The ideal condition for the jews would have been the Soviet condition -- absolute jewish tyranny

Well, if that's true, then why were all the Jews itching to get out of the USSR so badly?

Seriously, the conspiracy-theory worldview of many on the radical right is sometimes borderline absurd.

I mean, if the Jews are so super-humanly powerful, and they had absolute Jewish tyranny in Soviet Russia, how could they possibly fail to maintain it and wind up at a point where they were all itching to leave the country by the trainload?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm impartial, but I can think of a number of reasons:

1) The gravy train was at its last stop for them, and either [subanswers] a. Communism was collapsing and was thus no longer producing benefits b. THe Russians/Slavs were wising up

2) The conspiracy theory on top of a conspiracy theory that they would complain of anti-Semitism and leave the USSR so when it collapsed they couldn't be blamed for Bolshevism (:p) [sidenote: this is probably believable to at least half of 'The Movement']

3) The Slavs (especially Russians) are pretty hardy. They dealt with serfdom for centuries longer than Western Europeans, and they weren't bound to let it happen again under Bolshevism. The Jews might've felt the threat of the Slavic population once they started to resent the oppression, as they were believed to be responsible for Bolshevism (a mainstream sounding theory)

Who knows? People in the radical right will fall for anything if it sounds-about-right, which is pretty much the basis for the whole movement. If it sounds-about-right it's probably true.

Well, if that's true, then why were all the Jews itching to get out of the USSR so badly?That's a very good question. Here is an even better one. Why did the Soviet Union threaten to attack Israel with nuclear weapons during its war with the Arabs? Why was Israel an enemy of the Soviet Union? Inquiring minds want to know!

"Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy." (43)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html

The early Bolshevik government after the revolution was the peak of Jewish power in Communist Russia/E.Europe. They obviously weren't able to hold that power for eternity.

Zhids eventually lost their influence in the party (while still retaining a lot of positions elsewhere): that's why. Without the base like the nutty evangelical Christians in the US and dumb freaker type (and televitz), zhids couldn't hold on to power forever.

The Soviet Union faked its own demise. :P

The Soviet Union faked its own demise. :P
Hehe, that was a good Simpson's episode.

What do you want Homer?
Peas!!!
We all want peace Homer, but how do you get it?
With the knife!!!

hah I like when Lenin shatters the glass of his coffin and starts zombie walking " MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM!!!"

Lenin was an Anglo-Jew agent from Area 51 sent to Russia in a Black Helicopter by the New World Order and the Bilderbergers. His mission was to disguise himself as a Communist in order to create the Soviet Union. The function of the Soviet Union was to wipe Nazi Germany off the face of the earth. This was necessary in order to pave the way to one world government. And it is why international freemasonry created the United Nations was created after the war. Its why the leaders of the Soviet Union, themselves members of the Illuminati, faked the demise of the Soviet Union in the greatest conspiracy in human history.

The biggest conspiracy is society itself. They try to fool you into thinking that somehow your life has value, and that your existence has a purpose. ITS ALL LIES!!! YOU ARE JUST A RESULT OF EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENTS THAT HAPPEND TO OCCUR!!!

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Jews controlled a disproportionate share of power in the early years of Bolshevism. In many ways, Lenin's Russia in 1918 was as close to being a Jewish colony as G.W. Bush's America is today.

The power of the Jews began to slip when it fell into the hands of the Georgian Stalin. Many Jews believed that Stalin would be a stupid and pliant tool, so they allied with him against Bukharin. Stalin had some ideas of his own, such as a pact with Hitler and policies favoring ethnic Georgians in the USSR rather than Jews. He also had a good sense of Realpolitik and realized that certain elements of Russian nationalism had to be indulged in order to remain in power.

From the 1930's on, Jewish power in the USSR began to wane. They may have been all-powerful in the early 20's, but that came to pass. So, with any luck will the hegemony of the neocons come to pass in America.

