"Les circonstances m’ont placé dans un haut lieu de ces spéculations en relation avec la fameuse théorie des « extra-terrestres » quand un ancien Préfet niçois du nom de Moatti réédita les célèbres « Protocoles [des sages de Sion] » en leur assignant de nouveaux auteurs, à savoir des « Elohims » dont les juifs seraient les principaux descendants. (...) Enfin notons pour clore le débat que A.-D. Grad ne fut point le seul à se méprendre sur la geste des « Anges » rescapés du chapitre VI de la Genèse. C’est l’occasion de rappeler que cette thèse qui en fait des civilisateurs et les ancêtres des juifs avait été illustrée par un « intégriste » du nom de Marc Dem (cf "Les juifs de l’espace"). Curieusement, on pourrait dire que c’est un point sur lequel les sionistes et leurs adversaires paraissent, contre toute attente, s’entendre à merveille..." (Extrait de commentaire sur le livre de Jean Robin intitulé "Veilleur où en est la nuit")
Cette drôle de théorie n'est pas sans rappeler une autre tout aussi farfelue, qui parut dans le High IQ Bulletin, Philip Campbell Argyle-Smith affirme que les "Illuminati" sont appelés sur Terre des "Juifs" et que ceux-ci sont en fait des extra-terrestres de la planète Vulcain. Les vulcains seraient derrière le communisme, la franc-maçonnerie, le sionisme, etc.
"... Passons sur les élucubrations de Philip Campbell Argyle-Stuart qui, dans High 10 Bulletin, vol. 4, n° 1, 1970, affirme que les Khazars, terme utilisé en permanence pour désigner les Juifs, sont un mélange diabolique d'humains et d'êtres venus de Vulcain, planète se trouvant dans la même orbite que la terre mais avec six mois d'avance ou de retard dans son mouvement autour du soleil, et donc invisible pour les téléscopes humains ... Bien entendu ces hybrides Khazars Vulcains ne cessent de conspirer contre la Terre. À leur tête, un mélange de communistes, de franc-maçons, de sionistes..." Genealogies Revees
MEMO #15 SUMMARY: Here's the weirdest version of the Illuminati history that I've found so far. It's from a publication written, edited and published by somebody named Philip Campbell Argyle-Stuart, who holds that the conflicts in the world are due to an age-old war between Semitic "Khazar" peoples and Nordic "Faustian" peoples. This is the essence of his thinking:"My theory is that an extremely devilish imposed overcrust was added to the Khazar population consisting of humanoids who arrived by flying saucer from the planet Vulcan, which I assume to be not in intra-Mercurial orbit around the sun, but rather in the earth's orbit, behind the Sun, forever out of sight to earthlings, always six months behind or ahead of the earth in orbital travel....Likewise for the Gothic Faustian Western Culture. The previously comparatively inert and purposeless migrating population streams known as Franks, Goths, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Swabians, Alemani, Lombards, Vandals, and Vikings suddenly had an overcrust added consisting of Norman-Martian-Varangians, arriving from Saturn by way of Mars in flying saucers. . . .After 1776 it (the Khazar-Vulcanian conspiracy) used the Illuminati and Grand Orient Masons. After 1815 it used the financial machinations of the House of Rothschild and after 1848 the Communist movement and after 1895 the Zionist movement. . . ."Source: The High I.Q. Bulletin, Vol. IV, No. 1, January 1970. Published by Philip Campbell Argyle-Stuart, Colorado Springs, Colorado. I
“More on the Khazar Theory”: Koestler Admitted He Wrote His Book to Further Jewish Interests Koestler admet avoir pondu son livre sur les Khazars pour servir les intérêts juifs. En "démontrant" que les Khazars n'ont pas le droit de retourner en Israël parce qu'ils viennent en fait du Caucase et n'ont aucun lien avec la population indigène palestinienne et juive (sémite), il soutient indirectement le "droit" des juifs sémites de retourner en Israël! MDR! Quelle arnaque! Ça prenait un juif sioniste pour inventer ça. (Vous n'ignorez pas que Koestler était non seulement juif mais sioniste?)
Rethinking the Khazar Theory by Dr. David Duke
LegacyGeorge W. Bush as President of the United States, the Vulcans all received key positions within the new administration.
- Condoleezza Rice was appointed U.S. National Security Advisor and later U.S. Secretary of State in Bush's Second Administration.
- Paul Wolfowitz was appointed U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld and later president of the World Bank.
- Richard Armitage was appointed U.S. Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell.
- Robert Blackwill was appointed U.S. Ambassador to India and later U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor.
- Stephen Hadley was appointed U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor under Rice and later U.S. National Security Advisor.
- Richard Perle was appointed chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.
- Dov Zakheim was appointed Comptroller of the Pentagon. [note: Dov Zakheim est aussi rabbin. Il tenait les comptes du Pentagone à l'époque du scandale des billions ("trillions" en anglais) de dollars disparus des coffres du Pentagone.]
- Robert Zoellick was appointed U.S. Trade Representative, United States Deputy Secretary of State and nominated as World Bank president in May 2007.
| Wolfowitz Doctrine | Project for the New American Century, a think tank formed in 1997 with significant Vulcan membership |
According to Swerdlow he was then ‘strapped into a chair and zapped with electricity by a seven foot, thin, white being with large blue eyes and a pointed chin. He reviewed that Nazi life and past lives with angelic beings’. He claims after this his soul was placed into the newborn of a Russian-Jewish American family’. “There was literally a program going on where they captured some soul personalities and placed them in families where they’d never be suspected or believed. Today, some are beginning to remember who they were. Many Nazis were placed into new bodies, and I’m now meeting some of these people. Not all are in Jewish bodies, just a percentage. (Interview) Autrement dit, Swerdlow prétend que les extraterrestres ont pris son âme de nazi et que les anges l'ont fait voir sa vie de nazi avant de le transplanter dans un nouveau corps juif!
Lectures conseillées sur les niaiseries d'ovnis nazis:
- Les Nazis et les Ovnis #2 Partie 2 : Vers une nouvelle religion? Ovnis nazis sur le Web James Hurtak : entre CIA, Mind Control et « Nouvelle Egypte »
- DUGPA STEWART SWERDLOW
- Were the Montauk Boys victims of aliens, or victims of the World's weirdest conspiracy cult? by Chris Ketcham
Parlant de complot extraterrestre...
His great-uncle, Yakov Sverdlov, was the first president of the Soviet Union, and his grandfather helped form the Communist Party in the United States in the 1930s. To ensure that his loyalties stayed with the US government, he was "recruited" for specific government mind-control experiments which enhanced his natural abilities.
He spent years in service to various US and foreign government agencies and special interest groups. (Stewart Swerdlow Bio)
|Left to Right: Senator Al Gore Sr, Armand Hammer, Mrs Pauline Gore, daughter Nancy, and little Al Gore Jr., Smoke, Mirrors and Armand Hammer|
Michael A. Hoffman II Revisionist History Newsletter No. 5
Hammered: The Inside Story of the Top Communist Operative Who Groomed Al Gore to Rule a Soviet America. This is the most comprehensive investigative report on Armand Hammer and Al Gore Jr. in print. Section headings include: I. KGB Asset Al Gore Sr. II. Gore, Hammer and Gadhafi. III. Learning Lenin's Iron Law of Conspiracy. IV. Operation Elders of Zion. V. Zion's Stealth Candidate. As the Clinton administration sinks under a load of scandal, all eyes are focused on his possible successor. But the skeletons in Gore's own closet may prove to be the far greater liability. $ 6.50
Armand Hammer, le « milliardaire rouge »
Les Echos n° 19728 du 11 Aout 2006 • page 11(...)Un pur opportunisteImposer ses propres règles : plus qu'une simple stratégie, une véritable seconde nature chez Armand Hammer. Rarement personnage fut autant controversé que ce capitaliste atypique, aussi familier du Kremlin que de la Maison-Blanche. Le pouvoir et la respectabilité furent ses deux véritables moteurs. Sa fascination pour le pouvoir le conduisit à tisser, notamment par le biais des échanges commerciaux, des liens très étroits avec les dirigeants des deux superpuissances, de Lénine à Gorbatchev et de Roosevelt à Reagan. Paradoxe : lui que le FBI soupçonna longtemps de financer des activités d'espionnage pour le compte de l'URSS fut un soutien indéfectible du Parti républicain américain et finança les campagnes de plusieurs présidents des États-Unis, notamment celle de Nixon. En retour, la Maison-Blanche lui confia à plusieurs reprises des missions officieuses auprès du Kremlin dans les années 1960 et 1970. En 1961, Kennedy songea même à lui pour une mission de bons offices auprès de Khrouchtchev après l'affaire de l'avion-espion U2.
Ces missions-là, Armand Hammer les assuma avec délices. Elles lui permirent de s'acheter une respectabilité, l'autre grande obsession de sa vie. Pour y parvenir, il ne recula devant rien. A la fin des années 1980 ainsi, il chercha désespérément à se faire attribuer le prix Nobel de la paix, faisant d'énormes dons aux anciens lauréats et aux grands sponsors princiers du prix et consacrant une grande partie de sa fortune à la recherche contre le cancer. En vain : le jury lui préféra le dalaï-lama. Dans ses relations avec les grands de ce monde comme dans ses affaires, Armand Hammer agit en fait le plus souvent par pur opportunisme.
Un art dans lequel il était, depuis longtemps, passé maître ! Très précisément depuis ce jour de 1919 où il avait pris en main l'Allied Drug, la petite société de produits pharmaceutiques et de droguerie fondée par son père, Julius. Julius : un personnage lui-même surprenant. Issu d'une famille juive russe émigrée aux Etats-Unis à la fin du XIXe siècle, socialiste dans l'âme, pilier des congrès de l'Internationale socialiste où il a rencontré Lénine, ce médecin de formation a été l'un des fondateurs, en 1919, du Parti communiste des Etats-Unis, ce qui lui valut des ennuis avec le FBI. Cette même année 1919, celui-ci lui a d'ailleurs mis sur le dos une mauvaise affaire qui l'a expédié au bagne pour quelques années : le décès brutal de l'une de ses patientes, épouse d'un ancien haut fonctionnaire du tsar réfugié en Amérique. Un beau prétexte pour le faire tomber... et qui a eu pour effet de propulser Armand, alors âgé de vingt et un ans et tout juste diplômé de la faculté de médecine de Columbia, à la tête de la petite affaire familiale. Les affaires, Hammer ne va désormais vivre que pour elles. De l'alcool aux oeuvres d'art en passant par le blé, le pétrole, l'automobile et les engrais, il touchera à presque tout, gagnant à chaque fois beaucoup d'argent.
