Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Posts tagged ‘Asia’

The Jewish problem is actually a Turkic problem

The Jewish problem is actually a Turkic problem

The Jewish problem is actually a Turkic problem

Yiddish was the everyday language of most Jews in Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and parts of Hungary and Czechoslovakia) for 1,000 years. The term “Yiddish” is derived from the German word for “Jewish.” The most accepted (but not the only) theory of the origin of Yiddish is that it began to take shape by the 10th century as Jews from France and Italy migrated to the Rhine Valley. They developed a language that included elements of Hebrew, and French, Italian, and German dialects. In the late middle Ages, when Jews settled in Eastern Europe, Slavic elements were incorporated into Yiddish.

In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without intentional study or special effort. As for: Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum (partially and asymmetrically and also for: German and Yiddish. Yiddish language is clearly was made by the Khazar Ashkenazi Jews in Germany in the same way which they produced.

The Judeo-Spanish language is commonly referred to as Ladino. Ladino is a language derived from medieval Spanish, with influences from other languages such as Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Catalan, Galician-Portuguese, and Mozarabic. Ladino also has vocabulary from Ottoman Turkish, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, French, Italian, Greek, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. The Turkish government promoted Turkish language and suppressed the Kurdish language. Ladino was not suppressed, but according to scholars, the community itself helped to suppress it.

The Sephardim Are Also Turkic Just Like the Ashkenazim. Sephardim Jews, also known as Sephardic Jews or simply Sephardim “The Jews of Spain”, are a Jewish ethnic division whose ethno-genesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews coalesced in the Iberian Peninsula around the start of the 2nd millennium (i.e., about the year 1000).

The Sephardim established communities throughout Spain and Portugal, where they traditionally resided; evolving what would become their distinctive characteristics and diasporic identity. Their millennial residence as an open and organized Jewish community in Iberia was brought to an end starting with the Alhambra Decree by Spain’s Catholic Monarchs in the late 15th century, which resulted in a combination of internal and external migrations, mass conversions and executions.

3333333To find out the true origin of the Sephardim

It is necessary first to answer the following crucial questions:
1- When the Sephardim appeared in world history? The answer: immediately after the Turkic invasion and enslavement of North Africa under their false flags of Islam, and Arab imperialism.
2- From where the Sephardim came to the Iberian Peninsula? The answer: from Turkey and other Turkic colonies via North Africa.
3- To where the Sephardim went after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492? The answer: mainly to Turkey and North Africa; and some went to Western Europe.
4- Who helped the Sephardim most after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492? The answer: only the Turkic Ottoman Empire.
5- How the Sephardim lived in before, during and after their stay in the Iberian Peninsula? The answer: in Turkic invasions, occupation and slavery, money, prostitution businesses in Iberia and all Africa.
6- How their language, Ladino, is related to other languages? The answer: many borrowings from Turkish and to a lesser extent from Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and French.
7- What are the results of the Genetic studies of the Sephardim? The answer: The Turks are all over the world and their genetic are heavily mixed like no other nation despite the claims of Jewish marriage rules; but still they resemble other Turkic groups.

This is yet strong evidence that almost all Jews in the World are not Semitic at all; and they are originally from central Asia and not the Levant. The creation of the State of Israel is the work of Turkic peoples under the leadership of Turkey and the Turkic ruling elites in the Gulf Arab states.

New Genetic Research Confirms Koestler’s “Khazar” Theory! Ashkenazi Jews Are Not The Jews of The Bible! In 2012, a major genetic study of Ashkenazim was led by Johns Hopkins geneticist Eran Israeli-Elhaik. It concentrates on the compelling genetic evidence that eastern European Jewry’s roots are not just in the Mid-East but, perhaps even more so, in the Caucasus, the mountainous heartland of ancient Khazaria. (See “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses“).

pan-tu13Research Article “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses” by Eran Israeli-Elhaik, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21208. McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21208.

Conclusions: We compared two genetic models for European Jewish ancestry depicting a mixed Khazarian-European-Middle Eastern and sole Middle Eastern origins. Contemporary populations were used as surrogate to the ancient Khazars and Judeans, and their relatedness to European Jews was compared over a comprehensive set of genetic analyses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis depicting a large Caucasus ancestry along with Southern European, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European ancestries, in agreement with recent studies and oral and written traditions.

We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco-Romans and Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.  Download the report from here

So it is clear that there is no political difference between Israel and Turkey. But only that Israel is the place for elite Turks. The Turks are all over the region and especially in elite families in the Gulf Arab oil states and in North Africa. Israel is a very small part of the Turkic picture only. They have mutual gains with the governments in USA and Europe and that is why they are allies.

The Russian Empire at one time hosted the largest population of Jews in the world. Within these territories the primarily Ashkenazi Jewish communities of many different areas flourished and developed many of modern Judaism’s most distinctive theological and cultural traditions
is this another proof that the Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites and they are Asian Turkic? If so then Anti-Semitism is actually Anti-Turkism.

It is getting clearer by the day that secret societies are actually representing just only one group of people with different nationalities and religions. All of them have Turkic Khazar blood. These people are the elite families in the Gulf Arab Muslim oil-doms, Zionist non-Semite Jewish Israelis, ruling Turks in Islamist Turkey, and the big Ashkenazim and Sephardim bankers and main corporations in the Christian and secular US and Europe.

The elite families in the Gulf Arab oil-doms they are not Arabs and were not made by Arabs. Turkey and Israel are two faces for the same coin that is the Turkic peoples. It is convincing and very important to understand that the Jewish problem is actually a bad misrepresentation of the Turkic problem.

