a future post.

The Russian Project

coat_of_arms_of_the_soviet_union-svgFor those in the West, the most obvious attempt at creating a society based on Communism was the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, formerly and currently known as Russia or The Russian Federation.

Thanks to the deliberate indoctrination of children by the Public Education System, virtually every American came to believe that what occurred in Russia was a Communist society, but what actually existed there was a Fascist Dictatorship.

But I’m getting ahead of myself here……so, let’s look at the historically visible prime movers of the operation to overthrow the Czar of Russia and create a Communist Government.

For Westerners, the two most famous people associated with Communism are Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, and they’re both Fakes.

Karl Marx

screen-shot-2014-12-01-at-7-33-24-pmKarl Marx was born in the city of Trier in the Kingdom of Prussia, 5 May 1818.

“Marx’s history is well-known and uncontested, but it is rarely stressed.
On his father’s side, Marx came from a family of rabbis. His father was the first in the line to refuse that road and instead he became a rich lawyer. His father gave up Judaism, we are told, and became a Lutheran, although we must assume that was just a pose. He married a Jewish woman anyway, and although we are always told she was “semi-literate,” the more important fact is that she was connected to a family of very wealthy bankers and industrialists. This was the Philips family, which later started Philips electronics. Outside of the royals, the Philips were and still are the richest people in Belgium.
Marx’s mother was actually a Pressburg, and it was her sister who married into the Philips family.
However, the Pressburgs were also very wealthy Jewish merchants. If they hadn’t been prominent they wouldn’t have been able to marry into the Philips family. Their line in Holland was actually relatively new, and just a couple of generations earlier they had moved from Austria-Hungary, where they had also been wealthy and influential. Their extended family includes many bankers and—like Marx’s family—rabbis.
That “semi-literate” tag found whenever we read about Marx’s mother is supposed to divert you from realizing who she really is. Being semi-literate implies she is from a low-class family of scullery maids or something, when the truth is she is from a family of millionaires. They just trust you don’t make the connection and ask “so these millionaires are semi-literate?” Making that connection explains a lot. For a start, it explains why these super-wealthy families who now run the world care nothing for real art, literature, poetry, or music.
They have destroyed all the old high arts and sciences, keeping only the lowly economics. The upper
class they displaced—the real aristocrats—always honored art and artists. They scoured their domains—even the countryside and the towns of the poor—searching for the most talented artisans and artists. But the nouveau-riche industrialists killed that tradition, instead inserting their own talentless children into the all the artistic venues and jobs.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild

Nathan Mayer Rothschild

Searching Wikitree makes it easy to see that Karl Marx’s grandmother Nanette Barent-Cohen was the first cousin of Henriette Barent-Cohen, who married Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Wow. This indicates it wasn’t just the Phillips and Pressburgs bankrolling the Communism project, it was the even deeper pockets of Rothschild.”(2)
I know what you’re starting to ask yourself…..Why would a banking Oligarch like Rothschild fund a project to create a Communist society???
“We also have curious links through Marx’s wife Jenny:
Spending summer and autumn 1836 in Trier, Marx became more serious about his studies and his life. He became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, an educated baroness of the Prussian ruling class who had known Marx since childhood. Having broken off her engagement with a young aristocrat to be with Marx, their relationship was socially controversial due to the differences between their ethnic and class origins, but Marx befriended her father, a liberal aristocrat, Ludwig von Westphalen, and later dedicated his doctoral thesis to him.
No one ever asks how Marx managed to meet and wed an educated baroness of the Prussian ruling
class. Being a middle-class Jew, son of an attorney, he should have been the worst possible husband
for her. We would expect her family to do everything possible to prevent such a union. This is glossed over by telling us Jenny and Karl were childhood friends, but that is beyond belief.

Jenny von Westphalen

Jenny’s father Ludwig von Westphalen may have hired Karl’s father Heinrich to do some work for him, but as for the families socializing, that is next to impossible. Plus, Jenny was four years older. If we are to believe that they became friends as children, we would have to believe that a 16-year-old girl, say, became close friends with a 12-year-old boy. It doesn’t happen that way. If you are male, ask yourself if you had any female friends that were four years older, when you were 10 or 12. You didn’t. A 16-year-old girl would be interested in a 20-year-old boy, not a 12-year-old. Jenny would have to be slow for us to believe she was best friends with a much younger boy, but she wasn’t. She was supposed to be beautiful—the most beautiful girl in Trier—and highly educated.
The marriage looks arranged for political purposes, which means Ludwig was probably in on the con. In other words, the most logical reading of the clues here is that Ludwig von Westphalen was an aristocrat who had been bought out by the rising industrialists like the Philips family. He had read the signs, seeing the ultimate victory of money over rank—banking over the aristocracy—and he had chosen their side. The history books call Ludwig a liberal aristocrat, which probably means he was open to new ideas for the future. But since the new idea for the future he was open to was this takeover by the bankers and industrialists, he was anything but liberal. To use the right adjective, he was a fascist.
His links to the government in Prussia also explain the protection Marx seemed to have there, even as he was being ejected from Germany more than once. His counterpart in Russia, Bakunin, spent many years in prison, but Marx was never inconvenienced. Even after Ludwig died in 1842, Jenny still had connections to the aristocracy through her family.

That’s a fake. The second face has been painted or pasted in. Notice the shadows on the face don’t match the other face. The easiest place to see it is in the eyes.

But there is another possibility, one that would free Ludwig from any blame. It is possible that all we are told about Ludwig is false. It is possible that Ludwig opposed the marriage violently, as we would expect him to. It is possible that Jenny was the one bought out by the industrialists. This reading should appeal to feminists, since it gives her a far greater role in this entire history. It is possible that both Marx and Jenny were agents, and that she, not he, was their main tool against the aristocracy in Germany. Just think how useful a turned Prussian baroness would be to the bankers and industrialists. All they needed was one rich girl who hated Daddy for whatever reason, and they would have their perfect spy. If she was a bit of an actress, so much the better.
The clue leading us to this reading of the facts is that Marx and Jenny didn’t wed until after Ludwig died. He died in 1842 and they wed in 1843. We are told they had a 7-year engagement, so they apparently waited a long time for Ludwig to pass on.

Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

At any rate, we know Marx’s mom was from a family of millionaires (by today’s standards). And his wife was a baroness whose grandfather had been chief of staff to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick. This Duke is interesting for several reasons. The first is that he was a field marshal, which is basically a five-star general. That is and was extremely rare. The second is that he was almost made the commander of the British forces in the American Revolutionary War.
So this is who Jenny’s family was accustomed to work for and socialize with. This Duke was also a millionaire, and the Westphalens were also very wealthy. And yet the historians tell us Marx was living hand-to-mouth at several points. They tell us that Karl and Jenny relied on loans from the family; and that after his father died, Marx’s family had a “diminished income.” And that Karl and Jenny lived communally in Paris with the Ruges.
You might want to ask these fake historians how stupid they think you are. How could Karl and Jenny ever have any money problems? They didn’t need loans from their own family. They were never disinherited, so they had almost infinite supplies of money. Millionaires and baronesses don’t live communally in one-room flop houses. We are told these rich kids were living close to the bone—always a day away from begging on the street—when the fact is they were trust-fund kids, always just one letter or phone call away from a bag of cash.
The mainstream hasn’t just missed this fact, it has buried it on purpose. No, even burying is not a
strong enough word for it. Mainstream historians and journalists have lied right to your face. See this
2010 article from the Daily Mail, telling us that when Marx died he was worth less than $400. Since we are never told that either Marx’s family or Jenny’s ever cut them off or disinherited them, that is
impossible. Marx was from money and married money, so it’s safe to assume he died a millionaire.

Rothschild Red Shield

So you see, we have red flags popping up with Marx from the beginning. When you read that Marx’s
uncle was a super-wealthy banker and industrialist, don’t you get a little suspicious? Don’t you wonder if maybe, just maybe, these bankers financed this whole literary and philosophical operation for a reason? In fact, it is admitted that this banker uncle Benjamin Philips did bankroll Marx while he was in London. But he was bankrolling him before that. Marx wasn’t working in Paris, so we may assume he was a trust-fund boy all along. In fact, it looks like Marx was sent to Paris as an agent, specifically to follow Arnold Ruge to spy on him and undermine him.
By that time Marx was already arguing that the proletariat was a revolutionary force. Do you think
Uncle Benny the banker was underwriting this project, hoping that the proletariat would revolt and
overthrow the industrialists? No, Uncle Benny was underwriting this project for the express purpose of preventing that from happening. The growing socialist movement—which was closely allied at that time to the Republican revolutions fomenting all over the world—was seen as a danger to the rich. Marx was trained and sent in to splinter and disorient this movement, which he did.
We will be told Uncle Benny didn’t know what Marx was doing. Benny just sent money to support his nephew Marx because he was a generous guy. Right. Marx was ejected twice from Germany by the King of Prussia, and then from two other countries, but Benny didn’t know that? Marx was notorious throughout the civilized world, but Benny didn’t read the papers?

The Communist Manifesto

It would behoove you to reread all Marx’s major writings with that idea in mind. Marx was sent in to control the opposition. Notice how at every juncture, Marx manages to create factions rather than alliances. He deftly prevents any real action by always turning the socialists against themselves. He keeps them arguing over philosophical fine-points rather than encouraging direct and immediate action. Wikipedia even admits it:
In Vorwärts!, Marx refined his views on socialism based upon Hegelian and Feuerbachian ideas of dialectical materialism, at the same time criticising liberals and other socialists operating in Europe.
See, he is not creating alliances, he is criticizing liberals and other socialists. He is encouraging infighting. And at the same time he is weighing the movement down with a big bag of useless and
imprecise terms like dialectical materialism. This is perfect legal misdirection, which he learned from his father. As a lawyer, his father knew that one of the best tools at your disposal as an agent of disinfo is a monstrous lingo, with which you can insert confusion into any argument.
The leaders of the progressive movement in Germany had already cut their own throats by focusing on religion instead of politics. Most workers weren’t interested in overthrowing the Church. Atheism was a pose mostly taken by university students, not by workers. The masses weren’t going to be swayed by talking to them about atheism, and Marx knew that. These attacks on Christianity only
turned most of the workers off. But the leaders of the progressive movements like Bauer were too
ensconced in their ivory towers to see that. So Marx and Engels cleverly goaded them into thinking
they had failed because they hadn’t gone far enough in their attacks on religion.
lenin-control-best-meetville-quotes-45157Marx’s job was to push the progressives into further radicalism, a radicalism that would both disenchant the real workers and mobilize the conservatives in government to shut down the magazines and meetings. The same sort of controlling the opposition we see now was going on in the 1840’s. There are many subplots to this control, but one of them has always been encouraging the progressives to play their hand too far and too early. Marx was inserted as a mole: a creator of dissension, a confuser, and a giver of bad advice.

Marx and Engels

We see more proof of that in 1849 when August Willich and Karl Schapper recommended an
immediate uprising. Marx and Engels did everything they could to stop it, warning that it would be crushed by the police.
Changes in society, Marx argued, are not achieved overnight through the efforts and will power of “a
handful of men.” Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social development.
That is classical Marxist misdirection, of course, with the blather about a scientific progression of
history. It also refutes itself for at least two reasons: 1) Willich and Schapper weren’t calling for action by a handful of men, they were calling for action by millions of men and women simultaneously across Europe—the very thing the industrialists feared most. 2) The industrialists had changed society in a matter of decades, and they were in fact “a handful of men.” A few powerful people working together can achieve incredible things, and history is full of examples of that. Marx and his backers knew that, which is exactly why they were publishing manifestos saying the opposite.
Take a look at that last quoted sentence closely. Here it is again:
Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social development.
When did anything in history ever happen that way?

Storming the Bastille

Answer: it didn’t. The French Revolution happened in just the opposite way, with no scientific analysis of economic conditions and no moving through stages of social development. The 17th century overthrow of Charles by Cromwell didn’t happen that way, either. Both real history and human nature are the opposite of scientific. They are the opposite of Marxist.
As more evidence of this, it’s important to reconsider Marx’s pitting the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. This should have always seemed strange to you, seeing that the great enemy of the worker was not the bourgeoisie, but the very rich industrialists who owned the companies. As now, it was the super rich that were preying on the workers, not the middle class. The lower class and the middle class should have been natural allies against the upper class, since both were and are being preyed upon mercilessly. Well, the upper class recognized that fact, and had to prevent that alliance by any means possible.
Enter Karl Marx.
Do you really think it is a coincidence that Marx came from a family of super wealthy industrialists,
and that he was misdirecting attention away from them all along? You will tell me that when he returned to Cologne in 1848, he pressed four of the ten points of the Manifesto, believing that “
the bourgeoisie must overthrow the feudal monarchy and aristocracy before the proletariat could overthrow the bourgeoisie.”
But again, that is misdirection, since his rich uncle Benny was neither monarchy nor aristocracy. The Philips family was composed of bankers and industrialists, not aristocrats. In fact, these industrialists wanted to supplant the existing aristocracy. It was upper class versus upper class, and in some parts of the world it still is.