Car l'homme a la bosse du commerce, et aucun scrupule ! Il le démontre dès 1919 en relançant l'Allied Drug qui végète depuis des années. Sa recette est simple : une banale teinture à base d'alcool de gingembre. Malin, Hammer a tout de suite vu le parti qu'il pouvait tirer de ce produit : en pleine prohibition, les Américains sont en effet prêts à boire n'importe quoi pourvu qu'il y ait de l'alcool ! Va donc pour la teinture de gingembre... Hammer en vend des quantités astronomiques, en toute légalité, encaissant au passage de confortables bénéfices. Lorsque les autorités s'aperçoivent du subterfuge et interdisent le produit, il est trop tard. Hammer a les poches pleines et un nouveau projet en tête : l'URSS.
Armand Hammer y arrive en 1921, puissamment aidé par le nom et les réseaux de son père et suivi à la trace par le FBI. La raison exacte de sa venue reste, encore aujourd'hui, un mystère. Officiellement, il est en URSS pour aider le gouvernement à combattre le typhus. Mais, selon certains, il aurait accepté, au cours de ce voyage, de travailler pour la Tcheka _ futur KGB _ et de financer, via la société Allied Drug, des activités d'espionnage aux États-Unis. Communiste, le jeune homme ne l'est pourtant pas et ne le sera jamais. Mais c'est un pur opportuniste. Sans doute a-t-il compris que la Russie, désertée par les compagnies occidentales, offrait aux plus audacieux d'immenses possibilités de développement.
Du troc avec Moscou
Il profite de son séjour pour proposer aux Soviétiques un vaste système de troc : du grain américain contre des fourrures, du bois, du caviar et des pierres précieuses russes. La proposition est transmise par d'anciens intimes de Julius Hammer à Lénine en personne. En souvenir de Julius et parce qu'il a grand besoin de donner un peu d'air à l'économie russe, celui-ci s'empresse d'accepter.
Armand Hammer va se consacrer à ce négoce bien particulier jusqu'en 1929, dégageant de très gros bénéfices. Familier de Lénine qu'il rencontre régulièrement, logé au coeur de Moscou dans une somptueuse villa, Armand Hammer obtient de Lénine l'exclusivité des échanges avec l'URSS. L'instrument de sa fortune est l'Allied American Corporation, créée en 1922. Sur chaque chargement de blé, l'entreprise touche une commission de 10 % à laquelle s'ajoutent les profits réalisés sur la revente des produits russes. Et ce n'est pas tout ! Forte de son monopole, l'Allied American Corporation devient le représentant unique en URSS d'une trentaine de sociétés américaines, dont Ford. Sur place, la société jouit de privilèges exceptionnels : ses collaborateurs, tous américains, peuvent se déplacer librement, des entrepôts lui sont alloués à titre gracieux et des hommes armés gardent les mines d'amiante de l'Oural dont Armand Hammer a obtenu la concession. Autant d'avantages qui renforcent les soupçons de collusion entre l'homme d'affaires et la Tcheka. Le FBI en est en tout cas convaincu, mais ne parviendra pas à en réunir les preuves...
En 1929, l'arrivée de Staline au pouvoir met un terme à ces fructueuses entreprises. Privé de ses concessions mais largement dédommagé, Armand Hammer quitte l'URSS en 1930 _ il n'y reviendra qu'en 1961 _ et regagne les Etats-Unis. Dans ses bagages, un nouveau « business » : celui des objets d'art russes. Depuis 1921, l'homme d'affaires s'est en effet constitué une somptueuse collection, rachetant à bas prix meubles, bibelots, bijoux et tableaux venus des anciens palais tsaristes. Elle lui permet d'ouvrir à New York sa propre galerie et de se livrer à un fructueux commerce. Armand Hammer y gagne, une fois de plus, beaucoup d'argent. En 1933, avec la levée de la prohibition, il l'investit massivement dans le secteur de l'alcool, reprenant plusieurs distilleries et les fusionnant au sein du groupe United Distillers, l'un des géants du secteur aux Etats-Unis. A moins de quarante ans, Armand Hammer est désormais un industriel en vue aux Etats-Unis.
Mais l'homme jouit d'une réputation exécrable. Le passé sulfureux de son père, ses contacts avec Lénine, l'argent gagné en URSS, sans parler de sa vie privée _ il est déjà divorcé deux fois _, en font un homme peu recommandable. Décidé à lisser son profil et à se créer d'utiles réseaux, Armand Hammer se livre, dans les années 1930, à une offensive de charme auprès de l'administration Roosevelt. L'homme lige d'Armand Hammer est alors Albert Gore _ le père d'Al Gore, futur vice-président de Bill Clinton _ dont il a financé l'élection à la Chambre des représentants et qui lui sert de faire-valoir auprès de la Maison-Blanche. Gore émargera chez Armand Hammer pendant des années. Par son intermédiaire, l'homme d'affaires parvient à nouer de précieux contacts dans les cercles dirigeants de Washington avant de s'imposer comme un généreux donateur du Parti républicain.
C'est en 1956 qu'Armand Hammer fait son entrée dans le secteur du pétrole. Comme toujours, l'homme d'affaires agit au départ par pur opportunisme : pour des raisons fiscales, il recherche en effet un placement financier. Ce sera l'Occidental Petroleum. Créée en 1920 pour exploiter du pétrole en Californie, cette compagnie pétrolière connaît alors de grosses difficultés financières. Hammer attache si peu d'importance à son investissement qu'il n'y injecte au départ que 100.000 dollars, dont la moitié apportée par sa troisième épouse. Mais lorsque l'Occidental met à jour un très gros gisement en Californie un an plus tard, il change ses plans. Sentant la bonne affaire, il rachète la majorité des parts et prend la tête de la compagnie. Il la dirigera en personne jusqu'à sa mort en 1990, à l'âge de quatre-vingt-douze ans...(...)
Historien d'entreprises (tgbheeasynet.fr) Retrouvez notre série La saga de l'or noir sur http://www.lesechos.fr/dossiers
La famille Gore était financée par le milliardaire et agent soviétique Armand Hammer (plus sur Armand Hammer). Un site web canadien écrit par un prof d'université d'origine Ukrainienne révélait toute l'histoire, malheureusement le site web a été fermé par les pressions du Lobby sioniste, suite à une longue bataille juridique. Le jugement exige que les informations soient conservées dans les archives du web.
Al Gore Theme: "If I Had A Hammer", F.R. Duplantier, February 16, 1997
Gore family ties The connections between the late industrialist and Soviet agent Armand Hammer and the Gore family run long and deep -- and they continue to haunt Al Gore Jr.
Armand Hammer, Occidental Petroleum, and the Gore Family
- Julius Hammer, father of Armand and FOUNDER OF U.S. COMMUNIST PARTY
- Armand Hammer, founder of the Occidental Petroleum company and lifelong friend and benefactor of Albert Gore Sr as well as lifelong friend of Joseph (Uncle Joe) Stalin who's purges resulted in the deaths of Millions. Remained close to Albert Gore Jr. until his death lavishly bestowing his largesse until the end.
* Lenin presented an inscribed portrait to "Comrade Armand Hammer" in 1921, The inscription has Lenin in parentheses & Ulanioff, his birth name.
- Albert Gore Sr, When first elected to the House of Representatives in the late 1930s he was a Tennessee school teacher who eked out extra dollars by playing fiddle at church weddings. But later, as a United States Senator, he lived in the plush Fairfax Hotel on Embassy Row in Washington, and sent his son, Al Jr., to the pricey St. Albans School, the haunt of kids from Social Register families. A new book called Dossier , written by investigative reporter Edward Jay Epstein, which "shows that the senior Gore had a silent partner who, for several decades, insured that his pockets remained comfortably filled. He was Armand Hammer, the multi-million aire businessman and oil promoter who apparently collected art and politicians with equal zeal. Al Gore Sr. was "Hammer's designated door-opener in official Washington. The handsome compensation that Gore Sr. received for his services culminated in a half-a-million-dollars-a-year position with Armand Hammer's oil company, Occidental Petroleum. Al Gore Jr. picked up where his father left off and "put the family's Senate seat at Hammer's service.
- Joseph Stalin, Born Iosef Vissarionovich
Dzhugashvili, the "Man of Steel," or Stalin,
was born in Georgia, was educated at the Tiflis
Theological Seminary from which he was expelled for
"propagating Marxism." He joined the Bolshevik
underground and was arrested and transported to Siberia.
He escaped in 1904.
The ensuing years witnessed his closer identification with revolutionary Marxism, his many escapes from captivity, his growing intimacy with Lenin and Bukharin, his early disparagement of Leon Trotsky, and his co-option, in 1912, to the illicit Bolshevik Central Committee.
With the Revolution of 1917 and the replacement of Kerensky's weak Provisional Government by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Stalin was appointed Commissar for Nationalities and a member of the Politburo, although his activities throughout the counter-revolution and the war with Poland were confined to organizing a Red "terror" in Tsaritsin (Stalingrad). With his appointment as General Secretary to the Central Committee in 1922, Stalin began stealthily to build up the power that would guarantee his control of the Soviet Union after Lenin's death. When Lenin died in 1924, Stalin took control. By 1928, Trotsky had been degraded and banished. (...)
An entirely unscrupulous man, Stalin consistently manipulated Communist imperialism for the greater glory of Soviet Russia and the strengthening of his own person as autocrat. He died, in somewhat mysterious circumstances, in 1953.
"If Al Gore Jr. ever runs for President, he'll have to answer some embarrassing questions about the source of his family's wealth" F.R. Duplantier in America's Future (...)