This old misconception is not only damaging Iran, Russia, Germany but also all Europe and even the true Israelite and the whole world without exception. The Turkic Khazars split into both Ashkenazim and Sephardim and other smaller groups.

Hitler and the Nazi were against the Khazar Ashkenazi m in Germany and in the Slavic Eastern Europe. It is impossible to tell if Hitler knew that they are not Semites and definitely not Israelite, but only new Asian pretentious converts. So Hitler was actually not Anti-Semitic or Anti Slavic but Anti Turkic, even if it was apparent to him; because those Jews of Germany and Europe and the USA are not Semitic but Turkic.

Once the world identifies their origin and history it would be much easier to consolidate the lines and strengthen the international support from the Americas up to Russia and Japan including Africa and Asia. The acts of the Turks and Ottomans are well known in Anatolia, Caucasus, Greece, the Balkan, North Africa, the rest of Africa, Arab countries, and even India and China. Telling the truth shall not be labeled anti-Semitic. Those known as capitalists or communists who claim to be Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Israel, Arabia, Anatolia, Europe and USA are barricading behind fake religions, history and ideologies. It is necessary to dismantle their covers first.

This is to explain that, after decades of media brainwash, it is difficult to discover that the devastation of Communism, Capitalism, and fabricated religions. Such degenerating ideas were threatening the Germans, and that is why they created Nazism to avoid the terrible fate of Russia and of all Europe. They worked hard to protect themselves and Europe from the Turkic people who called themselves Jews.

The original Semitic Israeli nation was shocked and was terrified and the Turkic Khazar Jews manipulated this situation for their interests. Calling Hitler’s and Nazi’s actions against Turkic Khazar Jews as Anti-Semitism is ironic since the Khazar Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites at all. The Ashkenazim as well as the Sephardim are systematically trying to deny that their true origin and the origin of their Yiddish and Ladino Languages are from Turkic Khazar. They both claim that their Zionist ambitions and businesses are legitimate, nationalistic and religious.

pan-Turanianism

pan-Turanianism

A Short Introduction to Pan-Turanism By: Dr Kaveh Farrokh
What is pan-Turanianism? Simply put, pan-Turanianism is an ideology that aims at creating a Turkic super state stretching from the Balkans in Europe, eastwards across Turkey, Iran (Persia), the Caucasus, Central Asia up to and including northwest China. The logic behind this is that all people who speak Turkish must be incorporated into this Turkic super state.

Hungarian pan-Turanianist activists go even further. They have proposed that the entire Eurasian landmass between Hungary and Norway in Europe to Japan and Korea was once an empire known as “Turania”. Apart from non-scholastic websites, no linguistic, anthropological and archeological evidence for such an empire exists.

Pan-Turanian racialists and historians would beg to differ. They are impervious to logical explanations even in the face of hard evidence. Such is the case of all who are infected with the virulent virus of racialism.

Pan-Turanianism, like Nazi “racial sciences”, or Stalinist “History”, has failed to convince the majority of western scholarship to its cause, and has been as equally unsuccessful in Eastern Europe, with the exception of Hungary and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

12744598_10207255420156607_8157750503597975473_nMuch of pan-Turanian ideology is similar to pan-Germanic racism and Nazism; philosophies from which the Grey Wolves and pan-Turanian ideologues have drawn much of their inspiration (see Parts III & IV). Like the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, the pan Turanian Turks envision their Turan super-state (like the Nazi “Germania”), in terms of “lebensraum” (German for “living space”) for all Turkic speaking peoples. The late president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Abulfazl Elchibey (1938-2000), a Grey Wolf sympathizer himself (see Part II, item 4), is reputed to have stated that “…the road to Turkistan runs through Tabriz”. Tabriz has been an integral part of Persia for thousands of years.

Pan-Turanianism is perhaps one of the last racialist movements that first began in the 19th century. Traditional history cites its early origins amongst Ottoman officers and intelligentsia studying and residing in 1870s Imperial Germany. The fact that many Ottoman Turkish officials were becoming aware of their sense of “Turkishness” is beyond doubt of course, and the role of subsequent nationalists, such as Ziya Gokalp (see Part II, item 7a) is fully established historically.

the Grey Wolves and pan-Turanian ideologues

the Grey Wolves and pan-Turanian ideologues

Pan-Turanian ideologues have placed a very high priority on re-inventing past history. Much of this is based on the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Attaturk (1881-1938) (see photo below), who stated that: “Writing history is as important as making history”

Turkic History in 6-minute video

History of the Jews in Spain
Origins and History of Sephardic Jewry

http://kehillatisrael.net

07-0100Roman_Empire_Jews

18-0600Jewish_world

The Sephardim Are Also Turkic Just Like the Ashkenazim

The Sephardim Are Also Turkic Just Like the Ashkenazim

The Sephardim Are Also Turkic Just Like the Ashkenazim

Sephardi Jews, also known as Sephardic Jews or simply Sephardim “The Jews of Spain”, are a Jewish ethnic division whose ethno-genesis and emergence as a distinct community of Jews coalesced in the Iberian Peninsula around the start of the 2nd millennium (i.e., about the year 1000).

They established communities throughout Spain and Portugal, where they traditionally resided; evolving what would become their distinctive characteristics and diasporic identity. Their millennial residence as an open and organized Jewish community in Iberia was brought to an end starting with the Alhambra Decree by Spain’s Catholic Monarchs in the late 15th century, which resulted in a combination of internal and external migrations, mass conversions and executions.

