← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln

Thread 6105

Thread ID: 6105 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-04-11

Wayback Archive

Hugh Lincoln [OP]

2003-04-11 14:47 | User Profile

Since becoming aware of Jewish influence in governments here and abroad, I have started to wonder how much this was a factor in the U.S.-Soviet Union standoff in the decades following World War II. I am aware that Jews had much to do with the rise of the Soviet Union, and saw it as preferable to Russian nationalism which had czars excluding them from power. This likely also had much to do with Soviet designs in Europe and Hitler's opposition to it. Of course, the USSR was our WW2 ally, but that shifted after the war... why? Was it simply opposition to another big and powerful imperialist project? Or was the Jewish issue lurking beneath? Was the now-gone Anglo-American elite that ruled the Cold War roost subconsciously aware of this as it moved to check Soviet aggression through red-baiting, arms build-up and proxy wars?

I know why Jews abandoned Marxism/socialism/communism/USSR --- it lost its usefulness for them. And, in the form of Stalin, started to turn on Jews (is this correct? please advise).

I seek OD forum members' thoughts and opinions.

Franco

2003-04-11 21:46 | User Profile

Yes, Stalin and Co. began to turn on the Jews -- even reg'lar commies get sick of Jews. By the time of Stalin's death, Jews had little power left in that country as a whole, as a race, although they still dominated other Eastern bloc countries, e.g. Hungary.

As far as the Cold War goes, FDR and Co. were friends with the Soviets as a matter of convenience -- to defeat Hitler -- more than anything else. After WWII ended, the U.S./Soviet alliance was no longer needed, and, FDR was no longer around.

That is my take on the matter, at least.

See David Irving's book "Uprising" re: the Jews who dominated Hungary. It may have outtakes posted from it online.

Ruffin

2003-04-12 01:10 | User Profile

Following the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and on the back of the Great Depression, by WWII the tribe had pretty well consolidated its hold on western finance, so I would describe FDR's fondness for the USSR as more than a convergence of interest vis-a-vis Hitler. Not a retard like the current American president, FDR well understood who he worked for, IMO. The Allies' victory (and a naive American populace) assured complete financial subjugation and, the USSR not being the productive paradise messianically hoped for, (many but not all) stakes were pulled up and brought back to the United States. Resentful of the terrible anti-semitism being demonstrated by those ungrateful Russians, communism became a suitable "threat" to those great patriotic Americans from Brooklyn. Never able to completely turn their backs on the wreckage of their fathers, their heart wasn't into anti-communism as much as their wallets were, so there were at least a couple of decades of triple loyalties to contend with (the swindlers' college in the middle east being by then in existence). Hence, lukewarm anti-communism, birthing neo-conservatism.

Sisyfos

2003-04-12 03:25 | User Profile

My opinion,

I am aware that Jews had much to do with the rise of the Soviet Union, and saw it as preferable to Russian nationalism which had czars excluding them from power.

The Jews had everything to do with the design of the Soviet Union; the rise was also their doing but it required usurping and redirecting Russian nationalism, an exercise easily performed during conditions of war as you well know.

Yes, Imperial Russia was inhospitable to Jewish interests. The political structure -- absolute monarchy with hereditary aristocracy of landowners presiding over peasant population recently removed from serfdom -- was virtually immune to subterfuge and attempts to sway domestic conditions in their favour. WWI hardship brought with it susceptibility to Marx’s gospel, as it did to other nations, but there were more Jews in Russia and they had financial support from foreign tribesmen, including the Schiffs* and other Wall Street bankers. This foreign aid may have been decisive.

Of course, the USSR was our WW2 ally, but that shifted after the war... why?

After any decent carnage there is a period of rethinking. Questions of “why” and “what if” are thrown about and the atmosphere is briefly conducive to revisionism, for even victors are uncertain of changes in balance of power and fear the unknown. Following WWI this tendency manifested itself in refusal of congress to join the League of Nations and the desire for immunity from foreign meddling***. Post WWII period saw less of this because of intervening events and greater Jewish control of the press. There was McCarthy, Taft and few others but damage control ensured that their efforts were wasted or made to appear as if political affiliation was the issue rather than group-race behaviour.