[AL GORE'S DAUGHTER] KARENNA GORE WEDS ANDREW SCHIFF Excerpted from http://web.archive.org/web/20050311072031/http://teaminfinity.com/~ralph/gore/ site down
La fille d'Al Gore a marié Andrew Schiff, un parent de Jacob Schiff (le fameux milliardaire juif sioniste qui finança Trotski).
Lenin signed photo for Armand Hammer
Al Gore with the son of Armand Hammer
Armand Hammer with picture signed by Lenin
Al Gore’s Communist Connection
FLASHBACK: Gore Made $500K from Toxic Zinc Mines
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner
Originally published in The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2000.
BY MICAH MORRISON
CARTHAGE, Tenn.--On his most recent tax return, as he has the past 25 years, Vice President Al Gore lists a $20,000 mining royalty for the extraction of zinc from beneath his farm here in the bucolic hills of the Cumberland River Valley. In total, Mr. Gore has earned $500,000 from zinc royalties. His late father, the senator, introduced him not only to the double-bladed ax but also to Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp., which sold the zinc-rich land to the Gore family in 1973.
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate
by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch
August 29th, 2000
A Family Affair
Gore senior first met long-time Occidental CEO Armand Hammer at a cattle auction in the 1940s. When zinc ore was discovered on some of Gore's land, Hammer and Oxy bought it for twice the amount of the only other bid. Hammer then sold the land back to Gore while retaining the mineral rights. The elder Gore then sold the land to his son, Al Jr., who has received $20,000 yearly in mineral royalties from Occidental ever since. Two years after Gore Sr. was defeated in a bid for re-election to the Senate, he joined Occidental as a member of its board of directors and was rewarded with a $500,000 a year job working for an Oxy subsidiary.
Throughout his political life, Al Gore Jr. has received the favor the patronage of Occidental and Hammer's successor, CEO Ray Irani.
Dossier: The Secret History Of Armand Hammer.
Occidental Petroleum was founded in 1920 in California. Its early years as an oil-finding entity were largely undistinguished, with the company almost bankrupt by the mid-1950s. It was Occidental Petroleum's early difficulties, however, that laid the groundwork for its later success. In 1956 Occidental Petroleum came to the attention of Armand Hammer, a millionaire well-known for his savvy and success in business dealings with the Soviet Union in the 1920s. In 1921 Hammer had met Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution, and had become the first U.S. businessman to establish ties with the Soviet Union. Among other enterprises, Hammer had operated an asbestos mine, imported grain, and manufactured pencils. While in Moscow, he had purchased Russian art treasures at bargain prices, later reselling many art objects in the United States at considerable profit. (Later it was revealed that many of Hammer's treasures were fakes, and he was well aware of it.)
In 1956 Hammer and his wife Frances each invested $50,000 in two oil wells that Occidental planned to drill in California. When both wells struck oil, Hammer, nearly 60, took an active interest in further Occidental oil exploration.
At Hammer's first association with Occidental, the company was run by Dave Harris, Roy Roberts, and John Sullivan. Hammer's increased involvement, his strong personality, and his ability to raise money for oil drilling propelled him more and more into the limelight. By July 1957 Hammer had become company president.
In 1966 Oxy's potential skyrocketed, with a billion-barrel oilfield find in Libya. The find was vintage Hammer, as he wined and dined important Libyan officials and then took a risk on land previously drilled by others. The Libyan oil finds established Oxy as one of the largest petroleum companies in the world. From early 1967 until November of that same year, Oxy's stock doubled in value to more than $100 a share.
In the early 1970s, Hammer caused a sensation with a $20 billion long-term deal with the Soviets that featured a barter agreement by which Oxy would supply phosphate fertilizer to the U.S.S.R. in exchange for Soviet ammonia and urea.
When Armand Hammer died at the age of 92 on December 10, 1990, the changeover in command at the top was expected: Ray Irani, president and chief executive officer under Hammer for six years, took over as chairman of the board. Irani worked quickly to get Oxy out from under Hammer's slew of pet projects, many of which had no place in an oil company's portfolio
In 1998, the US government sold the Elk Hills naval petroleum reserve to Occidental for $3.65 billion. According to the government, the reserve was no longer strategically necessary, and the reserve was sold to reduce the national debt and the size of the government. Critics cited the "no-bid" nature of the sale, together with Vice President Al Gore's involvement with the company as evidence of graft.
Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics
by Kerry R Bolton, May 4, 2010
(...)Capitalism thus is an essential phase in the Marxist dialectic of historical progression towards communism. Where capitalism does not at first exist, this is seen as a hindrance rather than as a benefit to the development of socialism. The Marxist premise was that socialism must proceed from a capitalist economy.
Hence Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto:
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.Marx further stated:
Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities, and renders the contrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade.In Marx’s own day, he saw the then dominant and newly emerging Free Trade School as part of a necessary dialectical process of history that makes more acute the antagonism between the classes, internationalizes the proletariat and indeed as “precipitating the social revolution.”
Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy for the purpose of bringing Russia, hitherto still undeveloped industrially, into the stage of industrial development required as the prerequisite for building socialism, and opened the new Soviet state to foreign capital. Today, the Chinese leadership can rationalize capitalist economic innovations on the basis that China must first develop a certain economic phase before proceeding to a fuller socialist economy. Vietnam at the moment, after having spent much of its history fighting for sovereignty against foreign domination, whether it be that of ancient China, or colonial France, or the American presence, now succumbs to the global economic development model and has entered the world economy, subjecting herself to World Bank and International Monetary Fund “guidance” and “advice”, and having 42% of its GDP serving debt, which the World Bank assures us is an acceptable debt level. Here again Vietnam’s leadership is within the Marxian dialectical framework of building its economy through capitalist structures and debt as a prelude to socialism and ultimately to communism, assuming that a state once becoming part of the international financial structure can ever remove itself.
Capitalism and Dialectics
What is not generally recognized is that capitalism also has a dialectical approach to history. In this dialectical capitalism, the synthesis that is supposed to emerge is a “Brave New World” centralized world economy controlled not by commissars and a politburo but by technocrats and boards of directors. A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short term to achieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term. Hence the rationale behind capitalists supporting socialist and even communist movements, as will be shown. As stated above H. G. Wells opined—approvingly—at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution that Big Business and communism are both paths to the same end—”Collectivism.” The “socialistic” orientation of certain capitalists at the apex of the world economy is exemplified by a statement by the late Nelson Rockefeller of the famous capitalist dynasty: “I’m a great believer in planning. Economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”
In terms of having backed socialism and other forms of social revolution or revolt, the dialectics of capitalism considers that a capitalist society cannot be achieved until a rural or economically anachronistic society has gone from its peasant stage into an industrial phase. In order to achieve this sudden and enforced industrialization of a peasant or rural society, certain capitalist interests have used socialism.
The capitalist dialectic in simple terms can be seen as the mirror image of the Marxist dialectic: Marxism states that socialism cannot be achieved from a rural society until it has become industrialized by capitalism; the capitalist dialectic postulates that capitalism can be more effectively achieved if a rural society is first industrialized by the dictatorial methods of socialism.
History has shown that the capitalist dialectic has been successful: certain business interests backed or at least welcomed socialist revolutions in Russia and China to overthrow traditional peasant societies. Once socialism had been used to achieve the industrialization of those societies, the next phase of the dialectic has been to introduce privatization and globalization to the economies of the former Eastern bloc; the present phase of the dialectic, while China’s economy seems to be proceeding along desired paths as part of the world economic system.(...)
The Moscow Trials in Historical Context
(Chapter 3 of STALIN : The Enduring Legacy)
by Kerry R Bolton April 22, 2011
(...)Under Trotsky, the Bolshevik regime would have eagerly sought foreign capital. It is after all why plutocrats would have had such an interest in ensuring Trotsky’s safe passage back to Russia in time for the Bolshevik coup, after having had a pleasant stay with his family in the USA as a guest of Julius Hammer, and having been comfortably ensconced in an upmarket flat, with a chauffeur at the family’s disposal. In 1923 the omnipresent globalist think tank the Council on Foreign Relations, was warning investors to hurry up and get into Soviet Russia before something went wrong, which it did a few years later. Under Stalin, even Western technicians were not trusted." (...)
 Armand Hammer, Witness to History (Kent: Coronet Books, 1987), p. 160. Here Hammer relates his discussion with Trotsky and how the Commissar wished to attract foreign capital. Hammer later laments that this all turned sour under Stalin.
 Richard B Spence, “Interrupted Journey: British intelligence and the arrest of Leon Trotsky, April 1917,” Revolutionary Russia, 13 (1), 2000, pp. 1-28.
Spence, “Hidden Agendas: Spies, Lies and Intrigue Surrounding Trotsky’s American Visit January-April 1917,” Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 21, No. 1., 2008.
 Peter Grosse, “Basic Assumptions,” Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html
 The 1933 charges against employees of Metropolitan-Vickers, including six British engineers, accused of sabotage and espionage. M Sayers and A E Kahn, The Great Conspiracy Against Russia (London: Collett’s holdings, 1946), pp. 181-186.(...)
(Chapter 4 from STALIN: The Enduring Legacy)
by Kerry Bolton
Editor’s Note:The Moscow Trials were symptomatic of a great divide that had occurred in Bolshevism. The alliance with Stalin during World War II had formed an assumption among US internationalists that after the Axis defeat a ‘new world order’ would emerge via the United Nations Organisation. This assumption was ill-founded, and the result was the Cold War. Trotskyists emerged as avid Cold Warriors dialectically concluding that the USSR represented the primary obstacle to world socialism. This essay examines the dialectical process by which major factions of Trotskyism became, in Stalinist parlance, a ‘tool of foreign powers and of world capitalism.’
This is the second of two chapters on the Moscow Trials that we are reprinting from Kerry Bolton’s new book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012). The chapters are reprinted as formatted in the book. Counter-Currents will also run a review of the book, which I highly recommend.
One of the major accusations against Trotsky and alleged Trotskyists during the Moscow Trials of 1936-1938 was that they were agents of foreign capital and foreign powers, including intelligence agencies, and were engaged in sabotage against the Soviet State. In particular, with the advent of Nazi Germany in 1933, Stalin sought to show that in the event of war, which he regarded as inevitable, the Trotskyist network in the USSR would serve as a fifth column for Germany.
The background of these trials has been examined in Chapter III.