To find out the true origin of the Sephardim it is necessary first to answer the following crucial questions are:
1- When the Sephardim appeared in world history? The answer: immediately after the Turkic invasion and enslavement of North Africa under their false flags of Islam, and Arab imperialism.
2- From where the Sephardim came to the Iberian Peninsula? The answer: from Turkey via North Africa.
3- To where the Sephardim went after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492? The answer: to Turkey and North Africa.
4- Who helped the Sephardim most after their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492? The answer: the Turkic Ottoman Empire.
5- How the Sephardim lived in before, during and after their stay in the Iberian Peninsula? The answer: in Turkic invasions, occupation and slavery, money, prostitution businesses in Iberia and all Africa.
6- How their language, Ladino, is related to other languages? The answer: many borrowings from Turkish and to a lesser extent from Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and French.
7- What are the results of the Genetic studies of the Sephardim? The answer: The Turks are all over the world and their genetic are heavily mixed like no other nation despite the claims of Jewish marriage rules; but still they resemble other Turkic groups.

This is yet another strong evidence that almost all Jews in the World are not Semitic at all; and they are originally from central Asia and not the Levant. The creation of the State of Israel is the work of Turkic peoples under the leadership of Turkey and the Turkic ruling elites in the Gulf Arab states.

New Genetic Research Confirms Koestler’s “Khazar” Theory! Ashkenazi Jews Are Not The Jews of The Bible!

New Research Returns to Koestler
But in 2012, a major genetic study of Ashkenazim was led by Johns Hopkins geneticist Eran Israeli-Elhaik. It concentrates on the compelling genetic evidence that eastern European Jewry’s roots are not just in the Mid-East but, perhaps even more so, in the Caucasus, the mountainous heartland of ancient Khazaria. (See “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses“)

————-

To present a sample from their inner way of thinking:
Pakistan Defence Forum posted the following article Discussion in ‘Military History & Tactics’ started by atatwolf, on Nov 28, 2013.
What is your favorite Turkic Muslim Empire?

Ottoman Empire 29 vote(s) 70.7%
Safavid Empire 7 vote(s) 17.1%
Mughal Empire 10 vote(s) 24.4%
There was a time that the Turks had borders with each other from Europe all the way to India. The Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals. Unfortunately because they were rivaling powers they fought against each other, made each other weak and at the end, lost against non-Turkic powers. I included a map:
Hopefully the Turkic peoples who are left will learn from the mistakes of their ancestors and don’t make the same mistake, which I’m sure off. Turks populate the ancient silk road. There are a lot of resouces and a lot of commerce opportunities. These people are bound the raise. If you look at energy projects between Turkey-Azerbaijan-Turkmenistan-Kazakhstan you see big steps are being made for the future. All of these peoples are connected through history. Any way, I added a poll. Pick your favorite Empire.

Proposal for New System of Governance – Three Dimensional Democracy

Three Dimensional Democracy

Three Dimensional Democracy

This is a proposal for an innovative system of governance. Three Dimensional Democracy (3D or XYZ Democracy) aims to replace inherited western-designed political system to make real reforms and development in any economy and its power structure.

Looking closely into the build up of any nation in the world, they might be grouped at least in three different ways. The first category is social; in terms of ethnic and tribal cultures. The second category is political; concerning ideological and intellectual affiliations. And the third category is economic; regarding professional and business activities.

Modern liberal democracy which is based on majority rule is one-dimensional and unable to protect and promote various interests. Thus, it usually interacts with people in accordance to their political party affiliation only. They drop from their considerations any social and economic attachments. And therefore, these affiliations seek essential outlets through illegal political practices and corruption. This is because the disregard of recognition does not lead to disappearance of social and economic affiliations.

By so doing, Liberal Democracy creates threats to the interests and the very existence of minorities and to social peace and to the different functions of state institutions. Therefore, monopoly of power by a political party and its hidden dominant ethnic group and their privileged elites, even for a limited period, destroys democracy and disfranchise the rest. They undermine social, political and economic justices permanently. This situation results in creation of civic police dictatorships working through legal and constitutional legitimacy conferred by the established system.

The alternative is clearly in distributing power in the three axes. This could be achieved by considering the nation in its social; economic and political layers or aspects; analogous to a three-dimensional cube.

The first axis (X) is the Social Dimension relating to tribal, ethnic and cultural affiliations and composition.
The second axis (Y) represents economic dimension; in respect to professional, business and trade affiliations and composition.
The third axis (Z) regarding the political dimension; dealing with partisan, ideological and intellectual affiliations and composition.

Reinventing democracy by creating Three Dimensional Democracy (3D or XYZ Democracy) is about advocating
1- The right of all citizens to elect and have at least three representatives in their parliaments to protect their distinct social, economic and political interests.
2- Parliament must be gradually equally shared by men and women in the three different assemblies.
3- The powers of trade & business unions; and also cultural communities must be increased to level with political parties.

The In-Security Council – Dump It or Grow It?

UN in-Security Council

UN in-Security Council

…the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small…::Preamble, Charter of the United Nations, 1945 ::

Written by: Chithra KarunaKaran

A core principle of the United Nations Charter is One Member One Vote. This is not an explicit statement within the Charter. Significantly, the Charter goes even further. The Charter states that the UN was established to secure “the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” It places the rights of men and women before the rights of states. That’s you and me and six billion-plus others. The rights of individuals are co-equal with and precede the rights of states. What a glorious (and yet to be realized) ideal. But it will not happen unless We the People do something about the UN Security Council. The question is — What? Dump it, scrap it, change it or grow it?

As events have shown, the Security Council has become dangerously obsolete, representing the whim, greed and political fundamentalism of one hyper-power.

