The Red Symphony

by

Steven Stanley Bayes

www.Steven-Stanley-Bayes.com

Preface :

The Red Symphony is a name of the conversation between two politicians in 1938 where they discuss the politics of the era and before. The most referred to events took place in the second

half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century before the World War 2. Communism and capitalism are the most covered topics in the conversation. The conversation touches subjects ( although not the main subject of the conversation ) such as “ The Rulers of

the World “ which have made the conversation very popular amongst people with such inclinations all over the world and mainly in the French speaking world and The U. S. A.

The author of this document has tried to provide the whole conversation as well as to offer an

independent opinion on the conversation. The author expresses but does not impose this opinion on anyone. PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS MAY FIND THIS

DOCUMENT INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY MAY LEARN OTHER THINGS WHICH THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN WHICH ARE INVARIANT ON THE AUTHOR’S OPINION.

Those of them who want to continue with their personal opinions after they have acquired this knowledge can do this as they please.

1. Document Organization :

This document provides the conversation between two political leaders of the first half of the 20th century known throughout the world with the name “ The Red Symphony “. I have made comments to this in order to provide own opinion because, I think, the opinions of many people who have misunderstood this historic conversation are wrong. The comments are in Italic Bold and begin with “ SSB : “, the original conversation is in normal.

2. Prerequisite : In order to understand the document, some preliminary knowledge is required. I will try to provide this in a very short form. 2.1 History :

The conversation, called by people “ The Red Symphony “ takes place before the World War II. Politicians in the whole world were then asking an important question : will Germany attack the Soviet Union or the possible war will take place only in the Western Europe? One of the possible sub questions may have been : what is the National Socialist Party of Germany : more socialists than nationalists, more nationalists than socialists, more capitalist than socialist and nationalist combined, any other combination amongst these three or something else?

A second sub question may have been : does the National Socialist Party of Germany comply to logic or not? In case of yes, does the National Socialist party of Germany apply a stable, long term logic or are they just opportunists who do whatever they think is to be done only at a given point without having any agenda, program, schedule, plan? Or the two thereof. Another outcome question : are the National Socialist Party of Germany politicians or economists ( money makers ) and or any combination thereof. In case of a combination, here and before, to what extend do they mix these two ingredients? Another question : who are the “ enemies “ of the National Socialist Party of Germany inside Germany and out? What kind of weapons do they have? 2.2 Politics : Germany was devastated by the World War I with many parts taken by other countries, mainly adjacent to Germany and a part of Germany controlled by France to produce coal for France to pay reparations from World War I. Neither The Soviet Union nor The U. S. A. have ever taken any German land. This means there is no any direct reason for Germany to enter a war with these two countries. Except the indirect incentive : a war against the Soviet Union is not a war against the Soviet Union per se but is a war against socialism and future communism. Such a war must, therefore, be strongly supported by all capitalist countries except these with which Germany is at war. Not except : even these countries should support Germany who comes to them as a liberator from socialism and communism rather than an occupying force. However, there is another interesting scenario : Germany becomes a socialist country ruled by the National Socialist Party which becomes more socialist than nationalist and does not attack The Soviet Union nor The U. S. A. but only attacks the capitalist Europe thus being a liberator of Europe from capitalism. The second scenario looks very promising for Germany except a few problems : The Soviet Union is not as stupid as the Western capitalist countries and The U. S. A. and will not bite this German hook. Neither will the internal German socialist and communist parties who, along with The Soviet Union, want either their way and not the promised National Socialist Party highway even though a divided one and strongly built by concrete autobahn. Even the best autobahn is useless when this autobahn goes in a wrong direction. The internal capitalist parties and their protégés, the rich capitalists of Germany will strongly disagree which may lead to a loss of the shallow non full majority win of the National Socialist Party at the elections.

So, the political situation, contrary to what many think, is very weak for The National Socialist Party. THEY SIMPLY CANNOT DO THE JOB ON THEIR OWN AND THE WEAK PERFORMANCE AT THE ELECTION MAKES THE THINGS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE RULERS. So they need an ally : who? The Western Europe and The U. S. A. because the National Socialist Party will give them the most desired gift : more desired even than their independence : the destruction of socialism thus inability of transferring to communism. Words are words, weapons are weapons : The National Socialist Party can pick any of these scenarios or chose many different ones BUT can they put their weapons where their mouths are? Bad news for the rest of the world : the answer is yes : the German weaponry is superior to any other in the world because of the non private economy Germany has enjoyed since 1932. For only 6 years, the National Socialist party has achieved what The U. S. A. and all the Western Europe has not achieved since their creations and before : much superior industry and product. Much to the dismay of The Soviet Union who stay big and undisturbed and so confident in the huge power and size so does not consider even to manufacture weapons. The U. S. A. can be represented as a sleeping giant. The Soviet Union as a Muscle Building Beauty Competitor, a fashion designer of a sort while Germany is the knocked down boxer who has not only fully recovered from the knock down when counted to 6 but has also become stronger taking the much needed rest of lying down for a while. Yes, Germany did have the superior weaponry and the large amount of people needed to win any war against anyone even against the whole world. The question was to do so before the other caught up with the weaponry and also in the easiest way. And the easiest way looked to be to lie to the West and to attack the non trusting East. But there is something to be added here : only one Soviet aircraft company was of the size of all German aircraft companies.

2.3 Hegel : Hegel was mentioned throughout the conversation. Preliminary information is needed in order to understand the conversation. Hegel is a German philosopher, scientists, thinker and, most importantly, logician. Hegel is mistakenly pinpointed mainly by US ideologists and politicians as being a communist. This is very wrong and is applicable only to politicians such as McCarthy, to some extend Reagan and other of this sort. Hegel was working in

these sciences much before socialism and communism were ever discovered, much before Marx and Engels, mostly likely, much before Tomas Man.

2.3.1 Author’s View on Logic : Logic is an objective and strict science which shows people how to think objectively. As such, everything in logic has to be proven strictly mathematically in order to be used, i. e. there are theorems in logic which must be strictly proven, otherwise, in case they are not true, they will mislead, rather than help people think. In the modern era, logic is mistakenly thought by people as what makes the computer software work ONLY. The problem with this common mistake is the word only. True, logic is used for to make computer software which is based on logic only but logic is not used in computer software only but everywhere in any human and, even, animal activity. Logic with humans is not a must. People can opt out of using logic and say and do illogical things, for example, using religious believes blindly. There are two levels of logic in terms of advancements in this science : simple logic and advanced logic. Simple logic is mistakenly called in English a “ common sense “. Advanced logic is build in a level fashion up from the simple logic and the difference between simple and complicated logic is mainly quantitative which may or may not lead to quantitative differences. ( Quantity and quality are to be discussed ). There are two types of logic by what they are and by application: analogue and digital. These two complement and mix with one another. Digital logic is based on strictly defined constants and variables which variables can only have one of the only possible two values. A toss of a coin is an example of digital logic : the outcome can be either one of the two possible. This digital logic can be simple or complicated. The complication comes from the amount of digital variables and interconnection thereof. In the example, a combinational choice of a winning combination among, say, 10 coins each of which can only land in only one of only two possible is an example of simple digital logic complication. Analogue logic is an amount logic and is based on amount. As an example, when a logger who makes a preliminary cut on a tree in order to use gravity to break the tree does not just make a scratch on the tree which will not do anything, neither does the logger cut across the whole tree which will either make the tree sit on the cut log when well balanced or will make the tree fall in the direction of the tree’s center of gravity. The logger plays with amounts : how much do I cut and how much angle do I give to the cut in order to use the gravity to make the tree fall in this direction? Analogue logic can be simple and complicated. An example when analogue logic can become complicated is when accuracy, precision, sensitivity, stability as well as multi variable interaction as well as multi type multivariable interaction ( many digital and many analogue variables ) are necessary. In the previous example the

logger has a low accuracy of action required. A guitar maker has to cut wood with somewhat higher accuracy, hence making a guitar is more complicated than making furniture which is more complicated than making an outdoor bench which is more complicated than cutting logs. The type of logic used in computer software is simple digital, also called mathematical logic. This can become somewhat more complex and mixed at upper levels of computer software development, mainly in areas such as artificial intellect. Whether simple logic is analogue or digital, any simple logic is logic and not sense, thus human or animal thinking is necessary for everything AND NOT SENSE. This important difference is misunderstood mainly in the English Speaking World which comes mainly because of the stupidity of many British philosophers and thinkers centuries ago. These have consistently claimed there was not such a thing as simple logic but, instead, this is a sense which everyone has just the same as the instincts of animals. They have also claimed no thinking is necessary in simple logic. Thus, they have introduced the largely used term “ common sense “. They have also been mislead by other scientists, mainly biologists, centuries ago who have been consistently claiming and continue to claim, animals do not think but, rather, they use their instincts. Animals DO think and instincts are nothing else but thinking. However, animals can only think to a given level and not beyond unlike humans. This is considered to be so because of the non complexity of animal’s brains as opposed to the complex human brain. A consideration in this is the number of neurons in human and animal brains. 2.3.2 Hegel’s Invention : The Top of the Summit of Logic Hegel has made an invention in logic and has proven two things : the first thing is this invention is true and the second thing is there is nothing else true but this invention as well as there is no way to have anything else true, i. e. THIS INVENTION IN LOGIC EXPLAINS EVERYTHING IN THE OBJECTIVE REALITY which is only and always objective. Hegel’s invention says : Everywhere in physics, logic and anything else, there is nothing but : 1. Unity ( balance ) and fight between contradictive things 2. Quantitative accumulations lead to qualitative changes ( quantity leads to a new

quality ). 3. Negation of the negation : things negate each other, then other things negate

these things and this is how things get dynamically created Explanation : The Universe, even more global , the reality is created by nothing but contradictory things and, in case of collaboration of SOME things, this

collaboration is contradictory to one thing or a collaboration of more than one OTHER things. The best example is the Newton’s law of : every force gets countered by another force of equal strength and opposite in direction force. The two forces are in unity : they are present in the same place; they counter each other with equal force and different directions. Neither of them wins. Another best example is : Energy cannot be created nor stopped : energy only changes shape and does not get created nor lost. There are many best examples in quantum physics and in the theory of relativity : the electrons and the atoms fight against each other : the electrons want to break free, the atoms want to hold them and, as a consequence, the electrons get to stay OUTSIDE of the atom and AT A GIVEN DISTANCE defined by the force exerted by the atom which force can only keep the electrons at a distance which distance depends on the strength of the atom’s keeping force : the weaker the force the higher the distance. I have been talking a lot on one important piece of this theorem : the balance and the lack thereof. I will not write a lot here for now but I will only say the contradictory forces may be in balance and they may stay in balance forever or one of them can win JUST TO SEE ANOTHER CONTRADICTORY FORCE AGAINST AFTER WINNING OVER TO THE PREVIOUS ONE. Thus the theorem never stops, much like soccer : one team wins just to see the next team and whoever wins the cup does so just to see the other team for the qualifications for the next cup. SO, THERE ARE ALWAYS UNITY ( BALANCE ) AND FIGHT AMONGST CONTRADICTORIES AND THERE IS NOTHING WHERE THERE AREN’T. The levels of indirection may change but the theorem always works. The most important Hegel’s law ( theorem ) is the quantity makes quality law : the human brains are exactly the same as the animal brains JUST BIGGER, I. E., WITH A HIGHER QUANTITY OF NEURONS which higher quantity of neurons leads to a new quality of a brain capable of complicated logic. One gun does not make an army and does not make a difference. Many guns do. Thus, whoever sees different quality of an object, say, a car, this is NOT a different quality BUT a different quantity which different quantity is above a given threshold above which the quality can be counted as being different : a four cylinder car is just the same as an eight cylinder car just the eight cylinders has four more cylinders ( which may be of the same size ) and thus a lot more power ( energy ) hence the eight cylinder car is a different quality JUST BECAUSE of the different quantity : one can road race an eight cylinder car and make this a road racer and cannot do so with a four cylinder car which can only be a turn racer on a rally with many turns. Road racers and turn races are different qualities. Why? Because of the different quantities of cylinders. This law is also always present whenever there are different quantities : a person who has $1 and another person who has $2 are equally poor because the

quantity of $1 difference does not jump over the threshold while a person with $1 Billion is a different quality as compared to the other two. Negation of negation is the law with the strangest name. Basically, this says the countering things which, as mentioned, are in unity and fight, try to negate each other : to win over each other. One soccer team tries to negate the win of the other soccer team. To negate a win means to lose. So, one team tries to make the other one lose. To make a team lose means to win over this team. Thus, one team tries to win over the other team to make the other team lose. The other do the same. The two teams negate each other. In non tournament matches they may draw. In tournament matches, only one team will negate the other and there is no way to draw. The electrons say : we want to break free, the atom say : I want to keep you. Here is an example where all three theorems ( laws ) are explained : The electrons want to NEGATE what the atom says. The atom wants to NEGATE what the electrons say. They exert countering forces to do so. These countering forces define the distance at which the contradictions stay at UNITY ( BALANCE ) AND FIGHT ( the forces are present ). In case we introduce a new electron in the atom, the QUANTITY of the electrons leads to an extra force which either changes the distance from the atom or makes another electron capable of breaking free. In any case this is a new QUALITY of atom electrons system or a new QUALITY is made called electrical current. In case we take an electron from the atom, the distance shortens and the other electrons have lower chance of breaking free. This is also a new quality of atom electrons system. The theorem ( law ) of negation of the negation is a direct and important consequence of the previous two theorems ( laws ) and can be proven by them. However, the negation of the negation is a very direct and basic, as well as close to the other two theorems ( laws ) and also very important consequence which is worth putting as a separate basic theorem ( law). ANY OTHER THEOREM ( LAW ) OF LOGIC AND ANY OTHER SCIENCE CAN BE DERIVED FROM THESE THREE ( OR THE FIRST TWO BECAUSE THE THIRD IS A DERIVATION OF THE FIRST TWO ) yet the derivation of all other events is not as direct as the derivation of the third theorem ( law ) from the first two. Hence, the third theorem ( law ) makes every other easier to derive. However, there is another reason of the negation of negation theorem ( law ) to be put separately as a basic theorem ( law ). This theorem ( law ) as well as the first two, is ALWAYS PRESENT EVERYWHERE AND WITH EVERYTHING. Other theorems ( law ) derived from these three ( two ) may or may not always be present in everything.

Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) are proven with simple logic ( analogue and digital ) and bring logic to a different level of advanced logic. Everything higher and everything else is a derivation of

these three theorems ( laws ). Thus, these three theorems ( laws ) are the GENERALIZATION basis of logic and any other science. After this prerequisite, here is the conversation between Christian Georgievitch Rakovski ( marked with an R ) and Gavril Gavrilovitch Kuzmin ( marked with a G ) on January 26th, 1938, known as “ The Red Symphony “ with comments. Pay attention to these things : I think the only reason for this conversation is to be recorded and the recording to then be “ lost or stolen “ by the Soviet dual intelligence thus “ delivered “ to the Government of Germany and most importantly to Adolph Hitler to listen to. I think the message is very clear : Germany must NOT attack The Soviet Union but must find someone else to blame and to use as an explanation of any possible problems ( present, past and future ) problems as well as to use as a “ gift “ to the Western world. Who is this “ someone else “? Find out yourselves. Am I right or wrong? Also find out yourselves. Just to mention : THE INTERVIEW WAS RECORDED AND WAS IN FRENCH WHILE ALL PARTIES SPOKE RUSSIAN PERFECTLY. Some say the interview is in French, so the recording person ( a KGB officer, most likely ) does not understand what is said. The why do they need a recording officer at all. Even then the technology was intuitive and simple and everyone can make a recording on a reel to reel magnetic tape recorder just by a press of a button. In case a vinyl was being cut ( unlikely ) everyone can cut a record also by pressing one button. Reel to reel tape recorders were used in the 20’s and improved in the 30’s to record music quality which was improved in the 40’s to reach the so called high quality of analogue audio music recording or high fidelity. The Soviet Union was the leader or one of the leaders in tube technology since these were invented in 1890’s and 1900’s. For sure The Soviet Union had reel to reel tape recorders which can perfectly record SPEECH. Also, why speak French? And why afraid from a KGB officer? Who is this KGB officer from 1938 who would give information which Stalin and Stalin’s closest people refer to as a “ state secret “? This may happen only with an approval by Stalin and, in case Stalin wanted, Stalin was to get the information translated and then release to whoever wants. Not very nice to switch to a foreign language which may bring inaccuracy and miscommunication just because of a KGB officer, pretty useless in this case, who would never dare say a word. Unless they wanted to have this officer as a “ witness “ of the conversation and the “ witness “ of true recording and not tampering with the recording as well as editing OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO “ SECRETLY “ DISTRIBUTE TO WHOEVER STALIN SAYS TO. Now, here comes the question : In case of such a top level Stalinist security, how can anyone believe this audio interview was distributed without the order of Stalin : Answer 1. : NO ONE EXCEPT KGB KNEW INFORMATION CANNOT LEAK FROM KGB. Rakovsky may or may not have known because Rakovsky is a USSR ambassador to France which means Rakovsky was a senior KGB officer yet at a slightly different level of indirection. Answer 2. : KGB CAN MAKE ANY DISTRIBUTION LOOK LIKE AN INFORMATION LEAK. There are many tricks for so. For example, KGB may attempt a delivery of the tapes to, say, The USSR ambassador to The UK. Then, during the delivery, the airplane or the train crash land in, say, Austria or German Switzerland. Then, with the highest probability, an Austrian German or a Swiss German will either deliver to Germany OR SELL the audio tapes to Germany, claiming high importance in the tapes after listening. In case Germany finds the importance to have not been so high, the seller would say : “ I am a simple farmer. I took the

tapes from the plane or train crash and I listened with a cousin translating from French. Then I decided they are extremely important for Germany AND I WANTED TO HELP. “ No one would fight such an explanation nor ask for the money back or confiscate property instead.

HERE IS “ THE RED SYMPHONY “ : Gavriil G. Kus'min ( G. ) : In accordance with our agreement at the Lubianka, I had appealed for a last chance for you; your presence in this house indicates that I had succeeded in this. Let us see if you will not deceive us. Christian G. Rakovsky ( R. ) : I do not wish and shall not do that. Steven Stanley Bayes ( SSB : ) These opening comments sound like an arrangement not only for an honest discussion but also and invitation of G. to R. to “ play “ along side The Soviet Union and not against regardless of R.’s known disagreement with Stalin and agreement with Trotsky who was a supporter of Lenin’s and an opponent to Stalin. G. - But first of all: a well-meant warning. Now we are concerned with the real truth. Not the "official" truth, that which is to figure at the trial in the light of the confessions of the accused ... This is something which, as you know, is fully subject to practical considerations, or "considerations of State" as they would say in the West. The demands of international politics will force us to hide the whole truth, the "real truth" ... Whatever may be the course of the trial, but governments and peoples will only be told that which they should know. But he who must know everything, Stalin, must also know all this. Therefore, whatever may be your words here they cannot make your position worse. You must know that they will not worsen your crime but, on the contrary, they can give the desired results in your favour. You will be able to save your life, which at this moment is already lost. So now I have told you this, but now let us see: you will all admit that you are Hitler's spies and receive wages from the Gestapo and OKW. SSB : OKW means Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, Supreme Command of the German Army. More interesting is the moder style DISCLAIMER at the beginning. This way, K. ensures the reader or the listener R. has been given an official disclaimer to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and does not need help from God or Higher Force. This is in case the listener believes. Or in case the listener believes the disclaimer will be a disclaimer, mainly during Stalin’s rule. Is that not so? R. - Yes. G. - And you are Hitler's spies? R. - Yes. G. - No, Rakovsky, no. Tell the real truth, but not the court proceedings one.

R. - We are not spies of Hitler, we hate Hitler as you can hate him, as Stalin can hate him; perhaps even more so, but this is a very complex question. SSB : R. probably makes a joke with the disclaimer taking more than full advantage thereof and starts with a sense of humour and also provides a POSSIBILITY FOR G. TO SHOW HOW INTELLIGENT G. IS. R. also gives the possibility for G. and R. TO SAY WHO THEY REALLY ARE to make sure the listener knows two super high Russian politicians and diplomats are talking and this is not a kitchen debate. The French language can also be explained to an extend this way. G. - I shall help you ... By chance I also know one or two things. You, the Trotzkyists, had contacts with the German Staff. Is that not so ? SSB : G. NAMES WHO R. IS PART OF. OBVIOUSLY G. IS KNOWN. THE PARTIES OF THE CONVERSATION ARE NOW KNOWN. R. - Yes.

G. - From which period? R. - I do not know the exact date, but soon after the fall of Trotzky. Of course before Hitler's coming to power. SSB : R. NOW SAYS THEY, THE TROTZKISTS ARE THE CLOSEST FRIENDS TO GERMANY OUTSIDE OF GERMANY, CERTAINLY THE CLOSEST FRIENDS OF GERMANY IN THE SOVIET UNION. G. - Therefore let us be exact: you were neither personal spies of Hitler, nor of his regime.

R. - Exactly. We were such already earlier. SSB : I think at this point is very clear who the intended listener of this conversation is to be : THE GERMAN ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE AND ANY OTHER MILITARY GROUP COMMANDMENT mainly. These are very strong anti Nazis and very strong Hitler’s opponents. Thus, the conversation parties rely strongly on German Army opposition against a German invasion of The Soviet Union. This opposition erupted when the Eastern Front was opened and led to an attempt of German officers and generals coupe against Hitler. Of course, G. and R. did not know this was to happen BUT knew enough of the strong anti Nazi attitude of the German Army, Navy, Air Force ( mainly ) and Military. G. - And for what purpose? With the aim of giving Germany victory and some Russian territories? SSB : The explanation of the purpose is the most important point which would make some listeners believe in the truthfulness and straightforwardness of the conversation. You must not!

R. - No, in no case. G. - Therefore as ordinary spies, for money? R. - For money? Nobody received a single Mark from Germany. Hitler has not enough money to buy, for example, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, who has at his disposal freely a budget which is greater than the total wealth of Morgan and Vanderbilt, and who does not have to account for his use of the money. G. - Well, then for what reason? R. - May I speak quite freely? G. - Yes, I ask you to do so; for that reason you have been invited. SSB : Another disclaimer aimed at the listener to believe in the truthfulness. Are you so stupid to do so? R. - Did not Lenin have higher aims when he received help from Germany in order to enter Russia? And is it necessary to accept as true those libelous inventions which had been circulated to accuse him? Was he not also called a spy of the Kaiser? His relations with the Emperor and the German intervention in the affair of the sending to Russia of the Bolshevik destroyers are quite clear. G. - Whether it is true or not does not have any bearing on the present question. R. - No, permit me to finish. Is it not a fact that the activity of Lenin was in the beginning advantageous to the German troops? Permit me ... There was the separate peace of Brest-Litovsk, at which huge territories of the USSR were ceded to Germany. Who had declared defeatism as a weapon of the Bolsheviks in 1913? Lenin. I know by heart his words from his letter to Gorky: "War between Austria and Russia would be a most useful thing for the revolution, but it is hardly possible that Francis-Joseph and Nicholas would present us with this opportunity." As you see, we, the so-called Trotzkyists, the inventors of the defeat in 1905, continue at the present stage the same line, the line of Lenin. SSB : Not only R. has rejected some of the illogical reasons BUT R. also gives a history lesson to the listener of the alliance of the Communist Party during Lennin toeards Germany as well as the alliance of the Trotzkists towards Germany. Thus, R. says to the German Military : “ look men, we are your friends : we give you territories and piece so you do not have to work and you give us power inside The Soviet Union which you do not care of : the same as before ion 1905 : check with your history in case you do not believe but I have just told you what happened : I was there “ G. - With a small difference, Rakovsky; at present there is Socialism in the USSR, not the Tsar.

R. - You believe that? G. - What? R. - In the existence of Socialism in the USSR? G. - Is the Soviet Union not Socialist? R. - For me only in name. It is just here that we find the true reason for the opposition. Agree with me, and by the force of pure logic you must agree, that theoretically, rationally, we have the same right to say - no, as Stalin can say - yes. And if for the triumph of Communism defeatism can be justified, then he who considers that Communism has been destroyed by the bonapartism of Stalin and that he betrayed it, has the same right as Lenin to become a defeatist. SSB : This is the first point in the conversation where R., proving sanity with two disclaimers, openly attacks Stalin and tells the Germans : “ Guys, Stalin is the problem for all of us and for others too. Help us get rid of Stalin and we will give you your lands, even more, some of our lands and piece. We will also be on your side to return your lands in Western Europe which you lost during the World War I. “ Well this is not exactly said but closely. ” We will give you our lands “ is said and “ We will help you regain you other lands “ is a direct consequence of land talking : just a cause effect chain. G. - I think, Rakovsky, that you are theorizing thanks to your manner of making wide use of dialectics. It is clear that if many people were present here, I would prove this; all right, I accept your argument as the only one possible in your position, but nevertheless I think that I could prove to you that this is nothing other than a sophism. But let us postpone this for another occasion; some day it will come. And I hope that you will give me the chance to reply. But at the present moment I shall only say this: if your defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has as its object the restoration of Socialism in the USSR, real Socialism, according to you - Trotzkyism, then, insofar as we have destroyed their leaders and cadres, defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has neither an objective nor any sense. As a result of defeat now there would come the enthronement of some Führer or fascist Tsar. Is that not so? SSB : G. tries to show the listener G. plays soft against R. and to show to the listener R. says the truth as R. is NOT in a danger by “ admitting “ what R. has “ admitted “ because, as G. says, R. uses dialectics which is used by no others but Marx, Engels, Lenin and even Stalin themselves. Hence, because of the use of dialectics, G. smoothens the situation of R. and makes the naive listener believe R. says the truth because R. is not in danger and to prevent future danger of execution as said at the beginning. R. - It is true. Without flattery on my part - your deduction is splendid. G. - Well, if, as I assume, you assert this sincerely, then we have achieved a great deal: I am a Stalinist and you a Trotzkyist; we have achieved the impossible. We have reached the point at which our views coincide. The coincidence lies in that at the present moment the USSR must not be destroyed.

