Anyone wishing to understand what lay behind the brutal political repression and totalitarian industrial slavery imposed by the Bolsheviks would do well to read the work of historian Antony C. Sutton, notably his book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
It seems to me that between Sutton, Quigley and G. Edward Griffin, one would have many red-pilling bases covered.
Quite the photo of sayanim-extraordinaire "Lucky" Larry Silverstein ... looks like a cross between Bill Gates and Henry Kissinger!
"Lucky Larry! Every morning, without exception, Larry Silverstein took his breakfast at Windows on the World atop the north tower of the WTC. Until the morning of September 11, when he had an appointment with a dermatologist."
I would never claim that the anarchist movement is "undefilable", Helen. In fact, I've spent quite a lot of time describing exactly how it has been defiled... But it remains true that, unlike communism, it is an unsuitable ideological vehicle for authoritarian state control! It is the principles behind real anarchism which are important. These reach further and deeper than anarchism itself and could animate some new socio-political outlook drawing on the best of human wisdom.
Regarding the WEF before they set up the Young Global Leaders program (known as Global Leaders of Tomorrown until 2003) in 1991 visited St Petersburg, Russia (aka Leningrad) in late 1990 and while there met with 3 young Soviets. One of them was Putin and yes Klaus Schwab was one of the WEF visitors. If you were to ask me I’d suggest that this was a pivotal meeting where the WEF was taught the lessons that those who had been running Komosol had learnt about such programs.
Paul, have you read G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island”? It covers bankster funding of the Bolshevik Revolution, J.P. Morgan being a front man for the Rothschilds, the secretive hatching of the Federal Reserve, the weaponization of inflation, the progression toward world socialism, and *so* much more. I haven’t finished it yet, but it overlaps with much of what you’ve written and adds dimensions I hadn’t previously encountered.
Well, it isn't really about communism or Bolshevism then is it? We ought to be focusing on the financial oligarchy. In the US, anti-communism was (and seems to have anachronistically been given new life) the state religion. It was used to destroy the workers movement that frightened the ruling class in the 1930's. It worth noting that JFK, RFK, MLK (and many others) were accused of being "soft on communism" or being actual communists. They were assassinated not because they wanted to institute totalitarian rule, but because they challenged it. This focus on communism blinded us from seeing the real enemy that was celebrating a massive increase wealth and power post WWII and entrenched that power with new institutions like the CIA ("capitalism's secret army"). Anarchism could have been the vehicle for the power grab by the financial oligarchy. Then we would be bemoaning anarchism not communism. (I am pretty sure that Identity Politics came out of (lifestyle) anarchist circles.) But in either case, it misses the target. We should be focusing on the real enemy, not their dupes.
I found Sutton's work on the Russian revolution, let alone the later Soviet Union, full of unsubstantiated innuendo and dubious inference if not outright factual error, as have other critics. Sutton himself was connected to the Hoover Institution, a major rightwing, anticommunist think tank. Maybe he's primarily the one under influence of capital.
Accounts from leftwing critics of the Russian revolution in the U$, like Chomsky, likewise carry an anticommunist approach which reduces its complexity to the sinister or evil Bolsheviks, often abstractly conceived in deontextualized quotes of theory apart from historical analysis of events on the ground and appreciation for problems they presented all parties to the revolution, not least of all the devastation of WW1 and the counter-revolutionary invasion by capitalist states like the U$ and Britain.
Besides there being no ism that's not full of ideological differences, any of these are subject to distortion by adherents and hijacking by contrary interests (e.g., philanthropic colonialism), not least of all anarchism(s) that are little more than bourgeois libertarianism or controlled oppositions of woke leftists or inverted fascists like antifa. In my experience, some of the most sectarian dogmatists obstructing actual organizing, especially among working class people beyond the echo chambers of armchair radicals, have been those calling themselves anarchists, in ways which wound be incomaparble to past tradition like the Wobbles, for example.
Thank you, Sir, good that we talk about this. But standard conspiracy theories can't get us far enough. Please, check David Livingston. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU37xo8DGvY
Important. Insightful. Thanks!
It seems to me that between Sutton, Quigley and G. Edward Griffin, one would have many red-pilling bases covered.