On March 10, at a press conference at UN headquarters, a million-plus petitions signed by people from all over the world were presented to the Security Council. The petitions had been generated through a massive online campaign by anti-war groups, protesting the US govt.’s decision to go to war against the people of Iraq. What did the UN do? Not a peep about it from Kofi Annan, not even in his generally timid “off the cuff” statements featured daily on the UN website. No prior announcement about the event was made by the UN Secretariat, though they were aware that the petitions would be delivered in 12 boxes to Security Council members. It was as if the event never occurred. So, is the UN Charter just a piece of paper to be stored on a musty shelf, or is it supposed to safeguard the “rights of men and women and of nations, large and small” to discursive, negotiated settlement of disputes? Talk is cheap, cheaper than war.

Unequal Membership

All member states of the 191-member body are stated to be equal. Each member state supposedly has one vote and one vote only. The Security operates on the non-principle of One Member Two Votes. The stated principle of equality of membership is breached and flouted by the structure, processes and exclusive (not to mention, exclusionary) membership of the United Nations Security Council. The UN Security Council is the only UN body that has permanent members (Article 23). All other UN bodies have general or rotating memberships.

The Security Council is the only body that can “adopt its own rules of procedure,” (Article 30) unfettered by The UN General Assembly. Under the United Nations Charter, therefore, inequality of membership is guaranteed, implemented and enforced by the Security Council. In Orwellian terms, all member states are equal but some member states are more equal than others. But, hey, it’s not 1984 anymore, it’s 2003. Time for a change? Time for a change that will guarantee the equality of all member states. While the media and the policy wonks in the dominant states are concerned about the lack of unity at this time in the Security Council, others are questioning whether the Security Council should be taken apart and retired. Are We the People more secure because of the Security Council? Or have we become more insecure, because of the Security Council?

Postcolonial Membership Structure

So the question du jour that subservient member-states (and that includes every member who is not permanently on the Security Council) should be asking is Should the United Nations Security Council be dismantled and repaired? Or scrapped and dumped? Subservient member states include large global players like India; small island states and previous colonial dependencies such as Mauritius; AIDS-ravaged new democracies like South Africa; poor landlocked states dependent on the goodwill of their neighbors like Nepal; or dominated regions with little hope of religious freedom, right of return of its tens of thousands of refugees and sovereignty, like Tibet.

India is the world’s largest democracy. It is a democracy that has struggled out of colonialism and painful subservience to colonial interests. Therefore it has a perspective that is diametrically opposite to that of the colonizing and neo-imperial powers. Perhaps India should not be seeking expansion of the Security Council, as it is doing now, so that it too can become a member. India’s membership, if it happens, will make Pakistan and other South Asian nations feel more insecure. That will not be a good thing. Building bonds between blood-related neighbors and historically enmeshed partners is more important than Security Council membership. Dismantling the Security Council is certain to strengthen the General Assembly. Maybe India, in the spirit of 21st century understanding of the paramount importance of human rights, post-capitalist democracy, freedom and equality of participation should not be seeking expansion of the Security Council but dissolution of the Security Council. Maybe it is almost time to dismantle the Security Council as a dangerously obsolete, ineffectual, humiliating emblem of nineteenth and twentieth century dominant power relations. Maybe India, Norway, Pakistan, Mauritius, Sweden, Iran, Brazil, Sri Lanka and historically diverse others can help move the UN into the 21st century with political equality of all member states, at every level of operation of the UN. Article 109 can be invoked to amend the UN Charter. However, all five permanent members of the Security Council would have to agree. Talk about double jeopardy “for the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small.”

Members of the Security Council, (the only ones that really matter are the five permanent members), the Big Five, exercise more political and economic power than any other body within the United Nations. This cannot be claimed to be a natural outcome of the historical development of the Security Council, but the explicit intent of the original superpowers. Inequality of membership was the demand of the original framers of the United Nations Charter, all of them colonial powers and one emerging power of that time, the US. However, the US was a worthy candidate for dominant and exclusionary membership. The US had already practiced slavery for 100-plus years and was therefore well equipped to develop its capability to become a neo-imperial power, exerting dominance over new member states which included those from which it had previously drawn free labor. It is comfortable with sharing power with the colonizing powers, all white and all European. China’s later inclusion in 1949, (with India deferring its claim of membership to China), merely underlines the importance of size and potential economic power as a basis for strengthening the inequality of membership. Again, the fragmenting of the USSR and the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in 1989, has not knocked Russia out of contention for continued membership. The politics of dominance is therefore key to membership in the Security Council. Not equality of membership but dominance in membership.

Acquiescence to the non-principle of inequality of membership was demonstrated by those colonized member states including India who were founding co-signers of the United Nations Charter. The postcolonial states, recently independent in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s, accepted the non-principle of inequality of membership, carrying on the colonial tradition of political subservience to their previous masters, now sitting as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

To borrow from sociologists Max Weber and C. Wright Mills, the collusion of elites characterizes many bureaucratic institutions. In the case of the UN we have a collusion of male-dominant, wealthy national elites. A phallocracy, a bureaucracy and now increasingly a corporatocracy. And the UN Security Council represents the crème de la crème of the elites of each of the five permanent member states, joining in mutual recognition of their shared elite power, status and privilege.

The United Nations is of course a global, inter-govermental bureaucracy, with salient and classic features of hierarchical, top-down authority, bottom-up accountability, written rules, written communications and written records (most recently, Resolution 1441), continual expansion, division and departmentalization of tasks within agencies and committee structures. But the power equation is its most salient feature. The Security Council is in fact explicitly constituted to exercise unequal global power, status and privilege, through its Charter-guaranteed position at the apex of the UN bureaucracy. The Security Council is the elite of global elites. It is the problem not the solution. It compromises the UN General Assembly.

