The Rest Against The West │ Samuel P. Huntington

In the 21st century the central axis of world events will be conflict between Western and non-Western civilizations, conflict between the West and the Rest. The Rest has three options:

 

The Rest against the West: The geopolitics of distributed heartlands.

• Surrender and submission. 
• Isolation and protection of sovereignty and values. The costs are very high. Only few pursue this option.
• Protection and defense of values and sovereign institutions through constant development of economic-military power and through cooperation and alliance with the West's other enemies.

Reference:

Samuel P. Huntington (1993) - The Clash of Civilizations.

 

 Projection from Bharat.

Benjamin Netanyahu, 1990.
 

January 03, 2024.

The man who ruined all the US’s illegitimate plots in West Asia:
Qasem Soleimani, Major General, Commander of 41st Tharallah Division of Kerman Quds Force (1957-2020).
» The world is witnessing an asymmetrical confrontation between two opposing sides, which has displayed the peak of brutality as well as desperation on one side and innocence along with heroic resistance on the other side. With a broader look at the years of confrontation and conflict between Global Arrogance and its vassals in West Asia on the one hand, and the Resistance Front and popular forces on the other hand, there remains no doubt that the astonishing work by Hamas and the residents of Gaza in Palestine are the domino effect of successive defeats of the hegemons and global colonialism in the region. «

See also:

Imran N. Hosein (2023) - The Alliance of Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Alexander Dugin (2023) - Fighting the Civilisation of Dajjal - The Antichrist.

MFA of PRC (2023) - US Hegemony and Its Perils.

Alexander Dugin (2022) - The Civilization-State.

Cycles Write World History | Donald A. Bradley

Research embracing many fields of scientific pursuit and all available historical records proves that the climate of the earth as a whole goes through long cycles. World-climate shifts from cold to warm periods and from wet to dry periods with amazing regularity. Dry periods accompanied by colder weather take place about every 170 years, every third such “cold drought” being severe in its effects.

"The turning points between old and new civilizations occur when 

cold-dry times reach their maximum severity."

Professor Raymond H. Wheeler, eminent psychologist of the University of Kansas, heads this study project which finds an important correlation between world climate and political history. Dr. Wheeler's analysis of an immense accumulation of data shows that great international changes occur on these shifts from warm to cold and vice versa. Nations deteriorate on the shift from warm to cold, the study reveals. What is probably most fascinating among the findings is that totalitarianism is representative of world-wide political sentiment during warm periods. Democracy is vivified and sought after by men during cold periods. Intervals of cold droughts usually coincide with eras of civil wars. International wars are fought, for the most part, during warmer times. The Wheeler project has identified basic mass-psychological patterns with every climatic condition found in the global weather cycle. Public attitudes and popular ideas are directly colored by the general nature of the world-climate prevailing at any time.

 

Raymond H. Wheeler and his 'big book'.

 

Astrology offers a logical explanation for this 170-year rhythm in world activities. It is hardly a coincidence that every cold-drought is synchronized with one of the solar system's major planetary configurations. Called a great mutation in astrological parlance, a conjunction of the planets Uranus and Neptune occurs every 171 years, on the average. These conjunctions are within effective orb for 15 years before and after their central date of coming-together in the sky. This Uranus-Neptune cycle leaves a continuous impression on the unwinding scroll of world history in inciting those conditions in human and natural affairs described.

Central conjunctions of Uranus and Neptune took place in the A.D. years of 

110, 281, 453, 624, 796, 967, 1139, 1310, 1481, 1653 and 1824 [1906-10, 1993, 2078-81, 2165]

[The years cited mark the general centers of the 30-year influence at work. They are computed for the conjunctions in mean heliocentric longitude, and not for the apparent (geocentric) times of occurrence. The time-margin allowed for this difference is nearly a whole decade.]

Each of these epochs is at or near the dead center of a period of serious cold drought recorded in the annals of history and science. It is no surprise to the astrologer that lowered mean temperature, lack of much rainfall, political stress and civil war itself should be typical of our earth’s response to these vibrations. Uranian influences alone have long been recognized as revolutionary in action. Neptune is peculiarly associated with meteorological matters, and also with canons of idealistic thought. Astrologers are generally agreed that Neptune is the planet of “isms” and ideologies which provoke national and international changes of attitude. Uranus is disruptive in action and progressive in the long run. Neptune, on the other hand, is said to determine world sentiments which have an emotional base. Conjunctions of these divergent forces bring about the years of famine and civil strife which make and break the great economic and political structures we call nations.