Bolshevik forces marching on Red Square

Remind yourself what happened in Russia:
The monarchy and aristocracy were overthrown, but not by the bourgeoisie. They were overthrown by a group of mysterious intellectuals like Marx—Lenin, Trotsky, etc.—and under closer examination we find they too were financed by bankers and industrialists.
Read that last quoted sentence yet again, and de-spin it like this:
Marx wanted to see the bourgeoisie overthrow the aristocracy before the proletariat overthrew the bourgeoisie. Why would he push that idea? It is because the overthrow of the aristocracy was the plan all along. All this talk about the proles and bourgeoisie is just misdirection. The goal was for the aristocracy to be replaced by the industrialists in Marx’s family, after which the proletariat could all go get hanged. Marx and his backers knew that the proletariat would never gain the ability to overthrow anyone, but they especially wouldn’t have the power to overthrow a new upper class that had just defeated the old aristocracy and co-opted all their resources. 

Nicholas II, the last emperor of Russia

You see, recent history has been the industrialists against everyone else. But they were always least worried about the “proletariat.” The lower class was mostly lower for a reason. They had the fewest resources, intellectual and tangible. That is why the industrialists were always misdirecting you
toward them. They wanted the world to think they were concerned with the lower classes, but they weren’t. They were most concerned with the aristocracy, since the aristocracy had all the things they wanted. This is why Marx was advising that the aristocracy needed to be overthrown first. He is actually tipping his hand toward us here, but almost no one has read the cards right.
The secondary concern of the industrialists and bankers was the upper-middle class. They had to watch their flank while they were going after the aristocracy. They couldn’t have those just beneath them bite them in the butt while they were pulling down kings. In hindsight, we see that they dealt with this by pushing a materialistic and economic worldview. This materialistic worldview kept the upper-middle class chasing the very wealthy above them, rather than attacking them.
The middle class didn’t want to ally itself to the lower class, since that would just pull them down. This effectively isolated the lower class. It also isolated and ultimately doomed the middle class, since after the industrialists had defeated the aristocracy, they turned and attacked the stratum just beneath them. The new upper class has now been preying voraciously on the middle class for the past half century—so much so that the parasite may end up killing the host. Once the upper class has pushed the entire middle class down into the lower class, it will have only itself to feed upon. We are already seeing the first stages of that.
This is precisely why the aristocracy in Western Europe backed down and gave up the fight. After the Russian Revolution, they saw they were outmatched and outflanked by the bankers and industrialists. The bankers gave them the choice of following the Romanovs or receding into the shadows, where they would play only a diversionary and functionary role.

The fasces, a fascist symbol. It depicts an axe bound in a bundle of wooden rods, a symbol of the power over life or death through the death penalty.

Both the East and the West have experienced fascist takeovers, but the methods have been somewhat different. In both cases, however, the industrialists have won all the battles. In Russia they rule under
the cover of a fake Marxism. In the US they rule under the cover of a Democracy that does not exist. In both places they control the masses with fatal doses of propaganda and a completely falsified history.
If you want more proof, go to the Wikipedia page titled “Banking in Russia.” There are several sections, with the first section being the “Soviet Period.”(2)
Here is what is in that section:
When you click Gosbank the explanation gives enough info to satisfy a reader that reads nothing else, but is sorely missing key details.
“Even Lenin called his New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921 state capitalism.
Nathan-Rothschild-and-famed-quoteWhy would he call it that? Because it explicitly bowed to foreign investment by bankers and industrialists—the bankers and industrialists that had bankrolled him in the first place. These industrialists were already active in Russia before 1921, but in that year Lenin removed the cloak and simply admitted it. They also don’t want you to read about Stalin’s First Five-Year Plan, which viciously pushed industrialization on a country that didn’t want it. Why? Was this industrialization done for the benefit of the proles or the bourgeoisie? Nope. It was done for the benefit of the industrialists. That is why it is called industrialization.
Industry may—or may not—provide products that are useful to everyone, but the industrialists don’t
care about that. They will just as soon push products that are harmful to everyone, and have. A
majority of modern products are harmful to humanity and the environment, and that majority is
increasing every year. But you aren’t told that. You are told to buy everything that is advertised as
soon as it hits the shelves, for your own greater glory. However, it isn’t to your glory the products are
provided, it is to the glory of the industrialists.
270px-stalin_imageIndustrialization increases wealth disparity by moving wealth from the poor and middle classes to the upper class. This is why the upper class loves it. This is why Lenin and Stalin viciously forced industrialization on Russians that didn’t want it: it moved money out of Russia and into the pockets of foreign investors. And this industrialization didn’t help Russia at all. In fact, it decimated it via mass starvation, mass murder by the government, and civil war. Almost a century later, Russia is still feeling the effects of this fascist revolution and takeover by the financiers. Russia is no more communist than the US is democratic. Both are just smokescreens for looting by the rich.
Now let’s move on to Marx’s time with the New York Tribune. Wikipedia has a whole section on this, but of course it is all misdirection. Notice that it says this: Marx sought to communicate with the public by writing articles for the New York Tribune and other bourgeois newspapers. Did you trip over that? Aren’t we taught that Marx wanted the proles to overthrow the bourgeoisie? So it should be strange to see him published in a “bourgeois” paper, no? The reason Marx was in the Tribune is that it was the most widely circulated paper in the US at the time, so it was the most useful as a dispenser of propaganda. However, Intelligence lost control of the paper in 1861 and had to switch their man Dana over to the New York Sun. Not surprisingly, Marx left at that time, too.
In the section on the Tribune, we find this paragraph inserted by someone:
From December 1851 to March 1852, Marx wrote The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, a work on the French Revolution of 1848, in which he expanded upon his concepts of historical materialism, class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, advancing the argument that victorious proletariat has to smash the bourgeois state.

Daguerrotype of the Tribune editorial staff by Mathew Brady, circa 1850s. Horace Greeley is seated, second from the right. Legendary editor Charles Dana is standing, center.

But they just admitted Marx was writing for the bourgeois Tribune at the same time. How does that make any sense? It makes sense only when you realize Marx was trying to turn the bourgeoisie against the proles. He had to prevent an alliance of the middle class with the lower class. So he was diverting the (semi)literate workers who read the Tribune away from any alliance with the factory workers, mine workers, and farm workers who probably weren’t reading newspapers at all. Divide and conquer, you know.
It’s advisable to pause and chew on the term “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Why would Marx put it
that way, if he wanted to sell the idea of a “victorious proletariat”? Aren’t those two ideas contradictory? If you were a revolutionary trying to bring about the rise of the proletariat and the
smashing of the bourgeois state, would you call the outcome of that the dictatorship of the proletariat? No, you would only call it that if you were trying to scare your bourgeois readers. They don’t want a dictatorship of the proletariat, do they? No one smart enough to read the newspapers wants a dictatorship of illiterate factory workers, and Marx knew that.
In the next section at Wikipedia, we get more confirmation when we find that Marx and Engels are arguing in 1851 that another economic downturn is necessary for another revolution. Conditions had bettered somewhat after the revolutions of 1848, so Marx and Engels were arguing it wasn’t the time for another uprising. They advised the other leaders to wait for another recession.