Are We Secure With The Security Council?

What has the Security Council accomplished? Has the Security Council accomplished security for the world at large? The Security Council has a sorry record of lack of accomplishment. It established the State of Israel in 1948, in violation of its own Preamble and unleashed seventy-five years of disenfranchisement of the indigenous Palestinian people. It presided over and literally authorized Palestinian disenfranchisement. The US continues to arm Israel and the Security Council can’t do a thing about it. The Security Council proved unable to overturn apartheid in South Africa. It failed to prevent the expulsion of Indians from Uganda by Idi Amin. It was unwilling to prevent Britain from going to war to claim the Falklands Islands. The UN Security Council was unable (unwilling?) to anticipate, prevent or intercede in the bloody ethnic strife between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, and in the continuing genocide in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia was emptied of its indigenous population, the Ilios, who were shunted off to neighboring Mauritius, so that the island could serve as a military base for joint use by the Britain and the US. Diego Garcia is currently serving the strategic interests of the US and the UK as a naval base for operations against states in the Middle East, Afghanistan and South Asia. And now the UN has failed to avert war by a hyper-dominant member state against the people of Iraq. In each of these instances, the individual and combined interests of the five member states outweighed the interests of the 191-strong UN community of member states. The universal and greater common good is not, and cannot be expected to be the prime consideration of a small elite of states holding dominant power in the Security Council. That power has become even more concentrated with the US becoming the dominant member of the UN Security Council, supported by the post-imperial politics of the erstwhile dominant world power, the UK. This blatant concentration of power to the exclusion of all others, makes the active pursuit of a universal and greater common good by the UN, and particularly the Security Council virtually impossible.

Apparently WE the People must change the UN and particularly its Security Council.

When will the Security Council act to guarantee the guarantee the “equal rights of men and men and of nations, large and small.?” Never? The UN appears too cumbersome, too compromised and too preoccupied with its own survival as a burgeoning bureaucracy to undertake its own reform on behalf of We the People. It will again be up to those million-plus petitioners, who swamped the UN with signatures asking the Security Council to act on behalf of a negotiated peace. Their request was futile this time. Better luck next time.

The writer is a professor and journalist. She contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from New York, USA.

Source: by courtesy & © 2003 Chithra KarunaKaran

   Copyright © 2003 Media Monitors Network. All rights reserved.  
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Pears of Wisdom

“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

– Samuel P. Huntington

Sudan Technology Innovation Center (STIC)

Sudan Technology Innovation Center (STIC)

Sudan Technology Innovation Center (STIC)

This is a proposal to create a sustainable non-governmental organization
To act as:
1- Incubators for new technologies and inventions;
2- Workshops for formulating technological solutions.
To provide the following:
1- Technical assistance;
2- Research information;
3- Administrative support;
4- Legal protection;
5- Financial loans;
6- Promotion & marketing;
7- Governmental coordination;
8- Site & logistics.

Humanitarian Imperialism: The New Doctrine of Imperial Right

Next European Imperialism

Next European Imperialism

Jean Bricmont’s concept “humanitarian imperialism” succinctly captures a dilemma that has faced Western leaders and the Western intellectual community since the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the origins of the Cold War, there was a reflexive justification for every resort to force and terror, subversion and economic strangulation: the acts were undertaken in defense against what John F. Kennedy called “the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” based in the Kremlin (or sometimes in Beijing), a force of unmitigated evil dedicated to extending its brutal sway over the entire world. The formula covered just about every imaginable case of intervention, no matter what the facts might be. But with the Soviet Union gone, either the policies would have to change, or new justifications would have to be devised. It became clear very quickly which course would be followed, casting new light on what had come before, and on the institutional basis of policy

Source: Humanitarian Imperialism: The New Doctrine of Imperial Right

Russia Innocent Victim of Bolsheviks

The Soviet USSR has foreign roots and it did not come from Russia itself. The Bolsheviks damaged great peaceful harmony and many adorable gentle qualities of the Russians but it could not destroy them. Bolshevism and its perverted Communism succeeded in defaming and portray its ugly aggressive image upon Russia all over the World to majority of unaware persons. Bolshevik communist USSR does not resemble the Russian characters in many obvious ways. It is simply not Russian at all.

The so-called “Russian Revolution” of 1917 was designed and financed and managed by foreigners who hate Russia and its great history and heritage to destroy patriotism, create crises and steal wealth.
People can only either love Russia or not dislike Stalin and what he represents as Bolshevik communist USSR, but to admire both of them impossible is not only for Russian but also for people from all around the World.

The Bolsheviks were Khazarian Mafia revenge on the Russian Czar and the innocent Russian people

The Bolsheviks were Khazarian Mafia revenge on the Russian Czar and the innocent Russian people. The words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Noble Laureant) support this opinion.

“What is the essential difference between (Oliver) Cromwell and (Joseph) Stalin? Can you tell me? No difference…(Cromwell’s) monument is standing, (and) no one is going to remove it. The essence is not in these symbols, but in the need to treat with respect every period of our history.” In the words of Russian President and leader Vladimir Putin. These words imply that the USSR was a shame but it is still part of the Russian history.

The Bolsheviks were actually created and deployed by the Khazarian Mafia (KM) as the essential part of their long planned revenge on the Russian Czar and the innocent Russian people for breaking up Khazaria in about 1,000 AD for its repeated robbery, murder and identity theft of travelers from countries surrounding Khazaria. This little known fact explains the extreme violence taken out on Russia as long standing revenge by the Rothschild controlled Khazarian Mafia (KM).