SSB : At this point G. and R. send this clear message to the listener : “ In case you or anyone else attack The USSR, The USSR will not give land as the Trotzkyists would without an attack, on the contrary, The USSR will fight back. Thus, instead of attacking the USSR, better work with the Trotzkyists and we will give you lands for free. But this is the only way you will get anything for free. Otherwise, we all will fight back regardless whether we as Trotzkists or Stalinists. “ R. - I must confess that I had not expected to face such a clever person. In fact at the present stage and for some years we cannot think of the defeat of the USSR and to provoke it, as it is known that we are at present in such a position, that we cannot seize power. We, the Communists, would derive no profit from it. This is exact and coincides with your view. We cannot be interested now in the collapse of the Stalinist State; I say this and at the same time I assert that this State, apart from all that has been said, is anti-Communistic. You see that I am sincere. SSB : R. says Stalin will NOT be overthrown NOW but may be in a long while or before. Thus, the listener must not rely on the anti Stalinism and attack the Soviet Union which NOW is united. Thus, the only way for Germany to get things for free, without a fight, from the Soviet Union is TO DO NOTHING NOW and wait for a possible support of the Trotskyists IN A WHILE AND NOT NOW. Attacking now is pro Stalin and against Germany. Settling down in a while is pro Germany and pro Trotskyists and anti Stalin who has just been blamed in not only not being a communist but also being an anti communist. In case the German military believes this point, they will know Trotskyists really do need their support because the Trotskyists were communists and Stalin was an anti Communist thus their enemy. Hence the Trotskyists can only get rid of Stalin to reinstate communism in The USSR one way : with the help of Germany. Germany will get their lands which is what they want and will get a more friendly government towards them when Stalin is out. Stalin may be an anti communist but is also, as they all know, an anti capitalist and an anti German. Also, R. wants the Germans to believe, with Stalin anti Germany politics will continue in The USSR and this has not been present during Lenin and will not be present during the Trotzkyists. R. relies the apolitical German Military will not give a shit on the real communism which was to be established again with a German help contrary to the US and British politicians but the German Military would mainly care of “ land for free “ and no real war with the mighty USSR. One thing for sure : those who prepared the conversation ( maybe R. and G., may be others ) for R. and G. to read in front of a microphone had been very clever. Obviously, they knew this is a long shot and they did not rely only on the influence of this conversation into the German military BUT THEY TRIED TO DO THE BEST THEY COULD with this long shot. G. - I see that. This is the only way in which we can come to terms. I would ask you, before you continue, to explain to me that which seems to me a contradiction: if the Soviet State is anti-Communistic to you, then why should you not wish its destruction at the given moment? Someone else might be less anti-Communistic and then there would be fewer obstacles to the restoration of your pure Communism.

R. - No, no, this deduction is too simple. Although the Stalinist bonapartism also opposes Communism as the napoleonic one opposed the revolution, but the circumstance is clear that, nevertheless, the USSR continues to preserve its Communistic form and dogma; this is formal and not real Communism. And thus, like the disappearance of Trotzky gave Stalin the possibility automatically to transform real Communism into the formal one, so also the disappearance of Stalin will allow us to transform his formal Communism into a real one. One hour would suffice for us. Have you understood me? SSB : G. and R. tell the German Military again : no one wants to destroy Stalin in order to substitute Stalin with a real Capitalist against whom to fight thereafter. Stalin is the second best for the Trotzkyists. Hence, Germany must NOT attack The USSR in order to help the Trotzkyists because, on the opposite, they will destroy them entirely in favour of the Stalinists. THE ONLY THING THE GERMAN MILITARY MUST DO FOR EVERYONE’S SAKE IS TO DO NOTHING NOW, then, in the future, the Trotzkyists may ask for some kind of help in exchange for land. The second important point G. and R. make : there is nothing else in the Soviet Union but Trtzkists and Stalinists. You can only choose between these two. You cannot put someone else ( a capitalist or a national socialist ) in power BECAUSE SUCH DOES NOT EXIST AND WILL NOT as the Soviet people can only take one of the two. Any attempt for full annihilation of the Soviet Union will result in a strong war of the Soviet Union against Germany. G. - Yes, of course; you have told us the classical truth that nobody destroys that which he wants to inherit. Well, all right; all else is sophistical agility. You rely on the assumption which can be easily disproved: the assumption of Stalin's anti-Communism. Is there private property in the USSR? Is there personal profit? Classes? I shall not continue to base myself on facts - for what? R. - I have already agreed that there exists formal Communism. All that you enumerate are merely forms. G. - Yes? For what purpose? From mere obstinacy? R. - Of course not. This is a necessity. It is impossible to eliminate the materialistic evolution of history. The most that can be done is to hold it up. And at what a price? At the cost of its theoretical acceptance, in order to destroy it in practice. The force which draws humanity towards Communism is so unconquerable that that same force, but distorted, opposed to itself, can only achieve a slowing down of development; more accurately - to slow down the progress of the permanent revolution. G. - An example? R. - The most obvious - with Hitler. He needed Socialism for victory over Socialism: it is this his very anti-Socialist Socialism which is National-Socialism. Stalin needs Communism in order to defeat Communism. The parallel is obvious. But, notwithstanding Hitler's anti-Socialism and Stalin's anti-Communism, both, to their regret and against their will, transcendentally create Socialism and Communism ...; they and many others. Whether they want it or not, whether they

know it or not, but they create formal Socialism and Communism, which we, the Communist-Marxists, must inevitably inherit. SSB : G. and R. know for someone to call Stalin an anti communist then will be unrealistic to the German listener. They may suspect something or may think R. is crazy or wants to be a hero. Thus R. explains clearly the point of calling Stalin an anti communist. Even more : R. gives a GERMAN EXAMPLE which the German listener will surely be able to understand. This example gets to bring the most “ trustworthiness “ to the German listener. Even more : R. says indirectly the Trotzkyists are the National Socialists of The USSR ( in all points except war and anti German views ) : they are the people whom Germany should trust. THEY ARE ALSO THE PEOPLE WHOM HITLER SHOULD TRUST. This is a clever addition because they know the listener may not be the German military or not the German military ONLY. Hitler and the rest of the government may also listen. So far the conversation is at a point : Blame Stalin for everything. Thus : hate Stalin NOT the communists and The USSR. This trick was used by others, starting with Nikita Khrushchev a few decades thereafter. G. - Inheritance? Who inherits? Trotzkyism is completely liquidated. R. - Although you say so, you do not believe it. However great may be the liquidations, we Communists will survive them. The long arm of Stalin and his police cannot reach all Communists. SSB : Now, G. and R. make a clear message to the listener “ Trotskyism is still strong. Do NOT think there is no more Trotskyism. No need to invade. Know there is and support Trotskyism. G. - Rakovsky, I ask you, and if necessary command, to refrain from offensive hints. Do not go too far in taking advantage of your "diplomatic immunity." SSB : G. points out R. is an ambassador of The USSR to France : a top ranking diplomat to a capitalist country. This may appeal to a non communist listener. R. - Do I have credentials? Whose ambassador am I? G. - Precisely of that unreachable Trotzkyism, if we agree to call him so. R. - I cannot be a diplomat of Trotzkyism, of which you hint. I have not been given that right to represent it, and I have not taken this role on myself. You have given it to me. G. - I begin to trust you. I take note in your favour that at my hint about this Trotzkyism you did not deny it. This is already a good beginning. R. - But how can I deny it? After all, I myself mentioned it.

G. - Insofar as we have recognized the existence of this special Trotskyism by our mutual arrangement, I want you to give definite facts, which are necessary for the investigation of the given coincidence. R. - Yes, I shall be able to mention that which you consider necessary to know and I shall do it on my own initiative, but I shall not be able to assert that this is always the thinking also of "Them." G. - Yes, I shall look on it like that. SSB : R. clearly reinstates the point Trotskyism is strong and available. R. distinguishes from being an official ambassador of Trotskyism. This is to say the organization is strong but still needs help as the organization is not at the level to win themselves. Also, any mistake or dislike of the listener towards R. is not to be against the Trotskyism. R. says to those who now believe R. will be executed for what R. has said : “ I am not the main person and not even the ambassador of the Trotskyism. Even in case of a problem, there are many to rely upon. I am also not the only one and not the last and certainly not the leader. “ This is to make the listener realize Trotskyism will continue to need German support regardless of the outcome of the R. trial. Thus, Germany will be needed and will be able to get lands for free. As long as Germany does not attack. Also, Germany must support Trotskyism in order to get their lands and not R. personally. Thus, Germany must not attack just to keep R. from execution but, instead, must do nothing and wait until the main Trotskyists contact them like in 1905. R. is afraid Germany may get the message wrong and decide to attack in order to keep R. whom they may mistakenly believe to be the main Trotskyist listening to this conversation. R. - We agreed that at the present moment the opposition cannot be interested in defeatism and the fall of Stalin, insofar as we do not have the physical possibility of taking his place. This is what we both agree. At present this is an incontrovertible fact. However, there is in existence a possible aggressor. There he is, that great nihilist Hitler, who is aiming with his terrible weapon of the Wehrmacht at the whole horizon. Whether we want it or not, but he will use it against the USSR? Let us agree that for us this is the decisive unknown fact or, do you consider that the problem has been correctly stated? SSB : R. decides to clearly combine the fact The USSR will strongly stand united to fight a possible German invasion and will put the necessary resistance of which the German military is so afraid in 1938. The division between Trotskyism and Stalinism will NOT exist in case of a German invasion. Thus, the German military cannot rely on the “ divide and conquer “ principle. On the opposite : Germany and the rest of the world will lose the Trotskyists as their only friends in The USSR. Things will become more difficult for Germany after and during an invasion then they are now. R. also gives another prove why R. can speak so freely to dilute any opinion the conversation may have been prearranged. G. - It has been well put. But I can say that for me there is no unknown factor. I consider the attack of Hitler on the USSR to be inevitable.

R. - Why? SSB : G. and R. start the good cop bad cop routine : G. says Stalinists think Germany will invade and consider Germany an enemy while R. says otherwise : Germany is a friend and will not invade but rather help the Trotskyists thereafter in exchange of lands and help of Trotskyists towards Germany regain lost World War I territories. G. - Very simple; because he who controls it is inclined towards attack. Hitler is only the condottiere of international Capitalism. R. - I agree that there is a danger, but from that to the assumption on this ground of the inevitability of his attack on the USSR - there is a whole abyss. SSB : G. looks at Hitler not only as a National Socialist but as a capitalist. R. agrees. But R. does not seem to state strong hate against the Capitalist countries which will mostly suite the German military as well as the capitalist forces of Germany. R. also takes a position to show capitalists have nothing to be afraid from the Trotskyists who are their friends and have to be cherished instead of destroyed by a German invasion. G. - The attack on the USSR is determined by the very essence of Fascism. In addition he is impelled towards it by all those Capitalist States which had allowed him to re-arm and to take all the necessary economic and strategic bases. This is quite obvious. R. - You forget something very important. The re-armament of Hitler and the assistance he received at the present time from the Versailles nations (take good note of this) - were received by him during a special period, when we could still have become the heirs of Stalin in the case of his defeat, when the opposition still existed ... Do you consider this fact to be a matter of chance or only a coincidence in time? SSB : R. says The West and Germany have supported the Trotskyists and because of so allowed the re armament of Germany : against Stalin not against the real communists ( Trotskyists ). Thus R. says this support has to continue which means Germany must not invade but do as the Trotskyists say in order for them and their Western allies to succeed in their anti Stalin endeavors. G. - I do not see any connection between the permission of the Versailles Powers of German re-armament and the existence of the opposition ... The trajectory of Hitlerism is in itself clear and logical. The attack on the USSR was part of his programme already a long time ago. The destruction of Communism and expansion in the East - these are dogmas from the book "Mein Kampf" that Talmud of National-Socialism ..., but that your defeatists wanted to take advantage of this threat to the USSR that is, of course, in accordance with your train of thought. R. - Yes, at a first glance this appears to be natural and logical, too logical and natural for the truth.

G. - To prevent this happening, so that Hitler would not attack us, we would have to entrust ourselves to an alliance with France ..., but that would be a naiveté. It would mean that we believe that Capitalism would be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of saving Communism. R. - If we shall continue the discussion only on the foundation of those conceptions which apply for use at mass meetings, then you are quite right. But if you are sincere in saying this then, forgive me, I am disappointed; I had thought that the politics of the famous Stalinist police stand on a higher level. SSB : G. defends popular Hitler propaganda from the period before the war and wants R. to tell Hitler how to AVOID DOING what Hitler has said. In other words, how to avoid the war with The USSR and get around the threads Hitler has made even before the election. Also, how Hitler can explain the neutrality towards The Soviet Union to Hitler’s Western allies. G. - The Hitler attack on the USSR is, in addition, a dialectical necessity; it is the same as the inevitable struggle of the classes in the international plane. At the side of Hitler, inevitably, there will stand the whole global Capitalism. SSB : G. wants R. to explain why Germany not attacking The USSR does NOT contradict Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) which may be popular in Germany or amongst some Nazi ideologists. Hitler may try to explain the socialist part of the Nazi’s theory as “ initiated “ by Hegel. Thus, not attacking Germany must NOT contradict Hegel. R. - And so, believe me, that in the light of your scholastic dialectics, I have formed a very negative opinion about the political culture of Stalinism. I listen to your words as Einstein could listen to a schoolboy talking about physics in four dimensions. I see that you are only acquainted with elementary Marxism, i.e. with the demagogic, popular one. SSB : R. starts the explanation in blaming this consequence of Hegel’s theorems ( Germany will attack The USSR because of union and fight of the opposites, quantitative accumulation of weapons which leads to qualitative change of Germany annihilating The USSR and the negation of the negation : National Socialism negates Communism ) to misinterpretation and oversimplification of Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) the same way like children would use twisted and untrue simple logic to play jokes or to fight with words one against another. G. - If your explanation will not be too long and involved, I should be grateful to you for some explanation of this "relativity" or "quantum" of Marxism. SSB : The sarcasm of G. surely grabs the attention of the listener. R. - Here there is no irony; I am speaking with the best intentions ... In this same elementary Marxism, which is taught even in your Stalinist University, you can find the statement which contradicts the whole of your thesis about the inevitability of the Hitler attack on the USSR. You are also taught that the cornerstone of Marxism is the assertion that, supposedly, contradictions are the incurable and fatal illness of Capitalism ... Is that not so?

G. - Yes, of course. R. - But if things are in fact such that we accuse Capitalism of being imbued with continuous Capitalistic contradictions in the sphere of economics, then why should it necessarily suffer from them also in politics? The political and economic is of no importance in itself; this is a condition or measurement of the social essence, but contradictions arise in the social sphere, and are reflected simultaneously in the economic or political ones, or in both at the same time. It would be absurd to assume fallibility in economics and simultaneously infallibility in politics - which is something essential in order that an attack on the USSR should become inevitable - according to your postulate - absolutely essential. SSB : R. is not very clear here and this is one of the most important points of the conversation. I think, what R. tries to say is to give a well known example in the West which is the politics and the economy are two different thing yet connected and changes in one lead to the changes in the other in the same direction. Most likely, R. tries to direct the decision of Germany to attack The USSR to be a political one and not the economic one. Then R. makes a strong point : Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) are applicable ONLY when logic is used. Politics and economy, says R., are part of the society and society means group of people. PEOPLE AND THEREFORE SOCIETY DO NOT USE LOGIC AND ARE NOT ALWAYS CAPABLE OF THINKING MAINLY BUT NOT ONLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO THINK. THUS HEGEL’S THEOREMS ( LAWS ) DO NOT APPLY TO SOCIETY AND PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALWAYS USE LOGIC AND SOME OF THEM CANNOT. This is why people are totally wrong to think “ Common Sense “ is a sense. NO. This is elementary logic. Not every human is capable of this. AND NOT ALWAYS. People also do make a lot of mistakes with elementary logic. Everywhere where there is thinking, there are mistakes. Also, different people apply elementary logic for different things and only for some and not many things. Not being able to think elementarily logically does not mean the human is an animal. Humans are humans because they are able to think at a LOWER level than elementary logic and whoever cannot think elementary logic at all is also human. This person can see, hear and smell can process the information gleaned by these. This is good enough to be a human. The next level is elementary logic, then, elementary logic everywhere, then complicated logic as well as elementary : complicated when needed by assessment of objects, then complicated and elementary for everything except for those things which do not require complicated logic. MOST HUMANS ARE AT THE PROCESSING LEVEL WHICH IS BELOW THE ELEMENTARY LOGIC THINKING LEVEL. Thus : politics, more than economics, and economics do NOT conform to logic because these are made by people and therefore Hegel’s theorems do NOT apply to their thinking as this is mostly or fully illogical. Hence, there is no logical point whatsoever to claim Germany will attack The USSR. This truthful explanation may suite Hitler well in explaining the decision of non attacking : German people are not ready for this NOW and after this will be replaced with support to the Trotskyists against Stalin and Stalinists. G. - This means that you rely in everything on the contradictions, fatality and inevitability of the errors which must be committed by the bourgeoisie, which will hinder Hitler from attacking the USSR. I am a Marxist, Rakovsky, but here, between ourselves, in order not to provide the pretext

for anger to a single activist, I say to you that with all my faith in Marx I would not believe that the USSR exists thanks to the mistakes of its enemies ... And I think that Stalin shares the same view. SSB : G. tries to smoothen the things for R. up and says whatever said is pro Soviet Union and Marxism and against the Capitalist mistakes which are permanent and always existing as Capitalism does not have a structure of thinking but is rather chaotic and based on peoples stupidity and lack of information. One of the most important roles of G. has been to smoothen the things up so the conversation looks truthful and R. has got nothing to be afraid of the coming trial as far as this discussion is concerned. This is what G. wants to show to the listener. R. wants to be direct and well understood, G. smoothens things up to avoid suspicion because most of the people who listen may think “ No one talks like this in The USSR. Must be a disinformation of a sort.”. G. also asserts Stalin is a politician who, whether the only one or one of a few, does use logic. R. - But I do think so ... Do not look at me like that, as I am not joking and am not mad. SSB : R. continues regardless of what Stalin may or may not think. G. - Permit me at least to doubt it, until you will have proved your assertions.

R. - Do you now see that I had reasons for qualifying your Marxist culture as being doubtful? Your arguments and reactions are the same as any rank and file activist. SSB : R. previously insulted G. with thinking like a cop because most people say cops cannot think. R. previously insulted G. with saying G. thinks like a child. Now R. insults G. with saying G. thinks like a bureaucrat. R. wants to show the listener the difference between the real communist whom the listener should support and the Stalin type of activists.

G. - And they are wrong?

R. - Yes, they are correct for a small administrator, for a bureaucrat and for the mass. They suit the average fighter ... They must believe this and repeat everything as it has been written. Listen to me by way of the completely confidential. With Marxism you get the same results as with the ancient esoteric religions. Their adherents had to know only that which was the most elementary and crude, insofar as by this one provoked their faith, i.e. that which is absolutely essential, both in religion and in the work of revolution. SSB : G. claims all problems the Western world has with The USSR come from application of communism partly and not in full : only the simple things and not all things. R. also blames G. in incorrect thinking because of the same reason.

G. - Do you not now want to open up to me the mystical Marxism, something like yet another freemasonry? SSB : G. wants to ensure R. and the Trotskyists do NOT take Marxism as a secret society for control over people. R. - No, no esoteric. On the contrary, I shall explain it with the maximal clarity. Marxism, before being a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy for the revolution. And as for us the revolution is the only absolute reality, it follows that philosophy, economics and politics are true only insofar as they lead to revolution. The fundamental truth (let us call it subjective) does not exist in economics, politics or even morals: in the light of scientific abstraction it is either truth or error, but for us, who are subject to revolutionary dialectic, it is only truth. And insofar as to us, who are subject to revolutionary dialectic, it is only truth, and therefore the sole truth, then it must be such for all that is revolutionary, and such it was to Marx. SSB : R. tries to insert the thought “ only material things are important and proven “. What society things, even the political, economic and social structures are invented by people ( Capitalism being the most unreal and invented by people society, either many or most likely just a few with not very well known names ). Politics is not a strict material think but is a reflection of people. Revolution is material because many people do material things ( fighting ) because they are right. They act and do not only sit and talk bullshits. In accordance with this we must act. Remember the phrase of Lenin, in reply to someone who demonstrated by way of argument that, supposedly, his intention contradicted reality: "I feel it to be real" was his answer. Do you not think that Lenin spoke nonsense? No, for him every reality; every truth was relative in the face of the sole and absolute one: the revolution. Marx was a genius. If his works had amounted to only the deep criticism of Capitalism, then even that would have been an unsurpassed scientific work; but in those places where his writing reaches the level of mastery, there comes the effect of an apparently ironical work. "Communism" he says "must win because Capital will give it that victory, though its enemy." Such is the magisterial thesis of Marx ... SSB : R. claims Lenin said politics is not objective and only revolution is in a strange way. Marx claimed The Soviet Union as well as Germany must NOT attack anyone in order to impose their anti capitalist views but must rather patiently wait for the Capitalism to surrender because of inability of existence. Pretty much what happens in the modern world. Also, R. asserts Marx is a genius which is true even according to most Capitalist ideologists. Can there be a greater irony? And then, in order that he should be believed, it was enough for him to depersonalize Capitalism and Communism, having transformed the human individual into a consciously thinking individual, which he did with the extraordinary talent of a juggler. Such was his sly method, in order to demonstrate to the Capitalists that they are a reality of Capitalism and that Communism can triumph as the result of inborn idiocy; since without the presence of immortal idiocy in homo economico there could not appear in him continuous contradictions as proclaimed by Marx.

SSB : Again, R. clearly explains to the listener there is no need to do nothing against the capitalism as the capitalism will self destroy based on the contradictions therein which are not balanced to create but rather balanced to destroy ( or better said imbalanced ). R. also tries to explain Hitler why Hitler has to continue with the development of Germany and avoid attacking either the capitalist countries physically or The Soviet Union. Better is Hitler to concentrate on the internal revolution Hitler claims to be doing or have done and now develops the post revolutionary society. However, R. does not want to touch one topic directly. Hitler has created a superior weaponry. Can this be developed even more to be significantly better than this of the rest or there will be saturation in development of weaponry which means all countries would have pretty much the same weapons with no significant difference amongst. Looks like Hitler believed there is no room for more significant development and now is the moment when Germany is superior and may not be for ever. G. and R. should have clearly said whatever the difference in weaponry superiority the vast territory and human strength of The USSR compensate for. To be able to achieve the transformation of homo sapiens into homo stultum is to possess magical force, capable of bringing man down to the first stage of the zoological ladder, i.e. to the level of the animal. Only if there is homo stultum in the epoch of the apogee of Capitalism could Marx formulate his axiomatic proposition: contradictions plus time equal Communism. Believe me, when we who are initiated into this, contemplate the representation of Marx, for example the one which is placed above the main entrance to the Lubianka, then we cannot prevent the inner explosion of laughter by which Marx had infected us; we see how he laughs into his beard at all humanity. SSB : Now as before R. defends the revolution as the means. Thus R. says although true Capitalism will self destroy and Marx did say so, the revolution is the most important catalyst for bringing the capitalism down and not the war. Thus Hitler had better concentrate on the internal revolution in order to destroy capitalism in Germany in favour to whatever Hitler calls National Socialism instead of attacking Western countries. “ Capitalism will self destroy. Fair enough. Help this destruction by revolution, don’t sit and wait. “ G. - And you are still capable of laughing at the most revered scientist of the epoch? R. - Ridicule, me? ... This is the highest admiration! In order that Marx should be able to deceive so many people of science, it was essential that he should tower above them all. Well: in order to have judgments about Marx in all his greatness, we must consider the real Marx, Marx the revolutionary, Marx, judged by his manifesto. This means Marx the conspirator, as during his life the revolution was in a condition of conspiracy. It is not for nothing that the revolution is indebted for its development and its recent victories to these conspirators. SSB : R. says the most important of Marx is the manifesto ( the theory of revolution and the practical act by Marx in this cause) rather than the rest of the political, economic and social systems. G. - Therefore you deny the existence of the dialectical process of contradictions in Capitalism, which lead to the final triumph of Communism?

R. - You can be sure that if Marx believed that Communism will achieve victory only thanks to the contradictions in Capitalism, then he would not have once, never, mentioned the contradictions on the thousands of pages of his scientific revolutionary work. Such was the categorical imperative of the realistic nature of Marx: not the scientific, but the revolutionary one. The revolutionary and conspirator will never disclose to his opponent the secret of his triumph ... He would never give the information; he would give him disinformation which you use in counter-conspiracy. Is that not so? G. - However, in the end we have reached the conclusion (according to you) that there are no contradictions in Capitalism, and if Marx speaks of them then it is only a revolutionary-strategic method. That is so? But the colossal and ever-growing contradictions in Capitalism are there to see. And so we get the conclusion that Marx, having lied, spoke the truth. R. - You are dangerous as a dialectician, when you destroy the brakes of scholastic dogmatism and give free rein to your own inventiveness. So it is, that Marx spoke the truth when he lied. He lied when he led into error, having defined the contradictions as being "continuous" in the history of the economics of capital and called them "natural and inevitable," but at the same time he stated the truth because he knew that the contradictions would be created and would grow in an increasing progression until they reach their apogee. G. - This means that with you there is an antithesis? R. - There is no antithesis here. Marx deceives for tactical reasons about the origin of the contradictions in Capitalism, but not about their obvious reality. Marx knew how they were created, how they became more acute and how things went towards general anarchy in Capitalistic production, which came before the triumph of the Communist revolution ... He knew it would happen because he knew those who created the contradictions. SSB : R. now claims there are contradictions in capitalism and they lead to complication of capitalism but they only lead to revolution as a means of self destruction and not clearly of self destruction alone. Then R. tries to shift the discussion not on the contradictions of capitalism of such but on the creation thereof. R. claims the origin of these contradiction was known to Marx but Marx did not say so not to allow the capitalists to rectify these contradictions to an extend and thus delay the revolution and the self destruction of capitalism. I, personally, think the answer of the origin is very clear and self explanatory. These contradiction originated with the design of the capitalism and the reason from their origin is only the flowed design of capitalism. These contradictions ARE SYSTEMATIC : THEY CANNOT BE AVOIDED : THEY COME FROM THE SYSTEM AND STAY WITH THE SYSTEM. The system cannot work without these contradiction and these contradiction cannot work very well without the system or with another system. And as said before, capitalism is not a natural society but is an engineered one with chief design engineers : the French revolutionaries and chief test engineers : the British capitalists and capitalist ideologists then transferred in The U. S. A. where capitalism remained close to the originally designed most cruel shape.

R. however wants to point out the disinformation practice is used only and mainly by the Stalinists in KGB and not by R. thus the listener can trust R. G. - It is a very strange revelation and piece of news, this assertion and exposal of the circumstance that that which leads Capitalism to its "suicide," by the well-chosen expression of the bourgeois economist Schmalenbach, in support of Marx, is not the essence and inborn law of Capitalism. But I am interested to know if we will reach the personal by this path? R. - Have you not felt this intuitively? Have you not noticed how in Marx words contradict deeds? He declares the necessity and inevitability of Capitalist contradictions, proving the existence of surplus value and accumulation, i.e. he proves that which really exists. He nimbly invents the proposition that to a greater concentration of the means of production corresponds a greater mass of the proletariat, a greater force for the building of Communism, is that not so? Now go on: at the same time as this assertion he founds the International. Yet the International is, in the work of the daily struggle of the classes, a "reformist," i.e. an organization whose purpose is the limitation of the surplus value and, where possible, its elimination. For this reason, objectively, the International is a counter-revolutionary organization and anti-Communist, in accordance with Marx's theory.