The primary precipitation-and-temperature cycle is obviously connected with a particular interplanetary periodicity. There are dozens if not hundreds of other cycles in man’s social and natural environment which can be traced to similar causes. Relations of two or more planets to each other as viewed from the earth are called aspects. The positions of any moving heavenly body across the great star-sprangled backdrop of the sky are called transits. In astrology, we make use of the term transit to mean the location of a planet by the sign of the zodiac it occupies. Aspects and sign-transits of the various planets are the fundamental causes of cycles on earth. Although not actually zodiacal factors, the declinations of certain planets and changes in the elements of planetary orbits are found to be strong components in the astrological theory of world cycles.

Above and beyond true physical phenomena is the strange tendency of world affairs toward cycles which reflect the general connotations of successive zodiacal signs. This is apparent if one reconsiders the famous historical analyses of Oswald Spengler in the light of astrology. Spengler’s anthropomorphic outlines of spiritual, cultural and political “contemporary epochs” seem to follow a fascinating zodiac of characteristics, commencing each broad swing in mankind’s affairs with typical Aries qualities, and culminating it, after ten more eras, with Piscean attributes. The reason for this inclination is inexplicable, at the present, as no astronomical connection has been discovered.

Mention of such interesting matters lays the groundwork for our immediate subject — that of applying astrology as a calculable gauge of contemporary economic conditions.

Quoted from:
Donald A. Bradley (1950) – Stock Market Prediction. The Planetary Barometer and How to Use it.

See also:
Raymond H. Wheeler (1943) - The 100 Year Cycle - Climate, Regime Change and War.

Michael G. Zahorchak (1983) - Climate, the Key to Understanding Business Cycles: With a Forecast of Trends Into the 21st Century.
Peter Temple (2017) - The Wheel of Time: Raymond H. Wheeler's Drought Clock.

Peter Temple (2019) - An Introduction to Climate Cycles.

The Bankster's Paradise Conspiracy Theory | Antony C. Sutton

There is an extensive literature in English, French, and German reflecting the argument that the Bolshevik Revolution was the result of a "Jewish conspiracy"; more specifically, a conspiracy by Jewish world bankers. Generally, world control is seen as the ultimate objective; the Bolshevik Revolution was but one phase of a wider program that supposedly reflects an age old religious struggle between Christianity and the "forces of darkness."

 

The argument and its variants can be found in the most surprising places and from quite surprising persons. In February 1920 Winston Churchill wrote an article — rarely cited today — for the London Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled "Zionism Versus Bolshevism." In this article Churchill concluded that it was "particularly important ... that the National Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion ... and take a prominent part in every measure for combatting the Bolshevik conspiracy." Churchill draws a line between "national Jews" and what he calls "international Jews." He argues that the "international and for the most atheistical Jews" certainly had a "very great" role in the creation of Bolshevism and bringing about the Russian Revolution. He asserts (contrary to fact) that with the exception of Lenin, "the majority" of the leading figures in the revolution were Jewish, and adds (also contrary to fact) that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship were excepted by the Bolsheviks from their policies of seizure. Churchill calls the international Jews a "sinister confederacy" emergent from the persecuted populations of countries where Jews have been persecuted on account of their race. Winston Churchill traces this movement back to Spartacus-Weishaupt, throws his literary net around Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman, and charges: "This world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing."

 

[...] The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles.

What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?

Quoted from:
Antony C. Sutton (1974) - Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution

 

 

Wall Street's Revolutionary Socialism for Mexico | Anthony C. Sutton

Anthony C. Sutton (1974) - Another case of revolution supported by New York financial institutions concerned that of Mexico in 1915-16. Von Rintelen, a German espionage agent in the United States, was accused during his May 1917 trial in New York City of attempting to "embroil" the U.S. with Mexico and Japan in order to divert ammunition then flowing to the Allies in Europe. 

 

Iconic image of revolutionary Pancho Villa in Ojinaga, a publicity still taken
by Mutual Film Corporation photographer John Davidson Wheelan, January 1914

 

Payment for the ammunition that was shipped from the United States to the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa, was made through Guaranty Trust Company. Von Rintelen's adviser, Sommerfeld, paid $380,000 via Guaranty Trust and Mississippi Valley Trust Company to the Western Cartridge Company of Alton, Illinois, for ammunition shipped to El Paso, for forwarding to Villa. This was in mid-1915. On January 10, 1916, Villa murdered seventeen American miners at Santa Isabel and on March 9, 1916, Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico, and killed eighteen more Americans. 

 

Columbus, New Mexico, after being raided by Pancho Villa

 

Wall Street involvement in these Mexican border raids was the subject of a letter (October 6, 1916) from Lincoln Steffens, an American Communist, to Colonel House [Edward Mandell House], an aide' to Woodrow Wilson: My dear Colonel House: Just before I left New York last Monday, I was told convincingly that "Wall Street" had completed arrangements for one more raid of Mexican bandits into the United States: to be so timed and so atrocious that it would settle the election [...]