The collapse of USSR was a natural normal consequence of faulty foundation and leadership. Peter the Great (1672–1725); Catherine the Great (1762–1796); and the Romanovs are all extremely tall compared to Stalin. This is the real hero of Russia: Tsar Nicholas II, in the uniform of a Royal Navy Admiral of the Fleet, c. 1909.

Tsar Nicholas II, in the uniform of a Royal Navy Admiral

Tsar Nicholas II, in the uniform of a Royal Navy Admiral

In 1981, Nicholas and his immediate family were recognized as martyred saints by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. On 14 August 2000, they were recognized by the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. This time they were not named as martyrs, since their deaths did not result immediately from their Christian faith; instead, they were canonized as passion bearers. According to a statement by the

Moscow synod, they were glorified as saints for the following reasons:
In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his family we see people who sincerely strove to incarnate in their lives the commands of the Gospel. In the suffering borne by the Royal Family in prison with humility, patience, and meekness, and in their martyr deaths in Yekaterinburg in the night of 17 July 1918 was revealed the light of the faith of Christ that conquers evil.

Stalin

Stalin

Stalin’s birth name in Georgian was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili He was born an ethnic Georgian – Ioseb’s father slid into alcoholism, which made him abusive to his family and caused his business to fail. He was a voracious reader and became a Georgian cultural nationalist. Out of school, Jughashvili briefly worked as a part-time clerk in a meteorological office, but after a state crackdown on revolutionaries, he went underground and became a full-time revolutionary, living off donations. Among other activities, he wrote and distributed propaganda, organized strikes, and raised funds through bank robberies, kidnappings, extortion, and assassinations. Jughashvili was arrested and exiled to Siberia numerous times, but often escaped. His skill, charm, and street-smarts won him the respect of Lenin, and he rose rapidly through the ranks of the Bolsheviks. Just like Hitler, Stalin was picked up from nowhere and polished and he was errected by foreign financiers, without any merits other than brutality and street-smarts.

Stalin played an active role in fighting the Russian government. Here he is shown on a 1911 information card from the files of the Russian police in Saint Petersburg:

Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili or Joseph Stalin as he called himself

Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili or Joseph Stalin as he called himself

In the night of July 16-17, 1918, a squad of Bolshevik secret police murdered Russia’s last emperor,

Tsar Nicholas II, along with his wife, Tsaritsa Alexandra, their 14-year-old son, Tsarevich Alexis, and their four daughters. They were cut down in a hail of gunfire in a room of the house in Ekaterinburg, a city in the Ural mountain region, where they were being held prisoner.

The daughters were finished off with bayonets. To prevent a cult for the dead Tsar, the bodies were carted away to the countryside and hastily buried in a secret grave. Bolshevik authorities at first reported that the Romanov emperor had been shot after the discovery of a plot to liberate him.

For some time the deaths of the Empress and the children were kept secret. Soviet historians claimed for many years that local Bolsheviks had acted on their own in carrying out the killings, and that Lenin, founder of the Soviet state, had nothing to do with the crime.

In 1990, Moscow playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky announced the result of his detailed investigation into the murders. He unearthed the reminiscences of Lenin’s bodyguard, Alexei Akimov, who recounted how he personally delivered Lenin’s execution order to the telegraph office. The telegram was also signed by Soviet government Chief Yakov Sverdlov. Akimov had saved the original telegraph tape as a record of the secret order.

Radzinsky’s research confirmed what earlier evidence had already indicated. Leon Trotsky — one of Lenin’s closest colleagues — had revealed years earlier that Lenin and Sverdlov had together made the decision to put the Tsar and his family to death.

The massacred Tsar Nicholas II family

The massacred Tsar Nicholas II family

In recent years, Jews around the world have been voicing anxious concern over the specter of anti-Semitism in the lands of the former Soviet Union. In this new and uncertain era, we are told, suppressed feelings of hatred and rage against Jews are once again being expressed. According to one public opinion survey conducted in 1991, for example, most Russians wanted all Jews to leave the country. But precisely why is anti-Jewish sentiment so widespread among the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Why do so many Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others blame “the Jews” for so much misfortune?

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population,5 they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and — as chairman of the Central Executive Committee — head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.

A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. “An intelligent Russian,” he once remarked, “is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins.”

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical.

Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik “October Revolution” of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews.

To direct the takeover, a seven-man “Political Bureau” was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev). Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet — whose chairman was Trotsky — established an 18-member “Military Revolutionary Committee” to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews. Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man “Revolutionary Military Center” as the Party’s operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

The Netherlands’ ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: “Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

“The Bolshevik Revolution,” declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, “was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct.”

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that “because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel.”
Quoting from Mark Weber: The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Regime
https://murderbymedia2.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/mark-weber-the-jewish-role-in-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-soviet-regime-2/

Jews and Bolshevism

Amongst themselves, the Jews are quite candid about their sympathy for and involvement in Bolshevism.

Jews and Bolshevism

Jews and Bolshevism

On 4 April 1919 the Jewish Chronicle: “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.” (Perhaps this explains why the Red Army uses a Jewish star as its symbol?)

Probably the best-known exposé of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik coup d’état was by Sir Winston Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of 8 February 1920. Churchill wrote “With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of leading figures are Jews. Moreover the principal inspiration and the driving power comes from Jewish leaders.”