Cheering revolutionaries after fighting in March 1848

This advice was coming right out of the mouth of Marx’s uncle Benny, of course, since the economic conditions had bettered somewhat only because the industrialists had loosened the vise a turn or two in response to the revolutions of 1848. The industrialists made a few minor concessions in that time, for the purpose of defusing the uprisings. It was then Marx’s job to be sure the socialist leaders responded in the right way, by putting the revolution on hold.
Unfortunately, this was the opposite of what they should have done base on their alleged goals. The concessions should have been read as an indication of weakness of the upper class. If they had really been as strong as they wished to appear, they wouldn’t have needed to make any concessions. The revolutions of 1848 had weakened them, and a second round of revolutions in the 1850’s may have led to even greater success by the Republicans. But infiltration by Marx and others defused that possibility.
In that sense, Marxism is probably the greatest propaganda success of all time.
The smashing success of this early major psy-op has led to everything we have seen since, including the sharp rise of all forms of misdirection.
caseyThe upper class discovered that most people could be fooled most of the time, and that this fooling allowed for complete control of society. They have had no use for the truth since that time. We see more proof in the beginning of the next section at Wikipedia, on the First International.
In that organisation, Marx was involved in the struggle against the anarchist wing centred on Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876). Although Marx won this contest, the transfer of the seat of the General Council from London to New York in 1872, which Marx supported, led to the decline of the International.

Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876)

Notice how Marx is able to cleverly switch gears, to respond to any immediate crisis. Earlier with the Young Hegelians, Marx had pushed the leaders to be more radical in their attacks on Christianity, knowing this would backfire. Here, he is pushing for less radicalism. Afraid that Bakunin’s group might actually do something, Marx came in and took over the First International. Notice that Marx’s takeover led to the decline of the International. Of course it did. That is what it was meant to do.
The most important event in these years was the Paris Commune of 1871, for which Marx wrote Der
Burgerkrieg in Frankreich. Although it was sold as support of the Communards, in fact Marx did everything possible to undercut them. For instance, we find this famous passage: One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.
There were lessons to be drawn from the failures of 1871, but that wasn’t one of them. Successful revolutionaries can lay hold of anything they have a use for, just as any conquering army can. The words above again look like the words of Uncle Benny. He is trying to convince the Republican leaders that they don’t have the expertise or wherewithal to use the existing bureaucracy.
But just the opposite is true. Yes, they need some sort of plan of how to use it—what to keep and what to throw out—and some people who are adept at administration. A few smart people could come up with that in a matter of weeks.

That’s also fake. The background is a total fake and the two men have been pasted into the photo of the women. Notice how Engels looks like he is standing about six feet back, while Marx is standing almost inside the lady’s dress. And what is behind Marx, below the hat?

Marx is just manufacturing problems. He is trying make the revolutionaries think that revolution is so complex and requires so much intricate planning it is nigh impossible. He advises that it requires years of study and detailed maps of all actions during the transition. It doesn’t.
Nothing that humans do requires that, because if it did nothing would ever get done. The current bureaucracy doesn’t work that way, so why would a revolutionary government have to work that way? Everything done by humans is criminally inefficient, but that doesn’t stop life from moving forward. All the revolution would require is a few halfway competent people: as such, they would be half-again as competent as the people currently running things.
Wikipedia then backpedals to 1859 and the publication of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. We are told:
Thus, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy created a storm of enthusiasm when it appeared in public. The entire edition of the book was sold out quickly. Yes, but who bought it? The Intelligence agencies? Supposing the numbers weren’t just faked, as now, selling out editions means nothing. Do you really believe a book with the title A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy created a storm of enthusiasm with the public? Not a chance.
This is where Marx hamhandedly pushed the idea of an economic interpretation of history. In other words, economics determines everything else, including the daily lives people lead. Never was a political philosophy less artistic, less religious, less colorful, less poetic, and less interesting. Compared to Marx, Adam Smith seems like a Hollywood blockbuster. Beyond that, never was a political philosophy less true. That is to say, less historical. Which is rich in that Marx was pushing a form of historicism.
king-world-news-man-who-predicted-riots-in-athens-and-chaos-in-markets-now-says-world-hurting-toward-full-blown-collapseAny study of history or the lives of real people shows that economics was and is just one consideration among many, and that it has always been considered the most vulgar and the least definitive. It certainly wasn’t the basis for all human interaction, not in tribal cultures, not in Eastern (Oriental) cultures, and not even in Western cultures up to that time.
Economics has enjoyed a steep rise in relative importance in past 150 years, but that is because it has been promoted so outrageously by the same people that were promoting Marx. While they were promoting this vulgar economic reading of history, they were demoting all spiritualism, art, poetry, cooperation, and other non-economic factors, so it is no surprise to see the bookstores and libraries filled with other books in the same line as A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy books that no one wants to read, or does read. We must assume that even the bankers don’t read this crap, they simply push it on those they wish to loan money to, sell stocks to, or issue credit cards to.

Christopher Eric Hitchens

This means there are no real Marxists and never have been. All prominent people pretending to be interested in Marxism, pro or con, are being paid by Intelligence one way or the other. It is all part of the magnificent con. No one you thought was a Marxist ever was, including people like Christopher Hitchens and Lyndon Larouche. That was simply a pose they were paid to take for a while. Eventually they were paid to take a different pose, like the actors they were and are.
You will say, “It can’t be. There are simply too many of them—too many people who seem to take this stuff seriously. Literally tens of thousands of academics and writers would have to be part of the con. You find them at every university and college, and there are thousands of universities and colleges.” Well, you simply underestimate Intelligence once again, both its size and its reach. It is indeed everywhere, and there are not just tens of thousands of these people, there are millions.
Since there is no real Intelligence work to be done domestically—in the sense of anti-Terrorism or things like that—most of these people are involved in the magnificent con one way or the other. Everyone in the media is part of it, and all of Hollywood, and everyone in publishing, and a large part of academia. Like Hollywood, the universities have been completely taken over, and they are all but run by these shadowy government agencies. The college Presidents and Deans come right out of Intelligence—they are actually appointed by the agencies directly, with Boards of Regents just being a smokescreen. Just study the bios of these college Presidents: like the people outed above, their stories are full of red flags.”(2)

Vladimir Lenin


Lenin is a fake. He just made it up. His real name was Vladimir Ulyanov.

Now let’s take a look a Lenin.
“First of all, his name above is an alias. Most of you won’t know that. Like the name Stalin, the name Lenin is a fake. He just made it up. His real name was Vladimir Ulyanov.
Your first question should be, “Why would the leader of the Communist Party or of the Soviet Union need to live under an alias?” Does it make any sense for the leader of a country to have a fake name? Nobody ever asks these simple questions, but they are well worth asking.
The second thing you need to know is that this Vladimir Ulyanov was Jewish. There is all sorts of denial on the internet and in books on this question, and what is most strange is that even at places like Stormfront, JewWatch and you get misdirection. That is, even those who seem to hate Commies and Jews can’t seem to do simple research. So the current state of affairs is a big muddle.