 

Venustiano Carranza, 44th President of Mexico,
First Chief of the Constitutionalist Army, 1920

 

Once in power in Mexico, the Carranza government purchased additional arms in the United States. The American Gun Company contracted to ship 5,000 Mausers and a shipment license was issued by the War Trade Board for 15,000 guns and 15,000,000 rounds of ammunition. The American ambassador to Mexico, Fletcher, "flatly refused to recommend or sanction the shipment of any munitions, rifles, etc., to Carranza." However, intervention by Secretary of State Robert Lansing reduced the barrier to one of a temporary delay, and "in a short while [the American Gun Company] would be permitted to make the shipment and deliver."

The raids upon the U.S. by the Villa and the Carranza forces were reported in the New York Times as the "Texas Revolution" (a kind of dry run for the Bolshevik Revolution) and were undertaken jointly by Germans and Bolsheviks. The testimony of John A. Walls, district attorney of Brownsville, Texas, before the 1919 Fall Committee yielded documentary evidence of the link between Bolshevik interests in the United States, German activity, and the Carranza forces in Mexico.

Consequently, the Carranza government, the first in the world with a Soviet-type constitution (which was written by Trotskyites), was a government with support on Wall Street. The Carranza revolution probably could not have succeeded without American munitions and Carranza would not have remained in power as long as he did without American help.

 

[...] We also identified documentary evidence concerning a Wall Street syndicate's financing of the 1912 Sun Yat-sen revolution in China, a revolution that is today hailed by the Chinese Communists as the precursor of Mao's revolution in China. Charles B. Hill, New York attorney negotiating with Sun Yat-sen in behalf of this syndicate, was a director of three Westinghouse subsidiaries, and we have found that Charles R. Crane of Westinghouse in Russia was involved in the Russian Revolution.

Quoted from:
Antony C. Sutton (1974) - Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution

See also:
The Library of Congress - The Mexican Revolution and the United States

Lenin. Money. Revolution. | Serhii Hrabovsky

The themes linked to Lenin, money, and revolution present an inexhaustible source of inquiry for historians, psychologists, and satirists. Just imagine: we have a man who, after the complete victory of communism, urged that toilet bowls in public restrooms be made of solid gold; a man who never had to earn a living through hard work; a man who was comfortably off even in prison and exile, and barely knew what money was, yet at the same time made a considerable contribution to the theory of commodity-money relations.

How exactly did he manage to do that? Not through brochures and articles, of course, but through his revolutionary activities. It was Lenin who, between 1919 and 1921, introduced non-monetary “natural” barter between towns and the countryside. This led to the total collapse of the economy, a complete standstill in agriculture, mass famines, and, consequently, mass uprisings against the regime of the Russian Communist Party. Only then, just before his death, did Lenin perceive the true meaning of money and introduce the NEP (New Economic Policy), a kind of “manageable capitalism” under the supervision of the Communist Party.

 

 

However, our purpose here is not to explore these fascinating subjects, but to investigate where Vladimir Lenin got the enormous sums necessary to fund party activities before the revolution. Over recent decades, some very interesting materials have been published, but much remains obscure. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the underground newspaper 'Iskra' was funded by a mysterious benefactor (individual or collective), disguised in party documents as the “Californian gold mines.” Some researchers believe this was an instance of radical Russian revolutionaries being sponsored by American Jewish bankers, mostly Russian expatriates and their descendants, who hated Tsarism for its official anti-Semitic policies.

During the revolution of 1905-07, the Bolsheviks were funded by American oil corporations aiming to push their rivals out of the world markets (specifically, Nobel’s oil cartel in Baku). At that time, American banker Jacob Schiff also provided money to the Bolsheviks, as he himself confessed. Other donors included Yermasov, a manufacturer from Syzran, and Morozov, a merchant and industrialist near Moscow. Later, the Bolshevik party gained another financial supporter in Schmidt, the owner of a furniture factory in Moscow. It is curious that both Savva Morozov and Nikolai Schmidt eventually committed suicide, allowing the Bolsheviks to inherit a considerable portion of their fortunes. Of course, large sums also came from the so-called “ex’es” (a truncated form of “expropriation”), or, in simpler terms, bank robberies, post office heists, and railway ticket-office hold-ups. These actions were masterminded by two characters with criminal monickers: Kamo and Koba, i.e., Ter-Petrosian and Dzhugashvili.

Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of rubles invested in revolutionary activities could at best only shake the Russian Empire. Despite its shortcomings, the empire’s institutions were relatively solid—at least in peacetime. With the outbreak of World War I, however, new financial and political opportunities opened up for the Bolsheviks, and they didn’t fail to take advantage of them. On January 15, 1915, the German ambassador in Istanbul sent a report to Berlin regarding his meeting with Russian subject Aleksander Gelfand (aka Parvus), an active participant in the 1905-07 revolution and owner of a large trade company. Parvus revealed his plan for the Russian revolution and was immediately invited to Berlin, where he met with influential members of the German cabinet and advisors to Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg. Parvus suggested that the Germans provide him with a large sum of money to help promote, first, the national movements in Finland and Ukraine, and second, to support the Bolsheviks, who advocated for the defeat of the Russian Empire in the unjust war in order to overthrow the “regime of landlords and capitalists.” The Germans accepted his proposal and, by Kaiser Wilhelm’s personal order, gave him two million German marks as the first contribution to “the cause of the Russian revolution.” Later, other installments followed, some of them for even larger sums. According to a receipt from Parvus, on January 29, 1915, he received 15 million Russian rubles for the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia. The money was allotted with typical German efficiency.

In Finland and Ukraine, Parvus’ (and the German general staff’s) agents turned out to be of secondary importance. Their influence on the independence movements in these countries was insignificant compared to the broader processes of nation-building in the Russian Empire. However, in regard to Lenin, Parvus hit the bull’s-eye. Parvus claimed that he told Lenin that, at that moment, revolution was only possible in Russia and only as a result of Germany winning the war. In response, Lenin sent his proxy Fuerstenberg (aka Ganetsky) for close cooperation with Parvus, which lasted until 1918. Another installment from Germany, although not as large, came to the Bolsheviks via Swiss parliamentarian Karl Moor—amounting to only $35,000. More investments came from the Nia Bank in Stockholm, which, on the order of the German Imperial Bank, opened personal accounts for Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and other Bolshevik leaders. Order No. 7433 of March 2, 1917, allocated funds for the “services” of Lenin, Zinoviev, Kollontai, and others in spreading public peace propaganda in Russia after the Tsarist regime had just been overthrown.

The enormous sums were wisely administered. The Bolsheviks published their own newspapers, which were distributed free of charge in every town and village. A network of professional propagandists covered the entire territory of Russia, and “Red Guard” units were formed openly. Of course, this was not done with German money alone. Although the “poor” political émigré Trotsky had $10,000 confiscated by Canadian customs in Halifax in 1917 while en route from America to Russia, it is clear that he still managed to smuggle vast sums from banker Jacob Schiff to his supporters.

Even greater funds were raised during the “expropriation of the expropriators” (in simpler terms, robbing the wealthy), initiated in the spring of 1917. Has it ever occurred to anyone to question the Bolsheviks' occupation of the palace of ballerina Kshesinskaya or the Smolny Institute?

The Russian democratic revolution broke out unexpectedly in early spring 1917 for all its political subjects, both inside and outside the empire. It was a spontaneous, grass-roots movement both in Petrograd and on the empire's outskirts. Lenin, who was in exile in Switzerland, had publicly doubted only a month earlier whether the politicians of his generation (those in their 40s and 50s) would live to see a revolution in Russia. However, it was the radical Russian politicians who were the quickest to change their ways and seize the opportunity, aided by German assistance.

All in all, the Russian revolution was not accidental. It is even strange that it did not break out a year earlier. The social, political, and national problems in the Romanov empire had reached their breaking point. From a formal economic perspective, industry was developing dynamically, and the stockpile of weapons and ammunition had increased considerably. Yet, the utter inefficiency of central power and the corruption of the elite—inevitable in any autocracy—took their toll. The deliberate corruption of the army, the undermining of the rear, the sabotage of any attempts to constructively address urgent problems, and the incurable chauvinistic centralism typical of virtually all Great Russian political forces exacerbated the crisis. During the 1917 campaign, Entente troops were supposed to launch a simultaneous general offensive on all European fronts, but the Russian army was unprepared. Consequently, in April, the Anglo-French forces at Rheims failed, with casualties exceeding 100,000 dead and wounded. In July, Russian troops attempted an offensive towards Lviv, but eventually had to retreat from Galicia and Bukovina, and nearly gave up Riga in the north without resistance. Finally, the Battle of Caporetto in October resulted in the disastrous defeat of the Italian army, with 130,000 Italians dead and another 300,000 taken prisoner. Only the English and French divisions, urgently shipped from France, stabilized the front and prevented Italy from withdrawing from the war. After the November uprising in Petrograd, when the Bolsheviks and Left Social Revolutionaries came to power, an armistice was declared on the Eastern front—first de facto and then de jure, with Russia, Ukraine, and Romania.