Stalin Correct in Fundamental Accusations Against Trotskyites
What is significant is that Khrushchev did concede that Stalin was correct in his fundamental allegation that the Trotskyists, Bukharinites et al represented a faction that sought the ‘restoration of capitalism and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie’. However Khrushchev and even Stalin could not go far enough in their denunciation of Trotskyists et al as seeking to ‘restore capitalism’ and as being agents of foreign powers. To expose the full facts in regard to such accusations would also mean to expose some unpalatable, hidden factors of the Bolshevik Revolution itself, and of Lenin; which would undermine the whole edifice upon which Soviet authority rested – the October 1917 Revolution. Lenin, and Trotsky in particular, had intricate associations with many un-proletarian individuals and interests.
The fact of behind the scenes machinations between the Bolsheviks and international finance was commented upon publicly by two very well-positioned but quite different sources: Henry Wickham Steed, conservative editor of The London Times, and Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labour.
In a first-hand account of the Peace Conference of 1919 Wickham Steed stated that proceedings were interrupted by the return from Moscow of William C Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens, ‘who had been sent to Russia towards the middle of February by Colonel House and Mr. Lansing, for the purpose of studying conditions, political and economic, therein for the benefit of the American Commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate peace.’ Steed stated specifically and at some length that international finance was behind the move for recognition of the Bolshevik regime and other moves in favour of the Bolsheviks, stating that: ‘Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists.’ In return for diplomatic recognition Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Commissary for Foreign Affairs, was offering ‘extensive commercial and economic concessions.’
For his part, Samuel Gompers, the American labour leader, was vehemently opposed to the Bolsheviks and any recognition or commercial transactions, stating to the press in regard to negotiations at the international economic conference at Genoa, that a group of ‘predatory international financiers’ were working for the recognition of the Bolshevik regime for the opening up of resources for exploitation. Gompers described this as an ‘Anglo-American-German banking group’. He also commented that prominent Americans who had a history of anti-labour attitudes were advocating recognition of the Bolshevik regime.
Trotsky’s Banking Connections
What is of significance here however is that Trotsky in particular was the focus of attention by many individuals acting on behalf not only of foreign powers but of international financial institutions. Hence while Stalin and even Khrushchev could aver to the association of Trotsky with foreign powers and even – albeit vaguely – with seeking the ‘restoration of capitalism and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie’, to trace the links more specifically to international finance would inevitably lead to the association also of the Bolshevik regime per se to those same sources, thus undermining the founding myth of the USSR as being the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.
These associations between Trotsky and international finance, as well as foreign intelligence services, have been meticulously documented by Dr Richard Spence. Spence states that ‘Trotsky was the recipient of mysterious financial assistance and was a person of keen interest to German, Russian and British agents’. Such contentions are very similar to the charges against Trotsky et al at the Moscow Trials, and there are details and personalities involved, said to have been extracted under torture and threats, that are in fact confirmed by Spence, who traces Trotsky’s patronage as far back as 1916 when he was an exile from Czarist Russia and was being expelled from a succession of countries in Europe before finding his way to the USA, prior to his return to Russia in 1917 to play his part in the Revolution. Expelled from France to Spain, Trotsky was locked up as a ‘terrorist agitator’ for three and a half days in comfortable conditions. Ernst Bark, perhaps with the use of German funds, arranged Trotsky’s release and his transfer to Cadiz to await passage with his family to New York and paid for first class passage on the SS Montserrat. Bark was cousin of the Czar’s minister of finance Petr Bark who, despite his service to the Czar, had the pro-German, pro-Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg, of the Nya Banken, Sweden, as his financial agent for his New York dealings. A report reaching US Military Intelligence in 1918 stated that Trotsky had been ‘bought by the Germans’, and that he was organising the Bolshevik movement with Parvus.
From being penniless in Spain to his arrival in New York, Trotsky had arrived with $500 which Spence states is today’s equivalent to about $10,000, although Trotsky liked to depict himself as continuing in proletarian poverty. Immigration authorities also noted that his place of residence would be the less than proletarian Hotel Astor in Times Square.
In New York the Trotskys lived in a Bronx apartment with all the mod-coms of the day. Employed by Novyi Mir, and was hosted by Dr Julius Hammer, a Bolshevik who combined revolution with an opulent lifestyle. Hammer was probably the mysterious ‘Dr M’ referred to by Trotsky in his memoirs, who provided the Trotskys with sightseeing jaunts in his chauffeured car.
One of the main contacts for Trotsky was a maternal uncle, banker and businessman Abram Zhivotovskii. In 1915 Zhivotovskii was jailed in Russia for trading with Germany. The US State Department described Zhivotovskii as outwardly ‘very anti-Bolshevik’, but who had laundered money to the Bolsheviks and other socialist organizations. He seems to have played a double role in moneymaking, working as a financial agent for both Germans and Allies. During the war he maintained an office in Japan under the management of a nephew Iosif Zhivotovskii, who had served as secretary to Sidney Reilly, the so-called ‘British Ace of Spies’ who nonetheless also seems to have been a duplicitous character in dealing with Germany. Spence mentions that Reilly, who had a business in the USA, had gone to Japan when Trotsky was in Spain, and arrived back in the USA around the time of Trotsky’s arrival, the possibility being that Reilly had acquired funds from Trotsky’s uncle to give to his nephew in New York. Another Reilly association with Zhivotovskii was via Alexander Weinstein, who had been Zhivotovskii’s agent in London, and had joined Reilly in 1916. He was supposedly a loyal Czarist but was identified by American Military Intelligence as a Bolshevik. Of further interest is that Alexander’s brother Gregory was business manager of Novyi Mir, the newspaper that employed Trotsky while he was in New York. Reilly and Weinstein were also associated with Benny Sverdlov, a Russian arms broker who was the brother of Yakov Sverdlov, the future Soviet commissar.
These multiple connections between Trotsky and Reilly’s associates are significant here in that one of the accusations raised during the Moscow Trials was that the Trotskyists had had dealings with ‘British spy’ Sidney Reilly.
The dealings of Sir William Wiseman, British Military Intelligence chief in the USA, and his deputy Norman Thwaites, with Reilly and associates were concealed even from other British agencies. Wiseman had kept Trotsky under surveillance in New York. Trotsky secured a visa from the British consulate to proceed to Russia via Nova Scotia and Scandinavia. The Passport Control Section of the British Consulate was under the direction of Thwaites. Trotsky was to remark on his arrival in Russia about the helpful attitude of consular officials, despite his detention as a possible German agent by Canadian authorities at Nova Scotia. Trotsky had been able to pay for tickets aboard the Kristianiafiord for himself and his family, and also for a small entourage. What is additionally interesting about Wiseman is that he was closely associated with banking interests, and around 1921 joined Kuhn, Loeb and Co. In 1955 Wiseman launched his own international bank with investments from Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Rothschild; Rockefeller; Warburg firms, et al. He was thus very close to the international banking dynasties throughout much of his life.
To return to the Kristianiafiord however, on board with Trotsky and his entourage, first class, were Robert Jivotovsky (Zhivotovskii), likely to have been another Trotsky cousin; Israel Fundaminsky, whom Trotsky regarded as a British agent, and Andrei Kalpaschnikoff, who acted as translator when Trotsky was being questioned by British authorities at Nova Scotia. Kalpaschnikoff was closely associated with Vladimir Rogovine, who worked for Weinstein and Reilly. Kalpaschnikoff was also associated with John MacGregor Grant, a friend and business partner of both Reilly and Olof Aschberg. We can therefore see an intricate connection between British super-spy Reilly, and bankers such as Aschberg, who served as a conduit of funds to the Bolsheviks, and Zhivotovskii via Alexander Weinstein.
When Trotsky and several of his entourage were arrested on 29 March at Nova Scotia and questioned by authorities regarding associations with Germany this could well have been an act to dispel any suspicions that Trotsky might be serving British interests. The British had the option of returning him to New York but allowed him to proceed to Russia.
The attitude of Wiseman towards the Bolsheviks once they had achieved nominal power was one of urging recognition, Wiseman cabling President Wilson’s principal adviser Col. Edward House on 1 May 1918 that the allies should intervene at the invitation of the Bolsheviks and help organise the Bolshevik army then fighting the White Armies during the Civil War. This would accord with the aim of certain international bankers to secure recognition of the Bolshevik regime, as noted by both Gompers and Steed.
The financial interests in the USA that formed around the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded by presidential adviser Col. Edward M House as a foreign policy think tank of businessmen, politicans and intellectuals, were clamouring for recognition of the Soviets. The CFR issued a report on Bolshevik Russia in 1923, prompted by Lenin’s ‘New Economic Policy’. The report repudiated anti-Bolshevik attitudes and fears that Bolshevism would be spread to other countries (although it had already had a brief but bloody reign in Hungary and revolts in German). CFR historian Peter Grosse writes that the report stated that,
the Bolsheviks were on their way to ‘sanity and sound business practices,’ the Council study group concluded, but the welcome to foreign concessionaires would likely be short-lived…. Thus, the Council experts recommended in March 1923 that American businessmen get into Russia while Lenin’s invitation held good…Armand Hammer, head of Occidental Petroleum, son of the aforementioned Dr Julius Hammer who had been the Trotsky family’s host in New York, was a globetrotting plutocrat who mixed with the political and business elites of the world for decades. Hammer was in intimate contact with every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev — except for Stalin. This omission is indicative of the rift that had occurred between the USSR and Western financial and industrial interests with the assumption of Stalin and the defeat of Trotsky.