- "There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Jews controlled a disproportionate share of power in the early years of Bolshevism. In many ways, Lenin's Russia in 1918 was as close to being a Jewish colony as G.W. Bush's America is today."


Right on.

And yet, do you happen to have some reliable, confirmed statistics about the Jewish representation in early Soviet committees, Communist party and organizations like Cheka, AY?


The first head of Cheka, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, was apparently not Jewish but a Pole:

"He saw the first light of day in 1877 when he joined a family of wealthy Polish landowners and intelligentsia.

As a child he believed God had called him to become a Catholic priest. Instead he became a young convert to Marxism and in 1895 joined the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party."

http://www.martinlindstedt.org/dzrzhnsk.html


Dzerzhinsky's successor was also a Pole:

"Vyacheslav Rudolfovich Menzhinsky, Dzerzhinsky's chosen successor, was no Stalinist. In fact, like his friend, Menzhinsky was a Bolshevik from the old school and also from Poland."

http://aia.lackland.af.mil/aia/homepages/pa/Spokesman/Apr02/heritage.cfm


In fact, it looks like Genrikh Yagoda was the first Jewish head of the Secret Police in USSR, and that he ironically rose to that position thanks to Stalin's approval...


Petr

landser you do realise that the second hand value of the Lada shown in your banner has just gone down by 50% , or did th owner locak the keys in it ? :D
Nice pic.

The notion that there are no conspiracy theories is itself the largest conspiracy.

Anyhow the thing to remember about the zhids is that they are a hierarchial entity. On the very top are the Elders of Zion. (There is no doubt the Protocols are real, they are even being fulfilled right now as type this!) then you have all the jews that we know about and then down below that are the marranos, or hidden jews.

As more and more information is being uncovered it is beginning to look like Stalin himself was a Rothschild!

Was Stalin a Rothschild?
By Clifford Shack

The identity of Josef Stalin's father is still shrouded in mystery.
According to the "official" story, Stalin's father was a cobbler from Gori, a city in Soviet Georgia. There were rumors circulating during Stalin's lifetime that his real father was the explorer Przhevalsky. People uttering these rumors during Stalin's reign of terror were not murdered because Stalin enjoyed the association. Przhevalsky was a well known Russian hero. His presumed father, Beso, was a drunk and a wife beater. He also beat Stalin. Although Stalin may have gotten some satisfaction from the rumor it was not true. While Przhevalsky did indeed visit Gori around the time of Stalin's conception, he was a homosexual.

So if Beso and Przhevalsky weren't responsible for the world's greatest murderer …than who was?
This very question was explored by Edvard Radzinsky who wrote an in- depth biography of Stalin. Given access to previously secret Kremlin files, Radzinsky noted in his book :

"After Stalin's death, when terror disappeared, people started naming several Supposititious fathers. There was even one Jew, a merchant, among them. But the name most often mentioned was that of Yakov Egnatashvili. He was a wealthy wine merchant, a boxing enthusiast, and one of those Keke [Stalin's mother]worked for. Yakov Egnatashvili must have had some reason for funding Soso's seminary education. People said that Stalin called his first son Yakov in honor of Egnatashvili. . . . I have seen a portrait of this Georgian hero . . . he was certainly nothing like the puny Soso [Stalin's nickname]. . . . (Letter from N. Goglidze, Kiev)"

This is as far as Radzinsky was able to reveal. His information is sufficient however to take the investigation to the next level.

Joseph (Iosif) Dzhugashvili or "Soso", as his mother called him in Georgian fashion, was responsible for murdering millions of people. It has been said that Stalin was responsible for the murder of about 20,000,000 people during the years 1924-1953. Now let's face it. This guy has got to have some pretty powerful connections to pull something like that off. If you want to believe that his father was a well-connected boot maker than go right ahead. A wealthy Jewish wine merchant is also no ticket to the Big Show on the world stage.