These changes on the Eastern front were largely made possible by funds allotted by Germany to demoralize the Russian army from the rear. The military operations on the Eastern front, prepared and executed with large-scale success, were considerably facilitated by undermining activities within Russia, conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Our chief goal in this activity was to further strengthen the nationalist and separatist sentiments, and support the revolutionary elements. We are continuing this activity even at present and completing an agreement with the political division of the General Staff in Berlin" (Captain von Huelsen).

"Our joint efforts have yielded considerable results. Without our constant support, the Bolshevist movement could never have reached the scale and influence it has now. Everything testifies to the further growth of this movement." These were the words of German Secretary of State Richard von Kuehlmann, written on September 29, 1917. A month and a half before the Bolshevik revolt in Petrograd, von Kuehlmann knew what he was talking about. He was an active participant in all those events; soon after, he would conduct peace negotiations with Bolshevik Russia and the Ukrainian People's Republic in Brest in early 1918. He controlled huge financial currents, amounting to tens of thousands of German marks, and had contacts with key figures in this historic drama. “I have the honor of asking Your Excellence to allot a sum of 15 million marks at the disposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for political propaganda in Russia, referring to paragraph 6, section II of the extraordinary budget. Depending on the development of events, I would like to stipulate in advance the possibility of addressing Your Excellence again for additional funds,” von Kuehlmann wrote on November 9, 1917.

No sooner had news of the Petrograd revolt (soon to be labeled the Great October Revolution) arrived than Kaiser Germany allocated new funds for propaganda in Russia. This money went primarily to support the Bolsheviks, who first demoralized the army and then withdrew the Russian Republic from the war, freeing millions of German soldiers for operations in the West.

Despite all this, the Bolsheviks managed to maintain the image of unselfish revolutionaries and romantic Marxists until today. Even now, not only “official” adepts of the Marxist-Leninist creed but also some non-party left intellectuals remain convinced that Lenin and his followers were sincere internationalists and noble champions of the popular cause.

In 1958, Oxford University published secret documents from the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs (including von Kuehlmann’s telegrams) which proved the massive financial and organizational assistance provided by the German authorities to the Bolsheviks. Germany’s goals were clear: the radical revolutionaries were to undermine the military potential of one of the principal rivals of the Central Powers, i.e., the Russian Empire. Thousands of books have been published providing further convincing evidence. Yet, even today, many communist historians and some liberal researchers deny these self-evident historical facts. As German Secretary of State von Kuehlmann noted on December 3, 1917, “Only when the Bolsheviks began to receive constant investments from us via various channels and under various labels were they able to firmly establish their major printed organ, 'Pravda', develop active propaganda, and significantly enlarge their party base, which was rather narrow at the beginning.” Party membership grew a hundredfold within just a year after the overthrow of Tsarism.

Colonel Walter Nicolai, head of German military intelligence during World War I, described Lenin in his memoirs as follows: “Like anyone else at the time, I knew nothing about Bolshevism; as for Lenin, I only knew that he was living in Switzerland as a political émigré. Under the cryptonym ‘Ulianov,’ he provided my service with valuable information on the situation in Tsarist Russia against which he was fighting.”

In other words, without constant German assistance, the Bolsheviks would hardly have become one of the leading Russian parties in 1917. This would have meant a completely different development of events, probably much more anarchical, which would hardly have led to the establishment of a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian regime. The most likely scenario would have been a different version of the disintegration of the Russian Empire, as World War I was primarily about the destruction of empires. The independence of Finland and Poland was effectively a fait accompli around 1916.

The Russian Empire, or even the Russian Republic, would likely have followed the same process of collapse triggered by World War I. Consider that Britain was forced to grant independence to Ireland, India was pushing for independence right after the war, and many other colonial territories followed suit. The revolution itself was, to some extent, marked by national-liberation struggles, as it was the Life Guards Volhynia Regiment that first rebelled against autocracy in early 1917. At that time, the Bolsheviks were a tiny party, barely known to anyone (with only about four thousand members, mostly in exile and emigration). They had no significant role in overthrowing Tsarism.

Assistance continued after Lenin’s government came to power. "You are free to operate large sums, as we are extremely interested in the stability of the Bolsheviks. You have Riesler’s funds at your disposal. If necessary, wire us how much more you need." (Berlin, May 18, 1918). Von Kuehlmann addressed the German embassy in Moscow, confirming the continuing German support for the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks held fast, and by the fall of 1918, they were channeling huge sums from the Russian imperial treasury into revolutionary propaganda in Germany, hoping to incite world revolution.

