Antony C. Sutton On Internationalist Bankers & "Bolshevik Revolution." Canadian Archives: Trotsky's Gold & The Monster Embryo Of Global Corporate Socialism

"Instructions came from London to put Trotsky back on the boat with his party and allow them to go forward."

(This was a post I wrote in September and never published.)

Globalism, Internationalism, Formerly Bolshevism, Formerly Communism—Always Funded By “Western” Fractional Reserve Bank Powers.

I learned this first (Wall St. funding “Bolshiviks”) in 2015, by way of being invited to watch In The Shadow of Hermes by Estonian outsider historian Juri Lina, while living in Sweden on a tiny island. That documentary shocked me and it was like when they switch the train tracks and there’s a jolt. I got onto a new track, and had to realign my whole way of contemplating all this.

We’ve talked about this before, here.

“Sometimes we want there to be more poverty because that will lead to more worker misery which leads to more revolution.”

“The comintern was nothing but a toy in the hands of finance”

”Big banks are the inventors of the revolution.”

“The money God is the new God.”

”The bankers are revolutionaries? You must be insane.”

From this piece, “When A Top Bolshevik Revealed All To A True Believer.”

To simplify: Jay Dyer (and others) have explained that Federal Reserve is revolutionary organ that funds all revolutions in perpetuity for the sake of revolution.

There is no “capitalism” as natural foe of “communism.

As for In The Shadow Of Hermes, I have to consider it carefully, (whether to publish.) It’s not so simple as to say “if it’s true, publish.”

I’ll keep thinking, and a friend is helping.

I don’t want to fan flames of anti-semitism (via documentation of B’Nai Brith training all the Bolsheviks in NYC, and the original names of all the paid for revolutionaries) but I do want to be on top of true history, and as you know, I feel an urgency that Norman Finkelstein (and that whole intelligent and seemingly moral group of people) should confront the money powers behind socialism/communism/internationalism. And the ideology. And the occult aspects. Is that so much to ask?

I trust there’s nobody here who is in love with Leon Trotsky.

Martin Amis referred to him scathingly in Koba The Dread as “…that great eidolon of thwarted potential.”

Great word—eidolon.

1.

an idealized person or thing.

1. 2.

   a specter or phantom.

In the meantime, here’s part of Anthony Sutton’s Wikipedia:

”In 1973, Sutton published a popularized, condensed version of the sections of the forthcoming third volume relevant to military technology called National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, after which he was forced out of the Hoover Institution.^{[7][better source needed]} His conclusion from his research on the issue was that the conflicts of the Cold War were “not fought to restrain communism” but were organised in order “to generate multibillion-dollar armaments contracts”, since the United States, through financing the Soviet Union “directly or indirectly, armed both sides in at least Korea and Vietnam.”^{[8][third-party source needed]}

The update to the text, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, looked at the role of military technology transfers up to the 1980s.^{[9][third-party source needed]}

Sutton's next three published books (Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and FDR and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler) detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into “a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control”^[10] as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same “corporate socialism,” planned by the big corporations.^[11]Sutton concluded that it was all part of the economic power elites' “long-range program of nurturing collectivism”^[8] and fostering “corporate socialism” in order to ensure “monopoly acquisition of wealth” because it “would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market.”^{[12][third-party source needed]}

In his view, the only solution to prevent such abuse in the future was that “a majority of individuals declares or acts as if it wants nothing from government, declares it will look after its own welfare and interests” or, specifically, if “a majority finds the moral courage and the internal fortitude to reject the something-for-nothing con game and replace it by voluntary associations, voluntary communes, or local rule and decentralized societies.”^{[8][third-party source needed]}