Jewish Nihilism and World War 2

Americans typically have a cartoon understanding of Adolf Hitler and World War 2, but for those looking for an adult explanation of the war and Hitler’s mindset going into it, they would need to begin with an exploration of Communism and its relationship to Jews.

 

Jews are the inventers of Communism whose purpose was to provide a replacement religion for the Christianity which they had striven so mightily to destroy with the Enlightenment, the first body blow against the Ancien Regime. To its Jewish inventers, Communism is also the political ideology with which to completely control a nation, offering the masses a lie of proletariat rule when in fact autocratic totalitarian rule is controlled by a cabal of Jews.

 

If this sounds like fantastical anti-Semitism, one would do well to read Jonas Alexis’ disturbing but incisive analysis of the ideological events leading up to the second world war. It is against this backdrop of the development of the intertwined revolutionary dogmas of Communism, Marxism, and Bolshevism which informs Hitler and his Nazis.

 

Part of Hitler’s genius was to create a counter-revolutionary ideology in the National Socialist Workers Party to blunt and to turn back the inroads made by Communism and its allied strains of anti-establishment and tradition hating ideology. Indeed the Jewish trinity of Communism, Marxism, and Bolshevism – plus the Enlightenment for completeness - were fundamentally anti-establishment protocols for bringing about revolution and the destruction of Christian and traditional societies.

 

Thus if we observe the work product of Jewish Talmudism from its prototype ideology, the Enlightenment, we see the French Revolution of the 1790s, the Continental revolutions of 1848, the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, and the Weimar putsch of 1923 as the direct offspring of these subversive and destructive Jewish ideologies. They are attractive to the poor because they promise relief to their miseries, but as with all things Zionistic, they are deceitful lies.

 

Jonas documents Bernard Levy’s comments on Marx, with whom he was a prominent correspondent, as follows:

in this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe…shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition…

The government of the nations forming the Universal or World-Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands thanks to the victory of the proletariat…Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the Jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth.

All except 1 leader of the Bolshevik ruling party were Jews, which included Lenin himself. In fact it was Lenin who ordered the murder of the Romanovs, facts which many historians and apologists had denied for decades until the evidence overwhelmed the lies.

 

It is against this background which Hitler formed his nationalistic Nazi party to efface the presence of Communism in Germany. Jonas documents that Hitler was not anti-Semitic in the personal sense. Indeed many historians, even Jewish ones, have noted that many Jews served in Hitler’s armed services or as commandants of prisoner camps, thus refuting the pernicious lie that Hitler was anti-Semitic. As we have documented elsewhere, the charge of anti-Semitism is a false one because the people claiming to be Jews are in fact Khazars – not descendants of Abraham or those of the Roman diaspora.

 

Hitler’s objective, the target of his ire, was the elimination of Communism and its culture of genocide. But since the vast majority of the Communist leadership was Jewish – almost 100% as we saw in Russia – the Zionist has turned colinearity into a form of causality, an argument very appealing to a lazy mind. And for those readers who believe the Holocaust happened, please write us for your timeshare in the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Thus Hitler’s concern was to prevent what happened to Russia, where a revolution by totalitarian genocidal Jews wiped out 66 million people, from happening to Germany. Interestingly enough, Alexis notes that the Talmudists do not fundamentally oppose Nazism, but only its war on Communism. Thus the Jew Victoria Nuland of the State Department spent 5 billion dollars overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine to replace it with a neo Nazi government, all to further Zionist aims.

 

We urge readers who want to follow up the details of this brief essay to read Alexis’ outstanding article in Veterans Today which delineates the Talmudic Zionist assault on Europe and the United States where this country is a colony of the terrorist state of Israel as Bernard Levy prophesied in the 19^th century.

Reference

Jonas E Alexis, Historical Causes of Nazi Germany and Implications in Ukraine (Part III), Veterans Today, April 6, 2014, accessed 4/7/2014, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/06/historical-causes-of-nazi-germany-and-implications-in-ukraine-part-iii/

 

Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Rethinking Lenin

Painting of Vladimir Lenin, Isaac Brodskey

Vladimir Lenin  (1870 - 1924) cast a long shadow over 20^th century political theory and praxis, but in the United States he has been painted as an extremist Communist. We think that this portrait is an exercise in historical Dadaism designed to cover up more duplicitous political goals.

 

Although The American Chronicle is focused tightly on American history, we will reach across our borders when foreign topics are required to better understand our own history by providing necessary context. Lenin is one such subject requiring closer examination because most of popular and right winged politics hinges upon making him the bane of 20^th century existence and the cause of the Red Scare hysteria of the post war years.