The CFR report on the USSR that advised American business to get in quick before the situation changed, was prescient. In 1921 Hammer was in the USSR sewing up business deals. Hammer met Trotsky, who asked him whether ‘financial circles in the USA regard Russia as a desirable field of investment?’ Trotsky continued:
Inasmuch as Russia had its Revolution, capital was really safer there than anywhere else because, ‘whatever should happen abroad, the Soviet would adhere to any agreements it might make. Suppose one of your Americans invests money in Russia. When the Revolution comes to America, his property will of course be nationalised, but his agreement with us will hold good and he will thus be in a much more favourable position than the rest of his fellow capitalists.’ In contrast to the obliging Trotsky who was willing to guarantee the wealth and investments of Big Business, Hammer said of Stalin:
I never met Stalin and I never had any dealing with him. However it was perfectly clear to me in 1930 that Stalin was not a man with whom you could do business. Stalin believed that the state was capable of running everything, without the support of foreign concessionaires and private enterprise. That was the main reason why I left Moscow: I could see that I would soon be unable to do business there…As for Trotsky’s attitude toward capitalist investment, were the charges brought against Trotsky et al during the Moscow Trials wholly cynical efforts to disparage and eliminate the perceived opposition to Stalin’s authority, or was there at least some factual basis to the charge that the Trotskyist-Left and Bukharin-Right blocs sought to ‘restore capitalism’ to the USSR? It is of interest in this respect to note that even according to one of Trotsky’s present-day exponents, David North, Trotsky ‘placed greater emphasis than any other Soviet leader of his time on the overriding importance of close economic links between the USSR and the world capitalist market’. North speaking to an Australian Trotskyist conference went on to state of Trotsky’s attitude:
Soviet economic development, he insisted, required both access to the resources of the world market and the intelligent utilisation of the international division of labour. The development of economic planning required at minimum a knowledge of competitive advantage and efficiencies at the international level. It served no rational economic purpose for the USSR to make a virtue of frittering away its own limited resources in a vain effort to duplicate on Soviet soil what it could obtain at far less cost on the world capitalist market…. It is helpful to keep in mind that Trotsky belonged to a generation of Russian Marxists who had utilised the opportunity provided by revolutionary exile to carefully observe and study the workings of the capitalist system in the advanced countries. They were familiar not only with the oft-described ‘horrors’ of capitalism, but also with its positive achievements. … Trotsky argued that a vital precondition for the development of the Soviet economy along socialist lines was its assimilation of the basic techniques of capitalist management, organisation, accounting and production.It was against this background that during the latter half of the 1930s Stalin acted against the Trotsky and Bukharin blocs as agents of world capitalism and foreign powers. The most cogent defence of the Moscow Trials, The Great Conspiracy Against Russia, was written by two American journalists, Albert E Kahn and Michael Sayers, and carried an endorsement by former US ambassador to the USSR, Joseph Davis, who had witnessed the trials.
Among the charges against Trotsky was that he was in contact with British Intelligence operatives, and was conspiring against Lenin. This is not altogether implausible. Lenin and the Bolshevik faction were in favour of a separate peace between Russia and Germany. Lenin and his entourage had been provided with funds and transport by the German General Staff to travel back to Russia, while Trotsky’s return from New York to Russia had been facilitated by British and American Intelligence interests. Kahn and Sayers commented that ‘for fourteen years, Trotsky had fiercely opposed the Bolsheviks; then in August 1917, a few months before the Bolshevik Revolution he had joined Lenin’s party and risen to power with it. Within the Bolshevik Party, Trotsky was organizing a Left Opposition to Lenin.’
Trotsky was not well disposed to negotiate peace with German imperialists, and it was a major point of debate among the Allies whether certain socialist revolutionaries could be won over to the Allied cause. Trotsky himself had stated in the offices of Novy Mir just before his departure from New York to Russia that although revolutionists would soon overthrow the Kerensky regime they ‘would not make a separate peace with Germany’. From this perspective it would have made sense for William Wiseman to have intervened and for the British authorities to have let Trotsky proceed after having detained him at Nova Scotia.
American mining magnate and banker Colonel William Boyce Thompson, head of the American Red Cross Mission in Russia, was eager to recruit the Bolsheviks for the Allied cause. He stated his intention of providing $1,000,000 of his own money to assist with Bolshevik propaganda directed at Germany and Austria.  Thompson’s insistence that if the Allies recognised the Bolsheviks they would not make a separate peace with Germany, accorded with Trotsky’s own attitude insofar as he also wished to see the war end not with a separate peace but with revolutions that would bring down Germany and Austria. His agenda therefore seems to have been quite distinct from that of Lenin’s, and might point to separate sources of funds that were provided to them.
Trotsky’s actions when the Bolsheviks assumed power were consistent with his declarations, and went against Lenin’s policy of ending the war with Germany. As Foreign Commissar Trotsky had been sent to Brest-Litovsk ‘with categorical instructions from Lenin to sign peace.’ Instead he called for a Communist uprising in Germany, and stated that although the Russian army could no longer continue in the war and would demobilise, the Soviets would not sign a peace agreement. After Trotsky’s rhetoric at Brest-Litovsk the Germans launched another assault on the Eastern Front, and the new Red Army found itself still fighting the Germans.
It was at this point that R H Bruce Lockhart, special agent of the British War Cabinet, sought out Trotsky, on the instructions from British Prime Minister Lloyd George.
Lockhart, generally considered the typical anti-Bolshevik Establishment figure, was actually well disposed towards the Bolsheviks and like Colonel Thompson, hoped to win them over to the Allies. At one point his wife warned that his colleagues in Britain thought be might be going ‘Red’. Lockhart wrote of the situation:
Russia was out of the war. Bolshevism would last – certainly as long as the war lasted. I deprecated as sheer folly our militarist propaganda, because it took no account of the war-weariness which had raised the Bolsheviks to the supreme power. In my opinion, we had to take the Bolshevik peace proposals seriously. Our policy should now aim at achieving an anti-German peace in Russia’.Coincidentally, ‘an anti-German peace in Russia’ seems to precisely describe the aim of Trotsky.
Trotsky intended that the World War would be transformed into a revolutionary war, with the starting point being revolutions in Germany and Austria. This would certainly accord with Colonel Thompson’s intentions to fund Bolshevist propaganda in Germany and Austria with $1,000,000. Thompson was in communication with Trotsky via Raymond Robins, his deputy with the Red Cross Mission, and like him an enthusiast for the Bolshevik regime. Lloyd George had met Thompson and had been won over to the aim of contacting Lenin and Trotsky. Lockhart was instructed to return to Russia to establish ‘unofficial contact with the Bolsheviks’. Lockhart relates that he met Trotsky for two hours at the latter’s office at Smolny. While Lockhart was highly impressed with Trotsky he did not regard the Foreign Commissar as able to weld sufficient influence to replace Lenin. Trotsky’s parting words to Lockhart at this first meeting were: ‘Now is the big opportunity for the Allied Governments’. Thereafter Lockhart saw Trotsky on a daily basis.  Lockhart stated that Trotsky was willing to bring Soviet Russia over to Britain:
He considered that war was inevitable. If the Allies would send a promise of support, he informed me that he would sway the decision of the Government in favour of war. I sent several telegrams to London requesting an official message that would enable me to strengthen Trotsky’s hands. No message was sent.Given Trotsky’s position in regard to Germany, and the statements of Lockhart in his memoirs, the Stalinist accusation is entirely plausible that Trotsky was the focus of Allied support, and would explain why the British expedited Trotsky’s return to Russia. Indeed, Lockhart was to remark that the British view was that they might be able to make use of the dissensions between Trotsky and Lenin, and believed that the Allies could reach an accord with Soviet Russia because of the extravagant peace demands of the Germans. However from what Lockhart sates, it seems that the Allied procrastination in regard to recondition of the Bolsheviks was the uncertainty that they constituted a stable and lasting Government, and that they were suspicious of the Bolshevik intentions towards Germany, with Lenin and Trotsky still widely regarded as German agents. 
The period preceding World War II, particularly the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan, served as a catalyst for Stalin’s offensive against Trotskyists and other suspect elements. Trotsky had since his exile been promoted in the West as the great leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, while his own background had been one of opportunism, for the most part as an anti-Leninist Menshevik.  It was only in August 1917, seeing the situation in Russia, that Trotsky applied for membership of the Bolshevik Party. Trotsky had joined the Bolshevik Party with his entire faction, a faction that remained intact within the Soviet apparatus, and was ready to be activated after Stalin’s election as General Secretary in 1922. Trotsky admits to a revolutionary network from 1923 when he wrote in his 1938 eulogy to his son Leon Sedov: ‘Leon threw himself headlong into the work of the Opposition…Thus, at seventeen, he began the life of a fully conscious revolutionist, quickly grasped the art of conspiratorial work, illegal meetings, and the secret issuing and distribution of Opposition documents. The Komsomol (Communist Youth organization) rapidly developed its own cadres of Opposition leaders.’ Hence Trotsky had freely admitted to the fundamental charges of the Stalinist regime: the existence of a widespread Trotskyist ‘conspiracy’. Indeed, as far back as 1921, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party had already passes a resolution banning all ‘factions’ in the Party, specifically warning Trotsky against ‘factional activities’, and condemning the factionalist activities of what the resolution called ‘Trotskyites’. 
In 1924 Trotsky met with Boris Savinkov, a Socialist Revolutionary, who had served as head of the terrorist wing, the so-called ‘Fighting Organization’, of the Party, and who had been Deputy Minister of War in the Kerensky Government. After the triumph of the Bolsheviks Savinkov, leaving Russia in 1920, became associated with French and Polish authorities, and with British agents Lockhart and Sidney Reilly.  Savinkov was involved in counter-revolutionary activities, in trying to form an army to overthrow the Bolsheviks. Winston Churchill confirms Savinkov’s meeting with Trotsky in 1924, Churchill himself being involved in the anti-Soviet machinations, writing in his Great Contemporaries: ‘In June 1924, Kamenev and Trotsky definitely invited him (Savinkov) to return’.