G. - Now we get that Marx is a counter-revolutionary and an anti-Communist. R. - Well, now you see how one can make use of the original Marxist culture. It is only possible to describe the International as being counter-revolutionary and anti-Communist, with logical and scientific exactness, if one does not see in the facts anything more than the directly visible result, and in the texts only the letter. One comes to such absurd conclusions, while they seem to be obvious, when one forgets that words and facts in Marxism are subject to strict rules of the higher science: the rules of conspiracy and revolution. SSB : R. tries to explain how things which are logical but observed only shallowly and partly can look by this improper observation as totally different. The International may have started as a reformist ( socialist rather than communist ) organization dealing mainly with the unfair profit of the capitalists but this was the beginning when people do not understand very well as well as do not have a great concentration span and thus can only concentrate on one very important thing which is the profit : this is the most important problem of the capitalist society ever since engineered until now. High profit used to lead to huge exploitation and now leads to this as well as high process which lead to low consumption which leads to a lower production and lower circulation caused by the inability to purchase. And again R. tries to tell Hitler revolution and conspiracy to commit or carry out such are the most important. G. - Will we ever reach the final conclusions? R. - In a moment. If the class struggle, in the economic sphere, turns out to be reformist in the light of its first results, and for that reason contradicts the theoretical presuppositions, which

determine the establishment of Communism, then it is, in its real and true meaning, purely revolutionary. But I repeat again: it is subject to the rules of conspiracy, that means to masking and the hiding of its true aims ... The limitation of the surplus value and thus also of accumulations as the consequence of the class struggle - that is only a matter of appearances, an illusion, in order to stimulate the basic revolutionary movement in the masses. A strike is already an attempt at revolutionary mobilization. Independently of whether it wins or not, its economic effect is anarchical. As a result this method for the improvement of the economic position of one class brings about the impoverishment of the economy in general; whatever may be the scale and results of the strike, it will always bring about a reduction of production. The general result: more poverty, which the working class cannot shake off. That is already something. But that is not the only result and not the most important one. As we know, the only aim of any struggle in the economic sphere is to earn more and work less. Such is the economic absurdity, but according to our terminology, such is the contradiction, which has not been noticed by the masses, which are blinded at any given moment by a rise in wages, which is at once annulled by a rise in prices. And if prices are limited by governmental action, then the same thing happens, i.e. a contradiction between the wish to spend more, produce less, is qualified here by monetary inflation. And so one gets a vicious circle: a strike, hunger, inflation, hunger. SSB : R. tries to make the listener concentrate on the class struggle in capitalism and continues to insist on revolution and conspiracy as being the most important points of overthrowing capitalism. R. has never denied any point of communist theory, just concentrates of what R. thinks are the most important things. R. points out again the surpluss value ( the added value, the profit ) is not as important and is mainly a reformist’s point and not a revolutionary’s point. Marx, however, thinks the most important point in the theory of capitalism is the ADDED VALUE called the surplus value which is very close to what is known as profit. Marx defines this by using the most important equation in capitalism : M’ = M + deltaM, where M is money, deltaM is the added value ( surplus value ) M’ is money : Money equals Money and Profit. This is easily explained as this : a capitalist has money, then the capitalist does something with the money ( manufactures goods and sells them ), from this something, the capitalist makes profit ( surplus value, added value ), this profit is added to the recovered initial money ( initial capital before the reaction ) and thus the capitalist has money prime ( M’ ) which is the initial capital and profit. ( Please, note, profit and added ( surplus ) value are slightly different in meaning but the approximation of being the same is good enough for this explanation. ) Why does Marx thing this is the most important point of the theory? Because Marx asks the question where the added ( surplus ) value ( profit ) comes from. How can a capitalist with this much money do something and get more? Where does the energy of the process come from? Energy can neither be made nor lost, just changes shape. The answer which Marx provides is : FROM EXPLOITATION OF A HUMAN BY ANOTHER HUMAN. Once this found, obviously, this means people in capitalism are exploited. Who wants to be exploited? No one. Thus the necessity of overthrowing the capitalism. There are two types of exploitation : direct and indirect. Also, there is a combination between. Direct exploitation is when the capitalist does not pay the full amount of working energy to the workers : pays them less and thus makes the profit from “ saving money “ from paying less for the labor. Indirect exploitation is when the capitalist pays the full amount of the working energy and puts a higher price of the product. THE PERSON WHO PURCHASES THE PRODUCT IS THE EXPLOITED ONE BECAUSE THIS PERSON

GIVES A PROFIT TO THE SELLER WHICH PROFIT COMES FROM THE MONEY WHICH THE PURCHASER HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE PURCHASER’S WORKING ENERGY AFTER WORKING FOR ANOTHER COMPANY. Thus, when people pay higher price for a given product ( the price of the product and the profit ) they are exploited because they give their own money for the capitalist to make a profit and their money have been paid to them for their labour by the place they work in. Thus, they give their labour for the seller to make a profit. The labour they give to the seller has NOT been paid by the seller. The labour they give to someone else was paid by another person in order for this other person to purchase the working energy of the purchaser. Thus the seller steals working energy from the purchaser hence the indirect exploitation. R. does not oppose to this most important point in the theory of capitalism, R. just says this necessity of overthrowing capitalism is not as important as the way of overthrowing capitalism. In other words the question WHY is not as important as HOW. R. as well as Lenin consider this, as per them, most important point of HOW to be through revolution and conspiracy. The question of importance is the biggest difference between Marx and Engels on one side and Lenin on the other. The Trotskyists, such as R., have been the closest to Lenin. However, Lenin personally chose Stalin as a successor because Trotsky was more like a theoretician who was very close to Lenin, closer than anyone while Stalin, most likely, has ever barely understood the theory, unknown is whether Stalin has ever been able to read and write very well, yet Stalin was the person who, whether knowingly or not, will somehow remain close to Lenin as far as the theory goes, mainly because Stalin does not know what theory is and whatever Stalin has been told by Lenin, Stalin listened as much as possible and did not care at all to understand. What Stalin knows, however, is HOW to maintain and, when needed, continue the revolution as well as how to protect the revolution from a counter revolutionary forces whether misled or not very clear what they do. Trotsky is a person who is NOT misled but does not know very well what to do as far as the protection of the revolution is concerned or, not as good as Stalin. Thus, R. is not against this approach, R. thinks Stalin does not know very well how and blames Stalin in Bonapartism which is also known as the cult to personality. Also, in order for Lenin to introduce a soft transition from feudalism ( this had been the system in Russia before the revolution ) to socialism, Lenin made capitalism in The USSR. In other words, while Lenin was in charge of THE SOVIET UNION, THE SOVIET UNION WAS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY. Lenin said this was to be a TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL MEASURE. While choosing a successor, Lenin realized the successor had to be a person who had to stop the temporary transitional capitalism, i. e. to do a micro revolution within the revolution. Obviously, this person was the strong fighter Stalin and not the soft theoretician Trotsky. What R. tries to do is to tell Hitler : do NOT attack The USSR. Concentrate on your revolution. In case you do NOT, you will face counter revolution conspiracy regardless whether you have classes or not. Also, R. maintains allegiance to communism and has never contradicted the communist theory. This is also because G., looks like, has written a thesis in which G. has predicted a possible German invasion. Thus, R. wants to say to the whole world there are other communists who do not think so. Thus, Hitler is not supposed to attack The USSR just

because someone, G., has predicted this and thus G. has created a possibility for The USSR to attack Germany first in a Sicilian Defense fashion where the attack is the best defense. Before and during the attack on Poland, Hitler is sure Stalin will retaliate and the question is not if but when. Thus, Hitler cheated Stalin by signing a contract with Stalin for no attack on any of the two sides. This contract is known as Ribbentrop Molotov Contract ( not cocktail ), signed by the two ministers of foreign affairs. A whole week after the attack on The USSR, Stalin has been given full and complete information on the invasion and DID NOT BELIEVE there has been an attack. Stalin may have thought the attack had been a military move by Hitler in order to surround Poland or another European country. Stalin got to believe when the German army got to approach Moscow. Stalin did what R. tried to convince the listener ( Hitler and or the Military ) NOT to attack because the politics says so and the politics got nothing to do with logic. Instead, politics may use some logic at a different level, for example : in case of a German attack, The USSR will strongly retaliate united and there will not be any difference of opinions between the Trotskyists and the Stalinists, so Hitler best not to invade regardless of how advanced weaponry Hitler possesses. The German Military was the organization which agreed strongly with R. They realized Hitler may lose the oil of the Arabs ( Hitler may lose The Suez Canal, the battle for Africa ) in case Hitler attacks The USSR. Thus, instead of having two sources of oil, Hitler may as well get nothing. Hitler, however, was also afraid from a Soviet attack and wanted to be first. Hitler also wanted the oil and metals of Siberia. G. - With the exception when the strike takes place at the expense of the surplus value of Capitalism. SSB : G. insists on the importance of the added ( surplus ) value ( profit ) which leads to strikes. R. - Theory, pure theory. Speaking between ourselves, take any annual handbook concerning the economics of any country and divide rents and the total income by all those receiving wages or salaries, and you will see what an extraordinary result emerges. This result is the most counter-revolutionary fact, and we must keep it a complete secret. This is because if you deduct from the theoretical dividend the salaries and expenses of the directors, which would be the consequence on the abolition of ownership, then almost always there remains a dividend which is a debit for the proletariat. In reality always a debit, if we also consider the reduction in the volume and quality of production. As you will now see, a call to strike, as a means for achieving a quick improvement of the well-being of the proletariat is only an excuse; an excuse required in order to force it to commit sabotage of Capitalistic production. Thus to the contradictions in the bourgeois system are added contradictions within the proletariat; this is the double weapon of the revolution, and it - which is obvious - does not arise of itself: there exists an organization, chiefs, discipline, and above that there exists stupidity. Don't you suspect that the much-mentioned contradictions of Capitalism, and in particular the financial ones, are also organized by someone? ... By way of basis for these deductions I shall remind you that in its economic struggle the proletarian International coincides with the financial International, since both produce inflation, and wherever there is coincidence there, one should assume, is also agreement. Those are his own words.

SSB : R. says as mentioned and also says strikes are NOT revolution and do NOT necessarily lead to one. They may help BUT this help may be insignificant. Revolution means organization and not ONLY strikes. However, R. says capitalism introduces contradictions in the working class too. Thus, the organization of the revolution is very difficult. This was also said by Marx, Engels and Lenin. This way, using this point in the communist theory, R. tells Hitler to take care of the organization of the German “ National Socialist Revolution “ as Hitler called what Hitler did in Germany. Most importantly, R. also tells Hitler : the working class and thus The Soviet Union politicians, also suffer from contradictions and there are many types of communists not only one. Thus, Hitler must not attack The USSR because the government there may change to a more Germany friendly government such as the Trotskyists. R. also says capitalism is an engineered society. I also said the same. R., however, does not yet say who engineered this society. I clearly said this and will repeat : The French Revolutionaries with the help of the British private property owners ( nobility ). G. - I suspect here such an enormous absurdity, or the intention of spinning a new paradox, that I do not want to imagine this. It looks as if you want to hint at the existence of something like a Capitalistic second Communist International, of course an enemy one. R. - Exactly so. When I spoke of the financial International, I thought of it as of a Comintern, but having admitted the existence of the "Comintern," I would not say that they are enemies. SSB : R. states the division in the working classes more strongly although they are not enemies. The Financial Communist International ( ComIntern ) is a reflection of the starting ( in the period ) Financial Capitalism. The labour ComIntern is the reflection of the Industrial capitalism. Financial capitalism was just getting started in the period. The financial capitalism overcame all other types of capitalism and became the leading and, NOW, the only capitalism in 1980’s. Financial capitalism is a very dangerous type of capitalism which entirely destroys the industry and economy and then self destroys. This comes again from a very simple theorem ( law ) : one cannot get energy from nothing and cannot create energy. Energy just changes form. Thus, financial capitalists cannot make money out of nothing. There must be production of goods ( industry ) in order for them to do so. Money is not real but rather fictional. Even when money is pure gold, this gold is worth MAINLY when there is something to purchase against. True, gold is also used for other things BUT the main value of money comes not from the limited usage of gold but from THE OTHER GOODS which can be exchanged against gold. Hence the expression : ONE CANNOT EAT GOLD! G. - If you want to make us lose time on inventions and phantasies, I must tell you that you have chosen the wrong moment. R. - By the way, are you assuming that I am like the courtesan from the "Arabian Nights," who used her imagination at night to save her life ... No, if you think that I am departing from the theme, then you are wrong. In order to reach that which we have taken as our aim I, if I am not to fail, must first of all enlighten you about the most important matters, while bearing in mind your general lack of acquaintance with that which I would call the "Higher Marxism." I dare not evade

these explanations as I know well that such lack of knowledge exists in the Kremlin ... Permit me to continue. G. - You may continue. But it is true that if all this were to be seen to be only a loss of time to excite the imagination, then this amusement will have a very sad epilogue. I have warned you. SSB : G. blames R. in fantasizing and subjective idealism to which blames R. strongly opposes and blames G. back in oversimplification. Subjective idealism is to think what you think is true and can make a difference and not ONLY what is objective is true ( obviously, when one thinks objectively and in full, the thoughts will be true BUT the thoughts are true because they are objective and the objective reality is true AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND : the objective reality does not change and does not become true just because someone thinks so ), in other words, hardware works one way only and software uses this way. Software cannot change hardware in a defined suystem. Oversimplification is making mistakes by not observing and evaluation the whole truth but only part of the truth. Thus, R. blames G. for oversimplifying Marxism ( not using ALL or even most of the Marxism ) when G. applies Marxism to predict and prove the inevitability of a German attack thus making Hitler use G.’s thesis as a propaganda or as an idea for the attack. R. - I continue as if I have heard nothing. Insofar as you are a scholastic with relation to Capital, and I want to awaken your inductive talents, I shall remind you of some very curious things. Notice with what penetration Marx comes to conclusions given the then existence of early British industry, concerning its consequences, i.e. the contemporary colossal industry: how he analyses it and criticizes; what a repulsive picture he gives of the manufacturer. In your imagination and that of the masses there arises the terrible picture of Capitalism in its human concretization: a fat-bellied manufacturer with a cigar in his mouth, as described by Marx, with self-satisfaction and anger throwing the wife and daughter of the worker onto the street. Is that not so? At the same time remember the moderation of Marx and his bourgeois orthodoxy when studying the question of money. In the problem of money there do not appear with him his famous contradictions. Finances do not exist for him as a thing of importance in itself; trade and the circulation of moneys are the results of the cursed system of Capitalistic production, which subjects them to itself and fully determines them. In the question of money Marx is a reactionary; to one's immense surprise he was one; bear in mind the "five-pointed star" like the Soviet one, which shines all over Europe, the star composed of the five Rothschild brothers with their banks, who possess colossal accumulations of wealth, the greatest ever known ... And so this fact, so colossal that it misled the imagination of the people of that epoch, passes unnoticed with Marx. Something strange ... Is that not so? SSB : G. says the same as I have said : financial capitalism is NOT important and cannot exist. Financial capitalism is only an addition which facilitates the industrial capitalism and cannot exist separately nor can financial capitalism play an important role. AT THE BEGINNING OF CAPITALISM, yes : financial capitalism was important BECAUSE OF THE NEED OF A STARTING CAPITAL ( INITIAL CAPITAL ) FOR THE CAPITALISM TO GET ROLLING. With the development of capitalism, the initial capital became largely

available from the same place where to be applied : say, a given factory which used to make whatever and now wants to start to make whatever : they have their initial capital from the first whatever. Then R. says Marx did concentrate a lot on the industrial capitalism BUT ALMOST NOT AT ALL ON MONEY AND THE FINANCIAL CAPITALISM. This is what Marx has been blamed the most : Marx should have concentrated on money and finances as well. Most likely, Marx used a clever trick : Marx did not talk money because Marx was a Jew in genetic origin thus, in case Marx was to talk money, many people would have found out the, what they call “ application of Jews “ in money and would have blamed Marx in what they call “ being Jewish “, i. e. thinking and talking only money and WRITING AND LYING FOR MONEY. In order for Marx to protect the theory of Communism and Capitalism and avoid disrespect and repulsion of non Jewish people, Marx was very careful to mention money and finances throughout Marx’ theories. The same applies for Engels. Lenin was not Jewish but was somewhat reluctant on talking money because Lenin wanted to have a moneyless society. Money was a capitalist MEANS ( only means and nothing else ) and, since this was to be destroyed and since this is just a weapon of the destroyed capitalism, money was not worth talking. Lenin was to switch to moneyless society after Lenin’s temporary and transitional capitalism. I guess, Stalin was supposed to do so but did not because of other events in the period, for example the war. The rest of the socialist leaders kind of forgot and disregarded this or thought as presently impossible and to be carried out in the future when possible. And this is one of the main BUT NOT THE ONLY MAIN ONE difference between Socialism and Communism : SOCIALISM HAS MONEY, COMMUNISM DOES NOT. This is why, the US politicians look stupid when they use the word communism. Communism is not a country which has a communist party in charge BUT COMMUNISM IS A SYSTEM WHICH HAS YET NEVER BEEN APPLIED NOWHERE IN THE WORLD AND NO COMMUNIST COUNTRY HAS EVER EXISTED IN THE WORLD. Thus Marx is still right to have said : communism will win at once all over the world and cannot win in a given country ONLY. Has to be the whole world at once. Communism cannot BUT SOCIALISM CAN. Thus, THE USSR HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY! THE USSR HAS ONLY BEEN A CAPITALIST AND THEN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY BUT NEVER A COMMUNIST ONE! This difference is very important so various politicians stop barking against a system they have never seen and never known anything thereof. What the USA has been barking against is socialism. In this way, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SOCIALISM IN FRANCE OR BRITAIN CONTRARY TO THE GARBAGE THEIR POLITICIANS TALK. THERE HAS ONLY BEEN CENTRIST CAPITALISM AND RIGHT WING CAPITALISM IN THESE COUNTRIES AS WELL AS IN ALL MAJOR COUNTRIES ( EXCEPT THE USA WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A RIGHT WING CAPITALISM ONLY REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY RUNS THE USA ). And here we go now : much to the pleasure of all French or French related people as well as all non Jewish people, R. drops a fake bomb : R. mentions the Jews and Rothschild and the stupid people start to dogmatize what R. has said. AND R. HAS SAID NOTHING THEY WANT TO HEAR. First R. says the communist symbol, the YELLOW SHINY five beam star is related to the Jews : NO, THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG AND IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND : THE STAR IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE JEWISH STAR BECAUSE THE JEWISH STAR HAS SIX BEAMS AND THE COMMUNIST START : 5. BECAUSE THE COMMUNIST STAR IS THE OPPOSITE TO THE JEWISH STAR, R. LIES THE

COMMUNIST STAR IS RELATED TO JUDAISM BY MAKING UP A TOTALLY UNTRUE STORY SAYING THE FIVE BEAMS REPRESENT THE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY. This is so stupid and untrue as is to say : “ Everyone who has a five dollar bill in their pockets or wallet is a Jew because 5 represents the Rothschild family and money represents Jews. SO HOW COME THIS INTELLIGENT PERSON DROPS THIS LIE? VERY SIMPLE, THERE ARE A FEW REASONS TO LIE : 1. R. DEFENDS MARX THIS WAY MAINLY THE OVERLOOKING OF MONEY AND FINANCES BY MARX. 2. R. GETS TO THE MAIN POINT OF THE CONVERSATION : R. TELLS THE LISTENER ( HITLER ) TO BLAME THE JEWS FOR EVERYTHING, EVEN FOR COMMUNISM, AND NOT THE RUSSIANS. HITLER CLAIMS CAPITALISM IS A JEWISH INVENTION. R. CLAIMS THE COMMUNISM IS SUCH TOO. THUS, R. TELLS HITLER THIS : CONCENTRATE ON THE REASON ALWAYS! ( THIS IS WHY R. SAID MARX KNEW THE REASONS OF THE CAPITALIST CONTRADICTION. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS. THIS WAS MENTIONED CLEARLY. ) THE REASON IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING : YOU GET RID OF THE REASON, YOU CORRECT THE PROBLEM. THUS, ADOLPH, DO NOT ATTACK THE USSR : USSR IS NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING BUT, INSTEAD, IS A VICTIM OF JEWS JUST THE SAME AS GERMANY IS. ADOLPH, GET RID OF THE REASON AND THEN WE, THE TROTSKYISTS WILL COME IN POWER IN THE USSR WITH GERMEN HELP AND WILL GET RID OF THE REASON IN THE USSR TOO AND, MAYBE, WE WILL USE YOUR EXPERIENCE. JUST DO NOT ATTACK THE USSR, EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE OK. WE, YOU AND US, WILL GET RID OF THE REASON FOR OUR PROBLEMS. Thus, do not be stupid and do not be naïve : when you read The Red Symphony : remember : there is nothing in The Red Symphony to say Jews run the world and organize wars and systems because they have money : NEITHER OF THIS IS TRUE : JEWS DO NOT RUN THE WORLD AND AND BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE MONEY. R. LIES FOR ONLY ONE PURPOSE : TO PROTECT R.’S COUNTRY : THE USSR, FROM HITLER’S ATTACK. R. HAS TO GIVE A BONE TO HITLER : THIS BONE IS THE LIES OF THE JEWISH CONNECTION. JUST A CLEVER POLITICAL TRICK. OBVIOUSLY, IN 1938, R. DID NOT KNOW AND COULD NOT PREDICT HITLER WOULD EXTERMINATE 6 000 000 JEWS. R. THOUGHT HITLER WOULD JUST NATIONALIZE ( AND THEN, MAYBE SELL ) THEIR PROPERTIES FOR MASS PRODUCTION AND THIS NATIONALIZATION IS VERY COMMON AND NOT A PROBLEM TO THE JEWS. THE WHOLE USSR HAD BEEN NATIONALIZED WITHOUT PROBLEMS OF THE SAME AMPLITUDE AS HITLER’S EXTERMINATION. Back to the specifics : the communist five beam star has got nothing to do neither with the Jewish 6 beam star nor with Rothschild. A star is a representation of brightness and enlightenment, also, representation of something which is desired. Star is a representation of something strong, untouchable and indestructible by men and unstoppable by men. Stars have also given A DIRECTION to people even before the Jews appeared as a tribe. Stars also provide light at nioght when the moon is hidden by a cloud. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO REALIZE STARS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JEWS? STARS WERE USED AS SYMBOLS BEFORE THE JEWS APPEARED AND CONTINUED TO BE USED

THEREAFTER. THUS THE PRIMARY AND MAIN MEANING OF A STAR IS AS OUTLINED AND DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH JEWS AND ROTHCHIELDS. OBVIOUSLY, UNDER THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, EVERYONE CAN USE A STAR, JEWS AND ROTHCHIELD TOO. HOWEVER, THOSE WHO USE A STAR DO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH ROTHCHIELD AN JEWS AS THE MAIN AND PRIMARY REASON FOR A STAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE. HOWEVER, WHEN ROTHCHIELD AND JEWS USE A STAR THEY USE THE STAR ALSO BECAUSE OF THE PRIMARY AND MAIN REASON. Why 5 beams. SIMPLY BECAUSE THESE WERE THE MOST POPULAR STARS IN THE PERIOD BECAUSE THEY WERE POSSIBLE TO BE EASILY DRAWN WITHOUT LIFTING THE PEN ( FEATHER AND INK ) FROM THE PAPER WHEN DRAWING THEM AS OPPOSED TO THE 6 BEAM JEWISH STAR WHICH WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO DRAW AS THE ALL OF THE STARS WITH BEAMS GREATER THAN 5. THUS PEOPLE REALIZED THIS : MORE THAN 5 BEAMS : DIFFICULT, LESS THAN 5 : DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A STAR : 5 BEAM OK. THUS ALL PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ( EXCEPT THE JEWS FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES ) HAVE BEEN AND ARE DRAWING 5 BEAM STARS : THE US ARMY MAINLY. TO CLAIM THE COMMUNIST STAR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ROTHSCHILD OR OTHER JEWS IS THE SAME AS TO CLAIM THE US ARMY IS THE MAIN JEWISH ORGANIZATION IN THE US. STUPIDITY, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE? Can the six beam star be used by others than Jews. Sure can. However, while star was defined as a symbol even before the Jews appeared, the number of beams was never defined : as a gross generalization, the number of beams was defined LOOSELY ( which means not defined very much ) this way : MUST NOT VERY MANY BEAMS NOT TO BE MISTAKEN WITH THE SUN and MUST NOT HAVE TOO FEW BEAMS TO BE RECOGNIZABLE THIS IS A STAR. Thus, the specific number of beams was to be defined by the user. The Jews chose six beams mainly because all other used five beams. The Jews could have chosen five beams under the freedom of expression principle BUT they did not because they wanted to be different IN THIS SYMBOL. The communists did NOT want to be different in this symbol because this symbol was not to represent them ( they have the hammer and sickle symbol as their main symbol for recognition ) but because they wanted to say communism enlightens people and shows them the way in the darkness as well as the communism must be a dream of everyone because communism is better for 99% of the people. Also, the communists wanted to use the most popular star in order to be understood by most as opposed to using the most unpopular star : the six beam star used BY JEWS ONLY. Most of the people in Western Europe did NOT know what Jew means and certainly did not know what the Jewish star was. ALSO : because of the specificity of the number of beams the six beam star was also taken as a symbol : not star in generally ( because star is a general and not specific symbol ) but the six beam star only. The five beam star was used by many but was NOT occupied even though the number of the beam is specific : this is because : 1. The five beam star was used by many and not only by one entity as opposed to the six beam star which was used only by one entity : the Jews ) and 2. The number five as a number of beam was generally accepted by everyone ( except the Jews ) as THE STANDARD NUMBER OF BEAMS FOR A STAR on the principle : not too many, not too few as discussed. More than six is too many, below five is too few. Also because people have been using the five beam star for millennia and not the six beam one because the six beam one is more difficult to draw as well as because the

symmetrical representation of the six beams ( as in the Jewish star ) makes a confusion as the six beam star is closer to the representation of the sun. Thus, by leaving the lower beam of the symmetry empty and by inserting this asymmetry in drawing the five beam star, this star symbol becomes unmistakably different than the sun symbol, mainly when people have low level of means for drawing and mainly when the symbols are used separate from one another. R. said clearly : the five beam star shines communism over the darkness of Western Europe ( meaning west of The USSR ) before mentioning the Rothschild. WHY DID R. SAY SO? Because R. wanted to agree with what G. may say on this symbol and because R. does not the listener to consider R. neither stupid nor crazy. Only a crazy person may say the comunists have a five beam star because of Rothschild regardless of whether Rothchield has or has not used the five beam star to represent the Rothschilds. The craziness of such a statement has been proven in the previous sentences. IN OTHER WORDS : WHAT R. SAID WAS THIS : THE FIVE BEAM STAR MAY OR MAY NOT REPRESENT ROTHSCHILD IN THE COMMUNIST SYMBOLOGY : ma or may not : means nothing. What a normal person with normal thinking will logically think is : the probability for the five beam star to represent Rothschild is almost zero as there are many other more probable reasons with the Rothschild reason being the last in the probability scale. These things are simple and only simple logic is necessary without a problem for oversimplification. Does not take a nuclear scientist to figure out the absurd lies R. does. Again, R. lies even more than a Jew because R. wants to protect The USSR from a German attack and invasion and does not think Hitler will exterminate Jews nor does R. think Jews will suffer, not more than their property being nationalized with some compensations. R. probably also thought most Jews would leave Germany for The USA which everyone thought and mainly the Jews. They wanted to move to The USA but The USA refused them because The USA wanted to protect themselves from a huge influx of Jews and because The USA wanted the Jews to be in Germany in order to use them as a propaganda object and to appeal to many people in The US ( American Jews too ) to give them money for the military. Thus The USA is very directly indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. It is possible that from this strange blindness of Marx there arises a phenomenon which is common to all future social revolutions. It is this: we can all confirm that when the masses take possession of a city or a country, then they always seem struck by a sort of superstitious fear of the banks and bankers. One had killed Kings, generals, bishops, policemen, priests and other representatives of the hated privileged classes; one robbed and burnt palaces, churches and even centers of science, but though the revolutions were economic-social, the lives of the bankers were respected, and as a result the magnificent buildings of the banks remained untouched ... According to my information, before I had been arrested, this continues even now ... SSB : R. continues the shift against financial capitalism and, now, mainly banks. R. does not say, however, one very important think : banks can only be banks when there is industry.