In Germany, a revolution did break out in early November 1918. Money, weapons, and qualified professional revolutionaries shipped from Moscow played their role. However, local communists failed to lead this revolution. Subjective and (more importantly) objective factors worked against them. A totalitarian regime was only established in Germany 15 years later, but that is a different story. Meanwhile, in 1921, the democratic Weimar Republic's renowned social democrat Eduard Bernstein published an article in his party's central organ 'Vorwärts' titled “A Shady Story,” in which he revealed that, as early as December 1917, he had received confirmation from “a certain competent person” that Germany had given money to Lenin. According to Bernstein, the Bolsheviks alone were paid more than 50 million German marks in gold. This sum was later officially mentioned in a session of the Reichstag's foreign policy committee. When the communist press accused Bernstein of libel, he invited them to sue him, which led to an immediate cessation of the campaign. Since Germany was in desperate need of friendly relations with Soviet Russia, the discussion of this topic in the press was abruptly shut down.

Aleksander Kerensky, one of the Bolsheviks’ main political opponents, concluded from his own investigation that the total sums received by the Bolsheviks before and after coming to power amounted to 80 million German marks in gold. In fact, Lenin never even tried to conceal this from his party colleagues. At a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (a Bolshevik quasi-parliament) in November 1918, Lenin stated: “I am often accused of having carried out our revolution with German money; I do not deny it, but with Russian money, I am going to carry out the same revolution in Germany.” And he tried to do so, throwing away tens of millions of rubles. However, he failed: the German social democrats, unlike their Russian counterparts, quickly recognized the situation and arranged for the timely assassination of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. This was followed by the disarmament of the “Red Guards” and the physical elimination of their leaders.

They had no other option. Perhaps, if Kerensky had found the courage to order the shooting of Smolny along with all its "red" inhabitants, even the Kaiser’s millions wouldn’t have helped them. We might round off here, were it not for a report from 'The New York Times' in April 1921, stating that in 1920 alone, 75 million Swiss francs were sent to Lenin’s account in a Swiss bank. According to the newspaper, Trotsky had $11 million and 90 million francs in his accounts; Zinoviev had 80 million francs; the “knight of the revolution,” Dzerzhinsky, had 80 million; and Ganetsky-Fuerstenberg had 60 million francs and 10 million dollars. Lenin, in his secret note to Cheka leaders Unschlicht and Bokiy on April 24, 1921, demanded they find the source of this information leak. However, it was never discovered.

Was this money also intended for the world revolution? Or was it some form of kickback from politicians and financiers in countries where Lenin and Trotsky’s “red horses” were not ordered to go? We can only speculate. Even now, a significant portion of Lenin’s papers remains top secret.

Quoted from: 

Serhii Hrabovsky (2010) - Lenin. Money. Revolution.

See also:

Eustace C. Mullins (1952) - The Study of The Federal Reserve and Its Secrets.

Arsene de Goulevitch (1962) - Czarism and Revolution: From the Past to the Future of Russia.

Carroll Quigley (1966) - Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World In Our Time.

Gary Allen and Larry Abraham (1971) - None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
Gary D. Best (1972) - Financing a Foreign War: Jacob H. Schiff and Japan, 1904–05. 

Antony C. Sutton (1974) - Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution.

Carroll Quigley (1981) - The Anglo-American Establishment.

 Quora (2017) - Who funded the Bolsheviks rise to power in Russia?  

Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret (2020) - COVID-19: The Great Reset.

Energy War over Syria │ The Geopolitics of Oil and Gas Pipelines

Major Planned Pipelines - Enlarge

The war on Syria is only unclear at first sight. On closer inspection, it becomes clear that fighting between mercenaries and government forces takes place only where important pipelines are running or planned. 

Russia, the Western powers and the Gulf States are fighting for the best starting position for gas and oil supplies for the European market. France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the United States, in particular, are interfering in the distribution struggle without any reference to international law, while Russia's support to the legal Syrian government is fully in line with international law.  

Two of the most important oil markets are located in the Syrian cities of Manbij and al-Bab, both of which are located in the Aleppo province. These two cities are also the most important pipeline, the oil from Iraq - from Mosul and al-Qaim - transported to Syria as far as the province of Idlib. 

Territorial Control - Enlarge

The same Pipeline runs through the city of Aleppo to the oil market in Idlib. Whoever controls Manbid, has a great influence on the oil transport in Syria. The same applies to Aleppo, Idlib and al-Bab in the west of the country. In the east of the country the same oil transport line runs through Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. The oil that flows through this transport line comes from Mosul, via Sinjar to Deir Ezzor and a second strand from al-Qaim to Deir Ezzor. So far, Turkey has had no influence on the oil transport lines in the Syrian conflict. Through the capture of Manbidz, Turkey could assert its influence on the transport system in Syria. The current battle for Aleppo is called only from a basic decision-making battle: Aleppo is the last big city through which flows the country's most important transport line. Anyone who controls Aleppo controls the "key" of the pipeline. It is striking that the conflicts between the conflict parties take place, in particular, on the most important points of the transport lines: Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, Aleppo, Idlib, Manbidsch, Hasaka, al-Bukamal, Ain Issa and al-Bab. In Homs and Hama also violent battles take place. Previously, Palmyra was fiercely fought. These, in turn, are the areas through which the Qatar-Turkey pipeline is planned. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline supported and planned by the Russians should also be run by Homs. That is why Homs from the Russian point of view cannot be controlled by the Islamic mercenaries. 