The two evil twins of the last century, Hitler and Stalin both had hidden affiliations to the powerful forces behind the New World Order. This should really come as no surprise. The specific biological nature of their hidden connection is the curiosity here.

So who indeed was Stalin's real father?

Well we were able to rule out the great gay Russian hero Przhevalsky.

We could also rule out the Georgian hero. The wealthy Jewish wine merchant's power was localized to the Georgian wine industry . Physically he was robust while Stalin was described as puny.

So who are we looking for?

Perhaps the GUEST of a wealthy Georgian Jewish wine merchant!

Let's see if Baron Edmond de Rothschild of the Paris branch of the Rothschild bank fits our description.

Puny stature?

Check.

Well connected.

Check.

Heterosexual?

Check.

Wine enthusiast?

Check .

Here's the challenge. How do we place Baron Edmond de Rothschild in the home of a wealthy Jewish wine merchant in Gori, Soviet Georgia nine months prior to Stalin's birth? A tall order. After all, Edmond de Rothschild was a banker who lived in Paris, France! Why on earth would he be found in the middle of Soviet Georgia?

There are two possibilities.

He could have been on his way to the great horse marketsofCentral Asia in an effort to enhance the quality of the family's thoroughbred breeding lines . He would have also found himself in that corner of the world for another reason.

Joseph Stalin was born Iosef Vissarionovich Zhugashvili on December 21, 1879 in Gori, Republic of Georgia. At the time of Stalin's conception the Rothschilds were involving themselves in the lucrative Russian oil business. They were involved with oil fields in the Caucausus region of Russia which is includes Azerbajian, Armenia and Georgia.

The great Baku oil region was first opened for development in 1873. Six years before Stalin was born. Working from behind the scenes, the Rothschilds would ensure that the oil of the Caucasus region would find its way to the West thus giving Rockefeller's Standard Oil a run for their money.

In 1877, by arranging a war between their clients, the countries of Turkey and Russia, the Rothschilds ensured that the port of Batumi, (an essential link in oil transport oil out of Baku) would be incorporated into Russia. With Batumi in Russian hands the Rothschilds then went on to finance the struggling Baku-Batumi railroad which brought Russian oil, much of it owned by them, out of the Caucasus to the West.

It was Edmond, the youngest son of James (Yakov) de Rothschild who did much of the legwork for the Paris branch of the Rothshilds-the family's "oil experts". He would travel overseas in style in the family yacht.

The sea route from France to the Caucasus oil region however ended on the shores of the Black Sea. From there Edmond would have traveled across the Republic of Georgia. Traversing across mountainous Georgia Edmond would have had to pass through Gori, an important trading town. From Gori, Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Jewish merchants once traded with the whole world.

The Republic of Georgia is known also for itsgrapes .

This fact would not have gone unnoticed by Baron Edmond a wine connoisseur himself, his family owning the finest vineyards in the world. While in Gori it seems likely that he would have sought out refuge with our wealthy Jewish wine merchant Yakov Ignatschivilli, who more than likely had a business connection to Baron Edmond as the Rothschild wine label was exported far and wide. After samplings of the local wines and being a thousand miles from home it would be quite natural for the Baron to cast his eye on the pretty woman who the wine merchant employed as a laundress. The rest is history. Did Stalin name his first son after the wine merchant? Or did he actually name him after his grandfather, Baron James (Yakov) de Rothschild? Or both?

Was Baron Edmond de Rothschild in the Caucasus in the spring of 1879? The destiny of the child, born to the laundress, should give us pause before we rule it out...The answer lies deep within the Rothschild family archives.

It is a curiosity that Stalin began his start as a revolutionary denouncing the Rothschild oil interests. Hitler, who is also suspected of being a Rothschild bastard, also began his career denouncing the Rothschilds as the the power behind the Versailles Treaty and therefore the source of Germany's woes.

Were Stalin and Hitler cousins?