( Financial capitalism can only exist when there is industrial capitalism. ) Think this way : how do the banks make money? By loans and interest rates. WHO IS SO STUPID TO GET A LOAN WITH AN INTEREST RATE? Only those who do NOT have money BUT once they have, they will be able to make the loan money, the interest rates money AND make a profit on top. WHO ARE THESE GUYS? THE INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISTS. THUS, BANKS ARE NOT IMPORTANT. THEY ONLY EXIST BECAUSE OF THE INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL. R. lies again : BANKS NOT ONLY SUFFER BUT THEY SUFFER THE MOST IN CASE OF A REVOLUTION : THEY GET ROBBED OR NATIONALIZED OR REPOSSESSED OR DISPOSSESSED FIRST. This is because they help and assist not only the industrial capital but they are a source of money and gold for the revolution. May not be the most important but revolution is revolution also because the revolution takes everything available and not only some. Again : BANKS DO NOT MAKE MONEY ( NOT LARGE AMOUNTS ). OIL DOES! Even in 1938. So, why does R. shifts to banks, finances, Jews and Rothschilds? SIMPLE : BECAUSE R. WANTS HITLER TO USE THESE AND FIND THE NECESSARY POLITICAL EXCUSES THROUGH THESE AND CONCENTRATE GERMAN PEOPLE ATTENTION TOWARDS THESE AND AWAY FROM THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY. THUS, HITLER HAS EVERYTHING HITLER NEEDS IN GERMANY AND DOES NOT NEED TO START A WAR WITH NO ONE. THE CONVERSATION GETS SHIFTED FROM : “ BLAME STALIN AS A PERSON FOR EVERYTHING “ TO “ BLAME THEM JEWS FOR EVERYTHING” . In addition to being not possible to know of the Holocaust in 1938, neither R. nor G. gave a flying fart for Stalin nor the Jews. They did not care of them. They would even kill Stalin in case this was to stop the war. Of course, they would not kill Jews BUT they did not think Hitler would either as Hitler had not done this for 6 years and The USA was expected to open their doors for the Jews. Neither G. nor R. could predict The USA would not allow the Jews to move in and thus condemning them to the Holocaust. Some of you will say : In case banks do not make money how come Rothschild became the richest man in the world. AND I WILL ASK YOU WHEN? Rothschild became rich many centuries ago when the society was in TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM. The would be capitalists were the rich nobility. SOME NOT SO RICH NOBILITY ALSO WANTED TO GET THEIR HANDS INTO THE LUCRATIVE CAPITALISM. THEY NEEDED STARTING ( INITIAL ) CAPITAL. WHERE DO THEY GO FOR THIS? TO ROTHSCHILD AS THERE WERE NOT VERY MANY AROUND. THUS ROTHSCHILD BECAME RICH BECAUSE THERE WERE NO OTHER RICH JEWS. MONEY GOES TO MONEY, I. E. YOU HAVE TO HAVE MONEY TO MAKE MONEY : THIS, AS MENTIONED, IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF CAPITALISM. NOW YOU WILL ASK : AND HOW DID ROTHSCHILD MAKE MONEY IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO MAKE MONEY. VERY SIMPLE : BY COINCIDENCE.

ROTHSCHILD STARTED TO DEAL WITH ANTIQUE COINS WITH NUMISMATIC VALUE WHICH THE GERMAN NOBELITY LOVED TO COLLECT. AS YOU ALL KNOW THE BUSINESS OF ANTIQUING IS VERY STRONGLY BASED ON LICK AND CASINO PRINCIPLES. ONE CAN GO TAKE A SHIT IN THE WOODS OF THE SOUTHERN STATES AND COME BACK WITH A BAG OF PRICELESS CONFEDERATE DOLLARS WITH HUGE COLLECTOR’S VALUE. AND THIS IS ALMOST HOW ROTHSCHILD BECAME RICH : WELL, PROBABLY NOT BY ONE COINCIDENCE AS IN THE EXAMPLE, ALTHOUGH POSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN ONLY ONE COINCIDENCE, BUT BY, RATHER, A FEW COINCIDENCES, SAME AS IN THE CASINOS AND TO BECOME RICH BY ONE OR FEW COINCIDENCES IS NORMAL TO HAPPEN IN THE NUMISMATIC BUSINESS. THINK OF THIS AS A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER : HOW MANY PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS DO YOU KNOW WHO MADE A FORTUNE FROM JUST ONE SHOT OF ONE GAMBLE ON ONE NUMBER OF THE ROULETTE? AND HOW MANY PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS DO YOU KNOW WHO HAVE MADE MONEY FROM MANY LUCKY COINCIDENCES. AND THE FAIR CASINOS ( UNLESS FIXED ) ARE PURE LUCK AND LUCK CALCULATION TO AN EXTEND. G. - Where? R. - In Spain ... Don't you know it? As you ask me, so tell me now: Do you not find all this very strange? Think, the police ... I do not know, have you paid attention to the strange similarity which exists between the financial International and the proletarian International. I would say that one is the other side of the other, and the back side is the proletarian one as being more modern than the financial. G. - Where do you see similarity in things so opposed? R. - Objectively they are identical. As I had proved, the Comintern, paralleled, doubled by the reformist movement and the whole of syndicalism, calls forth the anarchy of production, inflation, poverty and hopelessness in the masses. Finances, chiefly the financial international, doubled, consciously or unconsciously by private finances, create the same contradictions, but in still greater numbers ... Now we can already guess the reasons why Marx concealed the financial contradictions, which could not have remained hidden from his penetrating gaze, if finances had not had an ally, the influence of which - objectively revolutionary - was already then extraordinarily important. SSB : HOWEVER, FINANCES MUST ALWAYS HAVE AN ALLY OR THEY WILL NOT EXIST AS FINANCES WITHOUT AND ALLY ( INDUSTRY ) DO NOT EXIST. Money is just toilet paper without to goods to be exchanged for. Money is a media of good exchange and nothing else. Here is an example : when one has, say, $1000 cash, one has only toilet paper UNLESS THERE ARE GOODS TO OBTAIN REPLACING THIS $1000 FOR. So, money is a measure for goods : when one has $1000 one does not have $1000 but one has a purchasing ability equal to the measure of $1000, i. e. one has the ability to acquire certain good replaceable for this $1000. Here is a good example : what does one have in the US in case one has $1000000000 Mexican pesos? NOTHING, DIRECTLY. One cannot even purchase toilet paper with $1000000000 in the US. Thus, to have $1000000000 pesos in the US does not mean

to have money. HOWEVER, in case one goes to Mexico and replaces this $1000000000 pesos for, say, $10000000 and goes back to the US, then one has some money. This is because one does not have any purchasing ability when one has $1000000000 pesos in the US BUT one does have some purchasing ability when one has $10000000 in the US. G. - An unconscious coincidence, but not an alliance which presupposes intelligence, will and agreement ... SSB : G. calls the financial capitalism and the financial ComIntern a coincidence which is what they are : they can only work as a dominating force for a very tiny period because of the errors and the slow work in a capitalist system : slow reaction of the system. R. - Let us leave this point of view if you like. Now let us better go over to the subjective analysis of finances and even more: let us see what sort of people personally are at work there. The international essence of money is well known. From this fact emerges that the organization which owns them and accumulates them is a cosmopolitan organization. Finances in their apogee - as an aim in themselves, the financial International - deny and do not recognize anything national, they do not recognize the State; and therefore it is anarchical and would be absolutely anarchical if it - the denier of any national State - were not itself, by necessity, a State in its own basic essence. The State as such is only power. And money is exclusively power. SSB : True : finances are a supplement But they are objective. Analysis of such must also be objective, however. True : finances negate the State. And true : they are anarchical to the State. Rich people rule, not the State they are into : one of the main consequences of capitalism. This communistic super-state, which we are creating already during a whole century, and the scheme of which is the International of Marx. Analyze it and you will see its essence. The scheme of the International and its prototype of the USSR - that is also pure power. The basic similarity between the two creations is absolute. It is something fatalistic, inevitable, since the personalities of the authors of both was identical. The financier is just as international as the Communist. Both, with the help of differing pretexts and differing means, struggle with the national bourgeois State and deny it. SSB : Communism is not a super state but a state system which is natural and normal in the evolution of the society systems from the Communal Tribal System upwards. The International is not a super state but a trans countries organization of IDEAS. And these ideas are objective. When all countries become communist, communism will not become a super state as communism is not a state BUT a system of a state. All countries will have the communist system : a simple as this. Can there be wars then? Sure can : wars are for resources and not for systems as The US thinks. However, there is a continuation : true those who wage war may get more resources BUT MAY ALSO LOSE RESOURCES INSTEAD. This stabilizing feedback is the only non moral one which prevents wars. The moral one is humans must not exterminate humans nor exploit humans ( exploitation is nothing but stealing resources : humans stealing energy ( labor ) from other humans ). This is because of the evolution of spices : humans must help each other in order to be better off and not

fighting. In an ideal world, humans who do not have possibility for, say, agriculture will ask others for such and will be given unconditionally. Then these humans who are given resources will give other resources back when they find them or will leave the territories where there are not resources or where resources cannot be obtained easily and will merge with other humans in territories where there are. Then, in the future, when taking resources from an abandoned place becomes possible, humans will go there to obtain them. HUMANS ARE MOVABLE ANIMALS. Marxism in order to change it into a Communist State; from this comes that the Marxist must be an internationalist: the financier denies the bourgeois national State and his denial ends in itself; in fact he does not manifest himself as an internationalist, but as a cosmopolitan anarchist ... That is his appearance at the given stage, but let us see what he really is and what he wants to be. As you see, in rejection there is a clear similarity individually between Communist-internationalists and financial-cosmopolitans; as a natural result there is the same similarity between the Communist International and the financial International... SSB : NO, THERE IS NOT ANY SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL AND THE FINANCIERS BECAUSE THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL SHARES ONLY IDEAS AND NOT OTHER MATERIAL MEANS. Ideas are material in their essence BUT AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL. Ideas are material because they are generated by the material human brain because of a material way of working of the material human brain. THE EXISTENCE OF THE IDEAS, HOWEVER, MAY OR MAY NOT LEAD TO APPLICATION OF THESE IDEAS IN ORDER TO APPLY THESE INTO OTHER MATERIAL THINGS. Thus, many people are misled in thinking ideas are not material. They are BUT they may or may not be applied into material things. A person may have very good ideas in a capitalist world but may not have the means and may not be able to obtain the means of converting the material in their origin ideas into other material things : MAY NOT HAVE AND MAY NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE INITIAL CAPITAL and may not be given such because OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THESE IDEAS AND CANNOT THINK THEM THROUGH. Ideas are objective BUT people may NOT be able to think objectively : not at this level. The financial world shares material means which can directly be exchanged for other material things. This is only when they have some kind of a common denominator currency : gold, precious metals and stones or CONVERTIBLE money. Without these, every good becomes money with a different value and different possibility for an exchange : BARTER EXCHANGE. G. - This is a chance similarity subjectively and objective in contradictions, but one easily eroded and having little significance and that which is most radical and existing in reality. SSB : True : finances are not an important point in the THEORY of capitalism. REAL GOODS ARE. ( Money is also a good then and only then when this good can be exchanged for all or most other goods. This is also why Marx did not CONCENTRATE on money and finances. )

The reason for G. and R. to have this disagreement is because R. wants to make a lie go true. This lie is the importance of money and finances. R. lies so for one purpose only : to put the importance the Jews play in the society WHICH IS A LIE. JEWS PLAY NO ANY DIFFERENT ROLE IN THE SOCIETY THAN ANY OTHER HUMAN. R. lies so in order to make Hitler concentrate on Jews ( before R. wanted to make Hitler concentrate on Stalin personally and the Stalinists who ( the Stalinists ) can also be overcome by the Trotskyists ). Concentration on Stalin and the Jews will solve all problems of Hitler WITHOUT ANY WAR. Again, R. could not have predicted the extermination of the Jews and, most likely, thought of dispossession of Jewish property of means for mass production AS WELL AS FINANCIAL PROPERTY ( stealing and robbing the Jews of their INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL PROPERTY ). Financial property can also be considered industrial or an addition thereof. Again, finances do NOT exist but they are a means ( a measure ) of the industrial capitalism. G. wants to assert ( although not as strongly as G. is the powerful side of the discussion and R. is the underdog as well as G. does NOT want Hitler to attack The USSR even more than R. and admires the R.’s efforts, even when these efforts are lies ) the war between Germany and USSR is inevitable or R. has not proven otherwise so far. The lies of R. may have some MINOR repercussions on the communism yet not as strong and are worth using them to prevent a war then communism will find a way to prove these lies wrong. In other words, G. and R. are prepared to sacrifices some NOT SO STRONG POINTS of communism and even to get lies on Jews through TO AVOID THE WAR. R. - Allow me not to reply just now, so as not to interrupt the logical sequence ... I only want to decipher the basic axiom: money is power. Money is today the centre of global gravity. I hope you agree with me? G. - Continue, Rakovsky, I beg of you. SSB : Money is not power as such. Goods are power. Money is good in global approach circumstances because money can be exchange ( in global thinking ) for any other good. Thus having money means having goods. G. realizes the strong point of R. against the war as well as against people with money : the capitalists, and thus there is not much to lose. Another reason for Marx not to have been strongly against money is so MONEY BE USED IN SOCIALISM YET AS A DIFFERENT KIND OF ABSTRACTION : ONLY AS AN EXCHANGE MEANS ( CONVENIENCE ) AND NOT TO USE MONEY AS A CAPITALIST LOGICAL MEANS : NOT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE MONEY FROM MONEY NOR TO BE ABLE TO EXCHANGE GOODS FOR GOODS TO MAKE A PROFIT OF GOODS. However, for the common worker ( not capitalist ) in the capitalist world and in the socialist world money is just an exchange means : the workers in capitalism CANNOT START A BUSINESS FROM THEIR SALARIES. Because of so, common people in socialism WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE AND WILL THINK SOCIALISM IS THE SAME AS CAPITALISM : A MONEY BASED SOCIETY. This is true to the extend and becomes not true when MONEY AS CAPITAL is examined because, in socialism, money is NEVER a capital but exchange paper whereas, in capitalism, the most IMPORTANT ( but not the only ) feature of money is as capital. Again : because the ordinary people in a socialist

system will NOT understand this difference, Marx did not want to concentrate on money, so people in socialism do not say : “ Marx said not to have money and we do : therefore, there is no difference between socialism and capitalism, thus we do not trust the socialists as they have lied “ . Otherwise, Marx has outlined the money problem very clearly by using indirect means : money is a good in capitalism and good is capital in capitalism, money is just an exchange convenience in socialism and not a capital, socialism is an intermediate society in the transition from capitalism to communism, socialism does have money ( although not as a capital, i. e. NOT LOGICAL MONEY BUT PHYSICAL MONEY ( logical money, in capitalism, are money which make more money : a capital ), communism is a moneyless society, communism is the apogee of the evolution of the systems since the communal tribal system, through the slave ownership system, through the feudalism, through the capitalism, through the socialism and there is no other society higher than communism, thus, communism tops the hierarchy of the systems. WHAT CLEARER EXPLANATION OF MONEY DO YOU WANT THAN THIS? At this point, G. knows where R. is going : against the financial capitalism. Hitler hated financial capitalism. Also against something which does not exist, called Financial Communism BUT HITLER DOES NOT KNOW SUCH A THINK DOES NOT EXIST and R. blindly shoots in a possibility to convince Hitler such a thing exists and believes Hitler may take this lie. In other words R. plays poker against Hitler. G. MAY also know, R. is going against the Jews : a favourite topic of Hitler’s. Again : Adolph, blame everything on Stalin, financial capitalism and financial communism ( finances as a whole INCLUDING BANKS ) and Stalin and you get all of your problems solved. You do NOT need a war. 40 000 000 people will be saved. ( Again, neither G. nor R. could have predicted the Holocaust : without the Holocaust and the war, 20000000 Russians ( 12% ), 10000000 Germans ( 14 % not including the Jews ), 6000000 Jews ( 20% German citizens including Germans and Jews ) and some Westerners would have been saved. ) Assuming the male population is 50% in The USSR and Germany, then 24% of the Russian male population and 40% of the German male population could have been saved. Assuming the active male population is 25% of the male population then 48% of the Russian active male population and 80% of the German active male population could have been saved. These calculations are base on the assumption only males have been the casualties. This is in general close to the reality except with the Jews where Jewish women and children may have also been victims of the Holocaust although, I think, the Nazis concentrated mainly on Jewish man. Except from the Jews, the other casualties may have been predicted in 1938, although not in such high numbers. Even in case 10% only were predicted, this is still a huge number of people who could have been saved : 4% of the whole population of The USSR and Germany. The population of The USSR in 1939 was 170000000. The population of Germany in 1939 was 80000000.

R. - The understanding of how the financial International has gradually, right up to our epoch, become the master of money, this magical talisman, which has become for people that which God and the nation had been formerly, is something which exceeds in scientific interest even the art of revolutionary strategy, since this is also an art and also a revolution. I shall explain it to you. Historiographers and the masses, blinded by the shouts and the pomp of the French revolution, the people, intoxicated by the fact that it had succeeded in taking all power from the King and the privileged classes, did not notice how a small group of mysterious, careful and insignificant people had taken possession of the real Royal power, the magical power, almost divine, which it obtained almost without knowing it. R. says money and revolution was mostly art in order to give another point of why Marx may have skipped one of these arts. R. is wrong : neither the revolution nor money is an art but a science. Logic is applied in the two cases. R. also says these are arts BECAUSE Marx and all people in the West did NOT pay attention to money and to the French revolution thus a few “ escaped “ to become rich. The word “ escape “ is true in the meaning money was accumulated by a few OPPORTUNISTICALLY : Right period, right area. BUT R. is not right to say this was not known by the people : when capitalism was designed, people KNEW very well there would be a few rich and the rest poor. BUT people supported the capitalist revolution BECAUSE the question was not WHETHER there will be only a few rich people but WHO these people would be. In feudalism, these, as R. mentioned correctly, are the royals and the nobility. In capitalism, ANYONE MAY BECOME RICH WITH A SLIM CHANCE OF BECOMING RICH AND A HUGE CHANCE OF REMAINING POOR. However, the chance was not important. Important was the question WHO. Fairer is to have a few rich people who became rich by chance rather than to have a few rich people who became rich by birth. Thus, capitalism is a fairer society than feudalism and socialism and communism are fairer societies than capitalism and, therefore, feudalism. R. says money and revolution are arts to teach Hitler how to avoid any internal troubles without a war : in case anyone says to Hitler anything of not keeping promises and the economy not performing, Hitler can say Germany relies on finances and revolution BUT BECAUSE THESE ARE ARTS AND NOR A SCIENCE, not everything is predictable. And they are not. But the Germans do not know this. Hitler can lie and is a good liar. Can figure the rest of the speeches out. Now, the points R. wants to make to Hitler are these : You do not need a war. Blame everything on Stalin, the Stalinists ( these can be changed by the friendly Trotskyists with the help of Germany and, thus will, remain friendly ), Jews, the ART of Finances and Banks : Some Rich Opportunists too, the ART of revolution and the exact temporary outcome thereof. To blame everything on the unpredictable exact outcome was Hitler’s theory. Hitler claimed the revolution continued and was never completed, thus, Hitler said : “ We do NOT have problems. In case you see any problem, this is NOT a problem but this is a temporary, say, unpredictable inconsistence with the developing revolution, a transitional problem during the revolution which will NOT happen when the revolution is completed and NOW IS NOT. “ This explains everything!

Hitler insisted on this explanation a lot and has been and should have been using this explanation. This is why Hitler fire Rohm immediately after Rohm remarked the revolution was over and immediately informed the German masses Rohm ( who started the revolution and was the most important person to get Hitler started ) was a traitor. This is how strongly Hitler relied on the transient processes explanation during the change of the system which change of the system is called by Hitler a German Revolution. Hitler has never completed The German Revolution and has always been saying the revolution is in progress and only when the revolution is completed there will be no problems. Until then, whatever problem occurs is not because of the revolution and will not be available once the revolution is completed but because of the transition and is very temporary. However, the German people may have asked : WHEN WILL THE REVOLUTION BE COMPLETED? Hitler would have probably asked : we do the best we can to complete the revolution as soon as possible. In contrast, Lenin said during the Communist Revolution : IF WE DO NOT BECOME EQUAL WITH THE RICH CAPITALIST COUNTRIES WITHIN 20 YEARS, THE REVOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. In 1937, The USSR was either equal or better than any capitalist country, mainly The USA. In the 1950’s The USSR advanced more than The USA in any sphere of the economy and society. The USA advanced in 1980’s. The USSR changed to capitalism in the 1990’s. Now, The USA and Russia are equal but, unlike Lenin who wanted to say The USSR and The USA must be equally rich, NOW The USA and Russia ARE EQUALLY POOR. The masses did not notice that the power had been seized by others and that soon they had subjected them to a slavery more cruel than the King, since the latter, in view of his religious and moral prejudices, was incapable of taking advantage of such a power. So it came about that the supreme Royal power was taken over by persons, whose moral, intellectual and cosmopolitan qualities did allow them to use it. It is clear that this were people who had never been Christians, but cosmopolitans. SSB : R. continues to say the truth as well as to lie : Capitalism IS a slavery as well as feudalism. However, CAPITALISM WAS A SLAVERY BY DESIGN AND SLAVERY IS A SYSTEMATIC FEATURE OF CAPITALISM. CAPITALISM CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT A SLAVERY. THE SAME AS FEUDALISM. AGAIN : PEOPLE KNEW THIS BUT CHOSE CAPITALISM OVER FEUDALISM BECAUSE OF ONLY ONE THING : WHO WILL BE THE MASTERS : BETTER A FEW RICH CAPITALISTS THAN A FEW RICH ROYALS AND NOBLES WHO HAD ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO BECOME MASTERS BY BIRTH AS OPPOSED TO THE CAPITALIST MASTERS WHO WOULD OBTAIN THE RIGHT TO BE MASTERS BY CHANCE, OPPORTUNISTICALLY AND BY CHANCE. When people go to the casinos they know ONLY A FEW WIN and most lose. They go because they say to themselves : “ WHAT IF I AM ONE OF THE WINNERS “. The same with capitalism over feudalism. In the same example people say : “ I cannot be a winner in feudalism. This is why people prefer : “ I can be a winner in capitalism although unlikely whereas I cannot be a winner in feudalism regardless of luck.”.

R. continues to direct Hitler on why Hitler should attack the rich in Germany : because money took over country. This way, although Hitler did NOT change the capitalist system, Hitler can also blame the rich people BECAUSE they betrayed Germany and chose money over Germany. So, the new addition to the policy of Hitler is : Blame also the rich because they betrayed Germany choosing money over Germany and the German people. Yet another reason to skip the war. Adolph has so many to blame, there is no need of a war to keep the German people happy and in support. G. - What is that for a mythical power which they had obtained? SSB : G. gives another word “ mythical “ : The rich people not only betrayed Germany BUT they also acquired power. They are not only traitors. They are dangerous traitors. Thus Hitler can do with them whatever Hitler wants and blame them as much as Hitler wants for whatever Hitler wants and still maintain capitalism, i. e, Hitler can blame only some or all EXTREMELY rich capitalists not the rest in case Hitler so desires. R. - They had acquired for themselves the real privilege of coining money ... Do not smile, otherwise I shall have to believe that you do not know what moneys are ... I ask you to put yourself in my place. My position in relation to you is that of the assistant of a doctor, who would have to explain bacteriology to a resurrected medical man of the epoch before Pasteur. But I can explain your lack of knowledge to myself and can forgive it. Our language makes use of words which provoke incorrect thoughts about things and actions, thanks to the power of the inertia of thoughts, and which do not correspond to real and exact conceptions. I say: money. It is clear that in your imagination there immediately appeared pictures of real money of metal and paper. But that is not so. Money is now not that; real circulating coin is a true anachronism. If it still exists and circulates, then it is only thanks to atavism, only because it is convenient to maintain the illusion, a purely imaginary fiction for the present day. G. - This is a brilliant paradox, risky and even poetical. R. - If you like, this is perhaps brilliant, but it is not a paradox. I know - and that is why you smiled - that States still coin money on pieces of metal or paper with Royal busts or national crests; well, so what? A great part of the money circulating, money for big affairs, as representative of all national wealth, money, yes money - it was being issued by those few people about whom I had hinted. Titles, figures, cheques, promissory notes, endorsements, discount, quotations, figures without end flooded States like a waterfall. What are in comparison with these the metallic and paper moneys? ... Something devoid of influence, some kind of minimum in the face of the growing flood of the all-flooding financial money. They, being the most subtle psychologists, were able to gain even more without trouble, thanks to a lack of understanding. In addition to the immensely varied different forms of financial moneys, they created credit-money with a view to making its volume close to infinite. And to give it the speed of sound ... it is an abstraction, a being of thought, a figure, number, credit, faith ...