In 1924 a leading Trotskyite, Christian Rakovsky, arrived in Britain as Soviet Ambassador. According to the testimony at the Moscow Trial during March 1938 Rakovsky admitted to meeting two British agents, Lockhart and Captain Armstrong. Rakovsky is said to have confessed at this trial that Lockhart and Armstrong had told him that he had been permitted entry into Britain because of his association with Trotsky, as they wanted to cultivated relations with the latter. When Rakovsky reported back to Trotsky several months later, Trotsky was alleged to have been interested. In 1926 Rakovsky was transferred to France prior to which he was alleged to have been instructed by Trotsky to seek out contacts with ‘conservatives circles’ who might support an uprising, as Trotsky considered the situation in Russia to be right for a coup. Rakovsky, as instructed, met several French industrialists, including the grain merchant Louis Dreyfus, and the flax merchant Nicole, both Deputies of the French Parliament. Rakovsky in his testimony during the 1936 trial of Bukharin, et al, Rakovsky being one of the defendants, relates the manner by which he was approached by various intelligence agencies, including those of Japan when in 1934 Rakovsky was head of a Soviet Red Cross Delegation. Rakovsky spoke of the difficulty the Trotskyites had in maintaining relations with both British and Japanese intelligence agencies, since the two states were becoming antagonistic over problems in China. Rakovsky explained that: ‘We Trotskyites have to play three cards at the present moment: the German, Japanese and British…’ At that time the Trotskyites – or at least Rakovsky – regarded the likelihood of a Japanese attack on the USSR as more likely than a German attack. Rakovsky even then alluded to his belief that an accord between Hitler and Stalin was possible. It seems plausible enough that Trotskyites were indeed looking toward an invasion of the USSR as the means of destabilising the regime during which Trotskyist cells could launch their counter-revolution. Certainly we know from the account of Churchill that Trotsky met the ultra-terrorist Socialist Revolutionary Savinkov, who was himself involved with British Intelligence via Reilly and Lockhart. Rakovsky stated of a possible Hitler-Stalin Pact:
Personally I thought that the possibility was not excluded that Hitler would seek a rapprochement with the government of the USSR. I cited the policy of Richelieu: in his own country he exterminated the Protestants, while in his foreign policy he concluded alliances with the Protestant German princes. The relations between Germany and Poland were still in the stage of their inception at the time. Japan, on the other hand, was a potent aggressor against the USSR. For us Trotskyites the Japanese card was extremely important, but, on the other hand, we should not overrate the importance of Japan as our ally against the Soviet government.As far as the Stalinist allegations go in regard to the Trotskyists aligning with foreign powers and viewing an invasion of the USSR as a catalyst for revolution, other ultra-Marxists had taken paths far more unlikely. As mentioned Savinkov, who had been one of the most violent of the Socialist Revolutionaries in Czarist Russia, had sought out British assistance in forming a counter-revolutionary army. Savinkov had fled to Poland in 1919 where he tried to organize ‘the evacuation committee’ within the Polish armies then attacking Russia. Savinkov’s colleagues in Poland, Merezhkovsky, and his wife Zinaida Hippius, who had been ardent Socialist Revolutionary propagandists, later became supporters of Mussolini and then of Hitler, in the hope of overthrowing Stalin. Therefore the Stalinist allegation of Trotskyite collusion even with Fascist powers is plausible.
It is the same road that resulted in the alliance of many Trotskyists, Mensheviks and other Leftists with the CIA, and their metamorphoses into ardent Cold Warriors. It is the same road that brought leading American Trotsky apologist Professor Sidney Hook, ‘a lifelong Menshevik’, to the leadership of a major CIA front, the previously considered Congress for Cultural Freedom.
Max Shachtman, one of Trotsky’s leading representatives in the USA, is pivotal when considering why Trotskyites became ardent Cold Warriors, CIA front men, apologists for US foreign policy, and continue to champion the USA as the only ‘truly revolutionary’ state.
Expelled from the Communist Party USA in 1928 Shachtman co-founded the Communist League and the Socialist Workers Party. He then split to form the Workers Party of the United States in 1940, which became the Independent Socialist League and merged with the Socialist Party in 1958.  The Socialist Party factionalised into the Democratic Socialists and the Social Democrats.
Shachtman was of course scathing of the Moscow Trials. His critique is standard, and will not be of concern here.  What is of interest is Shachtman’s surpassing of Trotsky himself in his opposition to the USSR, his faction (the so-called ‘Third Camp’) being what he considered as a purified, genuine Trotskyism, which eventuated into apologists for US foreign policy.
The Shachtmanist critique of the USSR was that it had at an early stage been transformed from ‘government ‘bureaucratism to ‘party bureaucratism’. ‘Soviet bureaucratism became party bureaucratism. In increasing number the government official was the party official.’ ‘We do not have a workers’ state but a workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations’, Shachtman stated in quoting Trotsky as far back as 1922. And again from Trotsky: ‘We have a bureaucracy not only in the Soviet institutions, but in the institutions of the party’… Shachtman continues: ‘A month later, in a veiled public attack upon Stalin as head of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection, he repeated his view that the state machine was still “a survival to a large extent of the former bureaucracy … with only a superficial new coat of paint.”’
While in 1937 Shachtman declared that the USSR should nonetheless be defended against aggression from, for example, Nazi Germany and that it was a Stalinist slur to think that Trotsky would be an enemy of the USSR in such circumstances, by 1940 Shachtman was at loggerheads with Trotsky himself and the ‘Cannon’ group in the Workers Party.
The Trotskyites were agreed that Stalinist Russia had become a ‘degenerated’ workers’ state,’ however the Cannon-Trotsky line and the position of the Fourth International was that should the USSR be attacked by capitalist or fascist powers, because it still had a so-called ‘progressive’ economy based on the nationalisation of property, the USSR must be defended on that basis alone. The Shachtman line, on the other hand, argued from what they considered to be a dialectical position:
Just as it was once necessary, in connection with the trade union problem, to speak concretely of what kind of workers’ state exists in the Soviet Union, so it is necessary to establish, in connection with the present war, the degree of the degeneration of the Soviet state. The dialectical method of treating such questions makes this mandatory upon us. And the degree of the degeneration of the regime cannot be established by abstract reference to the existence of nationalized property, but only by observing the realities of living events.
The Fourth International established, years ago, the fact that the Stalinist regime (even though based upon nationalized property) had degenerated to the point where it was not only capable of conducting reactionary wars against the proletariat and its revolutionary vanguard, and even against colonial peoples, but did in fact conduct such wars. Now, in our opinion, on the basis of the actual course of Stalinist policy (again, even though based upon nationalized property), the Fourth International must establish the fact that the Soviet Union (i.e., the ruling bureaucracy and the armed forces serving it) has degenerated to the point where it is capable of conducting reactionary wars even against capitalist states (Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, now Finland, and tomorrow Rumania and elsewhere). This is the point which forms the nub of our difference with you and with the Cannon faction.Shachtman now expressed his approach unequivocally:
War is a continuation of politics, and if Stalinist policy, even in the occupied territory where property has been statified, preserves completely its reactionary character, then the war it is conducting is reactionary. In that case, the revolutionary proletariat must refuse to give the Kremlin and its army material and military aid. It must concentrate all efforts on overturning the Stalinist regime. That is not our war! Our war is against the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy at the present time!
In other words, I propose, in the present war, a policy of revolutionary defeatism in the Soviet Union, as explained in the statement of the Minority on the Russian question – and in making this proposal I do not feel myself one whit less a revolutionary class patriot than I have always been.That was the Shachtmanite line during World War II: that it was better that Nazi Germany defeated Stalin than that the ‘degenerated workers’ state’ should continue to exist. The same thinking emerged during the Cold War, shortly after World War II, when Shachtman began to speak about the threat of Stalinist parties throughout the world as agencies for Soviet policy, a theme that would become a basis of US attitudes towards the USSR:
The Stalinist parties are indeed agents of the Kremlin oligarchy, no matter what country they function in. The interests and the fate of these Stalinist parties are inseparably intertwined with the interests and fate of the Russian bureaucracy. The Stalinist parties are everywhere based upon the power of the Russian bureaucracy, they serve this power, they are dependent upon it, and they cannot live without it.By 1948 Shachtmanism as a Cold Warrior apologia for American foreign policy was taking shape. In seeing positive signs in the Titoist Yugoslavia break with the USSR, Shachtman wrote:
In the first place, the division in the capitalist camp is, to all practical intents, at an end. In any case, there is nothing like the division that existed from 1939 onward and which gave Stalinist Russia such tremendous room for maneuvering. In spite of all the differences that still exist among them, the capitalist world under American imperialist leadership and drive is developing an increasingly solid front against Russian imperialism.In other words, Shachtman saw unity among the capitalist states against Stalinist Russia as a positive sign. The overthrow of Stalinism became the first priority of Shachtmanite Trotskyism in the Cold War era, as it had during World War II.
In 1948 Shachtman scathingly attacked the position of the Fourth International in having continued to defend the USSR as a ‘degenerated workers’ state’, and of its mistaken belief that the Stalinist ‘bureaucratic dictatorship’ world fall apart during World War II. He pointed out that Stalinist imperialism had emerged from the war victorious.
From here it was but a short way for the Shachtmanites to embrace the Cold War opposition to the USSR, and for the heirs of this to continue as enthusiasts for US foreign policy to the present-day.
By 1950 Stalinism had become the major problem for world socialism, Shachtman now writing as head of the Independent Socialist League:
The principal new problem faced by Marxian theory, and therewith Marxian practice, is the problem of Stalinism. What once appeared to many to be either an academic or ‘foreign’ problem is now, it should at last be obvious, a decisive problem for all classes in all countries. If it is understood as a purely Russian phenomenon or as a problem ‘in itself,’ it is of course not understood at all.
Natalia Sedova Trotsky
Natalia Sedova, Trotsky’s widow, endorsed the Shachtmanite line, declaring that the American-led alliance against the USSR would have been approved by her late husband. Her letter of resignation to the Fourth International and to the Socialist Workers Party (USA) is worth reproducing in its entirety:
You know quite well that I have not been in political agreement with you for the past five or six years, since the end of the [Second World] war and even earlier. The position you have taken on the important events of recent times shows me that, instead of correcting your earlier errors, you are persisting in them and deepening them. On the road you have taken, you have reached a point where it is no longer possible for me to remain silent or to confine myself to private protests. I must now express my opinions publicly.Natalia Trotsky, like the Shachtmanites, regarded the USSR as having irredeemably destroyed Marxism, and that the only option left was to destroy the USSR, which meant aligning with the USA in the Cold War.
The step which I feel obliged to take has been a grave and difficult one for me, and I can only regret it sincerely. But there is no other way. After a great deal of reflections and hesitations over a problem which pained me deeply, I find that I must tell you that I see no other way than to say openly that our disagreements make it impossible for me to remain any longer in your ranks.
The reasons for this final action on my part are known to most of you. I repeat them here briefly only for those to whom they are not familiar, touching only on our fundamentally important differences and not on the differences over matters of daily policy which are related to them or which follow from them.