Nadezhda Krupskaya….She served as the Soviet Union’s Deputy Minister of Education from 1929 until her death in 1939.

Lenin’s wife Nadya Krupskaya was also Jewish. Some places deny it or scrub it, but most of those places admit it is a well-known theory and widely held belief. Semitic Controversies admits her father was a Krupski from Poland, and even admits many Jewish Krupskis, but then he says there is no evidence Lenin’s wife is one of them. Talk about misdirection: he provides no evidence she isn’t one of them. His only argument is that since her father was in the Imperial army, he would have been suspect. But that argument doesn’t go anywhere, since—then as now—it is quite easy to hide your Jewish roots if you wish: most people aren’t very curious or very clever and can’t figure it out when it is staring them in the face. So a lack of suspicion means nothing. Lenin’s maternal grandfather was Jewish, and was known to be Jewish by the Tsar, to whom he sent letters in Yiddish. And yet this grandfather was elevated to the nobility by that same Tsar. So being Jewish didn’t necessarily make anyone suspect, in the army or out of it.
Now let’s proceed to the early life of Lenin, as published at mainstream sources. As usual, it is a
complete hack. We are told Lenin’s father Ilya was born to a serf but escaped poverty by studying
physics and mathematics at the Kazan Imperial College. This just proves they think we are idiots. Do
you see the problem? Serfs aren’t admitted to the Kazan Imperial College.
Kazan was very exclusive, sort of like Harvard but Royal. Wikipedia misdirects on this by calling it the Kazan State University on Ilya’s page: they don’t want the word “Imperial” to clue you into this. But serfs wouldn’t qualify for admittance, and even if they did they wouldn’t be accepted. Ask yourself how this serf Ilya managed to become so adept at physics and mathematics he was able to pass the entrance exam. Serfs are kept busy: they don’t have time to study physics and mathematics.
therulersofrussia-182x300Other sources admit it was Lenin’s grandfather that was supposed to have been a freed serf, later becoming a tailor. We are told he was a Chuvash (Turk). But this is all misdirection as well. This serf business looks to have been inserted later, and I could find no confirmation of it. The “tailor” I could believe, since many tailors of the time were Jewish and it looks like Lenin was Jewish on his father’s side as well. Back then, Jews tended to marry Jews.
Mixed marriages like we see now were more uncommon back then, and most of the ones sold to you as mixed were not. So without strong proof to the contrary, we should assume Lenin was Jewish on both sides. The paid pseudo-historians try to put the burden of proof on you, telling you that there is no proof Lenin was Jewish. But remember, they are the historians: the burden of proof is on them. If they want you to believe Lenin was not Jewish, they need to give you more than these scrubbed swiss-cheese stories, full of contradictions and impossibilites.
Lenin himself claimed not to know who his grandfather was. The leader of a huge country, and his
genealogy was scrubbed even while he was alive. No one knew anything about him. His own people
had no idea who he was.
Lenin was an aristocrat on both sides of his family. His father and maternal grandfather are admitted to be nobles. It looks like they were also crypto-Jewish nobles. So, as with Marx, Engels and everyone else that had anything to do with Socialism, Lenin came from great wealth. His family included both merchants and aristocrats. His bio was then whitewashed to make it look like he came from poverty.

Although just 25, he looks awful. There is something wrong with his eyes. He looks like a mental patient.

We are told that in May 1890, Lenin’s mother convinced authorities to allow him to take his final exams at a university of his choice. He chose the University of Saint Petersburg and passed, obtaining a first-class degree with honors. Right. One, he had just turned 20 a week earlier. Two, he had been expelled after only one semester, and exiled to house arrest. Three, his brother had allegedly been hung as a revolutionary in 1887. So why were the authorities doing this family any favors? Four, while under house arrest, Lenin wasn’t studying for his exams. We are told he was reading voraciously, but he was reading Marxist literature, not university coursework. So how did Lenin graduate with honors at age 20 without taking any classes?
We also find many indications that Russian wasn’t Lenin’s first or best language. Some will say, “Of course it wasn’t. He was a Turk/Mongol/Swede.” Hah-hah. But his best languages weren’t Turkish, Mongolian, or Swedish, either. According to several sources on the internet, Lenin didn’t even speak proper Russian, accenting in the wrong places. Even the Encyclopedia of World Biography admits Lenin had a “speech defect”, but only when it came to speaking Russian. Napoleon was not French and Hitler was not German. Here we find Lenin wasn’t Russian.
Lenin probably wrote his books in German (supposing he wrote them at all—they may have been ghosted) and they were then translated into Russian. Any small amount of research confirms that suspicion, since most of the manuscripts don’t even survive. Most of them date from much later, as you can see by studying the notes at the collected works at In most cases, these works are reprinted from published or hectographed copies, not from manuscripts.
But since we know Socialism was manufactured from the ground up by Capitalists as misdirection, we may assume all these Marxist and Communist documents are manufactured, forged, or faked in some way.
His bio is mostly a blank until 1896, when he was charged with sedition. We are told he was traveling in Western Europe before that. Although we have seen he was a noble, he was charged with planning to overthrow the Tsar. For this, he was sentenced to three years in Siberia. But unlike others sentenced to Siberia, Lenin’s trip looks more like a holiday. His mother and sisters accompanied him and he had his own private house. He corresponded with known revolutionaries and they even visited him there! He was allowed to go on excursions to swim and hunt ducks. No, really. This is from mainstream sources. You can read it at Wiki. A year later Nadya joined him, married him, and lived with him. She brought her mother along.

Not Here

You really need to pause on this. This is not what we were taught about being sent to Siberia, is it? Were other prisoners living with their wives, mothers and sisters, hunting duck and going on picnics. But if we read closely, we find that Lenin was actually in Shushenskoye. Although that is technically Siberia, it is in the far south of Siberia, almost to Mongolia. It is so warm in the summer they grow melons there. It is cold in the winter, but nothing like northern Russia. Saint Petersburg is much farther north, being at latitude 60 to Shushenskoye’s 53. The latter is a bit colder in the winter, but Lenin—even if he was really there—wasn’t much worse off in Siberia than in Saint Petersburg.
Regardless, Lenin was completely unchastened by his time in the wilds. And though he was now a
convict, the “authorities” apparently ignored him. As soon as he returned to the west and to
civilization, he took up right where he left off. Soon he relocated to Munich, and we are supposed to
believe the authorities in Bavaria were also blind to the revolutionaries. We are told Lenin moved to
London two years later to avoid Bavarian police. This begs at least three questions: why did Bavarian police leave this foreign agitator alone for two years? Why did they allow him to escape? Why did England let him in? Are we supposed to believe he and Nadya swam ashore from Guernsey? Are we supposed to believe they had no border patrol in 1902?