SSB : R. talks of the difference between the physical money and the logical money. Physical money is a good which can be exchanged for any other good in a country or group of countries or, even, the whole world ( in case of a Golden Standard, money can be exchanged in the whole world unless there is a country which does not accept gold which there is not, in case of a lack of Golden Standard, some countries which RECOGNIZE the currency of another country, i. e. where the currency is convertible, can accept the currency of the other country directly without exchanging the currency into gold ). Logical money is money which can only bring more money either through investments or through the interest rate, i. e. a capital of some sort. In qualitative terms, logical money ( capital ) can be divided into investments and loans. In quantitate terms, loans can be divided into personal, financial and industrial. Loan means money now instead of money after. Because people prefer money now instead of waiting for money after, they seek money now and those who WANT give them money now use their desire for money now to make money after to give money now and receive this money and MORE after. In capitalist terms, money is a process which develops. The difference between what the loaners give now and receive after is the interest rate. Whether to give money now depends on whether the loaner thinks the loanee will be able to return this money and whether the loaner can compensate for the lack of return by, say, confiscating property or goods and converting these into money or keeping these. What the interest rate is depends on the quantity of the loaners and the inflation. Gold Standard may be used for calculations and, in some cases for loaning, i. e. instead of someone giving X amount of money to someone and asking to be returned X and deltaX money in the future, one can give the amount of money equivalent to X kilograms of gold now and to request the request the return of an amount of money equivalent to X and deltaX kilograms of gold thereafter. Thus, the inflation factor will be greatly REDUCED. Gold also inflates and may loose value towards other goods BUT the gold inflation is negligible as opposed to the huge money inflation. Personal loans are loans given to people for their PERSONAL THINGS : houses, cars, food, maintenance. Industrial loans are loans given to people for their BUSINESS : machines, factories, energy, salaries, etcetera. In order to DISTINGUISH between personal goods and business goods, most country introduce type of businesses which are LIMITED : in case these businesses fail, only the business will be considered for repossession and not the peoples PERSONAL PROPERTY. This has been made to encourage people make business and as a PROTECTION of the people’s personal property as no one would risk personal property in order to make money but will gladly risk business property. Obviously, the loaner would prefer to loan money to unlimited than to limited businesses because the loaner will be able to get much more in return ( personal property ) in case of a failure. In some countries, non limited businesses are outphased and only limited are available. Countries which make differentiation between personal and business property are more advanced capitalist countries while these which do not are known as countries with primitive capitalism ( a. k. a. wild capitalism ). Interest exists only because people want or need money now and do not want to or cannot wait for money after. Thus, MONEY IS A RISK PROCESS. Instruments which lower the risk also reduce the interest rates. High risk environment increase the interest rates. Thus, in the money process, interest rate and risk are opposite in direction variables. In socialism, there are only personal loans which, theoretically, should be interest free. The problem with socialism, in general, is not the socialism per se but the implementation thereof. Because of the incorrect implementation as well as because of the loss of conversion rate towards the money of other

countries ( capitalist ), a negligible interest rate is charged. Socialism does not have inflation theoretically. Practically because of the incorrect implementation, mainly because of incorrect organization, there is. A socialist country, from an economy prospective, should be nothing else but a company. The same way there are multi product companies which manufacture many products like, say, Yamaha : from guitars to motorcycles and, probably, parts for cars, a socialist country should be a company which manufactures EVERYTHING or as much as they can compensating for what they cannot manufacture at a given point ( lack of resources ) with trade which can either be barter or monetary. The same way like there is no inflation within a given company but there is a lousy organization which leads to inefficiency, there must be no inflation in socialism BUT the efficiency of the socialism ( the organization of a socialist economy ) depends only on the MANAGEMENT of a socialist country ( called government ) and not on the socialism as socialism is something like a constitution which only gives GENERAL LAWS and does not deal with organization. AND THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OF MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN AS WELL AS ALL OTHER SOCIALIST MAKERS : THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO EVERYTHING ( OR TO A GREAT DEAL OF A LOWER LEVEL ) AND NOT ONLY IN GENERAL. None of them did so and left the organization ( efficiency ) to others who were unable to do so. These others were not as powerful thinkers as the three. Also the three considered the organization not to be very difficult and anyone would do the same. They considered the general rules of the socialism create a railroad and all other have no other way but to follow the rails. They did consider a possible deviation BUT they considered this deviational error to be insignificant. And this was where they had the problems. The deviation ( error ) of the socialism from the general way signified with the development of socialism. The three could not have predicted this but they should have. They did NOT calculate the quantity of this deviation ( the amount of the possible error : the tolerance ). Thus they made a quantitative error. And, as Hegel has proven, quantity leads to quality : the quantitative error reached a level of a qualitative system error and thus the socialism has become very fragile and has been, eventually, destroyed but will PROBABLY restart again soon. Hopefully, when this is so, a better mathematicians, physicists, engineers and system designers will lead the new socialism than the big three who were big thinkers yet not very good in instrumentation of socialism where the amounts of the deviations can be taken into consideration. Socialism is nothing else but an automatic control system which complies with the laws of automatic control systems and there is no way not to. Socialism is not a defined control system but is rather a defined STATISTICAL automatic control system. Statistical systems are these which do not work in principle by strictly defined ways but the ways of working of the statistical system are also processes and change. Statistical systems are systems with variable parameters, the parameters of which vary not by a strictly defined laws but by random statistical ones WHICH statistical laws are also laws and they also have a statistically defined principle of work, mainly observed by the two most important statistical parameters : the average amount and the amount of deviation from the average amount. The same applies to capitalism but, in capitalism, the deviation error is bigger than the average which means capitalism is even statistically incontrollable and unpredictable and can easily self destroy or is always unstable. There are feedbacks in capitalism but there are other feedback which contradict them : i. e. there are stabilizing ( negative ) feedbacks and there are destructive ( positive ) feedbacks. In such a multi feedback system the strength ( deepness ) of a feedback defines the ability and stability of only this feedback. In other words, the generally thought feedbacks in capitalism may or may not work

because other, opposite feedbacks may be stronger and thus prevent the other feedbacks to work or strongly diminishing their work ability. Example : the pice and competition feedback gets destroyed by the price profit feedback. True : the more manufacturers, the higher the competition the lower the price. BUT ALSO THE LOWER THE PROFIT PER COMPANY. There is another feedback : the lower the profit the less manufacturers the higher the price. Can these feedbacks balance themselves out? The capitalist ideologies say they can. This is because they, the same as Marx, Engels and Lenin, do not calculate the amounts very well. The amount of profit is higher than the amount of manufacturing as profit drives manufacturing and not the other way around ( the manufacturers manufacture in order to make a profit, they do not manufacture just for fun and the profit just happens ). Thus the desire for higher profit makes competition impossible. All manufacturers continue to compete BUT for something else. They compete who will make the highest profit. This, new, competition feedback drives the prices high thus lowers the consumption thus lowers the competition and even makes the prices higher instead of decreasing them. Thus, fewer and fewer manufacturers compete for higher and higher prices and are not to compete and not to manufacture unless huge prices are available. Thus this new feedback leads to the general rule of capitalism : every one competes to destroy the competition and become the only competitiveness manufacturer to drive the prices even higher. Then new may come ( however, strongly latched and suppressed by the establish one ) and the whole cycle will continue BUT AT LEVELS CLOSE TO THE MAXIMAL AND WILL NOT START FROM THE LOWER BECAUSE OF THE LATCHING EFFECT OF THE PROFIT COMPETITION SYSTEM. In other words : than manufacturers would say : EITHER HUGE PROFIT, OR I WILL TAKE THE WOODS TO STAY THERE FOR FREE. I ain’t working for anything but a huge profit. The upper level profit is also a process and has been going up for a very long while and will continue to only go up as no one wants to work for a lower profit because they know what the standard is. And the standard gets changed with the profit too. Rich people have much more purchasing power than the poor now than before and want even more and not less. To want even more is because of the law of unlimited desire in capitalism. The law of limited resources does not change the law of the unlimited desire in quantity of the desire but changes the level of the poor : more and more people become poor and cannot consume the limited resources instead. The law for unlimited desires cannot be changed a lot because capitalism is driven by profit and by trying to achieve as much profit as possible. Inflation and devaluation compensate for the high profit desire and not the limited resources. To stop inflation and devaluation there is only one way : more poverty. The unlimited desire drives the capitalism and not a limited one, otherwise the capitalism will stop at a given level and not continue. This will be noticed and no one wants to live in a society which does not improve and develop THUS the social system must either improve at high speed OR will be changed. Do you understand already? ... Fraud; false moneys, given a legal standing ..., using other terminology, so that you should understand me. Banks, the stock exchanges and the whole world financial system - is a gigantic machine for the purpose of bringing about unnatural scandals, according to Aristotle's expression; to force money to produce money - that is something that if it is a crime in economics, then in relations to finances it is a crime against the criminal code, since it is usury. I do not know by what arguments all this is justified: by the proposition that they receive legal interest ... ?

SSB : Interest is profit and as said, profit is also illegal and also comes from stealing peoples energy, i. e., exploitation. Interest is just the same profit as any other profit. This is why, those who think Muslim Economy is anything else than pure capitalism, exactly the same as everywhere else, just because they removed loaning from their capitalist system are either religious people or complete idiots. Religious people are also mildly crazy people with severe delusional disorder but they are not considered as such because stupidity and lack of information can also lead to religion. This is not the case anymore but this has been the case and, now, religion is just a tradition which comes from the information darkness era. However, in some IMPORTANT cases, the carrying of the tradition is not justified because of the effect of doing so. In this case, the Muslim capitalist ideologists have got no right to justify the economic claims by Muslim governments in saying they do something else and not capitalism. Libya was the only one to attempt to do so, not entirely successfully as Libya has never opted out of capitalism just diminished this to a very low level. Thus, the Muslim governments and ideologists must admit one thing : the Muslim countries work using exactly the same and not different system than Israel, The U. S. A and all other capitalist countries, i. e. the muslims use the system of their enemies. And this all is because profit is one thing and not many : profit is exploitation and there is not difference between interest rate profit and the industrial one : people are exploited the same way. Without admitting this and by claiming they have a different system than the others, they are either clinically delusional or stupid or nothing but liars and manipulators. There is another system question : in case of a perfect development when everything has been improved and cannot be improved more and all resources are available to all and are unrestricted then, can capitalism work FOR SOME PROFIT and not for a HIGHER THAN THIS SOME PROFIT? Can capitalism find some profit stability? No. Every society is a dynamic improvement society. In case there is nothing to be improved and all the resources ( except human energy ) are unlimited, then a stable society can be achieved too BUT NOT CAPITALISM. One of the reasons for this is because only the human energy will become limited. In case of no improvement, there will be some people who take the energy of some people. Yes BUT energy is a resource and no one wants to give this resource unless there is some kind of profit. The ones who possess the energy will continue to want to make the profit by selling this energy to the ones who want to purchase ( exploitation ). NO ONE WANTS TO BE EXPLOITED. Thus, those who possess the energy will try to sell this energy at higher and higher prices and will never stop as their energy makes the profits of the few some and they will try to do the best they can to reduce or eliminate the profit of the few some and get higher and higher profit from their energy. Thus, such a society cannot be a capitalist one and will either change to socialism or communism or to a new, presently undiscovered one. What in case the human energy is not a factor? What in case everything can be done by machines? Then why should there be a few some to take the production of these machines and not all? On what principle. Ownership? Ownership brings the same capitalist circle again : ownership is nothing but profit and stealing energy, one way or the other and resources from the rest because resources, when unlimited are available to everyone and not only to some. Thus, the machines, which are also resource also because they are made by natural resources will also become available to all thus ownership cannot keep capitalism. Thus, there will not be any reason why there should be a few who have more resources than the other and thus

capitalism cannot exist but can only be changed to a new society. Marx, Engels and Lenin have said this new society can only be socialism or communism. I will smoothen their say : capitalism is only a transitional society which will definitely lead to a new society. What kind of society? I do not want to say and is not very important as the important thing to understand is capitalism is only temporary. There was only one way the capitalism has survived so far : the know how. The know how became only a temporary factor, mainly in the 60’s and 80’s agter big scientific discoveries. However, know how cannot be a factor in a long run as all will know soon what only some know now : every one can make a discovery or invention and no genius is required for these as all of these are rather simple and soon other will make them. Hitler knew this as well as the communist leaders. In the new millennia, the know how is no longer a factor or not a significant one. In other words, now, every country can make everything or almost everything of what the other countries can. Without the know how, resource limitations and human energy as a factor, no one would want capitalism to continue just for fun. No one wants to give energy nor to be exploited just for fun. There is also the illogical possibility for this to happen just for fun, though : some people may decide to keep the few rich people just to watch fun : just like a movie or a theatrical where the rich people would be the actors and the people who keep them rich do so only in order to sit and watch the show. Even accepting that, and even that admission is more than is necessary, we see that usury still exists, since even if the interest received is legal, then it invents and falsifies the non-existent capital. Banks have always by way of deposits or moneys in productive movement a certain quantity of money which is five or perhaps even a hundred times greater than there are physically coined moneys of metal or paper. I shall say nothing of those cases when the credit-moneys, i.e. false, fabricated ones, are greater than the quantity of moneys paid out as capital. Bearing in mind that lawful interest is fixed not on real capital but on non-existing capital, the interest is illegal by so many times as the fictional capital is greater than the real one. SSB : When the money are not covered by Gold Standard, then every government can print money as they wish. The problem is, when the money is not covered by goods, the money purchasers purchase money as per the good standard which they themselves define. The same applies to the money users. Thus, this means devaluation of the money. Although money instruments, such as printing money and devaluation, have been used as economic instruments to prevent or recover from crisis ( inflation ) and although these tricks may or may not have a quick term effect, the governments may not be able to raise the value of money thereafter unless they can strongly proof the improved goods standard or the governments may not want to raise the value of money as this will introduce instability unless does very gradually which will drive the money purchaser and user ( the money speculator ) uncertain and this will not conform to the raised standard thus the money will continue to be latched down to the devaluated level. This is because the re evaluation of money is based on the market as opposed to the devaluation which is based on the government decision and the market is inert AND THE MARKET DOES NOT ALWAYS ( OR, BETTER SAID, ALMOST NEVER ) REFLECT THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF GOODS BECAUSE OF THE HUGE MARKET SYSTEMATIC AUTOMATIC ERROR. I. E. THE MARKET CANNOT DECIDE WELL OR CAN DECIDE INCREDIBLY SLOWLY AS OPPOSED TO A

CORRECT GOVERNMENT WHICH MAY AND MAY DO SO QUICKLY. When money is based on gold standard as in 1938, then printing money is still possible but rather dangerous : only certain amount above the gold value can be printed based on the principle of not every one but only some will want to cash the paper money into gold. Once more money is printed, the government would rely on future gains in gold to cover for the higher amount of printed money. Statistics can help yet this game is rather dangerous : in case the paper money owner does not realize this and does not get scared and has no other reason to cash the paper money, then OK. However, in case of a suspicion or bad economy and finances, most or all of the owners of paper money will want to cash into gold and then the government has the only option of borrowing gold from other countries or going in bankruptcy. The gold standard is better than floating money as this introduces the so much needed stability. In case of a strongly good covered economy, floating money and speculations with floating money or printed in higher amounts than gold money is possible yet dangerous as the good market is unstable in any country as well as internationally with many new manufacturers arising ( decreasing the export ) or fewer manufacturers in the country managing to cope ( decreasing the amount of manufactured goods. In case of a week good economy, the speculation with the two types of money is very dangerous and will definitely bring constant devaluation which means constant instability and, therefore, lack of manufacturing. Governments use artificial devaluations for export / import stabilization as well as lowering and increasing of the manufacturing. Again, this game may or may not give some outcome in a quick terms and will bring complication thereafter, thus, the stability of money is much more important and the prices lowering / increasing around the stable value is preferable as opposed to the other way around : variation of money and keeping the prices as numbers. This is because no one wants to work for toilet paper nor to accumulate such and people do work for gold or, said in other words, for stable money. The varied value money has another problem : when money vary, people may get the same amount of goods as before in case of salary / price re calculation. HOWEVER, the saved money is lost unless they are recalculated which never happens because, in case of such, there is no money variation but just number variation ( or lower money digitization : one penny was money before, now, even one dollar is not, thus the digitization is now based on ten dollars as opposed to being based on one penny before ). The governments use this also as an instrument to make people invest instead of keeping money into the bank which may devaluate. In strong economy ( strong good and increasing ) this may or may not work. In not strong economy ( or strong but predictably to go non strong ), people convert all or most paper money savings into gold as this is the only strong good and the whole market is or will not be strong in order to invest. This is why, in present capitalism, most or all people in the non Euro capitalist countries convert their money into the stable gold and silver ( mainly gold ) as well as precious stones ( which is not as stable as gold because their value is also to an extend based on the markets whereas the value of gold towards all other goods ( precious stones included ) is stable and gold is the only stable good : not 100% stable but pretty close and the closest as gold is always

in demand and there is not much found in the world and because every one uses gold as the most stable resource and all prices get recalculated against gold only and there is no other universal good to recalculate against. Thus, once the gold wheel got rolling a few thousand years ago, even before the Phoenicians invented the money, the gold wheel has never stopped and will not be or to stop this gold wheel may be very difficult because people who want stability look always at gold only. Bear in mind that this system, which I am describing in detail, is one of the most innocent among those used for the fabrication of false money. Imagine to yourself, if you can, a small number of people, having unlimited power through the possession of real wealth, and you will see that they are the absolute dictators of the stock-exchange; and as a result of this also the dictators of production and distribution and also of work and consumption. If you have enough imagination then multiply this, by the global factor and you will see its anarchical, moral and social influence, i.e. a revolutionary one ... Do you now understand? SSB : True : people with money dictate everything in capitalism, finances the most as well as financial speculations and, one way or another, either run or convince the governments ( convince usually claiming jobs and company wealth variation which brings instability at a country level ( indirect people level ) and direct people level ) to do what the rich say, thus, the rich rule the capitalist countries one way or another. G. - No, not yet. SSB : What R. said on finances was very clear and G. does understand this. Yet, G. says no to make R. continue with the explanation, so Hitler and even the German military can understand. G. probably wants R. to continue in another, more convenient for Hitler direction which is where R. has been going. This direction will become clear in a while. R. - Obviously it is very difficult to understand miracles. SSB : By miracles, R. means capitalist casino style speculations. G. - Miracle?

R. - Yes, miracle. Is it not a miracle that a wooden bench has been transformed into a temple? And yet such a miracle has been seen by people a thousand times, and they did not bat an eyelid, during a whole century. Since this was an extraordinary miracle that the benches on which sat the greasy usurers to trade in their moneys, have now been converted into temples, which stand magnificently at every corner of contemporary big towns with their heathen colonnades, and crowds go there with a faith which they are already not given by heavenly gods, in order to bring assiduously their deposits of all their possessions to the god of money, who, they imagine, lives in the steel safes of the bankers, and who is preordained, thanks to his divine mission to increase the wealth to a metaphysical infinity. SSB : Money as capital and, mainly, the capitalists, more mainly, the financial capitalist in a financial capitalist societies are Gods and there is no other God in such a society. The NEW

MIRACLES these Gods perform are the increase of money solely by a possession of money which increase comes from exploitation of people, i. e. from other people. Thus, people who have money, increase their money by taking energy from people who do not have money : this energy can either be their labour energy ( working force ) or their energy of possessed goods ( land, animals, agricultural stock, houses ). Because, as said, money is nothing but a good which can be exchanged against most or all other goods, money can also be taken from the poor in order to make the rich richer. The capitalist ideologies and politicians ( most noticeably, Reagan and Thatcher ) would like to play with the so called “ unilimited increase of money “ which, even they, are afraid to mention being easily proven wrong and, mainly, with the so called “ trickle down theory “ or the “ gear theory “. The unlimited increase of money theory says : money will always be increasing and thus coming from somewhere : from the manufactured goods. However, those who manufacture goods ain’t so stupid as the ideologists may consider and, with or without a delay, they recalculate the prices and salaries ( afraid from the labour to react ) as well as the saved capitals ( converting these into stable goods and mainly gold). Again : energy can neither be made nor to be lost : energy can only change from one type into another. Money is also energy. The “ trickle down theory “ is even more stupid yet more difficult for people to understand : True to some extend : when rich make money they may increase the salaries of their poor workers. BUT THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN WHEN THE RICH STEAL THE MONEY FOR BECOMING RICHER AS WELL AS FOR INCREASING THE SALARIES OF THEIR WORKER FROM OTHER PEOPLE. However, Reagan and Thatcher are clever enough to understand ( to some extend ) the difference between personal property, business property and common property. The money the workers are paid to work for a capitalist is personal money to the given worker who is paid this money. This worker cares only for self and family AND DOES NOT GIVE A FLYING FART for others. Thus, the worker is happy with Reagan and Thatcher who promise more money and does not give a shit for other poor who will lose or for self who will also loose in the future. The time domain works the same as the property domain : the worker does not give a scheisse for the future and only for now. This is because people are stupid in looking of people as a whole and how the whole affects them as well as people are stupid because they neither look in the future nor in the past and only in present. Thus, using people stupidity, capitalists and capitalist politicians can easily manipulate people. And this was why people had voted for Reagan and Thatcher who were proven wrong just, literally, a few years after they came to power. In terms of gears, the “ trickle down theory “ can be explained this way : When the big wheels get more torque, the other wheels get more speed, i. e. when the rich become richer, the poor become richer too. BUT, regardless what the torque and the speed is, the energy is the same. Energy cannot be created within the wheel system. Energy can only come from outside. Thus, the representation of capitalism as a gear system which perpetum mobile’s ( generates ) energy is wrong. Energy cannot be generated by a gear system. In terms of cars : the gears ( transmission ) does NOT generate energy but uses the energy from the outside ( from the engine ) to convert this energy into the same amount of energy but two types : torque and speed. The energy remains the same. How much of this energy will be converted into torque energy and how much into a speed energy gets done by the transmission. G. - This is the new religion of the decayed bourgeoisie?

R. - Religion, yes, the religion of power.

G. - You appear to be the poet of economics. SSB : G. refers to the R.’s comparison of money and the financial capitalists to Gods. Otherwise, as mentioned, money and financial capitalism as well as the whole and all capitalism are objects to science and NOT art. R. - If you like, then in order to give a picture of finance, as of a work of art which is most obviously a work of genius and the most revolutionary of all times, poetry is required.

G. - This is a faulty view. Finances, as defined by Marx, and more especially Engels, are determined by the system of Capitalistic production. SSB : True : finances are determined by the system of the capitalistic production and cannot be the other way around : the system of the capitalistic production CANNOT be determined by money. R. - Exactly, but just the reverse: the Capitalistic system of production is determined by finance. The fact that Engels states the opposite and even tries to prove this, is the most obvious proof that finances rule bourgeois production. So it is and so it was even before Marx and Engels, that finances were the most powerful instrument of revolution and the Comintern was nothing but a toy in their hands. But neither Marx nor Engels will disclose or explain this. On the contrary, making use of their talent as scientists, they had to camouflage truth for a second time in the interests of the revolution. And that both of them did. SSB : As far as the money and capitalism goes, R. is TOTALLY WRONG as clarified before. In case of using the financial capitalism for even more encouraging people to revolution, R. has a point BUT people cannot understand finances in order to be revolutionized through them. Not without many TRUTHFUL explanation and how R. explains is far away from truthful and far away from revolutionizing people. Because of people’s stupidity and not understanding, people can only be revolutionized if they are explained the truth : money does not come from money but comes from their energy. Thus : finances are nothing but even stronger exploitation of people against people, rich against poor where eventually rich become richer and poor become poorer regardless of temporary effects because, again : energy cannot be created by finances : energy can only be transferred from one type to another : from industrial exploitation to financial exploitation. Ask yourself the question : where do the money of the financier come from? From people giving money to the financier? Are they so stupid just to donate money to the financier? No. They do so in order for the financier to make them more money. And where does this more money come from? From more business? And where does more business come from? From more trade and or more production. Production OK, but where does more trade come from? From more production. Thus FINANCES ARE DETERMINED BY PRODUCTION ONLY. More finances means more production. And where more production come from? From more machines or more labor energy. Labor energy OK. But where more machines come from? From more labor energy. And where more fuel for

the machines comes from? From more labor energy. And how come the financier makes more money from more labor energy? The financier pays less than the labor energy costs. And how is this called in Latin? Exploitation! ( Be aware : labor energy is always the same : at a period, there may be a higher level of production, at a period : a lower level, yet the price of the energy is the same. There is no way for the capitalist, financier or not, to pay the correct amount and to make money UNLESS THE CAPITALIST IS A WORKER AND ALSO WORKS AND GETS ONLY PAID FOR THE ENERGY WHICH THE CAPITALIST USES AS A WORKER. Then the capitalist is not a capitalist but a worker regardless of ownership. Simply said : when GM makes $1000 per car profit, GM is NOT supposed to make $1000 per car profit but to distribute the profit to the people to whom this profit belong, i. e. to the people who made this profit. If the owner of GM is a worker and gets only paid what the same worker who is not a GM profit taker makes ( normal worker ) then the owner of GM is NOT a capitalist but a worker and GM makes no profit as there is not anyone to take this profit but the profit gets distributed instead. Then, the same way the owner is a worker, ALL workers are capitalists unless ALL COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES WORK IN THE SAME PRINCIPLE because, when not, the GM workers steal the DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THEMSELVES profit from another worker : the consumer. In case the consumers of GM are ONLY capitalists and not workers, then these capitalists steal the money to give to GM as a profit from their workers. Again : in case all companies and businesses work the same as the depicted imaginary GM way, then there will no longer be capitalism in the society but this will have become a socialist instead. Please, also note : all non capitalists are workers : engineers are also workers, economists too. All who do NOT take equal for all workers’ share of the profit are workers. Worker does not mean only manual labor worker as many people think wrongly. Engineers also work, just they use their brain energy which they sell to the capitalists the same way as the manual labor workers use their physical labor energy. Energy is energy regardless of the type. Types are different, energy is the same. The same way the worker gets energy from the food to power muscles and brain, the engineer gets energy from the food to power brain ( and, in some cases, muscle when engineers need to perform non standard physical labor in order to achieve the production of their brain labor ). R, knows R. is wrong but continues to lie through teeth to achieve the goal : blame the financiers and the financial capitalists as well as all other previously mentioned but do NOT attack The USSR and do NOT start a global World War II. Had Hitler only concentrated on the lost territories because of the Versailles treaty, there would not have been a World War III but only a local war between Germany and France. The quantity leads to a new quality only after a given quantitative threshold. As clearly proven, this threshold has not and, theoretically and practically cannot be reached in capitalism. The quantity of the financial capitalism towards the industrial capitalism may have increased BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY to create a new quality capitalism or any other society because financial capitalism is determined by industrial capitalism and not the other way around. This is because money is only a good which can be exchanged against most or all other goods, slightly more universal but still a good and can only happen in case of availability of other goods and the strength of money depends on the strength of other goods. The same applies to gold as a universal good. The greater stability of gold as compared to non gold

standard based paper money is because gold is not only a good in capitalist terms but also a material : a very well sought after and very limited in quantity material. Although gold as a universal good depends on the other goods too, the variations of gold as a universal good are not so high because gold is also a material and because of the need of capitalism to have a stable reference as opposed to having a relative one. In simple words : no one wants to work for and accumulate toilet paper when this toilet paper cannot be exchanged for other goods in the near future. Those who work for and accumulate want to work for and accumulate what will always be exchangeable for goods in the future. Thus, the material properties and availabilities on one side and the necessity for stability on the other, make gold a universal exchange good which will not vary significantly in the future and the values of all other goods will be recalculated against this universal good and will not affect the value of this universal good towards all other present and future goods, not significantly. Gold is a very stable reference towards all other present and future goods : not 100% stable but very close to 100%. The only way for this to be changed is to discover a huge amounts of gold, say, in Mars and gold to become as usual as, say, iron of which the planet is infested. Then, the material value of gold will not be present because the demand supply ratio of the material gold will change but the necessity for a stable good will remain and people will find another good, more stable than gold also because of the material properties, including the limited availability versus the unlimited or a lot versatile applications, hence the supply demand ratio in support of the stability of this good towards all other. G. - This story is not new. All this somewhat reminds me of what Trotzky had written some ten years ago.