Obsessed by old and outlived formulas, you continue to regard the Stalinist state as a workers’ state. I cannot and will not follow you in this.
Virtually every year after the beginning of the fight against the usurping Stalinist bureaucracy, L D Trotsky repeated that the regime was moving to the right, under conditions of a lagging world revolution and the seizure of all political positions in Russia by the bureaucracy. Time and again, he pointed out how the consolidation of Stalinism in Russia led to the worsening of the economic, political and social positions of the working class, and the triumph of a tyrannical and privileged aristocracy. If this trend continues, he said, the revolution will be at an end and the restoration of capitalism will be achieved.
That, unfortunately, is what has happened even if in new and unexpected forms. There is hardly a country in the world where the authentic ideas and bearers of socialism are so barbarously hounded. It should be clear to everyone that the revolution has been completely destroyed by Stalinism. Yet you continue to say that under this unspeakable regime, Russia is still a workers’ state. I consider this a blow at socialism. Stalinism and the Stalinist state have nothing whatever in common with a workers’ state or with socialism. They are the worst and the most dangerous enemies of socialism and the working class.
You now hold that the states of Eastern Europe over which Stalinism established its domination during and after the war, are likewise workers’ states. This is equivalent to saying that Stalinism has carried out a revolutionary socialist role. I cannot and will not follow you in this.
After the war and even before it ended, there was a rising revolutionary movement of the masses in these Eastern countries. But it was not these masses that won power and it was not a workers’ state that was established by their struggle. It was the Stalinist counterrevolution that won power, reducing these lands to vassals of the Kremlin by strangling the working masses, their revolutionary struggles and their revolutionary aspirations.
By considering that the Stalinist bureaucracy established workers’ states in these countries, you assign to it a progressive and even revolutionary role. By propagating this monstrous falsehood to the workers’ vanguard, you deny to the Fourth International all the basic reasons for existence as the world party of the socialist revolution. In the past, we always considered Stalinism to be a counterrevolutionary force in every sense of the term. You no longer do so. But I continue to do so.
In 1932 and 1933, the Stalinists, in order to justify their shameless capitulation to Hitlerism, declared that it would matter little if the Fascists came to power because socialism would come after and through the rule of Fascism. Only dehumanized brutes without a shred of socialist thought or spirit could have argued this way. Now, notwithstanding the revolutionary aims which animate you, you maintain that the despotic Stalinist reaction which has triumphed in Europe is one of the roads through which socialism will eventually come. This view marks an irredeemable break with the profoundest convictions always held by our movement and which I continue to share.
I find it impossible to follow you in the question of the Tito regime in Yugoslavia. All the sympathy and support of revolutionists and even of all democrats, should go to the Yugoslav people in their determined resistance to the efforts of Moscow to reduce them and their country to vassalage. Every advantage should be taken of the concessions which the Yugoslav regime now finds itself obliged to make to the people. But your entire press is now devoted to an inexcusable idealization of the Titoist bureaucracy for which no ground exists in the traditions and principles of our movement.
This bureaucracy is only a replica, in a new form, of the old Stalinist bureaucracy. It was trained in the ideas, the politics and morals of the GPU. Its regime differs from Stalin’s in no fundamental regard. It is absurd to believe or to teach that the revolutionary leadership of the Yugoslav people will develop out of this bureaucracy or in any way other than in the course of struggle against it.
Most insupportable of all is the position on the war to which you have committed yourselves. The third world war which threatens humanity confronts the revolutionary movement with the most difficult problems, the most complex situations, the gravest decisions. Our position can be taken only after the most earnest and freest discussions. But in the face of all the events of recent years, you continue to advocate, and to pledge the entire movement to, the defense of the Stalinist state. You are even now supporting the armies of Stalinism in the war which is being endured by the anguished Korean people. I cannot and will not follow you in this.
As far back as 1927, Trotsky, in reply to a disloyal question put to him in the Political Bureau [of the Soviet Communist Party] by Stalin, stated his views as follows: For the socialist fatherland, yes! For the Stalinist regime, no! That was in 1927! Now, twenty-three years later Stalin has left nothing of the socialist fatherland. It has been replaced by the enslavement and degradation of the people by the Stalinist autocracy. This is the state you propose to defend in the war, which you are already defending in Korea.
I know very well how often you repeat that you are criticizing Stalinism and fighting it. But the fact is that your criticism and your fight lose their value and can yield no results because they are determined by and subordinated to your position of defense of the Stalinist state. Whoever defends this regime of barbarous oppression, regardless of the motives, abandons the principles of socialism and internationalism.
In the message sent me from the recent convention of the SWP you write that Trotsky’s ideas continue to be your guide. I must tell you that I read these words with great bitterness. As you observe from what I have written above, I do not see his ideas in your politics. I have confidence in these ideas. I remain convinced that the only way out of the present situation is the social revolution, the self-emancipation of the proletariat of the world.
It was this bellicose anti-Stalinism that brought the Shachtmanites into the US foreign policy establishment during the Cold War, and beyond, to the present-day. Haberkern, an admirer of Shachtman’s early commitment to Trotskyism and opposition to Stalinism, lamented:
There is, unfortunately, a sad footnote to Shachtman’s career. Beginning in the 50s he began to move to the right in response to the discouraging climate of the Cold War. He ended up a Cold Warrior and apologist for the Meany wing of the AFL-CIO. But that should not diminish the value of his earlier contributions.
Cold War and Beyond(...)
 American President Woodrow Wilson’s principal adviser and confidante.
 Henry Wickham Steed, Through Thirty Years 1892-1922 A personal narrative, ‘The Peace Conference, The Bullitt Mission’, Vol. II. (New York: Doubleday Page and Co., 1924), 301.
 Samuel Gompers, ‘Soviet Bribe Fund Here Says Gompers, Has Proof That Offers Have Been Made, He Declares, Opposing Recognition. Propaganda Drive. Charges Strong Group of Bankers With Readiness to Accept Lenin’s Betrayal of Russia’, The New York Times, 1 May 1922.
 Richard B Spence, ‘Hidden Agendas: Spies, Lies and Intrigue Surrounding Trotsky’s American Visit, January-April 1917’, Revolutionary Russia, Volume 21, Issue 1 June 2008, 33 – 55.
 It is more accurate to state that Trotsky managed to straddle both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks until the impending success of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
 Military Intelligence Division, 9140-6073, Memorandum # 2, 23 August 1918, 2. Cited by Spence, op.cit.
 Spence, ibid.
 Wiseman became a partner in 1929.
 ‘Sir William’s New Bank’, Time, October 17 1955.
 The foregoing on Trotsky’s associations from Spain to New York and his transit back to Russia are indebted to Spence, op.cit.
 Edward M. House, ed. Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Col. House (New York: Houghton, Mifflin Co.), Vol. III, 421.
 Peter Grosse, Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006), ‘Basic Assumptions’. The entire book can be read online at: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html
 Armand Hammer, Witness to History (London: Coronet Books, 1988), 221.
 Ibid., 160.
 Ibid., 221.
 David North, ‘Leon Trotsky and the Fate of Socialism in the 20th Century’, opening lecture to the International Summer School on ‘Marxism and the Fundamental Problems of the 20th Century’, organised by the International Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Party of Australia, Sydney, Australia, January 3 1998. David North is the national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party in the USA, and has lectured extensively in Europe, Asia, the US and Russia on Marxism and the program of the Fourth International. http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/trotsky/trlect.htm (accessed 12 March 2010).
 Albert E Kahn and Michael Sayers, The Great Conspiracy Against Russia, (London: Collet’s Holdings Ltd., 1946).
 Antony Sutton, op.cit., 39-42.
 Kahn and Sayers, op.cit. p. 29.
 ‘Calls People War Weary, But Leo Trotsky Says They Do Tot Want Separate Peace’, The New York Times, 16 March 1917.
 The real purpose of the American Red Cross Mission in Russia was to examine how commercial relations could be established with the fledgling Bolshevik regime, as indicated by the fact that there were more business representatives in the Mission than there were medical personnel. See: Dr Anton Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), 71-88. K R Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd., 2011) 63-64.
 ‘Gives Bolsheviki a Million’, Washington Post, 2 February 1918, cited by Sutton, op.cit., ., pp. 82-83.
 The New York Times, 27 January 1918, op.cit.
 Kahn and Sayers, op.cit., p. 29.
 R H Bruce Lockhart, British Agent (London: G P Putnam’s Sons, 1933), Book Four, ‘History From the Inside’, Chapter I.
 Antony Sutton, op.cit., 84, 86.
 R H Bruce Lockhart, op.cit.
 Ibid., Chapter III.
 Ibid. Lockhart observed that while the German peace terms received 112 votes from the Central Executive Committee of the Bolshevik Party, there had been 86 against, and 25 abstentions, among the latter of whom was Trotsky.
 Ibid., Chapter IV.
 That at least was the perception of Stalinists of Trotsky’s depiction by the West, as portrayed by Kahn and Sayers, op.cit., 194.
 Kahn and Sayers cite a number of Lenin’s statements regarding Trotsky, dating from 1911, when Lenin stated that Trotsky slides from one faction to another and back again, but ultimately ‘I must declare that Trotsky represents his own faction only…’ Ibid., 195.
 Ibid., 199.
 Leon Trotsky, Leon Sedov: Son-Friend-Fighter, 1938, cited by Kahn and Sayers, 205.
 Ibid., 204.
 R H Bruce Lockhart, op.cit., Book Three: War & Peace, Chapter IX. Lockhart described Savinkov as a professional ‘schemer’, who ‘had mingled so much with spies and agents-provocateurs that, like the hero in his own novel, he hardly knew whether he was deceiving himself or those whom he meant to deceive’. Lockhart commented that Savinkov had ‘entirely captivated Mr Churchill, who saw in him a Russian Bonaparte’.
 Reilly, the British ‘super agent’ although widely known for his anti-Bolshevik views, prior to his becoming a ‘super spy’ and possibly working for the intelligence agencies of four states, by his own account had been arrested in 1892 in Russia by the Czarist secret police as a messenger for the revolutionary Friends of Enlightenment.
 Kahn and Sayers, op.cit., 208.
