“The Fraud of NeoConservative AntiCommunism” (May 15, 2002)
By Max Shpak
(abridged by henrymakow.com)
Neoconservatives would have the public believe they were former Leftists who saw the light and came to reject liberal or Marxist ideology as a matter of conviction and principle. [In fact] their transformation was neither sincerely motivated nor sincerely enacted. To understand the real agenda that drives much of neoconservatism, one needs to look back to the origins of the movement and the cultural backgrounds of those who lead it.
Marxist internationalism is an ideology which finds disciples among a rootless, anti-religious urban [Jewish] intelligentsia….European and American Jews alike carried deep-seated hatreds for the traditional regimes and religions of the European continent, particularly Czarist Russia and various Eastern European nations due to (real and imagined) “persecution” and “pogroms” that occurred there. Thus, when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar, destroyed the hated Orthodox Church, rendered powerless the landed religious peasantry, and replaced traditional Russian authority with a largely Jewish Commissariate, world Jewry (including alleged “capitalists” like the Schiffs and Rothschilds) embraced the Revolution and Marxist ideology alike.
With Russia becoming an effective Jewish colony where “anti-Semitism” was an offence punishable by death and the native gentile culture was effectively stamped out (thanks to a leadership consisting mainly of Jews such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Sverdlov), Jews were hard at work affecting similar changes in Hungary (Kuhn), Austria (Adler) and Germany (Eisner). The rise of Fascist and Nazi movements only served to further polarize Jewish support in favor of international communism.
(left Trotsky, Masonic hidden hand, Versus Stalin – Right Versus Left)
This near unanimity would change as a result of two developments: a shift in the character of Soviet Communism on the one hand and the foundation of the State of Israel on the other. Stalin’s purges of many of his former Bolshevik colleagues (including Trotsky, who was assassinated while in exile), his 1939 pact with Hitler, and rumors of Stalin’s own anti-Jewish prejudices gave many would-be supporters pause.
When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, it became clear the Russian masses would not fight for the sake of Bolshevism, an ideology that brought them so much misery, but rather for the sake of Russian blood and soil. From then on, the Soviet leadership had to court the very Russian nationalist elements that the early Bolsheviks had worked so hard to stamp out. This lead to an increasing tolerance towards the Russian Orthodox Church and a decreased Jewish presence in the Soviet politburo and KGB. Thus, the USSR was “betraying” the very elements that made it attractive to the Jewish establishment to begin with.
Perhaps even more significant a factor in the origins of neoconservatism was the emergence of an independent Israeli state. While many Jewish Marxists eagerly supported the Zionist state, the more intellectually consistent Left opposed Zionism on the grounds that all nationalisms, including Jewish ones, are enemies of global proletarian revolution. Thus, Jewish leftists who once advocated internationalism for gentile nations …needed an ideology which would let them have their cake (opposing gentile nationalism) and eat it too (by supporting Israel), and they found just such a worldview with neoconservatism….
The different agendas driving neocon Cold Warriors as opposed to their erstwhile Old Right allies could be seen on any number of fronts. The most obvious one has been the different reactions to the two camps to Russia after the end of the Cold War. While paleoconservative leaning Cold Warriors such as Pat Buchanan have pushed for normalized relations with Russia, the neocons continue to fight on the Cold War, enthusiastically supporting Chechen separatists as “freedom fighters” and advocating NATO expansion. The reasons for this difference are entirely obvious: the Old Right’s enemy was Communist ideology, while neoconservative Jews nurtured a hatred for Russian nationalism.
Thus post-Communist Russia is still very much a threat to the latter, particularly with resurgent Russian “ultra-nationalism” and “anti-Semitism,” while in the absence of Communist rule, the above are of little concern to the Old Right.
For all their talk about “anti-Communism,” the real engine driving neocon Cold Warrior instincts was punishing the hated Russian goyim for the sin of “anti-Semitism,” not any opposition to residual or latent Marxism. As further evidence that this is the case, one need only consider the fact that while the Old Right championed Christian dissidents such as Solzhenitsyn, to the neocons the only legitimate “dissidents” were Zionists like Natan Sharansky, just as the only “refugees” championed by the neos were invariably Jewish (including today’s shady Odessa Mafiosi). Solzhenitsyn represented the Russian nationalism and Orthodox Church that made so many of the neocons’ predecessors embrace Bolshevism, thus Solzhenitsyn and the plight of Christian dissidents were relegated to obscurity in neocon publications, while Zionist noise-makers in the USSR were given a hero’s welcome.
In this regard, the neocons are the true heirs to Leon Trotsky, who condemned Stalin and his followers not so much for their brutality…but for their “anti-Semitism” and “betrayal of the Revolution.” Trotsky’s main critique of Stalinism seemed to be that Stalin was moving Russia in a nationalist direction rather than working towards the establishment of an international “proletarian” vanguard. The fact that the intellectual ancestors of neoconservatism had not an unkind word to say about Bolshevism while Leninist-Trotskyite goals were being fulfilled suggests that it was not so much ideological reconsideration as tribal self-interest that drove these most unlikely conversos.
Understanding the true nature of the neoconservatives illuminates the essence of the struggle between the Right and the Left. It was never a struggle between “capitalism” and “socialism” as neoconservative or Communist propaganda would have one believe. Rather, it was always a conflict between spiritualism and materialism, between nationalism and globalism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western Civilization and its enemies.
With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear where the neocons stand. Many “capitalists” understood that economic means are not significant, only the desired end. Jacob Schiff understood it when he financed the Bolsheviks, just as Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, Marc Rich, Boris Berezovsky, and George Soros understand that their form of “capitalism” is fully compatible with the essence of the Left, and that they can find friends and allies among the ostensibly conservative neocons.
Unfortunately, many Rightists are not nearly as perceptive in their choice of allies.
Makow Comment –
Trump’s first act was to increase the war budget by $60 billion. His opposition to migration, gun control, abortion etc. are crumbs offered to his base while he concentrates on the larger Zionist objectives, world chaos and war. Indeed he needs to solidify popular support to pursue these larger goals. I saw a telling BBC report Friday which said Trump’s support in “swing states” is holding up. A “Pennsylvania housewife” applauded his attack on Syria.
The BBC, a house organ of the Masonic Jew World Order, used to eschew anything positive about Trump.
Thanks to Peter Myers for preserving this article.
TROTSKY QUOTE (1917): Is this in store for USA?
“We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white Negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one.
“We mean the word ‘red’ literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars quake and pale by comparison. The biggest bankers across the ocean will work in the closest possible contact with us. If we win the revolution, we shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution’s funeral, and we shall became a power before which the whole world will sink to its knees. We shall show what real power is. By means of terror and bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence… At the moment, our young men in their leather jackets, who are the sons of watchmakers from Odessa, Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, know how to hate everything Russian! What pleasure they take in physically destroying the Russian intelligentsia – officers, academics and writers!…”
Taken from the “Memoirs” of Aron Simanovich,
a jeweller at the court of the Tsar’s Imperial Majesty.
References:1.) Yuri Begunov, “Secret Forces in the History of Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1995.2.) “Memoirs of Aron Simanovich”, citated in Vladimir Stepins “The Nature of Zionism”, Moskva, 1993, translated from Russian to English by Clive Lindhurst.
First Comment by Tony B
Henry, to sum up the Stalin-Trotsky difference takes only one sentence: While Trotsky wanted to immediately bring on a world revolution to conquer the whole world, Stalin, too, wanted to conquer the whole world, but he thought it wiser to first consolidate the bird in hand, the soviet union.
That concept on Stalin’s part may have changed in time by degree but not before he had Trotsky killed.