R. - Tell me ... SSB : G. and R. tactically change places now. Before, R. talked what R. thought Marx, Engels and Lenin said and their, according to R., “ weaknesses “.G. and R. want now G. to talk of the same of Trotsky. In other words, R. partly “ criticized “, although untruthfully Marx, Engels and Lenin. G. and R. want G. to criticize ( hopefully truthfully ) Trotsky. Why? The same reason. To give something to Hitler, so Hitler does not attack. G. - When he says that the Comintern is a conservative organization in comparison with the stock-exchange in New York; he points at the big bankers as being the inventors of the revolution. SSB : By “ inventors “, G. means the reason for the revolution. Here is a point Hitler can go against : against the financeists and not against the socialist revolution and countries with this system ( a. k. a. communist revolution because socialism is the first stage of communism and society will change from socialism to capitalism when this stage is completed automatically and without revolution because this is the task of this first stage by design). R. - Yes, he said this in a small book in which he foretold the fall of England ... Yes, he said this and added: "Who pushes England along the path of revolution?" ... and replied: "Not Moscow, but New York."

SSB : What Trotsky wanted to say the contradictions of capitalism and, in the case of The U. K., the contradictions of the financial capitalism will destroy The U. K. which had been based mainly and strongly on the industrial capital with inability to have financial capitalism as a slightly stronger point. ( financial can never be predominant to industrial as pointed out ). Most likely, Trotsky said so after examining the particularities of capitalism in The U. K. and because The U. K. had limited resources to maintain finances as well as limited industrial capital, mainly as compared to The U. S. A. Thus The U. K. can only rely on industrial capitalism of manufacturing goods as the quantity of this industrial capitalism is not so high as to create an environment for a slightly higher ( not higher than the qualitative threshold for a change in quality ) role of the financial capitalism inside. G. - But remember also his assertion that if the financiers of New York had forged the revolution, then it was done unconsciously. SSB : This means, The U. K. may reach a revolution without knowing so because of the strong contradiction of the financial and industrial capital inside. Thus, Hitler does not to attack The U. K. as well. The U. K. will outdo the financial capital, although unknowingly, which is supposed to be what Hitler is supposed to be against. R. - The explanation which I had already given in order to help to understand why Engels and Marx camouflaged the truth, is equally applicable also to Leo Trotzky. SSB : Engels and Marx have never camouflaged the truth as explained before and they have provided a very clear explanation on money and concentrated on the reason of the money instead which, because the reason is only one and extremely direct ( money is a good ) is a very direct explanation and thus R. lies.

G. - I value in Trotzky only that he in a sort of literary form interpreted an opinion of a fact which as such was too well known, with which one had already reckoned previously. Trotzky himself states quite correctly that these bankers "carry out irresistibly and unconsciously their revolutionary mission." SSB : G. says financial capitalism is a catalyst of the revolution for which the industrial capitalism is the main reason BUT the capitalists and their ideologists do NOT know this : they do not understand they indirectly and unknowingly, by following their instincts, increase the speed of the world revolution BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONCENTRATE ON INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM AND BECAUSE THEY THINK THE FINANCIAL CAPITALISM IS SOMETHING SEPARATE AND DOES NOT NEED THE INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM. THUS THE FINANCIAL CAPITALIST DESTROY THE INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM JUST TO DESTROY THEMSELVES AS FINANCES CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT INDUSTRY BECAUSE MONEY IS ONLY A GOOD, WHETHER MONEY IS A GOOD WHICH CAN GROW OR LOSE ( CHANGE VALUE ) OR NOT. MONEY GETS DESTROYED BY LACK OF OTHER GOODS AND GOLD BECOMES JUST A MATERIAL in which case gold is not a capital thus not capitalist money and gold will not change in value against other goods thus there will not be capital nor capitalism. Capital is money ( or a good ) which can increase or decrease in value against all, most or some of the other goods. Hitler,

can also be a catalyst in destroying or decreasing the financial capital in help of the industrial capital and this way conducts Hitler’s “ National Socialist Revolution “ as dubbed by Hitler which does not exists but Hitler must not be told so. Hitler must continue to think against the financial capitalism which, when decreased and destroyed, would help the industrial capital and this is how Hitler will save Germany from communism and continue to parade in power. In non capitalist sense of money, money is a good and no good which can change in value. Then, to use a gold standard makes no sense except to limit the amount of the printed money or to make printed money convertible. The introduction of the Golden Ruble made exactly thi : the Soviet Ruble was not a convertible currency but the Soviet Golden Ruble was. Golden Rubles were not made available to the general public. They existed in theory but, in practice, very unlikely is for these to have ever been used. The idea was to be used AS A MEASURE only in case of a necessity to purchase something from a country which did not accept the standard Soviet Ruble : the Western countries. However, Golden Rubles were probably not used because The USSR was self sufficient and because The USSR had a lot of Western money, such as Dollars and all Western European currencies because The Soviet Union was making a huge amount of Western money through building and trade. Building was used in the Arab countries where Soviet companies were building the infrastructure ( roads, bridges, buildings, water builds ) and these companies ( State Owned ) were paid in US Dollars or other Western currencies. The main customers of the Soviet companies were the Arab countries which were rich in US and Western currencies through the petrol trade mainly with the US and Western Europe. The USSR were able to also export petrol and other resources and machines to the Western world but preferred to keep the Soviet resources in house while selling “ brains, construction, building materials ( very simple and widely available resources ), simple metal such as iron, largely available most anywhere and very inexpensive to the Arab countries. The important point is to examine money and gold in non capitalist sense. Money has been examined. Gold is always a good in only a non capitalist sense and cannot be a good in a capitalist sense : the value of gold ( systematically ) does not change in capitalism but is, rather, a reference. Some politicians have tried to go around this and have failed. The tiny fluctuation of gold are not systematic but rather caused by other than the system events. Such an event may be a temporary event such as a huge surge in the demand of a good because of abnormal anomalies. For example, the building material price increase hugely after a natural event, such as flood. This, however, is not a normal operation of the capitalist system but, rather, an error. Obviously, in case of a war, gold losses value as far as humans are concerned who are prepared to give all of their gold and money just to be saved. The most important point of a need of a reference in capitalism is because the capitalists want to increase a given good in value and thus to get more value. They also need a measure, not only the non capitalists. This measure is called money. The reference must be stable otherwise they do not know whether they have gotten more value or not. In case of non stability, they want this reference good ( money ) to only increase in value and to never decrease. This, however is impossible because of the impossibility to gain value just from nothing. Value is energy : energy cannot be created nor lost. Money without a gold standard does depend on

market fluctuations. Market is nothing else but a casino. In this casino people may win or may lose. Those who win, win at the expense of those who lose and the other way around. Thus gold has these important qualities as a material. Money in a non capitalist way too has SOME but not all of the qualities of gold. Money, in a capitalist way, does also have these qualities of money in a non capitalist way, as well as something more : can change in amount ( and value when there is a lack of a gold standard ). Gold cannot change in value, just in amount unless something abnormal happens. The Physical Qualities of Gold

A. Gold cannot loose amounts when exposed to the environment. Gold does not rust and does not change. Gold does not convert into other elements, nor other elements convert into gold. Gold is a chemically neutral element and stays the same with the same weight and shape for ever. Gold can be stored.

B. Gold can easily be accumulated and does not disappear or change in amount in accumulation.

C. Gold is very rear and sought after : tiny amounts have huge amount of value against other resources. Gold is sought after because of all these qualities described in this paragraph.

D. Gold is malleable which means gold is SOFT can be shaped in any shape easily without tools.

E. Gold does not lose value because of NORMAL storage and exchange mechanically. In other words : Gold is scratch resistant to NORMAL mechanical forces applied in standard storage, transportation and exchange handling. Gold is a SOFT METAL : soft but still metal. Gold is soft and can be easily shaped even by hand BUT gold cannot be scratched in normal procedures. Gold can only be EASILY scratched in case the owner does want to do so : with a metal file or a grinding stone.

F. Gold does NOT interact with other elements and thus remains incredibly clean : gold cannot attract nor combine with other elements, non organic or organic. This is why gold is used for drinking cups : the cup can simply be cleaned with soap washing unlike other materials which may retain organic or non organic chemicals. Retention of organic chemical can be created by a given non organic chemical mechanically and or chemically. An easy mechanical way would be : iron rusts, rust is dangerous, rust also creates mechanically uneven surface which retains organic chemicals which cannot be EASILY washed. This is why use of iron pottery is not allowed in most countries of the world and neither is plastic and wood : they cannot be washed because of their non scratch resistant and non slippery surfaces. Gold is flashy and slippery. Any chemical can be washed from gold. Gold may be used for potteries, not only for cups, but this is not welcome in case of sharp steel knifes and utensils ( which are preferable for their ease of use ). Any other use of gold is welcome.

G. Gold can be used for easily made weapons, such as arrow tips. To make a tip from brass or copper or even silver, as well as to sharpen this is very difficult. The same can be made of gold in seconds with bare hands and stones as hammers and can be sharpen in any stone. Can be made as sharp as to take an animal although gold is soft. Good enough for hunting.

H. Gold has low temperature of melting. Anyone can melt gold in most any pot even at home or on a back yard barbecue fire.

I. There is no other so soft metal as gold. Gold can easily be recognized by colour and, most importantly, by a simple strength test, such as scratching tiny amounts on a stone, nail scratching, bending, even teeth biting. Easily recognizable and impossible to falsify. Even more : the purity of gold can easily be found by these simple tests. Not very accurate but still to an extend.

J. Gold can easily be transported : because of rarity and many applications throughout the whole history, tiny amounts of gold can be exchanged against a huge amount of other resources. Humans can easily carry 5kg of gold. A car costs 300g of Gold : 300g is such a light weight, anyone can put in a pocket. One can purchase 15 good quality cars just carrying 5kg of gold. One can walk the whole world with a weight of 5kg.

K. Gold is very difficult to prove in court UNLESS PROPER CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SUCH AS STABILITY TO STRONG ACIDS OR MAS SPECTROMETRY IS APPLIED. Thus, anyone can walk with 1kg of gold in jewelry and no one can know this is gold just looking at this from far. No one who may suspect gold can prove purity. Thus gold can be easily exported even when not allowed. 1kg of gold can purchase a house in some states or a trailer wagon most anywhere. Or an RV.

L. Gold can be purified to the extend of 99.999%. Practically all other mixtures can be removed.

M. Gold has applications in any sphere. The new spheres overtaken by gold is because PURE gold is the best electrical conductor in the world and gold can be pure to the extend of 99.999%. Because of excellent conductivity and virtually pure 0 Ohms resistance, gold can transfer huge electrical current without any heating nor overheating. True other metals do not melt easily and can conduct current at high temperatures BUT gold does NOT heat, so, despite of low melting temperature, gold can conduct much higher currents than metals with high temperature of melting but also MUCH higher heating because of their high material electrical resistance. Electronics takes the best advantage thereof. Medicine and dentistry take advantage of the non rustiness of gold.

N. Gold is light. Space takes and advantage thereof. From an economy point of view, in all kind of economies, these few features are very important : Gold can be stored for ever; Gold has a huge value also because of the limited supply in the world, thus : TINY AMOUNTS OF GOLD EXCHANGE FOR HUGE AMOUNTS OF OTHER GOODS, i. e. Gold can be carried; Gold can be recognized; Gold can be exchanged from hand to hand without any damage nor loss. These are why gold has been used for money in all economies in the world. The only difference between capitalism and socialism is in socialism gold ( money ) cannot increase in amount just because gold ( money ) is gold (money ) while in capitalism can. Thus, in case a person has 1kg of gold or the equivalent amount of US dollars, this person will always have this 1kg of gold or whatever the initial amount of US Dollars has been. In case of capitalism, when one has 1kg of gold, one can have 2kg of gold JUST BECAUSE ONE HAS INITIALLY HAD 1kg of gold and no other reason. Example : one has 1kg of gold, gets a garage, gets employees, employees do everything, one does nothing, in a few weeks / months one will have

2kg of gold. THE PROBLEM IN THIS SCHEME IS ONE CAN ALSO HAVE 0.5kg OF GOLD ALTHOUGH ONE HAS INITIALLY HAD 1kg OF GOLD. I. E., IN CAPITALISM ONE CAN HAVE MORE THAN THE INITIAL AMOUNT BUT MAY ALSO HAVE LESS : ONE CAN WIN AND LOOSE. In socialism, one cannot win BUT ONE CANNOT LOSE IN SOCIALISM EITHER. R. - And they carry out their mission despite the fact that Trotzky has declared it? What a strange thing! Why do they not improve their actions?

G. - The financiers are unconscious revolutionaries since they are such only objectively, as the result of their intellectual incapacity of seeing the final consequences. SSB : True. Ditto. R. - You believe this sincerely? You think that among these real geniuses there are some who are unconscious? You consider to be idiots people to whom today the whole world is subjected? This would really be a very stupid contradiction! SSB : NO. THIS IS NOT STUPID BUT TRUE. This is because of these things : as mentioned, capitalists and all people in capitalism do NOT think of the system as a whole but only for their immediate doing. Capitalists and people in capitalism do NOT think in long periods. AND BECAUSE THE FINANCIERS ARE STUPID AND COMPLETE IDIOTS. NOT ONLY GREEDY AS PEOPLE THINK BUT THEY STILL HAVE NOT EVOLVED INTO HUMANS AND ARE MONKEYS WHO CANNOT THINK AT HIGHER COMPLICATION LEVEL THAN, WHAT PEOPLE CALL, THEIR INSTINCTS. Please, do not insult the monkeys. They are much more clever than the financiers. ( Instincts do NOT exist. What people call instinct is a simple logical thinking. Monkeys DO think they will catch a banana when they lift their hands the same as people. People consider this simple logical thinking to be instinct and or common sense and this is neither. The so called “ instinct “ may be : the monkey knows the monkey has to eat. Even this is a simple logical thinking as the monkey derives this from observation of the reaction of the organism to hunger. But this is the closest to what people call an “ instinct “. THE LIFTING OF THE HAND TO TAKE A BANANA IS THE NEXT IN A CAUSE EFFECT CHAIN DEFINED OF THIS PRIMARY which people call “ instinct “. The chain of cause effect is this : No Hunger, Must Get Banana, Banana is Away, Must Reach Banana, Must Lift Hand. ) G. - What do you pretend to?

R. - I simply assert that they are revolutionaries objectively and subjectively, quite consciously. SSB : R. now starts criticism of Trotsky instead the other way around. G. pointed some weaknesses in Trotsky. Not a great deal of weaknesses just slightly wrongly putting importances. Again : Trotsky is a Leninist and so is G. Obviously, G. can only criticize Trotsky in Trotsky’s slight inaccuracies as far as Leninism is concerned.

Why does R. get to criticize R.’s own idol? This will be clear in a while. G. - The bankers! You must be mad? SSB : R. is NOT mad and NOT against communism. R. just lies through teeth. The reason of lying, again, will soon be seen. R. - I, no ... But you? Think a little. These people are just like you and me. The circumstance that they control moneys in unlimited amounts, insofar as they themselves create them, does not give us the opportunity of determining the limits of all their ambitions ... If there is something which provides a man with full satisfaction then it is the satisfaction of his ambition. And most of all the satisfaction of his will to power. Why should not these people, the bankers, have the impulse towards power, towards full power? Just as it happens to you and to me. SSB : They DO want the full power BUT the money is limited by the dependence which has been proven : money cannot be printed out unlimitedly because money will get to lose value unlimitedly towards any of the other goods. However, R. is right in this : ALL CAPITALISTS, INDUSTRIAL AS WELL AS FINANCIAL, DO WANT THE WHOLE POWER, THE FULL POWER AND NOTHING BUT THE WHOLE AND THE FULL POWER and God seems to help them although one may believe in Jesus Crist the Socialist who destroyed the market in Jerusalem revolting against the predicated and predicted by Jesus capitalism a funny as this may be. G. - But if, according to you - and I think the same - they already have global political power, then what other power do they want to possess ?

R. - I have already told you: Full power. Such power as Stalin has in the USSR, but world-wide. SSB : Ditto. But NOT ONLY THE FINANCIAL CAPITALISTS. ALL WANT THIS. In theory, however, Stalin is NOT to have the full power in The USSR but the people of The USSR are. In practice, things became different because of one main thing : Stalin as well as Lenin who had appointed Stalin were afraid to a level of paranoia from counter revolution AND THEY WERE RIGHT. Stalin would not have taken the full power nor Lenin would have given Stalin the full power had this not been because of the danger of organized counter revolution from inside and from outside of The USSR. The inside danger was mainly from people stupidity and inability to understand socialism and capitalism, because of which they had been cleverly manipulated by the mean ex capitalists who would have never agreed to have lost their capitalist property and would have wanted to recover this property and the ability to enlarge this property and thus power. This is the only reason for the revolution : people do NOT want to relinquish their industrial and financial property and the possibility of enlarging ( or losing ) thereof hence these people have to be “ persuaded “ by the people who think their industrial and financial possessions with the possibility of changing of the value thereof and thus power IS ALL UNFAIR. The same as is unfair people to possess financial and industrial ( agriculture and animal growing are also industries ) property, AND POWER OVER OTHER PEOPLE WITH THE “ RIGHT “ OF EXPLOITATION OVER THEM AND THEIR LABOUR JUST BY BIRTH. To this, the capitalists also object. And this is the trick of

Lenin : Lenin used the capitalist objection against the feudal and feudalism to start a revolution and then to convert this revolution from an anti feudal to an anti capitalist AND anti feudal towards a new type of society. Despite Lenin did a slightly dirty trick there ( everyone knew with a pretty much high degree of certainty Lenin would seek communism with or without socialism as a first stage ). What people did not know was Lenin would switch to a temporary allowed capitalism in order to satisfy the former allies and to undo the dirty trick. This was the biggest mistake of Lenin. Once capitalism was temporarily allowed, the capitalists ( called Nepmen ) were not very happy for this capitalism to be so temporary. Thus Lenin needed Stalin to prove them the temporarity of capitalism in The USSR. G. - Such power as Stalin's, but with the opposite aim. SSB : G. does NOT say so BUT asks a question. There must be a question mark thereafter. Even G. cannot make such a statement even indirectly in the way of maintaining an interrogation during Stalin. No excuses. G. and R. are playing this trick : In case the financiers do a communist revolution knowingly ( unlikely ) than Hitler can concentrate against them because Hitler is against communism; in case the financiers do a communist or any other type of revolution unknowingly, than Hitler can be against them because their actions bring destruction of the capitalist, better said : industrial capitalist society and they speculate with the “ development “ of capitalism and a better capitalist society such as the National Socialism. In other words, G. and R. say the financiers are against National Socialism either directly ( by developing financial capitalism which is destructive to the industrial capitalism as per Hitler ) or indirectly ( via a conscious communist revolution ). Either way, Hitler must concentrate against them and not in a war. R. - Power, if in reality it is absolute, can be only one. The idea of the absolute excludes multiplicity. For that reason the power sought by the Comintern and "Comintern," which are things of the same order, being absolute, must also in politics be unique and identical: Absolute power has a purpose in itself, otherwise it is not absolute. And until the present day there has not yet been invented another machine of total power except the Communist State. Capitalistic bourgeois power, even on its highest rung of the ladder, the power of Caesar, is limited power since if, in theory, it was the personification of the deity in the Pharaohs and Caesars in ancient times, then nevertheless, thanks to the economic character of life in those primitive States and owing to the technical under-development of the State apparatus, there was always room for individual freedom. Do you understand that those who already partially rule over nations and worldly governments have pretensions to absolute domination? Understand that that is the only thing which they have not yet reached. SSB : Wrong. In theory, Communism is a rule of ALL people achieved in two stages : the first stage is dictatorship of the workers over the capitalists UNTIL the capitalists are destroyed. Once destroyed, there is no one to have a dictatorship against. Thus, after destroyed, the second stage is FULL systematic democracy. Full systematic democracy means a total CONSTITUTIONAL rule of ALL people. Constitutional rule means rule within the constitution and not outside thereof. Thus,

communism is full constitutional democracy. Comminism is a SYSTEM and NOT politics. Systems are subject of the constitution where they are defined. In communism, the constitution of a given country says : COMMUNISM IS THE SYSTEM OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE ONLY SYSTEM OF THE COUNTRY AND CANNOT BE CHANGED NOR ALTERED. In other words : people have full freedom and democratic rule as long as they do not want to change this system. Leaders can be chosen as long as these leaders do not want to change the system. CONSTITUTIONS IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE OF THESE COUNTRIES IN A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION. The same way like in capitalism where the constitution of the capitalist countries say, directly or indirectly, capitalism is the only system in the country and cannot be changed and people can do whatever they want to do as long as they do not change the capitalist system, communism says the same. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND CAPITALISM IS THE SYSTEM AND NOTHING ELSE. R. says otherwise in order to say communism, the same as capitalism, is dictated and arranged by the financiers. Thus, Hitler must be against the reason ( the financiers and the financial capital ) and not against the products. Once the reason is changed, the products will work in a way most people, including Hitler, want. Thus, there is no reason to attack The USSR as The USSR is the product of the reason which Hitler must concentrate against. G. - This is interesting: at least as an example of insanity. SSB : Not insanity BUT LIES! CONCENTRATED LIES IN A WANTED BY THE LIAR DIRECTION. R. - Certainly, insanity in a lesser degree than in the case of Lenin, who dreamt of power over the whole world in his attic in Switzerland or the insanity of Stalin, dreaming of the same thing during his exile in a Siberian hut. I think that dreams of such ambitions are much more natural for the moneyed people, living in the skyscrapers of New York. SSB : Wrong again : neither Lenin nor Stalin wanted to rule the whole world. Communism denies wars and intervention in other countries in a country partitioned environment. Even in case the world is one communist country, the people are the ones to vote a communist leader. ANY COMMUNIST LEADER CAN BE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY UNDER ONE CONDITION ONLY : this person must obey the constitution which means this person must SUPPORT communism. The only thing which is true in these sentences is the rich capitalists do want the full power and nothing but the full power, so, they don’t even need God to help them no more. However, THESE LIES as well as the true statements are not caused by insanity but to tell Hitler ruling the world is wrong to be accomplished at once by war and, yes, to underestimate the rest to such huge proportions and to rely on surprise and illogical temporary opportunist tricks, also not to be able to estimate the possibility of the superior weaponry which is superior

only in quantitative measures and, with the exception of V1 and V2 rockets ( which can be countered to some extend and compensated against with airplanes and a great deal of a number of fast and powerful bullet flak ), not in qualitative ones, not to see the simplicity of the weaponry Germany has which can be figured out and manufactured literarily in seconds even by children although to manufacture such may not be very necessary as the present weapons of the other countries are just as good when applied in higher quantity and their manufacture is as simple as a child toy ( even much simpler ), so, not to see these things may be kind of, in non psychiatric terms, symbolically said : insanity. G. - Let us conclude: Who are they?

R. - You are so naive that you think that if I knew who "They" are, I would be here as a prisoner?

G. - Why?

R. - For a very simple reason, since he who is acquainted with them would not be put into a position in which he would be obliged to report on them ... This is an elementary rule of every intelligent conspiracy, which you must well understand.

G. - But you said that they are the bankers?

R. - Not I; remember that I always spoke of the financial International, and when mentioning persons I said "They" and nothing more. If you want that I should inform you openly then I shall only give facts, but not names, since I do not know them. I think I shall not be wrong if I tell you that not one of "Them" is a person who occupies a political position or a position in the World Bank. As I understood after the murder of Rathenau in Rapallo, they give political or financial positions only to intermediaries. Obviously to persons who are trustworthy and loyal, which can be guaranteed a thousand ways: thus one can assert that bankers and politicians - are only men of straw ... even though they occupy very high places and are made to appear to be the authors of the plans which are carried out. SSB : R. has just dropped the “ World Conspiracy Rule “ bomb. This bomb consists of the availability of a conspiracy organization which controls the world, i. e. “ The Secret World Conspiracy “ Government “ “. This bomb is very popular amongst people of different countries and systems, who want to explain problems and principles of the work of the system NOT by objectivity of facts, BUT, instead, by blaming the said “ world government “. Usually, the blames are NOT connected with mistakes which the said “ world government “ does as these people claim the “ world government “ never makes mistakes BUT they claim everything is made with a purpose conducted in secrecy by the “ world government ”, in order to achieve a goal connected with the betterment of the “ world government “. The main reasons for these claims are two. First : people’s stupidity. The “ world governance “ becomes like a religion which is made up to “ explain “ ( read : mislead ) a given event to the people by a convenient and non damaging way as opposed to the real objective facts which may be damaging to a system. The second reason is the reason of no blames to the real reasons. In other words, people who use “ The Secret World Conspiracy “ Governance “ “ do so, because they SUPPORT their system and do NOT want the real explanations to take effect but, instead,

explain to the people with the reason to mislead and misinform the “ world government is responsible for a given problem with the system OR THE POLITICIANS AND THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS RUNNING THIS SYSTEM and NOT the system and the political organizations, instead. In capitalism, people who do NOT support the ruling party do blame this ruling party for all problems which, in reality, are problems with or the design of the system or the work thereof. However, when the party which these people support is in charge, these people do NOT want to blame their own party for the problems, neither do they want to blame the system’s design and work. Instead they decide to blame their New God for these. And their New God is the fictional “ Secret World Conspiracy “ Government “ and Governance“. In socialism, theoretically, there is no way to have any other party or political organization but the Communist Party of a given country which uses the freely voted Constitution the main point of which is the freely voted Communist system with the explained two stages of Socialism before Communism. So, these people who have not voted for the system incorrectly blame the system for a given problem or problems. Those who have, usually blame the politicians who do NOT implement the system CORRECTLY. Incorrectly, however, these people blame the politicians in corruption only and mainly as a reason for them to implement the system and NOT THE REAL REASON : the politician’s stupidity and incapability to do the easy job of implementation of what has already been designed. This point can be explained simply this way : An architect creates a project for a building ( the architect of the system ) and a construction company ( the politicians ) are supposed to build the already designed project. To build the already designed project is very basic and simple. However, the stupidity and incapability of this company to do even the simplest project build ( one of the reason for their incapability is laziness ) are the real reason why the building does not get build or there are some problems during the build. Of course, in socialist and capitalist country, there are also people who also blame only “ The Secret World Conspiracy “ Government “ “ for everything. R. is not stupid and knows very well this is a bullshit used to blind the people. However, R. is not only not stupid but is also clever. R. uses the weapon of “ The Secret World Conspiracy “ Government “ “ to make Hitler think this is the case and concentrate Hitler to fight against this illusion instead of against real peoples and countries. R. clearly says R. does not know who the people of “ The Secret World Conspiracy “ Government “ “ are BUT R. has been dropping and will continue to drop a few SUSPICION incendiary bombs to ignite the “ The Secret World Conspiracy “ Government “ “ bomb. So far, R. has been dropping the financier and banker’s bomb as possible candidates for “ The Secret World Conspiracy “ Government “ “. Wait for more incendiary devices to come. G. - Although all this can be understood and is also logical, but is not your declaration of not knowing only an evasion? As it seems to me, and according to the information I have, you occupied a sufficiently high place in this conspiracy to have known much more. You do not even know a single one of them personally? SSB : G. helps the bomb get released by not only positively evaluating the mental capacities of R. BUT BY TELLING THE LISTENER R. IS NOT ONLY A POWERFUL SHERLOCK

HOLMES THINKER BUT ALSO A KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON WHO HAS HAD ACCESS AND HAS ACQUIRED EXTENSIVE “ FACTS “ BECAUSE OF THE HIGH POSITION OF R.’S. R. - Yes, but of course you do not believe me. I have come to that moment where I had explained that I am talking about a person and persons with a personality ... how should one say? ... a mystical one, like Ghandi or something like that, but without any external display. Mystics of pure power, who have become free from all vulgar trifles. I do not know if you understand me? Well, as to their place of residence and names, I do not know them ... Imagine Stalin just now, in reality ruling the USSR, but not surrounded by stone walls, not having any personnel around him, and having the same guarantees for his life as any other citizen. By which means could he guard against attempts on his life? He is first of all a conspirator, however great his power, he is anonymous. SSB : R. explains to the listener who may ask the question “ why being secret, why not ruling the world being known by the peoples : in case of possessing a total power, why not ruling directly; what is to be afraid of “? R. says : nothing to be afraid of NOW but there may be something to be afraid thereafter. Thus, rule the world in secrecy as opposed to transparency, use puppets to conduct the direct orders of the “ world government “ in order to be assured nothing will happen to the rulers NEVER as nothing has happened so far. In other words, the physical persons who are in the “ world government “ may change but their principles may not and thus, the world government ais always and forever and has been and no one has been able to find and fight this “ world government “ simply because no one knows who they are. Thus, instead of a war, the legacy of Hitler must be to find and destroy the “ world government “ and thus bring freedom to Germany and all peoples and countries. Without the “ world government “ which is the reason for Germany to suffer and to have suffered, everything will be nice and fair thus, without a war, Hitler will be returned the repossessed territories of Germany which, by logic, belong to Germany. In other words, without the “ world government “ everything will be ideal for Germany and all other peoples who will be liberated of tyranny and unfairness. Generally, what R. tells Hitler is : cut the head of the snake and the whole snake will be done instead of trying to kill the snake by constant wounding from most or all of which the snake regenerates. G. - What you are saying is logical, but I do not believe you. SSB : G. tells R. : Keep talking. More taking is necessary for Hitler to be convinced against wars and attack against The USSR. Again, the idea of the conversation is not to directly tell Hitler what to do because Hitler would most likely disregard OR think they conspire against. By using an indirect conversation, G. and R. want Hitler self to reach the ideas they want Hitler to get. This way Hitler may do as per these ideas and thus the war and the attack against The USSR will be avoided.