Bloody Sunday massacre of 1905….Russian demonstrators, at the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg.

After the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1905, where Imperial troops allegedly fired on protestors, Lenin felt it was safe to return to Russia. OK. Although he was still calling for the overthrow of the Tsar, was a known convict, and a known revolutionary throughout Europe, we are told he felt it was safe because the Tsar had made a few concessions in the October Manifesto. Right. One of those concessions was not amnesty for unrepentant revolutionaries. So as usual, none of this makes any sense. It is history for the mentally impaired.
capture11In continuance of that, we find Lenin joined a radical newspaper in Saint Petersburg run by Maria Andreyeva. Who was she? Only another rich lady and actress pretending to be a Bolshevik.
Her father was director of the Alexandrinsky Theater and her mother was a prominent actress. Maria married Andrey Zhelyabuzhsky, another railroad tycoon. He ran the Kursk and the Nizhny Novgorod railroads. So we find another connection to the Industrialists here.
The Alexandrinsky Theater was an Imperial Theater, meaning it was built for the Tsar’s troupe. Zhelyabuzhsky, the railroad tycoon, was also involved in the theater. Like many others in this project Maria Andreyeva was an obvious mole. She was not a Bolshevik. She was tied both to the Tsar and to the Industrialists. As a famous actress, she was just acting the part of Bolshevik, like the rest of these people. The only difference is, they admit she was a professional actress.
This actress is sold to you as a revolutionary, going so far as to appear to leave Zhelyabuzhsky and move in with Maxim Gorky. This is the Maxim Gorky who “said that the teachings of the ancient
Jewish sage Hillel the Elder deeply influenced his life”. But that’s not a clue, is it? Yes, what Russian atheist orphan with no schooling isn’t deeply influenced by Hillel the Elder? We should also not see a clue in Gorky’s taking the name Jehudiel for his early writings. We should not translate that as God of the Jews, its Hebrew meaning.

Maxim Gorky….born Alexei Maximovich Peshkov

Like the rest of the agents we have studied, Gorky was arrested many times but always skated. We are told he was granted amnesty in 1913 as part of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. So: to celebrate the 300th anniversary of his family of Tsars, Nicholas II decided to invite unrepentant and noisy revolutionaries back to Russia? That makes sense, right?
In 1908, the Bolsheviks moved to Paris. Do you think France wanted a workers’ revolution in 1908? Of course not. No established government of any kind has ever desired a workers’ revolution, or any other kind of revolution. So why did Paris tolerate the Bolsheviks? Well, supposing the Bolsheviks were actually there—which is not a small supposition—they were undoubtedly tolerated because it was known by the French authorities that they were the opposite of what they claimed to be. Like all Marxists and Socialists before them, they were acting not for the workers, but against them. Lenin and the rest of these bozos were fronts for the Industrialists, and as such the government of France had nothing on them.
At the start of WWI, we are told Lenin was briefly arrested by the Austrians “until his anti-Tsarist
credentials were explained”. What? So are we to understand that Francis Joseph I of Austria, a King,
was impressed by Lenin’s stance against kings? Interesting.
Remember, we are told Lenin was trying to turn the “Imperial” war into a civil war of workers against the bourgeoisie and aristocracy. So why would he be released by aristocrats to promote that?

The Russian Revolution

But let’s skip ahead to the First Russian Revolution. As with the French Revolution, the Russian
Revolution of 1917 makes no sense. Although the protests were confined to Saint Petersburg and
lasted less than a week, Nicholas II suddenly abdicated for no apparent reason. The 300-year-old
dynasty went down without a whimper.

Georgy Lvov

Prince Georgy Lvov took over, but he wasn’t even Russian. He was born in Dresden. He is said to be descended from Vikings, who were not Russian. Although his wife’s genealogy is partially listed, his own is not. Even his parents are not given, which is highly suspect. The Wikipedia page on the Lvov family is also ridiculously truncated and appears manufactured. But the pages we do find always manage to scrub the important thing you should know here. Karl Marx’s paternal
grandmother had the last name Lwow. They have spelled that with w’s instead of v’s to throw you off. It was a more commonly spelled with v’s: Lvov. So Marx and Prince Lvov were probably related, and Lvov was probably Jewish. Not a Viking, a Jew.

Alexander Kerensky

Prince Lvov soon turned the government over to Alexander Kerensky. Although Lvov was arrested by the Bolsheviks, he miraculously escaped and lived out his life in Paris. Kerensky was a rich merchant from Moscow. Although from Moscow, Kerensky was closely tied to Lenin: Kerensky’s father had been Lenin’s teacher, and the two families were friends. Since the Ulyanovs were Jewish, it is therefore likely the Kerenskys were as well.
Doesn’t look Russian. Kerensky’s mother is not given at Wikipedia. But Geni tells us her name was Nadezhda (Hope) Adler. Oi vay! Again, they try to hide it by posting it in Russian characters, but all you have to do it take it to a translator. Adler isn’t Russian, and in this context it is almost certainly Jewish. Kerensky was also a Freemason.
We are told that in 1905, the real power behind the throne was Dmitri Trepov, head of Moscow Police. His paternal grandparents are scrubbed, but his mother was a Lukich, or Lukash, which is not Russian. His maternal great-grandfather was Moses Ivanenko. His wife was a Mogilyansky, or Mohyla. That name is also Jewish. Just a few years later, we find Alexander Krivoshein said to be the most powerful man in Russia. That name is also not Russian. In fact, it is probably Jewish. Also take a look at Major-General Samuel Krivoshein (1944) at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency archives.
Just to be sure you are getting it, what we are discovering is far more than a “Jewish-Bolshevik”
conspiracy. That now looks like misdirection as well. Controlled opposition. They float that
conspiracy, even writing a page for it at Wikipedia, and they do it to keep you from uncovering the real story. They imply that if you are really crazy you might believe the Bolsheviks were bankrolled by wealthy Jews. But the evidence makes that weak theory wrong. It is not just the Bolsheviks who were Jewish, it was everyone in the Imperial government as well, going far back before the Russian Revolution. The Tsar just looks like another papermache front, and the Russian Revolution like a managed event. Like the French Revolution 125 years earlier, large parts of it were staged. Many key players were actors, hundreds of photos were faked, and many stories were manufactured from whole cloth. Parts of this history may have been inserted decades later, including some of the photos we have seen.
After Nicholas II allegedly abdicated, Lenin needed to get back to Russia, but he was blocked. He decided to negotiate a passage through Germany. We are told the German officials, realizing that Lenin and his pals could cause trouble to their enemies in Russia, decided to allow 32 of these dissidents—including Lenin and his wife—to pass through by train. Why 32? Probably because
33 was too obvious. Same reason there are 32 Rhodes Scholars every year. But again, this makes no
sense. According to the mainstream story, these dissidents weren’t just anti-Tsar, they were anti-
Capital, anti-Aristocrat, and anti-State, including the current German state. So why was Germany
doing them any favors? Besides, the Tsar had already stepped down, so Lenin’s anti-Tsar stance was
moot. This story only makes sense knowing what we now know: these “dissidents” weren’t real
dissidents. They were prominent actors that needed to get to Russia to play their parts, and a large part of their script had been written from Germany.
We have an indication of that when Lenin arrived in Petrograd, for we are told the first thing he did was call for a continent-wide European proletariat revolution. Do you think Kaiser Wilhelm II in Germany wanted to see that? More to the point, do you think the German industrialists wanted to see that?
No, what they wanted is what he proposed next: immediate peace with Germany. Not only did
Germany achieve that, within the year they had achieved the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the payment of 6 billion marks out of the Russian treasury, and the Baltic States. Letting Lenin pass then looked like a pretty good deal.
The photo below is at the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This was a peace treaty signed on 3 March 1918 between the new Bolshevik government of Soviet Russia and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire), that ended Russia’s participation in World War I. The treaty was signed at Brest-Litovsk (Polish: Brześć Litewski; since 1945 Brest), after two months of negotiations. The treaty was forced on the Bolshevik government by the threat of further advances by German and Austrian forces. According to the treaty, Soviet Russia defaulted on all of Imperial Russia’s commitments to the Triple Entente alliance.

The signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk….Where’s Lenin???

OK, but which one of those guys is supposed to be Lenin? None of them, because he wasn’t there. To start with, this was signed on March 3, 1918. That is 3/3/1918. Note the date. The Russian “Bolshevik” signer was Grigori Sokolnikov, who Wiki admits was Jewish by birth. He was born 8/3/1888. He was the only signer on the Russian side. This despite the fact that the delegation was led by Adolph Joffe and chaired by Leon Trotsky, both of whom outranked Sokolnikov in the politburo. To explain this, we are told Joffe went to Brest only in protest, and Sokolnikov replaced Trotsky as Chairman—although we are not told why. Joffe is also admitted to be Jewish, by the way. Russia paid 6 billion German goldmarks and ceded the Baltic states to Germany. Since the Treaty was signed in Belarus, and Lenin was the head of state, it is surprising not to see him there. I guess he had more important prior commitments.

Grigori Sokolnikov….born Girsh Yankelevich Brilliant

You know who else the mainstream now admits was Jewish? Trotsky. Wikipedia admits Trotsky’s real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, and that his family was of Jewish origin. They also tell us Trotsky’s sister married Lev Kamenev, another wealthy Jewish party member. Although they first say his father worked on the railway, one sentence later they admit he actually built the Baku-Batumi railway. So he was not a railway laborer, he was a railroad tycoon.
Seeing Joffe, Kamenev, Trotsky and Sokolnikov admitted to be Jews here sort of blows a hole in Wikipedia’s page on Jewish Bolshevism, where we are told that this idea that Jews were involved in Bolshevism is an anti-Semitic canard or ridiculous conspiracy theory. Hannah Arendt called this idea “the most efficient fiction of Nazi propaganda”. In that case she would have to say the Wikipedia pages on Joffe, Sokolnikov, Trotsky, Kamenev, and Brest-Litovsk are also very efficient Nazi propaganda. However, it’s doubtful Wikipedia allowed Nazis or anti-Semites to write those pages. Once the mainstream admits these things in mainstream sites, it is a bit ridiculous to try to simultaneously write them off as Nazi propaganda.
After the July Days in 1917, Lenin’s arrest was ordered, but we are supposed to believe they couldn’t
find him. We are told all he had to do is hide in Razliv, a small town near Saint Petersburg. Right. He
would have stuck out like a sore thumb there. He wouldn’t have lasted 24 hours in such a place. He
then moved to safe houses in Helsinki. Again, he wouldn’t have lasted ten minutes in Helsinki. The
Finns would have spotted him in that time and handed him over to Russian police.
The next phase of the absurd story is the story of the October Revolution. We are told General
Kornilov attempted a coup, and the Jewish Kerensky asked the Bolsheviks for help to fight him off.
The coup actually never materialized, and they admit that, but they use this to explain how the
Bolsheviks “returned to an open political arena”. Mainstream historian Richard Pipes admits this
Kornilov episode was manufactured by Kerensky, but of course he fails to read it right. The correct
reading is that this whole history was managed, and the Bolsheviks were installed as part of the great
script. Without recognizing that, nothing you are told about this time makes any sense.
We are told that various Soviets elected Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, but that is all a ruse. These
Soviets weren’t composed of real workers, they were composed of planted agents, who then simply
installed these Bolshevik actors.
The Bolsheviks then planned the big insurrection for October, making no effort to conceal it from the
standing government. Notice how your eyes are always off this standing government. It is a paper-thin construction, and you are led to believe it is just waiting to be knocked over by a puff of wind. The local police and standing army have just evaporated, and Russia is apparently being ruled by ghosts. Wikipedia admits that President Kerensky is aware of the Bolsheviks’ plans, but he does nothing about it. He orders no arrests, does not mobilize the army. Nothing. As with the French Revolution, we have another total stand-down.

Here’s another paste up of Lenin:


Most pictures of Lenin are of him alone. But here we have him in front of a Russian crowd. That one photo is reproduced in about fifty different forms, to make it look like they have more. It is cut, reversed, blurred, etc. Problem is, it is faked. It is a paste-up. That crowd is just a backdrop, like they do now with greenscreen. The shadows don’t match. See how his shadows are black while the backdrop is all grey?

The Bolsheviks took Russia with no battles. The standing government offered no resistance. Among
other ridiculous things, we are told the Provisional Government was unable to locate any serviceable
vehicles. OK.
Also notice the name: the Provisional Government. That puts in your head the idea that this standing
government is just temporary, waiting for the Bolsheviks to arrive and supplant them. But do you think the standing government called themselves that? What government would call themselves
“provisional”. Do Presidents like Kerensky normally say to themselves, “Oh, I am just here until
someone better comes along. I sure hope my replacements arrive soon, so that I can flee the country
and maybe get hung as a traitor!”
None of this looks real. An existing structure doesn’t just dissolve down to nothing. The army
and police don’t just switch sides en mass, with no split. We have to ask not only “what happened to
the Imperial army, the old police, the old Intel, and the old guard?” We have to also ask, “what
happened to all the factionalism we were sold in the years before?” What happened to the Menshiviks and Social Revolutionaries and all the other fake factions that acted as foils to the Bolsheviks before October 1917? They apparently just lay down and let the Bolsheviks have Russia.