 

Lenin ruled briefly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 1918 to 1924, although the practical period of his reign ended in 1922 when a series of strokes incapacitated him. He was a Bolshevik who established a number of very progressive laws including legalization of abortion, civil rights for women, universal health care and education, land reform – all of which makes him nearly indistinguishable from an American Democrat. But this underscores a point in American politics – the only difference between a Republican and Democrat is about 10 – 20 years. There is no substantive difference between the two parties.

 

Recent research has revealed that Lenin was assassinated by Josef Stalin (1879 - 1953), the dictator who succeeded him, an act concealed by the dilapidated state of the ruler’s health. This murder by Stalin marks a strong division in Soviet history wherein the former ruler was co-opted by the usurper in order to establish his bonafides to succeed to the throne.

 

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a profound essay many years ago explaining the distinctions between Russia and the Soviet Union – a conflation of which many Americans were wont to indulge due in large part to propaganda induced ignorance. The author noted that the two entities were almost antithetical to each other, the former being a theistic nation of pious people – if only outwardly in some cases - while the latter was an atheistic wasteland.

 

Solzhenitsyn made his most cogent case comparing the cultures of the two nations by calling on Dostoyevsky as the archetype of the Russian soul and pointing to a barren, desiccated consistory of Soviet command artists as the emblem of Soviet communism.

The same divide exists in Soviet history at the time of Lenin’s death in which he represented the aspirations of the revolutionaries whose goals were generally peaceable while Stalin ruled with an iron fist, machine guns, and gulags.

The 1930s were a time of devastation over much of the world but none more so than in Stalin’s USSR during which time he engaged in countless bloody purges to rid the country of Bolshevik or Leninists influences. His enforced collectivizations resulted in deaths by the millions, most of which were by starvation.

Lenin had insisted on peaceful negotiations with all parties, including the Mensheviks, White Russians, and others hostile to his reforms. This protocol represented the first phase of the October Revolution which was punctuated by the ensuing civil wars between the Red Russians and White Russians, with the latter being a revanchist atavism to the Tsarist imperium.

Although an atheist, Lenin tolerated the Orthodox Church and was a strong opponent of anti-semitism - putting him at considerable odds with the Tsars.

All of this changed with the rise of Stalin whom Lenin had sought to remove from power at the 13^th Party Congress in 1924. But as previously noted, failing health and Stalin’s assassination short circuited his plans.

Apres Lenin, le deluge. We have already noted Stalin’s massive party purges and murders, especially in the Ukraine. Many of the deprivations and disasters – particularly famines and starvations – of the post war years were not in any way attributable to Lenin’s agriculture policy. Rather they were the deliberate consequences of Western banksters depriving the Russians of food in order to discredit the Revolution.

In fact, so hostile were Western powers to the October Revolution that British general W Thompson rounded up Bolsheviks in Aberzaijan to murder them in cold blood without trial.

The Western press glorified the Stalin revolution with glowing reports of its progressive and prosperous society all through the 1930s – especially the New York Times and Walter Duranty. Why would the capitalist paper of record conceal the brutalities of Stalin? The most probable reason - in our mind - is that it was influenced and controlled by the banksters who so abhorred the October Revolution. They – such as the Rockefellers and DuPonts – were extra busy during the 1920s and 1930s establishing totalitarian regimes in Europe and the United States. They did not want anyone to understand the brutality of Stalin’s regime.

While we do not find Lenin terribly attractive either as a person or ruler, we are in great accord with him in his recognition that reforms were desperately needed in Russia, and that the isolated, aloof, arrogant aristocracy had outlived its usefulness. On the other hand, Lenin was, according Bertrand Russell, quite modest though rather doctrinaire in his beliefs - a man devoid of pretensions or entitlement.

All of this contrasts with the popular portraiture of Lenin as a Stalinist, ruthless dictator. We encourage Americans to revisit their perceptions of Lenin in light of these disclosures as he was probably the best outcome in all possible Russian worlds at the close of World War I.

References

Lenin's Stroke: Doctor Has a Theory, New York Times, May 7, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/health/research/lenins-death-remains-a-mystery-for-doctors.html?_r=0

Lenin: The Original Dictator? Per-Ake Westerlund,  Socialism Today, February 2004, http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/lenin/

Vladimir Lenin. (2013, February 22). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:04, February 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Lenin&oldid=539562767

Alexander Solzhenitsyn essay of unknown origin

Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.