R. - But still believe me; I know nothing; if I knew then how happy I would be! I would not be here, defending my life. I well understand your doubts and that, in view of your police education, you feel the need for some knowledge about persons. To honour you and also because this is essential for the aim which we both have set ourselves, I shall do all I can in order to inform you.

You know that according to the unwritten history known only to us, the founder of the First Communist International is indicated, of course secretly, as being Weishaupt. You remember his name? He was the head of the masonry which is known by the name of the Illuminati; this name he borrowed from the second anti-Christian conspiracy of that era - gnosticism. SSB : Again lies : Weishaupt has never written not known what Communist International is. The founder of the First Communist International is : Lenin. Lenin was assisted by Trotsky and R. in selection of a leader of the ComIntern organization and this first leader was : Grigory Zinoviev. There has never been any Communist International before although the idea of all workers united was given by Marx. The Illuminati are another bomb of suspects of the “ world government “ conveniently chosen by R. to be presented to Hitler because of the people stupidity and the propaganda of the Christian Church ( mainly the Catholic wing ). These two made stupid people think there is a anti Christian world conspiracy government. This idea was very easy to propaganda and to propagate amongst people because of only one fact : THE ILLUMINATI WERE THE ONLY CLEVER AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ON EARTH FOR THE PERIOD. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY WERE INDEPENDENT THINKER SCIENTISTS WHO OPPOSED THE REPRESSIONS AND OPPRESSIONS AGAINST THEM MADE BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WHICH REPRESSIONS AND OPPRESSIONS STARTED WITH THE BEGINNING OF THE INQUISITION PERIOD OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ( MAINLY BUT NOT ONLY, THE CATHOLIC ONE ). There is nothing more to illuminati. Being scientists involved in kind of political situation, they may or may not have ever thought of communism BECAUSE their primary reason was PROTECTION from the Christian Church and not creation of a society thereafter or during the church. This is because religion and church are garbage made by people to control and manipulate other people. ALL SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES ARE POSSIBLE WITH OR WITHOUT THE CHURCH. THUS, THE ILLUMINATI ONLY WORKED AGAINST THE CHURCH AND THEIR AGENDA DID NOT CONSIST OF A CREATION OF A NEW SOCIETY AND NEITHER WAS THE SOCIAL EVOLUTION. THEY ONLY WANTED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE CHURCH FOR THE GOOD OF THE SOCIETY AS THEY DISTRIBUTE ALL THEIR ACHIEVES TO ALL PEOPLE EVENTUALLY. This important revolutionary, Semite and former Jesuit, foreseeing the triumph of the French revolution decided, or perhaps he was ordered (some mention as his chief the important philosopher Mendelssohn) to found a secret organization which was to provoke and push the French revolution to go further than its political objectives, with the aim of transforming it into a social revolution for the establishment of Communism. In those heroic times it was colossally dangerous to mention Communism as an aim; from this derive the various precautions and secrets, which had to surround the Illuminati. More than a hundred years were required before a man could confess to being a Communist without danger of going to prison or being executed. This is more or less known.

SSB : Again lies : the illuminati have never been neither Semitic nor Jesuits as this is impossible because the illuminati have only been one thing and one thing possible : ATHEISTS. ATHEISM IS SCIENCE AND NOT RELIGION. AND THE ONLY POSSIBILITY FOR A SCIENTIST IS ATHEISM. In case there has been a scientist who has ever claimed otherwise, this scientist is either an idiot ( regardless of the achievements as any one can be an idiot and not only the stupid ones ) or afraid from the church and trying to save self in a Galileo’s way of admitting being wrong on the Earth’s spinning yet only managing to mumble “ But the Earth still turns “ thereafter OR this scientist was paid by the church to lie so the church uses this scientist as a supporter instead of an enemy who was right in the invention. And here we go to the most convenient for R., G. and Hitler as well as for the whole world : R. has just dropped the Jew bomb as a bomb of suspects to the “ world government “. Jews have always been hated by anyone but no one has never done anything physical and significant against them. But every one has been talking against them, mainly, in a way of unfair business and a threat of population inversion because the Jews don’t never mix but marry amongst themselves even in their family (inbreeding ) for which they have been genetically damaged which genetic damage, however is reversible and has either already been reversed or will be soon after the Jews accept the laws against inbreeding as the whole world has accepted. Even the Inuit. The Inuit are known for inbreeding which has been conducted not because of the knowledge and objections against BUT BECAUSE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OF FINDING NON RELATED PEOPLE. Again : G. and R. have only thought of the Jews being dealt with in NON PHYSICALLY DAMAGING WAY and they have only thought Hitler will conduct only this way as this has been found to be enough in the millennia. Also because, believe this or not, G. and R. had a very strong friend in the dealing with Jews : The United States of America which has never been a country and have not been much of a people either but have always been the genetic garbage of the world. G. and R. may have thought Hitler will expel them Jews and the country which will take them for sure is The U. S. A. And this was true. The U. S. A. should have taken all German and European ( from the occupied or anti Jew countries ) into their genetic dump hole. The German Jews agreed and wanted to save themselves into The U. S. A. which the said septic tank refused. Did The U. S. A. know of the Holocaust. To the most extend YES. So, how come G. and R. did not predict the Holocaust and, as per what I think, The U. S. A. did. Does this mean The U. S. A. are more clever than G. and R. NO. G. and R. did not want and did not predict because their conversation was in 1938 EVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAR II STARTED. And The U. S. A. ( as well as G. and R. ) knew and the a great deal of extend, predicted in 1941 and around. The Jews wanted to immigrate into the US ( and a few of them succeeded in jumping over the INS hurdle ) AFTER THE WAR STARTED AND SLIGHTLY BEFORE OR DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE HOLOCAUST AND THEREAFTER. This is why : THE U. S. A. AS WELL AS ALL COUNTRIES WHO HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW JEWISH IMMIGRATION, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ARE WORLD CRIMINALS. Some countries may have refused a Jewish intake because of population inversion and conversion of the immigration into invasion and overtaking of the country. Usually, these are

the countries with not so big populations UNLIKE, THE U. S. A., THE U. K., FRANCE, SPAIN, SOUTH AMERICA, ETCETERA. SOUTH AMERICA IS TO BE BLAMED JUST AS MUCH. There were some other options possible to be used in saving the Jews or a large number Jewish immigration and G. and R. knew thereof. 1. Israel, 2. Deserts in Africa ( Jewland ) 3. Jewland elsewhere in non populated areas of huge countries and continents, 4. Parts of Iraq where the Jews are dubbed to have originated from. What is not known are the relations between Weishaupt and his followers with the first of the Rothschilds. The secret of the acquisition of wealth of the best known bankers could have been explained by the fact that they were the treasurers of this first Comintern. There is evidence that when the five brothers spread out to the five provinces of the financial empire of Europe, they had some secret help for the accumulation of these enormous sums: it is possible that they were those first Communists from the Bavarian catacombs who were already spread all over Europe. But others say, and I think with better reason, that the Rothschilds were not the treasurers, but the chiefs of that first secret Communism. SSB : R. now says such a fantastic bullshit, so not even Hitler would believe : The Illuminati were strongly against religion. Jewish religion is very strong, hence, The Illuminati target the Jewish as well as Muslim and all religions not only Christian. The same way scientists were persecuted in Europe by the Christian church, they have been even more persecuted by the Muslim and Jewish churches ( although the Jewish church has been not as bad ). Jews, Rothschild including, make money only one way : by the use of the Jewish religion which brings people together in a family like social structure, similar to the Italian Mafia. In other words, Jews make money only one way : ORGANIZED CAPITALISM. Organized Capitalism as opposed to Individualistic Capitalism is always not as bad as the Individualistic Capitalism and gives best output as compared to any other option of Capitalism. This is why Germany shut down the U. S. A., The U. K., France and all other Capitalist countries NOT ONLY with much more superior and incomparable weapons BUT with everything. All goods in Germany were space age technology as compared to their American counterparts and this superiority was a logical one ( much more superior design ) and not only by advancement of metallurgy and materials. The only reason for this is because Hitler and, mainly, Goering created and run a state controlled ORGANIZED capitalism as opposed to the American chaotic unorganized individualism. Back to Rothschild : The Illuminati were the worst enemies of Rothschild and Rothschild ’s empire. On the contrary : most likely, Rothschild paid the evil Christian church to destroy the Illuminati ( unsuccessfully ) and not the other way around. Again : Jewish religion keeps the Jews from mixing with other peoples. Jews together make Rothschild’s organization and even more : only Jews and no other people. Jews enclose themselves in a Golden Cage in which they do LEGAL BUSINESS and, because of their organization, this legal business gives much more than the Americans can do. The idea is to keep them Jews clear of mixing AND TOGETHER in order to LEGALLY TAKE MONEY FROM NON JEWS AND BRING THE MONEY TO THE JEWS WHO CYCLE THE MONEY TO MAKE MORE MONEY LEGALLY AS PER THE BASIC LAW OF CAPITALISM. Without church and religion,

Rothschild would have much more difficulties to keep them Jews in the golden cage to make them make money from non Jews and bring the money to Rothschild. Without church and religion, Rothschild would only have to rely on genetics which was not understood very well and prevention from mixing based only on genetics is very difficult as Jewish genetic superiority as a protection from mixing is much more difficult to prove mainly in non Jewish environment, such as Europe, where the Jews are exposed to observation of the all peoples’ EQUALITY in mental power and energy. Even Hitler failed this approach. The reason for R. to make up stories of the Jewish Illuminati connection is because of two reasons : to say Jews are behind this and most any other conspiracy and to say Communism which is based ALSO BUT NOT ONLY on the Illuminati scientific, objective, logical and material atheist principles, is, therefore, in this aspect as well as in others ( these will be clarified in a while ) based on a Jewish conspiracy. This way R. tells Hitler : if you ever have any problems with Communism, this is not because of Communism per say BUT this is because of them Jews who fucked up the Communism. Thus, attack the Jews and NOT The USSR. Another very strong point is Hitler did intend to make a Socialist and NOT to continue with the capitalist society in Germany and, ONLY BECAUSE OF LACK OF ELECTION POWER DID HITLER CHOSE CAPITALISM AND NOT THE INTENDED SOCIALISM. Goering realized Hitler’s mistake yet Goering did not provide an election alternative and there was no other way for Hitler to come in power rather than election as Hitler realized the power of counter revolution which was destructive to the united USSR and will be impossible in the disunited Germany of the period. Once Hitler started to lose the war did Hitler agree to create a FULLY state controlled ( yet not owned ) economy ( before, the economy was NOT FULLY BUT ALMOST FULLY state controlled ) and this was when the German’s wonders came to play to prolong the war even more and make the win of the Allies almost impossible. The allies did win eventually based on sheer power and not logic. The only reason for them to win was the number of everything they had and not the quality thereof which was extremely poor as compared to the German product. Back to R. who, chronologically, moves from SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMUNISM ( The Illuminati principles ) TO ALL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM, MAINLY, THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE : THE PRINCIPLE OF COMINTERN WHICH DOES NOT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE AMERICANS THINK, CONSTITUTE WAR AGAINST CAPITALISM BUT A UNION OF ALL PEOPLES AGAINST THE CAPITALISM AND ALL OTHER UNFAIRNESS IN PREVIOUS HUMAN SOCIETIES AND LACK THEREOF. R. bases Comintern FROM WHICH HITLER WAS CONCERNED THE MOST, as Comintern DIRECTLY AFFECTS HITLER’S GERMANY because Comintern in Germany means Hitler out. But the Comintern is not the only one. R. attacks something which R. calls Financial Communism and such a think not only does not exist but is impossible to exist because Communism DOES NOT NEED AND IS NOT DEPENDENT ON MONEY BY DESIGN IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. Thus, Communism does NOT NEED and IS NOT DEPENDENT neither on Rothschild’s nor on any other person’s or people’s money.

COMMUNISM IS THE BIGGEST ENEMY OF ROTHSCHILD AND THE JEWISH CAPITALISTS. Destroying the money in capitalist meaning means destruction to Rothschild and the Jews. Thus, the only people whom Rothschild may support are the Americans as their non organized capitalism is a golden river for Rothschild, the only river where Rothschilds can swim in. This, again, is because the best environment for organized capitalism is the non organized one where the organized people will most easily suck the money out of the non organized morons. Historically this is proven in the postwar era. As far as Stalin and G. are concerned, R. tries to play this game : R. is not against Communism ( in the style of Leninism ) but R. is against the FINANCIAL CAPITALISM as well as against the made up financial communism which does not, has never and will have never existed. The reason for attacking the financial capitalism is, obviously, to please Hitler who is also against the same. However, there is another reason : the communists IN THE EARLY YEARS AND MAINLY IN CAPITALIST COUNTRIES, were mainly against the INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM and not against the financial one, because industrial capitalism DIRECTLY EXPLOITED THEM as opposed to the financial capitalism which exploited them indirectly. Generally, people were stupid and with a mentality of an American factory worker. SOON PEOPLE REALIZED THE VERY BASIC PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED HERE : IN CAPITALISM, MONEY IS EVERYTHING ( I. E. MONEY IS CAPITALISM AND CAPITALISM IS MONEY AND NOTHING ELSE ) AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MAKE MONEY RATHER THAN BY EXPLOITATION, IN OTHER WORDS, EXPLOITATION IS MEASURED ALSO WITH MONEY IN CAPITALISM : THE ADDED VALUE ( SIMPLER SAID THE PROFIT, ALTHOUGH PROFIT IS AN APPEARANCE OF THE ADDED VALUE IN A DIFFERENT BUT VERY CLOSE LEVEL OF INDIRECTION ). THE MORE MONEY ONE HAS THE HIGHER THE LEVEL OF EXPLOITATION ONE HAS EXERTED OVER THE WORKERS regardless of whether by direct or indirect means. THEREFORE, IN COMMUNIST TERMS, ROTHSCHILD IS THE BIGGEST EXPLOITER OF WORKERS IN THE WORLD AND WILL BE THE FIRST TO BE STRIPPED DOWN OF MEANS AND EVEN SUED IN CASE OF A GLOBAL OR GERMAN OR A GIVEN COUNTRY’S ( WHERE THERE ARE ROTHSCHILDS ) WIN OF COMMUNISM. This is why not only did Rothschild NOT contribute to Communism, but, most likely, Rothschild did contribute against, mainly by giving money to the Americans and the counter revolutionaries to fight against the biggest thread to Rothschild and The Rothschilds : the communism. The speculations for the Jewish connection in communism has been very popular in Eastern Europe mainly amongst people with the said mentality of an American factory worker, i. e. a moron. ( Please, do not insult the Red Necks, The Cowmen, The Indians and The Black street gangsters : they are much higher in the social hierarchy than the American factory worker idiot ). So, because Marx and Engels were Christened Jews and with Jewish genetics AND DESPITE LENIN WAS NOT, some Eastern Europeans dubbed Comunism to be a Jewish creation. And some of them ( the most stupid ones ) linked this Jewish invention to the Jewish connection, the Rothschild who, as per some of them, had either created or, as per other of them, FINANCED AND STRONGLY ADVERTISED communism. And, of course, they do not mention Rothschild would have self destroyed by this support or invention as discussed.

Soon R. will attack all principles of Communism ( as far as R. can go ) and based the whole Communism as being imposed by the Jews. Again, the message is : Adolph, fight against the Jews in their invisible form, mainly, those Jews from within the golden cage and not against The USSR or other countries who are not only not guilty for the stupidity which runs their country but they are, see, VICTIMS OF THEM JEWS AND THE WORLD JEWDAISM. True, the total power would be attractive to Rothschild and anyone else BUT communism does not offer total power and Stalin has been a temporary event as previously discussed. This opinion is based on that well-known fact that Marx and the highest chiefs of the First International - already the open one - and among them Herzen and Heine, were controlled by Baron Lionel Rothschild, whose revolutionary portrait was done by Disraeli (in Coningsby - Transl.) the English Premier, who was his creature, and has been left to us. He described him in the character of Sidonia, a man, who, according to the story, was a multi-millionaire, knew and controlled spies, carbonari, freemasons, secret Jews, gypsies, revolutionaries etc., etc. All this seems fantastic. But it has been proved that Sidonia is an idealized portrait of the son of Nathan Rothschild, which can also be deduced from that campaign which he raised against Tsar Nicholas in favour of Herzen. He won this campaign. SSB : No communist can be controlled by Baron Lionel von Rothschield nor any other capitalist, financial or industrial, as the richer the capitalist, regardless of the type, the stronger the enemy of the communist as discussed. Disraeli was a Prime Minister of Queen Victoria and thus Disraeli was not controlled by the Rothschilds but, instead, was their strongest competitor, mildly said, or, better said, their enemy. Disraeli controlled the British empire which was almost half of the world and thus SIGNIFICANTLY RICHER than Rothschild or any other person, or any other group of people. During Queen Victoria, The U. S. A. was a poor cousin of the British Empire and The Rothschilds combined were a homeless beggar as compared to The British Empire during Queen Victoria and in the 1700’s as well as the 1800’s. On the contrary, more probable is for Disraeli to have controlled Rothschild and not the other way around. The funniest thing is the statement Rothschild controlled the gypsies. NO ONE IN THE HISTORY HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO SO AND NO ONE WILL. The gypsies are an incontrollable tribe by default. Without their tribal independence, the gypsies stop to be gypsies but become immigrants to Europe instead. The only thing R. may be right of is, looks like, DISRAELI HAS BEEN A WRITER. A writer can say and write everything to MAKE UP A STORY, usually, in order to sell and make money. Peoples have always been fascinated by the mystery of the ruler of the world who picks up the strings of the political puppets around. The groundlessness of such theories as well as the use of these by people have been explained. The fascination of, even the non believers, would sell a lot of books dedicated to the issue.

If all that which we can guess in the light of these facts is true, then, I think, we could even determine who invented this terrible machine of accumulation and anarchy, which is the financial International. At the same time, I think, he would be the same person who also created the revolutionary International. It is an act of genius: to create with the help of Capitalism accumulation of the highest degree, to push the proletariat towards strikes, to sow hopelessness, and at the same time to create an organization which must unite the proletarians with the purpose of driving them into revolution. This is to write the most majestic chapter of history. Even more: remember the phrase of the mother of the five Rothschild brothers: "If my sons want it, then there will be no war." SSB : An if has two answers : yes and, in this case NO. Financial International has never existed and was made up by R. as discussed. Accumulation IS capitalism. Accumulation is a capital. One does not need to control the world in order to accumulate. One just needs to be in capitalism. The only thing which has pushed people to revolutions and rebellions is capitalism as such, by design, as discussed. The mother of the Rothschild children has said : WARS CAN BE STOPPED BY THE NEW GENERATION. This is a sentence and a phrase which is very true and has been proven by the American youth which have rebelled against the Vietnamese war and have won. I am sure they have not been controlled by the Rothschilds. Whoever is interested more in the anti Vietnam War rebellions may wish to contact the rebels and or the Weathermen themselves. This means that they were the arbiters, the masters of peace and war, but not emperors. Are you capable of visualizing the fact of such a cosmic importance? Is not war already a revolutionary function? War - the Commune. Since that time every war was a giant step towards Communism. As if some mysterious force satisfied the passionate wish of Lenin, which he had expressed to Gorky. Remember: 1905-1914. Do admit at least that two of the three levers of power which lead to Communism are not controlled and cannot be controlled by the proletariat. SSB : R. means secret puppeteers but not open rulers of the world. These fairy tales have been in Britain for centuries. This is because the British politics, even now, is based on dirty tricks and secret negotiation and INTRIGUES. People have been realizing this for a long while. So, YES, there are a lot of INTRIGUES which facilitate the rulers of a capitalist society but they have nothing to do with the Rothschilds : every rich person is a puppeteer, every capitalist and, even during Rothschild, there have been thousands of them. These puppeteers, however, have very limited means also BECAUSE they want their dirty deeds done dirt expensive to be covered up. These puppeteers would usually use or grease up politicians to do tiny and difficult to realize or reflect upon things in order to make more money. THEY CANNOT DO BIG THINGS. Take the American gun association. They just grease up politicians and people NOT to change the WRONG Constitution of the U. S. which dictates guns are permitted in the second amendment which is not even a real constitution but an amendment thereof.

As discussed, constitution is nothing but a piece of paper voted by people and REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS PIECE OF PAPER HAS BEEN THE BASE OF CREATING OF A COUNTRY, this constitution can be changed by the people of this country whenever they want as the people are those who build the base of their country and not only the top of the building. And this base can be changed or improved the same way as a house owner can change or improve the base of the house. THUS, TO POSTULATE A PIECE OF PAPER AS BEING FOREVER IS ANTI DEMOCRATIC AND AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF A GIVEN COUNTRY AS THESE PEOPLE MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN VOTED IN THIS PIECE OF PAPER. In most cases, old constitutions are so wrong, the better term for them is : a piece of TOILET paper. Wars were not brought about and were not controlled by either the Third International or the USSR, which did not yet exist at that time. Equally they cannot be provoked and still less controlled by those small groups of Bolsheviks who plod along in the emigration, although they want war. This is quite obvious. The International and the USSR have even fewer possibilities for such immense accumulations of capital and the creation of national or international anarchy in Capitalistic production. Such an anarchy which is capable of forcing people to burn huge quantities of foodstuffs, rather than give them to starving people, and is capable of that which Rathenau described in one of his phrases, i.e.: "To bring about that half the world will fabricate dung, and the other half will use it." SSB : The message here is clear : The USSR and the communists have never wanted, do not want and will have never wanted a war which is against their theory. Thus, Hitler may wish to look into OTHER REASONS for wars and for Germany’s loss at Versailles. This has been discussed. However, R. brings another issue against which Hitler may wish to concentrate and this issue is true : total mismanagement of resources ( human included ) of capitalism against which Hitler has been and because of which ( also ) Hitler has won the election. Even now, the US prefers to deal with surplus production in order to keep high prices : YET ANOTHER STRONG CONTRADICTION OF CAPITALISM. And what the US is supposed to do as well as any other country, is to distribute food to poor people in and out of the US and mainly in Africa by using military training of military pilots to drop non perishable food. Thus, the US gets the training of the military pilots and the poor countries’ people get the food. And, after all, can the proletariat believe that it is the cause of this inflation, growing in geometric progression, this devaluation, the constant acquisition of surplus values and the accumulation of financial capital, but not usury capital, and that as the result of the fact that it cannot prevent the constant lowering of its purchasing power, there takes place the proletarization of the middle classes, who are the true opponents of revolution. The proletariat does not control the lever of economics or the lever of war. But it is itself the third lever, the only visible and demonstrable lever, which carries out the final blow at the power of the Capitalistic State and takes it over. Yes, they seize it, if "They" yield it to them ...

SSB : R. wants Hitler to concentrate against the middle class which is also known as petty bourgeoisie. True, with their stupidity incompetence, lack of organization and majority as well as their vulnerability and controllability because of these said reasons, the middle class is, indirectly, the most dangerous thing in the society which can easily be manipulated to an extend. YET no single person has nor has ever had the means for this. R., however, suggests otherwise in order to make Hitler try to win the middle class instead of going to war and middle class can be won relatively easily by Hitler. War, on the other hand, will make the middle class upraise against Hitler as they, the middle class, will be the one involved in the war, directly or indirectly ( taxes ) the most. Hitler must try to yield the middle class to self. One is true, though : the lowering of the purchasing power of the middle class is the only way for the indecisive middle class to wake up. Only after one has pickpocketed the middle class will the middle class try to attempt to think. Thus, instead of taking from them ( as in a war ) Hitler best give them something to possess them to an extend good enough for an election win. And also true : the proletariat does not do war. Thus, Hitler should not attempt a war against them and should, instead, try to keep Hitler’s empire. There is a question here : in case of middle class vulnerability, is there any possibility for one to take a full control over them. THE ANSWER IS NO. The middle class does not give a shit on politics and can only think with their bellies. They can be controlled only by giving them. And neither Rothschild nor anyone can do so because of lack of money therefor. Neither the proletariat nor Rothschild nor any single person of a not big organization can carry the economics of the war because neither of these has the means therefor. The rich countries as a whole are the only ones who can or a multi country organization. Now, here is a good place to discuss the so speculated Baron Lionel von Rothschild. This person was a poor slum Jew in Germany who managed to get a job in some lousy, pawn shop like, “ financial “ organization in Germany. The only knowledge and experience Rothschild got from the kinda “ financial “ organization is the instability of capitalism and how people attempt to seal against. One of the ways was to purchase gold. Another way ( not very popular then ) was to purchase fine art. THE EASIEST WAY ROTHSCHILD CAN GET INTO even without knowledge and experience was numismatics : expensive coin collection. The “ financial “ institution did not get Rothschild out of the ghetto but numismatics did. Rothschild started to trade with coins which satisfied the rich, mainly the feudals who were now unstable because of capitalism. Once Rothschild got some initial capital from coin trade, Rothschild did what Rothschild did best : money loans. This was because THEN ( but not know ) a huge amount of feudals needed a starting ( initial ) capital to get their capitalism conversion started. AGAIN : THIS WAS ONLY DURING THE TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM. Thus, Rothschild was nothing else but Red Butler of the period. The same way like Red Butler who did NOT start the civil war but profited therefrom by selling weapons to the two sides with a solely reason of getting money, Rothschild was an OPPORTUNIST, who did neither start nor affected any war at all but saw the war as a possibility to make money.