Here’s another ‘official’ paste-up:


That is supposed to be Stalin, Lenin, and Kalinin at the 8th Congress in 1919. But it is faked. Although they are sitting right next to one another, they are all in different light. Especially note the highlights on Stalin, which are far less hot than the highlights on Lenin. Look at the nose shadows, too. You will tell me, “Well, the spotlight was more on Lenin than Stalin”. The nose shadows contradict that. If the spot had been more on Lenin, Lenin’s nose shadow to your right would be darker than Stalin’s. But we see the opposite.

Amazingly, the mainstream now admits a large part of the con. At Wikipedia, we find this:
Later official accounts of the revolution from the Soviet Union would depict the events in October
as being far more dramatic than they actually had been. This was helped by the historical reenactment, entitled The Storming of the Winter Palace, which was staged in 1920. This reenactment, watched by 100,000 spectators, provided the model for official films made much later, which showed a huge storming of the Winter Palace and fierce fighting (See Sergei Eisenstein’s October: Ten Days That Shook the World). In reality, the Bolshevik insurgents faced little opposition. The insurrection was timed and organized to hand state power to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, which began on 25 October. After a single day of revolution, 18 people had been arrested and two killed.
One of the major revolutions of history, and we find that maybe two people were killed. More people died that day in Saint Petersburg from natural causes. More people died that day in Saint Petersburg from rabies or choking on a bone.
scan5And, it is not beside the point that we once again find history known more via staged re-enactments than from real events. A prime example is Leni Riefenstahl’s later re-enactments of the rise of the Nazis, with 30,000 extras, by which history was manufactured.
But it wasn’t just the re-enactment of the Russian Revolution that was staged. The “real” event was also staged. It couldn’t have happened the way we are told, so we must assume it didn’t. Things only happen like this when they are completely managed, so we must assume the Bolsheviks were simply installed, with some fancy fireworks to cover the installation. But who installed them? The usual suspects: European Capitalists, many of whom were Jewish. We have seen many of their agents above, and in this case a very high percentage of them were Jewish. That isn’t an anti-Semitic canard: we have seen it is simply a fact. The proof is posted all over the internet on mainstream sites. So unless you wish to argue that Wikipedia and are Nazi fronts, you really don’t have a leg to stand on.”(3)
The truth is, all mainstream websites, including Wikipedia and, are not Nazi fronts. They are fronts for the Industrialists, who have hired people to spin them and scrub them. These people have just done a lousy job. Maybe they have done a lousy job on purpose, and leave clues to spite their masters. But I think it more likely they just figured no one was capable of reading the clues that have remained.

The Romanovs visiting a regiment during World War I. From left to right: Anastasia, Olga, Nicholas II, Alexei, Tatiana and Maria. Behind them are Kuban Cossacks

What does this imply about the deaths of the Romanovs? What do you think it implies? It implies the deaths were faked, like many other prominent deaths. Although everyone else was able to escape from Russia easily, for some reason the Romanovs couldn’t?”(3)
“As usual, nothing makes any sense. We are sold a mainstream history and then a corrected or alternative history, but both read like propaganda.
But the biggest problem is that we are told by both sides that this 1918 revolution was a Socialist or Marxist revolution. It couldn’t have been a Socialist or Marxist revolution, since Marxism was itself a fake. It was a very successful project to divide and conquer, redirecting the revolutionary energy and spirit into manufactured guaranteed-to-fail events.
In the US, we saw this later spin out into the various fake Communist parties here, led by convincing frauds like Eugene Debs. Well, at the same time Debs was working his magic here, these frauds in Germany were doing the same thing there. In other words, Marxism was—and is—just a front. With Debs, we saw Marxism was the Industrialists in disguise, and we may assume in Germany it was the same. Not all these Industrialists are Jews or bankers, but some or many of them are. Marxism itself was a Jewish project back to the beginning, but not only a Jewish project. Since the project benefitted all merchants, bankers, and Industrialists, they joined it, Jewish or not.
“With the addition of Atheism to the Communist agenda, the Industrialists weren’t just targeting
Christianity. They were also targeting Judaism. Yes, the top “Jewish” financiers have wanted to
destroy Judaism as much as Christianity or Islam. Why? Because all religions stand in the way of free trade. For this reason, even the Jewish question is misdirection. The wealthiest Jews are indeed involved up to their necks in this and every other conspiracy. But they are not involved as Jews. They are involved as Bankers/Industrialists. In other words, they would act the same even if they weren’t Jewish. They do what they do not because Judaism recommends it. In most ways, their Bible is the Christian Bible, and the Old Testament does not recommend their way of life. They do what they do because they are greedy bastards who have decided to ignore all the warnings of their own scripture.
A lot of Gentiles are ignoring scripture in precisely the same way, which is why this is not at root a Jewish question.
king-world-news-death-of-free-markets-as-deflation-engulfs-the-world-ii-864x400_cThose of Jewish descent are—to put it nicely—over-represented in the ranks of top scheming Industrialists. However, even that doesn’t make this a Jewish problem. Why? Because if we removed all the Jews from these ranks, their positions wouldn’t remain empty, would they? No, greedy Gentiles would be happy to take their places, and within seconds they would. We all know that. That’s why it makes no sense to blame everything on the Jews. Neither Jews nor Judaism invented greed. If one looks around oneself they won’t see a lot of virtuous Gentiles being corrupted by evil Jews. What’s seen  is a very few semi-virtuous Gentiles, Jews, and Others being swamped by vast hordes of blobs and climbers. These blobs and climbers have no one but themselves to blame for who they are. None of the climbers are “chosen”, no matter how high they climb—as they will find out when they die, if not before. “(4)
So the bottom line here is that the Communist Project was an overwhelmingly Intelligence driven, Jewish operation, supported and funded by Jewish Banker/Oligarchs (esp. Rothschild) as well as other non-Jewish industrialists and bankers, with the ultimate goal being to de-throne or dis-empower the aristocracy first, followed by the destruction of the bourgeoisie, driving them into the proletariat class, in order to acquire ownership and control of all Capital assets and wealth of Russia, as well as anywhere else on the Earth that the con could be perpetrated.
Any claims that this wasn’t primarily a Jewish project are just smoke to obscure what actually occurred, with the deception made easier by so many of the agents changing their names, and hiding their genealogy, as happens so often throughout history, in order to decrease the likelihood of anyone discovering how organized the con actually is.
The Russian people were not entirely fooled, but once the agents created a monstrous police state based on terror and murder, most complied, and those that didn’t were killed or worked to death in the concentration camps of Siberia.
The Industrialist/Oligarchs achieved final complete success when they were able to collapse the Russian economy, quickly shifting all major assets from pseudo-state ownership to Oligarch ownership, mimicking their parasitic Capitalist approach in the West.


(1) Wikipedia- Communism

(2) Reading the Signs today’s lesson: Karl Marx

(3) Vladimir Lenin is Another Fake

(4) The Beer Hall Putsch

Comments are closed.