The fog of war and the realm of uncertainty:
Russian and US Airstrikes - Enlarge

From the map of the air strikes, it is clear that the US airspace mainly focuses on the East and the Russian air strikes, especially on the west of Syria. While the control of West Syria is important to the Russians to prevent pro-Western pipelines, it is important from the US point of view that the prospect of pro-Russian pipelines - like the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline - to prevent.

Another planned pipeline was originally to go from the Israeli Golan Heights via Damascus to Turkey. This pipeline would allow Israel to emerge as a gas supplier, provided the government is overthrown in Damascus. But Russia does not want any competitors in the gas market.

In connection with the pipeline routes, the planned "Kurdish corridor" is also critical. The Caucasus Strategic Research Center (KAFKASSAM) in Ankara reports: "The real objective of this corridor is to transport the Kurdish oil and gas from the Northern Iraq over Northern Syria to the Mediterranean by pipeline there. In addition, the US had planned to build another pipeline from the Persian Gulf to the Northern Iraq and from there via Northern Syria. Thus, both Iraq and Turkey should be brought to the West and especially to Europe on the energy market through both Turkey and Northern Syria. But the plan to found a Kurdish corridor fell into the water because the Russians intervened in Syria. Russia is opposed to this corridor because Europe is to be maintained as a customer of Russian energy carriers. Russia will under no circumstances give up its position on the European market." See also HERE + HERE + HERE + HERE

War as the continuation of politics and economic interest by other means.

Weapon of Mass Migration | The US War on Europe

Open Gates: Coerced collective
suicide of European nations (Here)

Artificial mass migration as imperial policy has a long history, and the current mass migration into Europe is the brain child of US military grand strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett. He was a strategic advisor to former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and currently works with the Israeli military consultancy firm Wikistrat, a close collaborator of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Stuttgart, Germany. Barnett’s books 'The Pentagon’s New Map' and 'Blueprint for Action' (2004, 2005) have had a major influence on US and Israeli global military geostrategies. Today Wikistrat is heavily involved in the development of ‘crowd sourcing’ and ‘crowd leveraging’ technologies, and most of the Twitter entries encouraging migrants in the Middle East and Africa to travel to Austria, Germany and Sweden come from the UK, US and Australia (Ayn Rand Institute, The Escape Institute, etc.). Barnett came up with the theory of the ‘Five Flows of Globalisation’ — five flows which must come about if US imperialism wants to prevail in the world of the 21st century. These involve the free flow of money, security, food, energy and people. The ‘Five Flows’ theory means breaking down nation-state structures and freeing up resources for pillage by US multinational corporations and hyenas of high finance. The inundation of Europe with migrants is a key feature of Barnett’s geostrategic thinking: “1.5 million immigrants from third world countries to Europe every year. The result will be a mixed new population with an average IQ of 90 - too dumb to grasp anything, but intelligent enough to work.”

Not welcome anymore (HERE)

In her book Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion and Foreign Policy (2011), Kelly M. Greenhill argues that one of the reasons for Europe’s rapprochement with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was the latter’s offer to stem the tide of African emigration to Europe. It would be erroneous, therefore, to suggest that the chaos wrought by the Arab Spring, the devastation of Libya and the killing of Gaddafi were unintentional. EU borders have long been deconstructed by EU utopianism of a borderless world. This fits perfectly with Greenhill’s “hypocrisy cost” of wealthy liberal nations which can be coerced by specifically such open border vulnerabilities. Hundreds of thousands of migrants are equipped with welcome booklets published by a George Soros foundation. Written in Arabic, and packed with maps and useful information on where to go, what to do, whom to refer to, and which sob story to tell to the European authorities, these rough-guides are distributed by an ominous NGO called w2eu.info, which stands for “Welcome to the EU”. One is reminded of the non-violent revolution hand book by Gene Sharp which was used to train activists in the US-Israeli fomented counter-revolutions in North Africa in 2011 (HERE). Since the very inception of the ensuing 'refugee crisis' the multi-billion dollar business of human trafficking into Europe and the booming asylum-industry is controlled by the EU Commission, globalist fifth columns inside EU member states, by the Erdoğan regime, ISIS, the Italian Mafia, certain oligarchs, and the CIA. 

Reporting on services rendered.