Communism was of course founded by Karl Marx whose grandfather was a rabbi by the name of Mordeccai. Marx was given his initial encouragement by a Communist-Zionist by the name of Moses Hess. As founder and editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, the main organ of leftist thought in Germany, he provided Karl Marx with his first important platform. Later, in Brussels, he collaborated with Marx on The German Ideology. It was Hess too who converted to Communism Friedrich Engels, the wealthy textiles magnate who later subsidised Marx from the profits of sweated labour in Britain and Germany.

When the Bolsheviks overthrew the short-lived democratic government in Moscow and St. Petersburg in October 1917, it was a virtual Jewish coup d’état. The most prominent Jewish Commissar was Trotsky, real name Bronstein. He had been married by a rabbi in 1900, and whilst in exile in New York he had worked for Novy Mir, described in the Church Times (23 January 1925) as a “Yiddish newspaper.”

The various reporters and diplomats who were there at the time of the “Revolution” have given evidence as to its Jewish nature.

The widow of the Guardian’s correspondent Mrs. Ariadna Tyrkova-Williams wrote: “In the Soviet Republic all the committees and commissaries were filled with Jews.”

The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925.

He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows: (NAME , NATIONALITY):
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew; Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew; Lourie (Larine) Jew; Ouritski Jew; Volodarski Jew; Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew; Smidovitch Jew; Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew; Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew; Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian; Krylenko Russian; Lounatcharski Russian;

“The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following: (MINISTRY NAME, NATIONALITY):
President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian; Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian; Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian; Agriculture Protian Armenian; Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew; Food Schlichter Jew; Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew; State Control Lander Jew; State Lands Kauffman Jew; Works V. Schmidt Jew; Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess; Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian; Religions Spitzberg Jew; Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew; Hygiene Anvelt Jew; Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew; Press Volodarski Jew; Elections Ouritski Jew; Justice I. Steinberg Jew; Refugees Fenigstein Jew; Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew; Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew;

“The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee: (NAME NATIONALITY)
Sverdlov (president) Jew; Avanessof (sec.) Armenian; Bruno Lett; Babtchinski Jew; Bukharin Russian; Weinberg Jew; Gailiss Jew; Ganzburg Jew; Danichevski Jew; Starck German; Sachs Jew; Scheinmann Jew; Erdling Jew; Landauer Jew; Linder Jew; Wolach Czech; Dimanstein Jew; Encukidze Georgian; Ermann Jew; Joffe Jew; Karkline Jew; Knigissen Jew; Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew; Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew; Krylenko Russian; KrassikofSachs Jew; Kaprik Jew; Kaoul Lett; Ulyanov (lenin) Russian; Latsis Jew; Lander Jew; Lounatcharski Russian; Peterson Lett; Peters Lett; Roudzoutas Jew; Rosine Jew; Smidovitch Jew; Stoutchka Lett; Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew; Sosnovski Jew; Skrytnik Jew; Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew; Teodorovitch Jew; Terian Armenian; Ouritski Jew; Telechkine Russian; Feldmann Jew; Froumkine Jew; Souriupa Ukranian; Tchavtchevadze Georgian; Scheikmann Jew; Rosental Jew; Achkinazi Imeretian; Karakhane Karaim (Jew); Rose Jew; Sobelson (Radek) Jew; Sclichter Jew; Schikolini Jew; Chklianski Jew; Levine (Pravdine) Jew

“The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow: (NAME NATIONALITY):
Dzerjinski (president) Pole; Peters (vice-president) Lett; Chklovski Jew; Kheifiss Jew; Zeistine Jew; Razmirovitch Jew; Kronberg Jew; Khaikina Jewess; Karlson Lett; Schaumann Jew; Leontovitch Jew; Jacob Goldine Jew; Glaperstein Jew; Kniggisen Jew; Latzis Lett; Schillenkuss Jew; Janson Lett; Rivkine Jew; Antonof Russian; Delafabre Jew; Tsitkine Jew; Roskirovitch Jew; G. Sverdlof Jew; Biesenski Jew; Blioumkine Jew; Alexandrevitch Russian; I. Model Jew; Routenberg Jew; Pines Jew; Sachs Jew; Daybol Lett; Saissoune Armenian; Deylkenen Lett; Liebert Jew; Vogel German; Zakiss Lett

Although Lenin is described as a “Russian,” in fact he was a mixture of various nationalities. It is likely that he was one-quarter Russian, one-quarter German, one-quarter Jewish and at least one-quarter Kalmuck (Mongol), which accounts for his Mongol appearance. Various authorities allege that his wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya was a Jewess and that her family spoke Yiddish in the home.

A report sent to the British government in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke, the Dutch consul in St. Petersburg, said that “Bolshevism is organised and worked by Jews.” The report was included in a pamphlet published as a government White Paper in April 1919 entitled Russia No. 1 (1919) A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. However, the pamphlet was quickly withdrawn and reissued with various excisions and alterations made.

In the War Records Division of the United States National Archives there is filed a report from an American Intelligence operative in St. Petersburg. Under Record Group 20; Records of the American Expeditionary Forces Capt. Montgomery Schuyler, G2 Intelligence wrote, “The Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type.”

Also in the U.S. National Archives are two telegrams sent by American diplomats in Russia. State Department document 861.00/1757 sent on 2 May 1918 by U.S. Consul Summers in Moscow relates, “Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population.” Document 861.00/2205 from Consul Caldwell in Vladivostock on 5 July 1918 describes, “Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of worst type.”

In January, 1924, Lenin died from causes variously described as ‘a heart attack,’ brain hemorrhage’ and ‘syphilis.’ His comrades immediately began fighting amongst themselves to see who was to become his successor.