Illegitimate Rothschild cousins?

That would explain many things...

Stalin allowed Hitler access to the Jews of Eastern Europe. Eliminating the Rothschild's worst nightmare- the immigration threat to Palestine. Preventing the fragile young colony, established by Baron Edmond as a matter of fact, from being overrun by hundreds of thousands of poor people. Thus ensuring the safe establishment of their planned military State of Israel which was designed from the start to protect theSuez Canal. Thus insuring the safe constant flow of Russian oil to the East.

link: LINK (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:gd1-rNaxY6wJ:www.mediapool.bg/cgi-bin/com/comments.cgi%3Fdd%3D04_081104bg%26id%3D217%26fct%3Drmsg+was+stalin+a+rothschild%3F&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&strip=1)

IronWorker, please don't tell me that you actually believe in this Googled crap or in the Protocols (Kevin MacDonald sure doesn't).

A word to the wise: "Don't believe everything you read."


Petr

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Jews controlled a disproportionate share of power in the early years of Bolshevism. In many ways, Lenin's Russia in 1918 was as close to being a Jewish colony as G.W. Bush's America is today.I just picked up a new book that addresses this issue in detail, Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century (2004). Chapter Three, Babel's First Love: The Jews and The Russian Revolution, looks especially interesting. I will let you know what I turn up.

See this thread.

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?p=43415#post43415

Petr, I am not convinced that Stalin was a Rothschild, after all he has been dead a long time so alot of the evidence no longer exists.

When it comes to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion there is NO DOUBT in my mind that they are Real. Also there is no inconsistency with believing in the works of Kevin Macdonald and in also believing in the Protocols at the same time.

When it comes to trying to inform the general populace about the menace known as neo-cohenism it would probably be better to refer to Prof. KMacs works for credibility purposes.

- "When it comes to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion there is NO DOUBT in my mind that they are Real."


Real in what way?


Petr

Communism was a Jewish attempt to conquer the world. After it became evident that not enough gentiles would swallow the bait of Utopia, Whites being the main obstacle, the Jews distanced themselves from it. If they had continued to push it, it would have drawn too much scrutiny.
The lesson taught Jews that Whites were their biggest obstacle and miscegenation was the the least noticable strategy to eliminate them.

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

The Protocols are real in that they are exactly what they purport themselves to be, the minutes of a meeting of a cabal of secretive jews who made a detailed plan to takeover control of the entire World.

Here is some good stuff from self-hating hebe Henry Makow that delves more deeply into the facts of the Protocols.

Makow - Protocols Forgery Argument Is Flawed

Next to the Bible The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is perhaps the mostly widely read book in the world.

Published in Russia in 1903, it purports to be the leaked master plan for "Jewish world domination." It is the kind of thing that would be studied at secret workshops of an occult society.

In different ways, both Zionists and Nazis have made it synonymous with virulent anti Semitism and genocide.

But surely Jews should not be blamed for the machinations of a tiny secret society. The vast majority of Jews would disavow this master plan if they believed it existed.

Surely one can condemn all racism and genocide in the strongest possible terms and still believe the Protocols are authentic.

In my opinion, the equation of the Protocols with anti Semitism is really a ploy to divert attention away from this master plan.

The plagiarism claim is part of a propaganda campaign waged by conscious and unconscious collaborators in academia and the media.


THE FORGERY CLAIM

We are told that The Protocols of Zion is a hoax, a "proven forgery" concocted by the Tsarist Political Police (the Okhrana) to incite anti Semitism and discredit revolutionaries.
But the "proof" is far from convincing.
It consists of three articles published in The London Times (August 16-18, 1921) by Philip Graves. http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm

According to Graves, Protocols is a crude, chapter-by-chapter plagiarism of Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864).

It was easy to make this claim while Joly's book was unavailable. Napolean III's police confiscated it as soon as it was published.