In 2015 the Merkel regime certainly had foreknowledge of what would happen when the chancellor repeatedly issued her infamous “Welcome” calls to not only Syrian war refugees and their families but to any “asylum-seeker” in the world. Merkel had been warned personally by her domestic intelligence and the Joint Centre for Illegal Migration Analysis and Policy that Europe's borders would be stormed and Germany and her neighbors seriously and permanently damaged and destabilized (HERE). But Merkel is clearly cooperating with a script originating from western intelligence agencies that follows the Greenhill recipes. In May 2016, facing a new mega-wave of migrants out of Libya into Italy, Merkel steadfastly refuses to close borders. By mid 2016 1.8 million “refugees” had invaded Germany. More than 1.5 million of them are young men aged 20 to 35, outnumbering the German army by the factor of 20 already. While thousands of them are ISIS and Al Nusra fighters, thousands of these invaders are actually housed on active military bases. The total cost to entertain 2 million “refugees” for the next three years was estimated to be 900 billion Euros - more than twice the federal government's annual budget of 2014. Quoting Shakespeare: “Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.”

Jihad - Muslim Invasion (HERE)

What we are dealing with here is a well-planned strategy of chaos. Washington is the driving force of this strategy that destroys entire states and nations, causing a chaotic chain reaction of division and conflict to be used according to the old method of "divide and rule." We are witnessing a genocidal covert war being waged by the Anglo-Zionist power elite on the nation states and peoples of Europe. Migrants are weaponized to create social chaos and fiscal constraints in order to prevent Berlin’s inevitable rapprochement with Moscow. The migrants cannot possibly integrate into society if the German economy does not integrate into Eurasia, as Germany will have insufficient access to resources and energy, and no viable markets for its exports. Let Europe whither on the vine. Keeping Russia and Germany separate and in conflict has been the primordial geopolitical objective of the US in Europe since 1871. Barnett predicts that both western Europe and Russia would disintegrate in the 21st Century, leaving only India and China to rival the United States. US strategists believe that coercive engineered mass migration into Europe, coupled with the American occupation of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, with terrorism and the destabilization of the Ukraine, with currency wars, trade wars, and hot wars, would altogether prevent Eurasian integration, whilst securing control over Europe and establishing the conquest of Africa would ultimately safeguard future US global supremacy. 

This is the plan and its implementation is underway. However, this will not solve any of the US' major problems: Losing the dominating position in world production, finance, trade, transport, and communication. The center is drifting towards China and other Asian countries. The US financial hegemony is endangered by the collapse of the dollar pyramid of state obligations, and the dollar's position as the world currency is undermined by the processes of regional economic integration, namely by China and Russia. As the US financial and economic system cannot be kept in balance without powerful and growing outside support, it feels objectively forced to escalate military and political tensions and eventually start a world war, that it cannot win. Von Clausewitz would have immediately realized. But Barnett is a brute, a gambler, a mercenary strategist.

HERE

On a larger time-scale, we are currently living through the repetition of the 100 Year War Cycle and the conclusion of Arnold Toynbee's 500 Year Cycle of Civilizations. We are living in a period that Antonio Gramsci termed an interregnum, morbid times, times of chaos, in which the old is dying, and the new is not born yet. The first decades of this millennium are similar to the early 16th century in Europe, times of technological innovations, population growth, migrations, capitalist expansion, but also religious secession, fanaticism and war. The process was finally directed to outer European conquest, and the ascent of the imperial West (HERE). Today the fate of the US empire largely depends on whether Russia will be sufficiently destabilized and subjected to the globalist oligarchy. Russia is the Heartland and has everything necessary to become the cornerstone for the next world system. Whether the new emerging multipolar system of civilizations and big spaces will be able to establish and to defend itself, is currently decided in Russia, by Russia, and through Russia. 

The spin-doctors and architects of this epic mass migration and population replacement unleashed a monster: French, Italians, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Irishmen, Swedes, Poles, and almost every other European ethnic group are marked for replacement, i.e. demographic extinction. The utopia of multiculturalism failed and is rejected. Instead Europe is headed for ethnic clashes and breakdowns of economic, social, political and international regimes. However, the globalist's Great Replacement project itself may never reach its ultimate end. Naturally it is unacceptable to passively surrender, and to be dominated and replaced by invaders, by barbarians in the literal sense of the word. Pan-European Nationalism is on the rise across Europe. Radicals and fanatics are ready to defend their lands and cultures at all costs. They are prepared to topple and destroy abusive regimes, to wage civil war and pogroms. What nobody seems to be prepared for is how to recover and what should be build instead. Once the US hegemony diminishes, the leftovers of a shattered Europe may finally become absorbed in some Sino-Russian dominated Eurasian empire (HERE).