Andrei, I will not dignify that pathetic response with a reply.
Grand Orient Freemason Lenin wrote most intelligently on the subject of the diabolical League of Nations (LON – Abbreviation for Lion) the Masonic precursor to the monolithic UN, and the first prototype for open world government. The quote lays bare Lenin’s brand of internationalism as opposed to that of international capital in phraseology only, though he is extremely accurate in his analysis.
“In view of the irreconcilable antagonisms finding expression within the entente itself, the League of Nations (should it be formalized) will merely play the role of a Holy Alliance of the capitalists for the suppression of the workers revolution. Propagandizing for the League of Nations is the best way to confuse the revolutionary consciousness of the working class. It replaces the slogan of an international of revolutionary workers republics with the slogan of an international alliance of ostensible democracies, supposedly to be achieved through a coalition between the proletariat and the borgeouis classes.
The “League of Nations” is a misleading slogan that the social traitors in the service of international capital use to split the forces of the proletariat and advance the imperialist counterrevolution.
In every country of the world, the revolutionary proletariat must resolutely combat the Wilsonian concept of the League of Nations and protest entry into this league of plunder, exploitation, and imperialist counterrevolution”.
P216 Lenin - The International Situation and the Policy of the Entente, Founding the Communist international – Proceedings and documents of the First Congress: March 1919, Pathfinder books, 1987.
It is one thing to say something - it is another to mean it. Early communist Russia (circa the period when Lenin and Trotsky were still agitating) denounced international capital on one side and bowed and scraped to it on the other. Supported the ‘revolutionary proletariat’ when it was of advantage to bolshevism and ignored them at other times. As the focus from raising the red banner worldwide by, and in the name of the international proletariat, shifted increasingly to the Stalinist policy of ‘socialism in one country’ Russia’s outright public hostility to international capital increasingly sought reconciliation.
Of course, the public policy of hostility to international capitalism was always an enormous, most treacherous lie. The bolshevick revolution was funded and sustained by international capital (primarily from America) from its very inception. Nothing indicates more the distancing of the soviet state from even paying lip service to any kind of genuine concept of “an international of revolutionary workers republics” than the soviet union actually jumping into bed with, and joining the unholy alliance of the LON in 1934.
“Their dreams of world revolution had long vanished. Their greatest fear was in the far east where – with Japan and Manchuria and at peace with China – they seemed in imminent danger of a Japanese attack. The best Soviet troops were in the far East, and the soviet leaders asked of Europe only to be left alone. Where once they had denounced ‘the slave treaty’ of Versailles, they now preached respect for international law; loyally attended the disarmament conference – formerly a ‘bourgeois sham’; and in 1934 even joined that other bourgeois sham, the League of Nations”. P109, A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Publishing, 1963.
We can be thankful that the Leninist vision of the international workers republic never saw the light of day and that the building of the tyrannical state machinery which Stalin utilized so ruthlessly, and which Lenin and Trotsky bare almost sole responsibility for, has smeared most aspects of Leninist and Trotskyite politics forever.
Lenin and Trotsky also nominally stood in opposition to the “petty borgeouis reformism” of the crown charted, Rockerfella sponsored, ‘Fabian society’ (who had no such problems working with the LON at its inception) but ultimately (as always appears to be the case where freemasonry is concerned) the goal of both bolshevism and Fabianism were the same, the only difference being in terms of timescale. Fabians believe their vision of ‘socialism’ could only be achieved through gradual reforms over a long period of time, bolshevism held that a universal revolutionary short-term transformation was possible – the goal was the same. It is ridiculous that Lenin and co could denounce the Fabians, but at the same time give them, and other aristocrats, and statesmen red carpet tours of post October Russia.
Alan Watt claimed in a recent broadcast that Trotsky complained of the hypocriscy of giving red carpet treatment to such dignitaries and aristocrats at the time. This may be true, but Trotsky was heavily involved in this type of ‘International relations’ himself. In one of my earlier posts I quoted RBH Lockheart, the Mason (and toe-rag) representative of the British state, who accompanied Trotsky on his purge of the anarchists. Trotsky found no such contradiction, no ‘class antagonisms’, on escorting English aristocratic civil servants on a pigeon shoot of anarchists!