But it is available now and I invite you to compare the two texts. In my opinion, they are entirely different in tone, content and purpose. At 140 pages, Dialogues is twice as long as Protocols. Most of it finds no echo in the Protocols.

The crux of Graves' argument is that certain references and passages in Protocols have been lifted from Dialogues. He claims there are 50 of these and produces about a dozen.

Their striking resemblance to the Protocols leaves little doubt that the author did refer to the Dialogues as part of his research. He had no compunction about borrowing or reshaping a few passages that appealed to him.

Indeed Philip Graves is "struck by the absence of any effort on the part of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarisms."

That's because he had nothing to hide. He was not Graves' "unimportant precis- writer employed by the court or by the Okhrana" to construct a hoax.

He was a diabolical genius crafting an original work. It is simplistic and disingenuous to characterize Protocols as a hoax.


POLITICAL PROVENANCE

Graves' article smacks of Zionist propaganda. Graves "expose" of the Protocols appeared in August 1921 when Zionists were pressing the League of Nations to turn Palestine into a Jewish homeland under British Mandate.
Philip Grave tells the unlikely story that a "Mr. X" brought the Dialogues to him in Constantinople where he was the Times' correspondent. Mr. X presented it as "irrefutable proof" that the Protocols are a plagiarism.

Mr. X was a White Russian, which seems incredible given the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution. He claims he bought the book from, get this, "a former member of the Okhrana" who had fled to Constantinople.
In The Controversy of Zion, (Chapter 34) Douglas Reed, a Times' staffer, provides additional background.

In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, a part owner of The Times, printed an article about the Protocols of Zion entitled The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, A Call for an Enquiry. " It concluded:

"An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and their history is most desirable...are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?"

Then in May 1922 Northcliffe visited Palestine and wrote that Britain had been too hasty to promise it to the Jewish people when in fact it belonged to 700,000 Muslim Arab residents.

Mr. Wickham Steed, the editor of The Times of London in 1921 refused to print the article and Northcliffe tried to get him fired.

Somehow Steed was able to have Northcliffe declared "insane" and committed. Later Northcliffe complained he was being poisoned and died suddenly in 1922.

Douglas Reed was Northcliffe's secretary but didn't learn of these events until they appeared in Official History of the Times in the 1950's.

Clearly Northcliffe had offended some "big boys" when he opposed the British Mandate in Palestine. Why was it so important?

Israel is intended to be the capital of the Masonic World Government. They are already constructing the infrastructure. See "The Roots of Evil in Jerusalem" http://thegoldenreport.com/articles.asp?id=00180


THE FORGERY CLAIM IN DETAIL


Philip Graves and the other apologists are incorrect to claim the Protocols plagiarize the Dialogues chapter by chapter.

Graves writes that "the Seventh Dialogue...corresponds with the fifth, sixth, seventh and part of the eighth Protocol. "

At eight pages, these Protocols are twice as long as the Seventh Dialogue.

They mostly contain material not in the Seventh Dialogue, or anywhere else I can find. I will list a few examples from Protocol Five alone.

Protocol Five says "our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions" that it will "wipe out any goyim who oppose us by deed or word."

In contrast Seventh Dialogue says, "Death, expropriation and torture should only play a minor role in the internal politics of modern states."

Protocols Five says we "robbed [the goyim] of their faith in God" and "insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights" thereby undermining the authority of Kings. There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven.

Protocol Five says, "we shall so wear down the goyim that they will be compelled to offer us international power [allowing us] gradually to absorb all State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government." There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven.

Protocol Five says the "engine" of all states is "in our hands" and that engine is "Gold." "We were chosen by God Himself to rule over the whole earth." There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven.


ON THE OTHER HAND

The author of Protocols does select a few passages or references from Dialogues that appear unaltered (see Graves) or in different form.

For example, the Dialogues' say: " Everywhere might precedes right. Political liberty is merely a relative idea. The need to live is what dominates states as it does individuals."