Quite the photo of sayanim-extraordinaire "Lucky" Larry Silverstein ... looks like a cross between Bill Gates and Henry Kissinger!
"Lucky Larry! Every morning, without exception, Larry Silverstein took his breakfast at Windows on the World atop the north tower of the WTC. Until the morning of September 11, when he had an appointment with a dermatologist."
I would never claim that the anarchist movement is "undefilable", Helen. In fact, I've spent quite a lot of time describing exactly how it has been defiled... But it remains true that, unlike communism, it is an unsuitable ideological vehicle for authoritarian state control! It is the principles behind real anarchism which are important. These reach further and deeper than anarchism itself and could animate some new socio-political outlook drawing on the best of human wisdom.
Regarding the WEF before they set up the Young Global Leaders program (known as Global Leaders of Tomorrown until 2003) in 1991 visited St Petersburg, Russia (aka Leningrad) in late 1990 and while there met with 3 young Soviets. One of them was Putin and yes Klaus Schwab was one of the WEF visitors. If you were to ask me I’d suggest that this was a pivotal meeting where the WEF was taught the lessons that those who had been running Komosol had learnt about such programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomol
I consider WEF to be tight with BRICS and an enemy of the West.
Silverstein and his son were in the habit of having breakfast in the restaurant at the top of one of the towers. Except that day, the 11th September.
Paul, have you read G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island”? It covers bankster funding of the Bolshevik Revolution, J.P. Morgan being a front man for the Rothschilds, the secretive hatching of the Federal Reserve, the weaponization of inflation, the progression toward world socialism, and *so* much more. I haven’t finished it yet, but it overlaps with much of what you’ve written and adds dimensions I hadn’t previously encountered.
See also Doc Malik’s podcast with Griffin:
• https://rumble.com/v3mcpus-where-does-money-come-from-who-controls-it-why-is-life-so-difficult-and-mor.html
Well, it isn't really about communism or Bolshevism then is it? We ought to be focusing on the financial oligarchy. In the US, anti-communism was (and seems to have anachronistically been given new life) the state religion. It was used to destroy the workers movement that frightened the ruling class in the 1930's. It worth noting that JFK, RFK, MLK (and many others) were accused of being "soft on communism" or being actual communists. They were assassinated not because they wanted to institute totalitarian rule, but because they challenged it. This focus on communism blinded us from seeing the real enemy that was celebrating a massive increase wealth and power post WWII and entrenched that power with new institutions like the CIA ("capitalism's secret army"). Anarchism could have been the vehicle for the power grab by the financial oligarchy. Then we would be bemoaning anarchism not communism. (I am pretty sure that Identity Politics came out of (lifestyle) anarchist circles.) But in either case, it misses the target. We should be focusing on the real enemy, not their dupes.
I found Sutton's work on the Russian revolution, let alone the later Soviet Union, full of unsubstantiated innuendo and dubious inference if not outright factual error, as have other critics. Sutton himself was connected to the Hoover Institution, a major rightwing, anticommunist think tank. Maybe he's primarily the one under influence of capital.
Accounts from leftwing critics of the Russian revolution in the U$, like Chomsky, likewise carry an anticommunist approach which reduces its complexity to the sinister or evil Bolsheviks, often abstractly conceived in deontextualized quotes of theory apart from historical analysis of events on the ground and appreciation for problems they presented all parties to the revolution, not least of all the devastation of WW1 and the counter-revolutionary invasion by capitalist states like the U$ and Britain.
Besides there being no ism that's not full of ideological differences, any of these are subject to distortion by adherents and hijacking by contrary interests (e.g., philanthropic colonialism), not least of all anarchism(s) that are little more than bourgeois libertarianism or controlled oppositions of woke leftists or inverted fascists like antifa. In my experience, some of the most sectarian dogmatists obstructing actual organizing, especially among working class people beyond the echo chambers of armchair radicals, have been those calling themselves anarchists, in ways which wound be incomaparble to past tradition like the Wobbles, for example.
Any ism can be used for camouflage
Thank you, Sir, good that we talk about this. But standard conspiracy theories can't get us far enough. Please, check David Livingston. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU37xo8DGvY