A relative outsider, Joseph Stalin, came to the fore and purged all competition either by exiling or executing them. Since Stalin was not Jewish, yet nearly all his opponents were, it is often suggested that Stalin was anti-Semitic. This is far from the truth.

Stalin had three wives, all of them Jewesses. The first was Ekaterina Svanidze who bore him one son, Jacob. His second wife was Kadya Allevijah. She bore him a son Vassili and a daughter Svetlana. His second wife died in mysterious circumstances, either by committing suicide or murdered by Stalin. His third wife was Rosa Kaganovich, the sister of Lazar Kaganovich, the head of Soviet industry. Stalin’s daughter (who in 1967 fled to the USA) then married Lazar’s son Mihail i.e. her step-mother’s nephew. Svetlana Stalin had a total of four husbands, three of them Jewish.

Stalin’s vice-president Molotov was also married to a Jewess, whose brother, Sam Karp, runs an export business in Connecticut. Just to complicate things even more, the Molotov’s (half-Jewish) daughter also called Svetlana was engaged to be married to Stalin’s son Vassili.

After the death of Stalin, his successors kept up the tradition, for a report in the B’nai B’rith Messenger relates: “To show that Russia treats its Jews well, Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev this week remarked at a reception at the Polish Embassy that not only he himself and Soviet President Klementi Voroshilov, but also half the members of the Praesidium have Jewish wives. Mr. Kruschev made this remark to Israeli Ambassador Joseph Avidar, who was amongst the guests.” (Kruschev’s wife was yet another Kaganovitch.)

According to a report in The Canadian Jewish News of 13 November 1964 the present Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev is married to a Jewess, and his children are brought up as Jews. There are a number of prominent Jews in the Soviet government, including Dimitri Dymshits in charge of industry, Lev Shapiro regional secretary of Birobidjan, and Yuri Andropov in charge of the secret police, the KGB. In fact, every secret police chief in Soviet history has been a Jew, from the first Uritsky to the most recent, the murderous Beria. A Jew is also in charge of the Soviet economy – Leonid Kantorovich.

It is a well-known fact that the Bolsheviks were and are financed by Jewish interests in the West.

At a Bolshevik celebration rally in New York’s Carnegie Hall on the night of 23 March 1917, a telegram of support from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was read out. The telegram was reprinted in the next morning’s New York Times. Schiff later tried to deny his involvement, but thirty years later his grandson John admitted in the New York Journal-American (3 February 1949) that the old man had sunk twenty million dollars into the Bolshevik cause.

Another Western bankers who poured funds into Bolshevik Russia was Olaf Ashberg of the Stockholm Nia Banken. He remained the Soviets’ paymaster until the late 1940s. The London Evening Standard of 6 September 1948 reported a visit by Ashberg to Switzerland “for secret meetings with Swiss government officials and banking executives. Diplomatic circles describe Mr. Ashberg as the ‘Soviet banker’ who advanced large sums to Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. At the time of the revolution, Mr. Ashberg gave Trotsky money to form and equip the first unit of the Red Army.”

The Bolsheviks also received assistance from Armand Hammer, who still commutes back and forward between New York and Moscow to take care of his business interests in both communities. Hammer’s Occidental Oil Company is at the moment building a 1600 mile chemicals pipeline in southern Russia. He is also on such good terms with the Soviets that he personally arranges for Soviet art galleries to lend paintings to America.

Another American-based businessman to help out the Soviet economy is Michael Fribourg, who owns the massive Continental Grain Company. Together with the Louis Dreyfus Corporation, these Jewish speculators were able to buy up vast quantities of cheap American grain in 1972, sell it to the Soviets at a vast profit, and collect an export subsidy from the U.S. taxpayer.

In every other East European country, it is exactly the same story:

In Hungary a Communist revolution was staged in 1919, instigated by the Jew Bela Kun (Cohen). During the three month regime, the country was turned upside down in a reign of murder and terror. Here again, the government was composed almost entirely of Jews. And it was this factor which brought about the regime’s downfall, as the ordinary Hungarians detested Jewish dictatorship. Kun was deposed and fled to the Soviet Union, where he became chief of the secret police, the Cheka, in southern Russia.

It was not until 1945 that the Jews were able to regain control. Three Russian Jews were installed as the ruling triumvirate, Matyas Rakosi (Rosencranz), Erno Gero (Singer) and Zoltan Vas. Both Rakosi and Gero had been members of Kun’s bloody government.

In Germany, the Jews also tried to take over there in the chaos that followed the First World War. Aided by funds from the Soviet Ambassador Joffe, Rosa Luxemburg’s Spartacus Bund attempted to overthrow the government. The revolt was quelled and its leaders Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht executed.

The post-war dictator of Roumania, Anna Pauker, was the daughter of a Bucharest kosher butcher. For a time she earned her living teaching Hebrew. Her father and brother now live in Israel.

Although Tito was the only non-Jewish dictator behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1940s, he was tutored by the Jew Mosa Pijade. According to John Gunther in Behind the Iron Curtain, “He is Tito’s mentor… Whatever ideological structure Tito may have, he got it from the shrewd old man.”

Moscow’s puppet government in Czechoslovakia in the late 1940s was run by another Jew, Rudolph Slansky.

In Poland too, Jews occupied virtually every position of authority in the post-war Communist regime. Prominent among these were Minc, Skryesewski, Modzelewski and Berman. Jacob Berman gradually eclipsed the others until he became supreme dictator by himself. Also, Gomulka’s wife was a Jewess.

Even in China, Soviet Jews were at work helping Mao Tse Tung. High up in the Political Department of the Red Army in China were W. N. Levitschev and J. B. Gamarnik.