In Protocols this becomes, "From the law of nature right lies in might. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact, and one must know how to use it [political freedom] as a bait whenever it appears necessary to attract the masses ... to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority." (Protocols 1)

Graves leaves out the last part to make the resemblance seem greater than it is.

Dialogues (7) say, "Revolutionary ferment which is suppressed in one's own country should be incited throughout Europe."
In Protocols (7) "Throughout all Europe ... we must create ferments, discords, hostilities." There is no reference to suppressing these in one's own country.

The author of Protocols is not a forger creating a hoax, but a conspirator forging an original work.


SAME GENRE, DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS

Both books belong to the "immoral school" of political theory. Machiavelli pays homage to a long list of rulers "who are progenitors of my doctrine." Both preach might makes right, good comes from evil, and the end justifies the means.

But the similarity ends there. The tone of the Dialogues is dry and theoretical.
It is a debate between fictional political theorists: Montesquieu a champion of democracy and Machiavelli, a champion of tyranny. Dialogues is considered a critique of the reign of Napolean III.
Montesquieu asks how to quell the spirit of anarchy in society. Machiavelli prescribes a "monster called the state" which maintains a democratic artifice but is actually controlled by the "Prince." He talks about how to suppress secret societies.

On the other hand, Protocols is the product of a secret society. It is frankly conspiratorial and subversive and pays homage to Lucifer. Protocols is a "strategic plan from which we cannot deviate without running the risk of seeing the labour of many centuries come to naught." (Protocol 1)

Unlike Dialogues, we are struck by a sense of relevance when reading Protocols. We recognize its baneful influence in today's world. See my articles "Did Rothschild Write The Protocols of Zion?" "Protocols is the NOW Blueprint" and "Protocols Dominates Our Culture."


PROPAGANDA


Since Graves' articles, there have been a number of books arguing the "forgery" thesis. The latest is Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide (1970). http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/cohn.html

Graves and Cohn admit that "the Financial Programme" (Protocols 20-24) which the author calls "the crowning and decisive point of our plans" is largely original.

For serious researchers, Australian researcher Peter Myers presents pro and con views.
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/toolkit.html

Goebbels said that propaganda is effective only when the reader doesn't realize it is propaganda. It follows that dupes write the best propaganda. For example, see Rick Salutin, Protocols of Zion's Critics. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory
/LAC/20031212/COSALU12/TPColumnists/


CONCLUSION

One hundred million people were slaughtered in the last century but no one considers that the human race might have been subverted.

War is hell but no one thinks Satan worshipers might be behind it.

I suspect the Second World War was a battle for racial superiority between Jewish and Aryan wings of the Illuminati who in fact are united at the top.

The private central bankers of England, the U.S. and Nazi Germany made the war possible. They worked as one at the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. (See Charles Higham, Trading With the Enemy.)

The purpose of the war was to degrade, defraud and demoralize humanity. The Holocaust provided a rationale for the establishment of Israel as headquarters of the New World Order. Aryans, Jews and many others were sacrificed and exploited.

In my opinion, the outlawing of Protocols on pain of death in Bolshevik Russia and its execration in the West today proves its authenticity.
Mankind is in the grip of a diabolical conspiracy. In order to make good people do bad things, truth must be tailored to fit the political purpose. This is Communist and Feminist teaching.

I would like to be proven wrong, but in the case of Protocols, the "forgery" argument is propaganda.

Link: www.rense.com/general45/protodd.htm

Was Stalin a Jew? Check out this site for Churchill's Jewish heritage as well as FDR and Eisenhower.
http://judicial-inc.biz/Bush_Mossad11.htm

Was Stalin a Jew? Check out this site for Churchill's Jewish heritage as well as FDR and Eisenhower.
http://judicial-inc.biz/Bush_Mossad11.htm
Interesting link. could you provide a link to the home page or site map, I can't seem to find it anywhere.