Was it simply opposition to another big and powerful imperialist project?

As far as most Americans (elite or otherwise) were concerned, yes.

Or was the Jewish issue lurking beneath?

They always lurk beneath and seek to create confusion so as to create opportunities. But why invite a direct war between two powers, each inhabited by their own and enjoying unrivalled wealth and power? The cold war was a goy thing. Jews prefer to engage in clandestine domestic warfare. However, since so many thought the conflict as real, including Commander in Chief types with their “football”, it became just that and the potential for damage was quite real. To be sure, there were a few scary moments for the Chosenites but these were fleeting. E.g., Stalin hung a dozen of them in Prague and make known that further purges would be coming, but he met the maker in a timely fashion and no successor was as daring.

Was the now-gone Anglo-American elite that ruled the Cold War roost subconsciously aware of this as it moved to check Soviet aggression through red-baiting, arms build-up and proxy wars?

Good question. I wish I knew the answer. Regardless of the actual state of awareness among Anglo-American elite, any conclusion is depressing. Answering in the positive implies treachery or indifference while a negative reply can only mean frightening imbecility.

As an example, and since we have small pertinent sampling of his true thinking via tape recordings, consider the sympathetic but tragic figure of Nixon. Born of peasant stock but possessing sufficient intellect (reportedly the highest recorded puzzle-solver among presidents) and drive to attain the political apex. He neuroticism was likely enhanced by Kennedy’s blatant theft in 1960, but he was decent enough to not demean himself and his country by contesting the fop. Level headed Americans though he would reverse the debilitating effects of Johnson’s “Great Society.” They were wrong.

We know that under prevailing conditions he would be tagged as a racist and an anti-Semite. Yet he had no compunction in hiring Jews and relying on one for advice on matters of paramount importance. He knew the basics as concerning their nature: overriding loyalty to Israel, control of media, cooperative group-race strategy, and (religious pretence aside) atheistic tendencies and outlook. The phrase “atheistic bastards” was actually one of the more insightful in the series. Yet there is no evidence on tape that he knew the extent of their control at home or oversees. His reign, however, had one curiosity: good relations with the Soviets. Contrast that with the dim Kennedy and the cowboy Ronnie. Is it a case of Nixon ‘getting it,’ while the other two did not and could not. Could reliance on Cold War-believing-goy-delivery-boys make for poor communications with unabashedly Jewish-Soviet leadership?

I know why Jews abandoned Marxism/socialism/communism/USSR --- it lost its usefulness for them. And, in the form of Stalin, started to turn on Jews (is this correct? please advise).

They had no choice in 1989. Abandoning it was not a conscious decision but a necessity brought about by near economic collapse and Eastern Europeans coveting wealth and lifestyle enjoyed by Westerners (some would say “freedom” but I prefer precision and honesty among colleagues). Once the first dominos fell in Poland and East Germany the fate of the old Soviet regime was sealed, though it is true that the party allowed it to happen for they had the strength to intervene militarily as they did in 1956 and 1968. Perhaps they knew that domestic conditions were stressed to the limit and thought better to go voluntarily, with the option of having a say later, rather than resist with violence and risk incurring the same. BTW, being a former high-ranking communist and a current member of parliament (regardless of party association) in Eastern Europe is not unusual. You might say it’s very natural, but one must be careful with labels and substitute colleague for comrade when addressing peers. Pertinent outcome of the Cold War or, as some silly people like to call it, WWIII is this: Russia lost a lot of Jews to America. The same folks are right -- the US won!

Duma came relatively late and, in any event, lacked political fangs (i.e., why bribe a toothless tiger?). Same family to whom not long ago Al Gore sold his daughter, refuting at once all notions of his lack of political acumen. **Diplomatic, economic, and clandestine efforts by British (Jews joined the venture as payment for the 1916 Palestine purchase) to get US into WWI were impressive in scope and result, and, for obvious reasons, resist proper American appreciation.