 Commissariat of Justice, Report of the Case of the Anti-Soviet ‘Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites’, Heard Before The Military Collegium of the Court of the USSR, Moscow, March 24 1938, 307.
 Ibid., 288.
 Ibid. 293.
 Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, ‘Eschatology and the Appeal of Revolution’, California Slavic Studies, Volume. II, University of California Press, California, 1930, 116.
 Shachtman was one of the two most prominent Trotskyites in the USA according to Trotskyist historian Ernest Haberkern, Introduction to Max Shachtman, http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/intro.htm
 ‘British Trotskyism in 1931’, Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism Online: Revolutionary History, http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol1/no1/glotzer.html
 Max Shachtman, Behind the Moscow Trial (New York: Pioneer Publishers, 1936).
 Max Shachtman, ‘Trotsky Begins the Fight’, The Struggle for the New Course (New York: New International Publishing Co., 1943).
 Leon Trotsky, In Defence of the Soviet Union, Max Shachtman, ‘Introduction.’ (New York: Pioneer Publishers, 1937).
 James P Cannon, a veteran Trotskyist and former colleague of Shachtman’s.
 Max Shachtman, ‘The Crisis in the American Party: An Open Letter in Reply to Comrade Leon Trotsky’, New International, Vol.6 No.2, March 1940), 43-51.
 Max Shachtman, ‘The Nature of the Stalinist Parties: Their Class Roots, Political Role and Basic Aim’, The New International: A Monthly Organ of Revolutionary Marxism, Vol.13 No.3, March 1947, 69-74.
Max Shachtman, ‘Stalinism on the Decline: Tito versus Stalin The Beginning of the End of the Russian Empire’, New International, Vol. XIV No.6, August 1948, 172-178.
 Max Shachtman, ‘The Congress of the Fourth International: An Analysis of the Bankruptcy of “Orthodox Trotskyism”’, New International, Vol.XIV, No.8, October 1948, pp.236-245.
 Max Shachtman, ‘Reflections on a Decade Past: On the Tenth Anniversary of Our Movement’, The New International: A Monthly Organ of Revolutionary Marxism, Vol.16 No.3, May-June 1950, pp.131-144.
 Natalia Sedova Trotsky, May 9, 1951, Labor Action, June 17, 1951, http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/natalia38.html
 American Federation of Labor-Central Industrial Organization. (...)
No ID on eco warriors by media: Al Gore buddy owner of sunken ship that left huge carbon footprint on Antarctic Ocean floor, Judi McLeod, Nov 26 2007
How Mr Clean got his hands dirty, By NEIL LYNDON
Investigating Al Gore: The vice president, Armand Hammer and zinc
Al Gore Dossier (1992-2007), Executive Intelligence Review
Clinton et Gore comptaient parmi les plus ardents promoteurs de l’ALÉNA, c'est-à-dire du néo-libéralisme à l'américaine.
Après la chute du communisme, sous le parapluie d’un comité spécial américano-russe établi par Al Gore et Victor Chernomyrdin, les « Harvard Boys » (Anatoly Chubais, acolyte de Boris Yeltsin, et l’ancien premier ministre russe Yegor Gaidar) usèrent de leur influence pour favoriser l’ouverture totale de la Russie à l’économie de marché.
Sous Bush père, Gore a voté en faveur de la Guerre du Golfe. Il a toujours été un supporteur du lobby des armes à feu. Il est « born again christian », comme George W. Bush. Il exprime ouvertement son support à la guerre au terrorisme, mais exprima de sévères mais hypocrites critiques envers Bush relativement au programme illégal d’écoutes téléphoniques et électroniques. Gore est bien mal placé pour critiquer puisque Clinton l’a chargé d’un programme semblable en 1993 : le projet Clipper Chip, lié à Echelon, par lequel la NSA pouvait procéder à l’implantation d’un système intégré d’écoute électronique et téléphonique de tous les citoyens américains. Il déposa la même année un rapport de ce projet en titre de représentant de l’Interagency Working Group (IWG), un groupe top secret de conseillers de Clinton. Ces informations devaient ensuite être partagés avec les gouvernements d’autres pays, et ce des années avant les attentats du 11 septembre. Il assurait alors que les écoutes ne pouvaient être faites sans l’approbation de la cour. Des officiers fédéraux ont révélé en 1994 que Gore avait menti et que son programme n’était pas à l’abri d’écoutes non autorisées.
White House refuses to talk about Al Gore’s plan to Wiretap every electronic device in the world, 20th January 2006
Al Gore, Hypocrisy And Spies Like US, NEWSMAX, 1/17/2006
Gore s’attribue tous les mérites du monde: avoir inventé Internet, avoir dénoncé les politiques Big Brother de Bush, avoir sonné l’alarme sur le réchauffement planétaire, etc. Il se présente comme une alternative valable aux républicains pétrolifères, gagnant ainsi toujours plus d’appui de la part des Verts et des électeurs américains majoritairement déçus du gouvernement Bush.
Former Vice President Al Gore Joins Apple’s Board of Directors
'Al Gore for president', says Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Jonny Evans
En plus de son passé douteux, Al Gore est un sioniste confirmé et un supporteur du mouvement juif sioniste ultra-orthodoxe Chabad Lubavitch.
Gore is Lieberman's Shabbos Goy
U.S. Vice President Al Gore speaks at the opening of the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities (UJC).
Al Gore on Israel, Jewish Virtual Library
Chez les Chabad Lubavitch:
“Chabad has been blessed to find many good friends in the Senate since the Rebbe sent us to launch our high-profile political and legal efforts to regain the Collection,” said Rabbi Chaim Cunin, who joined Rabbi Yosef Cunin in representing their father at the event. “Over time, leaders from both parties on Capitol Hill have emerged as supporters of this important cause -- from Bob Dole, to Al Gore, to Joe Lieberman, to Claiborne Pell.”
Rebbes' Army (L'armée du Rabbin):
"Jon Voight headlines the annual Chabad telethon in Los Angeles, a star-studded fundraiser that attracts a long list of glitterati, Jewish and non, from Whoopi Goldberg to Al Gore."
Famous folks connected to the Council of Nine include Al Gore and Star Trek creator, Gene Roddenbury.
...This is a conspiracy of enormous proportions, so successful that it is impossible to pinpoint any one person or group as the real controllers, although we have catalogued those they use. We have seen how the Nine's circle were and are supported by very wealthy people, such as Barbara Bronfman and Joyce Petschek, but it is unlikely that they are in on the secret; they are too easily identified. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/stargate.htm
The "Council of Nine" have been delivering curiously consistent messages through a succession of mediums to influential patrons with names like DuPont, Astor and Bronfman since the early 1950s, and nearly always in the shadow of military intelligence. Until his death in 1995 Puharich made his home in that shadow, researching shamanic pharmacology and electronic mind control. http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=584
(Rappelons que le programme de contrôle mental MK-Ultra a été instigué par le médecin juif Sidney Gottlieb à l'initiative du directeur de la CIA James Jesus Angleton, un loyaliste d'Israel).
Écoutez Puharich discuter des "Neufs" (The NINE) qu'il a "rencontrés" grâce au plieur de cuillères Uri Geller (agent du Mossad!) en Israël.
"But The Nine's influence does not extend merely to New Age channelling circles. Andrija Puharich, James Hurtak and Richard Hoagland have all lectured at the United Nations in New York. And individuals connected with The Nine are also known to have influence with Vice-President Al Gore. Of course, if The Nine really are the ancient gods of Egypt, then surely there could be fewer more significant events than their return. One may be justified in thinking that the more leading politicians who fall under their influence the better; but are they really the ancient Ennead of Egypt? Can it be that they have actually returned to sort us all out, scattering love and enlightenment from their high moral ground?" http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/council_of_nine_fortean.htm
Farley records a meeting of Jones, Henry Belk and James Hurtak to discuss, among other things, the funding of the Human Potential Foundation [connected to famous Esalen center]. This suggests that Hurtak’s — and the Nine’s — philosophy is reaching the highest levels of US politics. Jones’s superior, Senator Claiborne Pell, is an extremely powerful figure in Washington. He was Chairman of the Senate’s influential Foreign Relations Committee and is the elder statesman --whom the younger Vice-President Al Gore has come to respect. Pell and Gore worked closely together when the latter was a senator. The two share a passionate belief in the paranormal and both are great supporters of government-funded psi research. [...] Not only do Vice-President Al Gore and Senator Claiborne Pell share the same esoteric interests, but they are also political allies. It is reasonable to assume that Gore is familiar with the Nine; if so, how much is he influenced by their teachings — or, in the worst case scenario, even their instructions? The evidence suggests that he is by no means the only top-ranking American politician to have been drawn into the Nine’s sphere of influence. (The Stargate Conspiracy, By Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince :240-241) http://mynym.blogspot.com/2006/02/conspiracy-theory.html
Manifestement, les "Neufs" n'aiment pas les musulmans...
"To Life" Telethon is a joyful celebration of life and a
reminder of the power of good deeds.
Al Gore gagne le prix Nobel de la propagande
Bronfman et l'affaire Madoff - Bronfman-disinfo inside the Truth movement
Nous sommes influencés à notre insu, surtout en Amérique (rapports entre le "double" et les technologies de contrôle de l'esprit)
Les arrières-plans occultes de l'américanisation du monde
La théorie du complot reptilien extra-terrestre de David Icke est-elle anti-juive?
La réincarnation à la sauce matérialiste-hollywoodienne ou hébraïque, au secours du Shoa-business et des forces anti-christiques
La science et le futur de la torture
La liberté de croire menacée en France par la chasse aux sorcières "anti-sectes" (tout cela empeste Cointelpro-Mossad)
Conférences Macy et nouvel ordre mondial: de la lutte à l'antisémitisme aux réseaux cybernétiques
Sur la scientologie:
L'escroc Mark Weber, qui a subverti l'IHR avec ses alliés scientologues, doit céder la direction de l'Institute for Historical Review
Le conseiller-stratégiste clé de Palin est une figure importante au sein d'une organisation tentaculaire contrôlée par les Bronfman: la scientologie
Audio de Michael Jackson, attaqué par une secte tentaculaire juive et scientologique
Le vaillant docteur Hamer contre la pieuvre de la Sciento-Mossad-ologie