Not only this, the connection between Leninism and crown charted Fabianism is well established long before October 1917, as Lenin’s first English to Russian translation was Fabian founders Beatrice (Potter) and Sidney Webbs “History of Trade Unionism” which Lenin produced in what can only be described as luxurious exile. The Fabian society, led by the Webbs, which must be recognized as a very serious and influential branch of Masonic fuckeries, caught many innocents in their ‘web’ of lies and deceit. Sidney and Beatrice were the main ‘left’ promulgators of Stalinist lies and deception to the working politically active masses of the west. Their publication of ‘Soviet Communism’ was arguably the biggest whitewash in the history of mankind. Historically, far from being a wasted effort, it was a very important publication in terms of neutralizing what may have amounted to any serious opposition to Stalinism (and its support by the west), not only did the publication fail to mention the tens of millions (perhaps more) of peasants and workers slaughtered in the name of ‘historical necessity’, but proposed Stalin’s nightmarish state capitalism as a perfect model for the future world.
“It was in the 1930s, just when the Soviet system was in its very worst phase, that major validation of the enormous set of falsifications with which this was concealed came from the first time from Western academics of the highest standing.
The stars were, of course, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the deans of Western Social Science, leaders of the Fabian society, founder’s of the London School of Economics…
The Webb’s book, seen as the last word in serious Western Scholarship, ran to over 1200 pages, representing a vast amount of toil and research, all totally wasted. It was originally entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?, but the question mark was triumphantly removed in the second edition – which appeared in 1937 at precisely the time the regime was in its worst phase of gloomy, all embracing terror.
Their view of what they reckoned as the exile of a million-odd families of “kulaks” was that “the soviet government could hardly have acted otherwise”, and indeed that “strong must have been the faith and resolute the will of the men who, in the interest of what seemed to them the public good, could take such a decision.” When it comes to the (enforced) famine, they say there was merely some local food shortage – due, anyhow, to “sabotage” by the peasant population. On the faked Moscow Trials, they take the view that the confessions of the accused were due to their “behaving naturally and sensibly, as Englishmen would were they not virtually compelled by their highly artificial legal system to go through a routine which is useful to the accused only when there is some doubt as to the facts,” and that western observers at the trials were convinced that the confessions proved genuine conspiracies , and that their reading of the transcript gave the same impression. They advance a “detailed and philosophical interpretation” – to the effect that conspiracies were known in England and France some centuries ago, that Russian revolutionaries were by nature plotters, and that Lenin had predicted in 1922 that for a long time to come there would be doubts, uncertainty, suspicion and treachery – a “forecast”, they added, “which was borne out by the evidence in the Moscow trials of 1937.” They argue that after revolutions “little intellectual freedoms on fiercely controversial subjects was apt to be allowed,” citing the fact that for several generations after the English revolution of 1688, Catholics had no electoral rights. Not quite the same thing as mass executions, one may think”
P124-125, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, Robert Conquest, John Murray Publishing, 1999
By its very nature Freemasonry abounds ON ALL SIDES, and it must be recognized that hope is a very rare commodity indeed.
Italy’s revolutionary period before Musolinis dictatorship contains some of the greatest writings on the relationship between freemasonry and fascism. Bolshevism, considered as another form of fascism could have been fought by the organized oppressed masses in Russia as the situation degenerated, as some Anarchists argued at the time. This is the reason why, like it or not, revolution is necessary if some kind of fight may be organized against freemasonry and its bitch – left/right fascism. The logic behind this thinking, is somewhat twisted and Machiavellian, but it is better than no hope at all.
“The fascist method of defending order, property and the state tends, even more than the traditional system of compromises and left policies, to shatter social cohesion and the political superstructures which go with it. The reactions which it provokes must be examined in relation to its application in both the economic and political field.
In the political field, first of all, the organic unity of the bourgeoisie in Fascism was not achieved immediately after the winning of power. Centres of borgeouis opposition to the regime remain outside fascism.
Fascism is compelled to struggle very fiercely against these surviving groups, and to struggle even more fiercely against freemasonry, which it rightly considers as the organizing centre of all the traditional forces supporting the state. This struggle, which is a sign in the break of the bloc of conservative and anti-proletarian forces, whatever the intentions, may in certain circumstances favor the development and self assertion of the proletariat as a third and decisive factor of the political situation.”
P148 – 149, Antonio Gramsci, Writings on Fascist reaction 1924-1926, A Gramsci Reader, Lawrence and Wiseheart Publishing, 1988.