And Rothschild did not start a war not because of political or humanitarian reasons but because Rothschild did NOT have the means to do so, as Rothschild was not rich enough to be able to dictate the rules of war. Did Rothschild make a lot of money? YES. Did Rothschild have so much money as to dictate war and high level politics ( other than, say, garbage collection by laws )? NO. One of the sons of Rothschild is a very good example of the only way Rothschild was “ involved “ in war and politics : the OPPORTUNISM. So, this Rothschild did NOT start the Napoleonic wars nor puppeteered Napoleon nor The UK nor Russian nor any Other European or non European country : This guy just sent an observer of the Waterloo battle with very fast horses and exchange points for these. Once the Waterloo battle was over, Rothschild was delivered the information of the British win a few hours before anyone else. Thus, Rothschild started to sell shares like crazy. Once the battle outcome became known, all shares, included the sold ones, became virtually for free. Then, when the price was low, Rothschild purchased these and many more shares. Once Britain got stabilized after the battle, these shares reached sky high prices. Thus, the only thing Rothschild did was : INSIDER INFORMATION AND “ PURCHASE LOW, SELL HIGH “. In this case, the saying is the other way around “ Sell High, Purchase Low “. In any direction, this is one of the most common principles of capitalism and is mainly based on the lack of capitalist information. Capitalism can only work with lack of information which, in some cases, is even a government policy. This lack of information is the delta, the error of the one of the main feedback systems in capitalism without which the system cannot work. Of course, this Rothschild did NOT make nearly a sufficient amount of money to run neither France nor Britain and neither did any Rothschild or any other person in the world because of the capitalism feedback for more profit by competition. In other words, Rothschilds were neither the only rich people nor the only Jews. Every one sniffed for information which other, or most others, did not have in order to convert the information in money. JUST A PURE CASINO OPPORTUNISM. PURE GAMBLING AND NOTHING ELSE. The same way as Las Vegas casinos do not run the US because of lack of money for this BUT they run Las Vegas and, probably, most or all of Nevada and, maybe, a few states around, Rothschilds may or may not have run negligible territories or entities around. An example of how the Rothschilds may have controlled something negligible in the periods thereafter is this imaginary but not so far fetched example : the Rothschilds would hire a few art experts to subsidize promising, say, Dutch painters in Paris in exchange for their creations which, The Rothschilds would keep as an investment thereafter to convert these goods into money at high prices once the painter become famous in case they or some of them did. And this happened much after the first Rothschild when art became lucrative business and investment saving and multiplying factor which was the case at a certain point of history until now. G. - I again repeat to you that all this, which you have set out in such a literate form, has a name which we have already repeated to excess in this endless conversation: the natural contradictions of Capitalism and if, as you claim, there is yet someone else's will and activity apart from the proletariat, then I want you to indicate to me concretely a personal case.

SSB : True : this is called contradictions of capitalism. Even in case Rothschild ruled capitalism, which is not true, this is nothing new : just pure capitalism and nothing else. To rule the world ( in case one can ) IS the main point of capitalism : to have all of the capital in the world thus all resources. However, due to the contradictional high profit competition, as explained, this has never yet been done. Theoretically possible because there is a contradictional feedback of the explained feedback which says profit makes profit or money make money, practically imposible because this second feedback cannot fully overpower the first one. Thus, in ideal situation, who the people who allegedly by R., run the world is an unnecessary question. But G. asks this question so the listener ( mainly Hitler ) to know whom to blame for problems. R. - You require only one? Well, then listen to a small story: "They" isolated the Tsar diplomatically for the Russo-Japanese War, and the United States financed Japan; speaking precisely, this was done by Jacob Schiff, the head of the bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., which is the successor of the House of Rothschild, whence Schiff originated. He had such power that he achieved that States which had colonial possessions in Asia supported the creation of the Japanese Empire which was inclined towards xenophobia; and Europe already feels the effects of this xenophobia. SSB : Not true : the only way for someone to partially and negligibly contribute to the INVESTMENTS in a war ( war is business in capitalism ) is someone who has been told to do so by The U. S. A. government. The U. S. A. government was stupid enough to think the powerful Russia would want to take their priced possession in the Pacific Ocean and thus “ HELPED “ the Japanese Empire raise against Russia in a divide and conquer policy : Japan will stand against Russia and The US will conquer the Pacific Ocean. And the US stupidity has been proven : they have created an enemy instead who attacked them in Perl Harbour and thereafter and only the atomic bomb was able to QUICKLY deal against the self created aggressor. The same US stupidity is now applied to the Muslim world where the US armed Afghanistani Taliban regime just so this regime fights against the US. These problems with the US blindness come from the lack of a long period of thinking : they think only now and not for after. They have been claiming Russian and The USSR has been their main enemy and the outcome is The USSR has never fired a bullet against the US and Japan and Afghanistan have. Also, the US was instrumental in destroying their best friends in the Muslim world : Sadam and Gadhafi, just to install ultra right Muslim regimes which have fought back against their installers and puppeteers of the US. I know most people would blame Rothschild for the US problems in Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world too while the real reason is THE STUPIDITY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Can this be proven : YES, this is simple black and white axiom which can be seen. Can people stop blaming a power higher then them such as Rothschild or alike for creation contradictions around the world ( applying the theory of capitalism even without knowing so )? No. These people will continue to blindly say so either because they do NOT want the truth to be said as they may suffer some consequences or because of their stupidity. These have already been discussed. So, the US do not support certain Muslim regimes throughout

the world in order to make money from weapons sold to the two sides ONLY as Red Butler did with the concentration of the word ONLY. The US does this because of their stupidity and have previously explained their stupidity with the war against communism taking precedence against regime installations which may fight back. And, what happens is not only the regimes fight back BUT the US loses money in a long term as opposed of the surge money they made at the beginning even with the positive after effect of a surge in capitalism which may or may not ( in this case may not ) turn the sleeping wheel of capitalism faster. The problem is this wheel is bi directional and can also be turned backwards as capitalism is a society by design where one can make money but can as well lose and to lose money is more probable with the aging of the capitalism ( such as now ). I have something to say to these people who believe in world ruling conspiracies such as them Jews, them Freemasons, them financiers and them governments : keep thinking this way while you keep suffering from the bullets of your enemies which you stupidity has created as well as suffering from capitalism in theory and practice. From the prisoner-of-war camps there came to Petrograd the best fighters, trained as revolutionary agents; they were sent there from America with the permission of Japan, obtained through the persons who had financed it. The Russo-Japanese War, thanks to the organized defeat of the Tsar's army, called forth the revolution of 1905, which, though it was premature, but was very nearly successful; even if it did not win, it still created the required political conditions for the victory of 1917. I shall say even more. Have you read the biography of Trotzky? Recall its first revolutionary period. He is still quite a young man; after his flight from Siberia he lived some time among the émigrés in London, Paris, and Switzerland; Lenin, Plekhanov, Martov and other chiefs look on him only as a promising newcomer. SSB : Spies do not make difference as there is no way for spies to get a SIGNIFICANT information. This is why the British contribution to the World War II of breaking the enigma code is negligible and insignificant as compared to the British Spitfires and the radar invention as well as other, mainly electronic, military inventions and developments which contributed to the British and, to an extend, the ally win. Of course, there is a lot of British stupidity governing the block of important inventions and implementations of developments such as the jet engine which the British knew of but never did because of their inability to apply the change principle : when something is unreliable : keep changing or repairing this in orther to increase the reliability. The Germans also did not think carefully at the beginning on this principle and were never to think of this at all, however, when they got to lose the war, when they were certain they would lose and Berlin was no Stalingrad, they started to sing a different tune : they unleashed Messerschmitt 262 : the first jet engine aircraft powered by two jet engines on each of the wings replacing the propellers. Each jet engine had only 28 hours of flight period. SO HOW CAN THE GERMANS MAKE SUCH AN UNRELIABLE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT WHEN THEY ARE KNOW FOR RELIABILITY? The point is they did NOT make an unreliable piece of equipment but a very reliable one : they replaced the engines after every 20 hours of work when 12 GARAGE CAR MECHANICS refurbished the engines for 2 hours WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE AND WITH ONLY BASIC TOOLS AS NOTHING WAS REQUIRED DUE TO THE SIMPLICITY OF THE JET ENGINE.

Anyway, back to Russia and Japan : Russia did not lose the war, the Tsar did and the tsar4 suffered the consequences. And the tsar did because the tsar was stupid and incompetents : as simple as this, otherwise, even the densely populated Japan with many people to fight, was no match to the Russian Army ( the White Army then ). Along with the stupidity of the tsar, the stupidity of the old and useless generals who remembered when they fought with wigs, contributed to the Russian defeat. The tsar did not apply the principle of old general replacement with the new ones who were more knowledgeable and experienced in the modern warfare. Neither did Stalin at the beginning. However, with the Germans in Stalingrad and in the brink of experiencing severe problem with the war, Stalin got to sing to a different tune : Stalin replaced all the military with new marshals and generals. And they converted the problems of the beginning into a smashing victory over the best army the world had ever seen, now too, The German Eastern Front Army. The new Soviet Army used all weapons, cold too, to surround the German army which they were supposed to capture as prisoners or destroy but they did NOT. Why did they not do? Because of Rothschild again? NO! The Soviet Army and Stalin wanted an excuse to enter the rest of Europe in order to create Eastern Europe and thus ensure a strong shield against a possible invasion of The Soviet Union from the West. And this and ONLY this was the reason for the Red Army presence in Europe as opposed to a total destruction ( by capture after surrender or extermination in case of no surrender ) to the German army which, as the history proves, The Red Army was able to accomplish but were not allowed by their politicians for political reasons. And R. is right with the rest : the 1905 revolution was probably associated with the loss of the war by the tsar and the 1905 revolution DID bring and help the 1917 revolution. And Trotsky was the closest politician to Lenin and second only to Lenin but very close to in any aspect of communism and, mainly, the Leninism part and understanding thereof. This is how Trotsky had the power to oppose Stalin. R. mentions all these things with one reason : to say the communist revolution has been organized by Rothschilds and other Jews in order to make Hitler not attack the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union was not responsible for the communist revolution but Rothschilds, the puppeteers, were. Hence Hitler is supposed to go against the reason and not against the consequence as the consequence cannot affect Hitler but the reason can should the puppeteers become able to regroup and regain the control of Germany. And R. mentions Trotsky to point out R. had all this information directly of Trotsky who became the first and foremost important communist in The USSR and the whole world after Lenin. Although Trotsky was unable to intervene against Stalin inside of The USSR BECAUSE OF THE LENIN’S CHOICE to appoint Stalin, which choice was not based on what Rothschild and the Jews wanted but on what Lenin thought to be the best possibility for protection and continuation of communism in the first transient years of 1922 and thereafter, not even 5 years after the revolution and five years is a negligible historic period after such a 360 degrees turn of such a major revolutionary change which had never been experienced before despite the true logic of this revolutionary change and because of people’s stupidity and inability to see and understand.

But he already dares during the first split to behave independently, trying to become the arbiter of the reunion. In 1905 he is 25 years old and he returns to Russia alone, without a party and without his own organization. Read the reports of the revolution of 1905 which have not been "pruned" by Stalin; for example that of Lunatcharsky, who was not a Trotzkyite. Trotzky is the chief figure during the revolution in Petrograd. This is how it really was. Only he emerges from it with increased popularity and influence. Neither Lenin, nor Martov, nor Plekhanov acquire popularity. SSB : True : Trotsky had ONE OF the main roles in the revolution of 1905 as well as 1917. The reason why R. says Trotsky was even a bigger chief than Lenin and more important and popular as well as the main leader of communism in 1905 is in order for R. to assert Trotsky was the most truthful information source in 1905 and before and, hence, R. being second to Trotsky in Trotskyism and before, is the only truthful source on the questions before and during 1905, such as the Jewish Connection and the Rothschilds. And because of so, R. wants Hitler to listen and believe in the information which R. presents.

They only keep it and even lose a little.How and why there rises the unknown Trotzky, gaining power by one move greater than that which the oldest and most influential revolutionaries had? Very simple: he marries. Together with him there arrives in Russia his wife - Sedova. Do you know who she is? She is associated with Zhivotovsky, linked with the bankers Warburg, partners and relatives of Jacob Schiff, i.e. of that financial group which, as I had said, had also financed the revolution of 1905. SSB : Another bullshit by R. to “ prove “ even Trotsky was controlled by Jews and financiers. This is because R. is prepared to sacrifice even R.’s idol, Trotsky, for the cause of proving the revolution of 1905 was a Jewish organized revolution. This way R. says what all want to hear : Hitler wants to hear the Jewish connection in revolutions and mainly those related to communism directly or, as in this case, indirectly but very close to and Stalin wants to hear Trotsky ( the main enemy of Stalin’s in communism inside and outside of The USSR ) was a Jewish controlled spy and was puppeteered and manipulated by them Jews. Stalin wants to hear the failure of the 1905 revolution was because of Jews and not because the communism did not gain the necessary support in 1905 to do so 12 years after. Thus, there is no any problem between Stalin and Hitler : to the two of them, R. says : Neither of you is guilty and communism and The USSR are the victims of them Jews. Thus, do not fight each other but concentrate on them Jews and financiers. And Trotsky became a leader not because of marriage and the Jewish banker’s and, mainly, the spelled out Rothschild connection of even Trotsky through the wife BUT because Trotsky was very clever and had a significant contribution to communism in theory and practice and mainly in Leninism. ( Leninism is the ONLY contribution to Marxism and Marxism and Leninism is the other name of communism. Before Leninism, what people refer to as communism is called Marxism. After Leninism, what people refer to as communism is called communism or Marxism Leninism ). Trotsky was one of the assistants and co writers of Leninism and the only one known such. Trotsky and not Stalin was second to Lenin during the period of 1917 to 1922 when Lenin was the president of The USSR as well as before and

once in a while was even ahead of Lenin as far as practice is concerned. Trotsky was supposed to be the President of The USSR after Lenin as well as of the Comintern. Lenin chose Stalin instead just to the surprise of everyone, including Stalin. The reasons for this choice have already been explained : counter counter revolution and transition from temporary capitalism ( nepmanism ) to socialism in order for the socialism to continue the transition into communism. Another, not very logical but possible reason, may have been the young age of Trotsky to which young age, combined with the tendency to theoritism and away from practicism and pragmatism, Lenin may have thought of as a threat and inability of Trotsky to resolve practical problems as opposed to the huge ability of Trotsky to resolve theoretical ones. Here is the reason why Trotzky, in one move, moves to the top of the revolutionary list. And here, too, you have the key to his real personality. Let us jump to 1914. Behind the back of the people who made the attempt on the Archduke there stands Trotzky, and that attempt provoked the European War. Do you really believe that the murder and the war - are simple coincidences? ..., as had been said at one of the Zionist congresses by Lord Melchett. Analyze in the light of "non-coincidence" the development of the military actions in Russia. "Defeatism" is an exemplary word. The help of the Allies for the Tsar was regulated and controlled with such skill that it gave the Allied ambassadors the right to make an argument of this and to get from Nicholas, thanks to his stupidity, suicidal advances, one after another. SSB : Trotsky did not move to the top in one move but after years and years of work with Lenin and, as said, either co-writing or significant contribution to Leninism. Think of Lenin as being a Professor of Communism, a Doctor of Science and PhD, and Trotsky as being the Main Assistant Professor of Communism, also a Doctor of Science and PhD. Garbage again : neither Trotsky nor any other communist was involved in the Archduke’s problem as terrorism, personality targets and mainly wars and war provocation and endangerment are against the communist theory and Lenin would have never risked communism in the whole world and The USSR had Trotsky been even suspected in the event which triggered the war. In other words, Trotsky was to be made unemployed by Lenin even only based on suspicions without facts of contribution to such an event, i. e. Trotsky was to be a stain, a stop in the establishment of socialism in Russia, which, even without Trotsky being a suspect, was so difficult, Lenin had to revert to a temporary capitalism in The USSR, called nepmanism. R. plays the full hand : R. wants to say not anyone but R.’s main “ manager “ and friend Trotsky of which R. has been proven to have full knowledge, was controlled by Jews. Except to be heard by Hitler, R. says so to explain not only the failure of the 1905 revolution but Lenin’s choice too. Otherwise, how come R. objects Lenin’s choice? Jews are a convenient explanation too. Hence, R. also unleashes the possibility of other people in the top of the communist party in the USSR to try to topple Stalin. R. wants to say Lenin did not have a choice and the truth was Lenin did and chose Stalin consciously on purpose which purpose has already been explained more than once. Again : these thoughts against Stalin were expressed in 1938 BEFORE and NOT DURING the war which was not inevitable. This also combines well with the R.’s claims of unlikeliness for Germany to attack The USSR : to tople Stalin is safe as there aould not be any war, certainly not with Stalin toppled and, thus, there is

no reason to keep Stalin because socialism has already been established, the counter revolution : suppressed and since there would not be a war after Stalin is toppled, Stalin is not necessary as the only thing Stalin knows to do is war, inside and outside The USSR. Stalin did not know communism in theory and not much in practice and neither did Stalin know International Communism ( Comintern ) nor Stalin cared of the wellbeing thereof : hence another big difference between Stalin on one side and Trotsky and R. on the other : Trotsky and R. thought Comintyern was the most important, even more than The USSR, Stalin thought Comintern is not important at all and disregarded such and only The USSR inside was. Obviously, Stalin was forced to change this opinion to an extend only because of the World War II and even did not give a shit on Eastern Europe after the war. Eastern Europe was nothing but a shield for Stalin. The USSR was a different planet and there was nothing in the Universe but this planet as far as Stalin was concerned. Another garbage from R. : the allies have never supported the tsar : they supported the tsar ONLY because the tsar was against Germany on the principle “ The enemy of our enemy is our friend. “. This point would work for the R.’s argument but will strongly be against the communist idea ( probably an idea or a trick by Lenin to whom R. cannot oppose ) the tsar was supported by the capitalists which was probably one of the main idea of the communist revolution in 1917. And R. cannot oppose to Lenin because, to oppose to Lenin means to oppose the communism which lowers R.’s credibility as a communist knowledgeable person who has a “ proof “ of the Jewish connection. In other words, even Hitler could suspect R. did not say so because of the truth of the Jewish connection but, instead, R. said so because R. was a capitalist poisoned by a rich live in France and an anti communist hence why talks Jews. Talking of R.’s, there is another interesting fact to mention : another reason for R. to know so much of money is because R. has been the USSR ambassador to France with a lot of Francs in R.’ disposition. Yet another trustworthy person to Hitler’s. R. has been using the word defeatism throughout the whole conversation. This is because R. tries to explain to Hitler why the communists will ally with their enemies : defeat to Russia does not mean defeat to Russia but defeat to the tsar, the feudalism and the capitalism at once. In other words, the communists use the tactics of putting two of their enemies one against another and wait for one to lose in order to use this loss in their advantage. In case the anti tsar forces win, the communists would say the tsar and not the people of Russia lost. In case the tsar wins, then, to control the won territories would be difficult and the communists would use the peoples in these countries as well as the people of Russia to prove the tsarism in Russia means wars and imperialism against other peoples thus instability which no one wants. R. asks one question : “Do you really believe that the murder and the war - are simple coincidences? “ Here is the answer : NO. THESE HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY PEOPLE BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT JEWS NOR JEWISH CONTROLLED COMMUNISTS. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAPITALISTS AND FEUDALISTS WHO WANT WARS FOR ONLY ONE PURPOSE : ANNIHILATION OF OTHER PEOPLE’S RESOURCES, HUMAN AND OTHER MATERIAL. True war makes money to the capitalists but this is not the main

reason for wars but an addition to the main reason : the main reason for any war in any society is only stealing of resources. This is the only reason peoples may be convinced to attempt such a risk as a war from which they may gain BUT they may as well lose. Throughout the history there are many examples in which the week side has lost and not ONLY Vietnam. This is because war is a casino game with a random outcome which cannot be predicted with a great deal of probability. Also, war is something where individuals can always lose and there is no any certainty against nor for. No one wants to risk individual loses unless there is a MUCH higher gain in case of a win. And for ordinary people, this higher gain cannot be the money of the capitalists made because of the war as these money have a negligible direct and indirect impact on the individuals. However, stealing other people’s resources may and do have a significant effect on the individual. As an example : a winning Roman soldier would be able to become a king in the part of the won district with many people of the defeated people working for the winner as well as having all the resources of this part as an own property. Thus, a scumback from the hiomeless streets of Rome would become a rich feudal. And this is the only reason for this Roman soldier to go to war : to steal other people’s resources. There si no other reason. The capitalists exploit this reason and only make money opportunistically and indirectly to this main reason. The capitalists do NOT have direct power over people. This is why capitalism is so difficult to destroy. And this is why people’s stupidity is so important in the continuation of the capitalism. People in capitalism either do not fight because they do not know whether they have an enemy at all as stupid as the may be OR they fight against a ghost which they also do not know at all. Thus, SOME ( a minority in most countries ) stupid people decide to name this ghost Rothschild or Jews or combination thereof. Because they either do not know their real enemy or do not want them to know the real enemy is the one whom they do not want to be. The second option is for people who are not only stupid but even worse : these people arte subjective idealists who canno think or do not apply objective thinking. The mass of the Russian cannon fodder was immense, but not inexhaustible. A series of organized defeats led to the revolution. When the threat came from all sides, then a cure was found in the form of the establishment of a democratic republic - an "ambassadorial republic" as Lenin called it i.e. this meant the elimination of any threat to the revolutionaries. But that is not yet all. Kerensky was to provoke the future advance at the cost of a very great deal of blood. He brings it about so that the democratic revolution should spread beyond its bounds. And even still more: Kerensky was to surrender the State fully to Communism, and he does it. Trotzky has the chance in an "unnoticed manner" to occupy the whole State apparatus. What a strange blindness! Well that is the reality of the much praised October revolution. The Bolsheviks took that which "They" gave them. SSB : Again R. clings to the Jewish connection to such an extend as to blame the whole communist revolution in Russia and The USSR on the Jewish conspiracy and not only this by R. blames the revolution as not successful because the revolution has accomplished only what the Jews have allowed. Yet another crap blamed to the Jews as the revolution in Russia has been successful and nothing but successful and according to the full requirements not only of communism but also of logic, theory and practice. All problems after the revolution are to be blamed only on the leaders of Russia and The USSR and no one else. But there were not very many failures and The USSR succeeded in the revolution. Of course, there was more to be

done which was to be done but was not much possible to be done immediately. The USSR was not created to be an ambassadorial state but was created to be a communist state and not by the Jews as R. tries to lie but by the peoples of The USSR. R. claims the Jews created The USSR not to be a communist state but to be only as much communist as the Jews allowed which is the first stupidity because no one can tell the people NOR THE COMMUNIST PARTY WHAT TO DO or, in case anyone was to say anything under the freedom of speech act, the communist party would not listen. So, Rothschild and the Jews as well as any other capitalist or, even a non capitalist, says anything, the communist party would not listen as they have had their plan in theory and practice already which has been discussed for hundred of years prior and no one thereafter has ever said anything which has not been said before. The second idea, the idea of an ambassadorial state by creation is also not true but R. uses this to say this ambassadorial state was to advertise what the Jews and Rothschild can do and, probably as per R.’s general ideas, the said Rothschilds and the Jews can use this ambassadorial state in “ divide and conquer “ scheme to tell the capitalist countries to listen to them and do what they order them or else they will established communism in the said capitalist countries and thus the capitalists who have not listened to them would lose everything thus they must listen to them and obey. This is so preposterous because not only the USSR and the communist parties in the world would listen what some Jews order them to do, which as said is impossible but the US capitalists with their Red Neck mentality would not listen to the Jews either knowingly the Jews want to fuck them up and they lie and manipulate to get something. In other words no American capitalist would allow a Jew to be a smarter ass capitalist than the corresponding American capitalist not only because the American knows the Jews lie and manipulate but also because of stubbornness, typical for the American capitalists. In simple words, no American motherfucker would allow Jewish or any other motherfucker to be a bigger motherfucker than the American motherfucker. Directly or indirectly. And of course, EVEN the American capitalists have known and experienced the Jewish manipulativeness and unfair business. Also, the American capitalists have never been so much dependent on Jewish capital as the European ones BECAUSE America has happened to be a very rich in resources ( other than human ) land where the dumbest American capitalist can strike richer than all them Jews just over night. In other words the American capitalists were much, much, much, much, tens, hundreds, thousand and million fold richer than the Jewish ones. This is why Jewish capitalists were unable to do well in the US and became secondary to the real big American capitalists. So, as said, The USSR has not been designed to be an ambassadorial state but, instead, The USSR was the first and, for many years, the only socialist country in the world with a future possibility to flow into a communist country without any more revolutions but by the logical development of the socialism into communism : again : socialism is only the first phase of communism which will automatically and naturally come from their first stage called socialism. Of course, these two points pave the road of R.’s towards the imaginary Jewish conspiracy which was to be handled to Hitler to trick Hitler out of the war and to continue to keep Hitler in power yet in contempt even stronger than a war. However, neither R. who sacrificed Trotsky, nor anyone in the world gave a flying shit on whether Hitler was to remain in power or not AS LONG AS the war is avoided which was the primary reason of every politician in the period.

G. - You dare to say that Kerensky was a collaborator of Lenin?

R. - Of Lenin - no. Of Trotzky - yes; it is more correct to say - a collaborator of "Them."

G. - An absurdity! SSB : R. continues to blame Trotsky in and even gives more names of the alleged imaginary Jewish conspiracy. This would even please Stalin. This is probably why there are rumors Stalin did not kill R. but only said so allowing the physical person R. to continue but destroying the logical ( in this case political ) person of R.

R. - You cannot understand ... precisely you? It surprises me. If you were to be a spy and, while hiding your identity, you were to attain the position of commander of the enemy fortress, then would you not open the gates to the attacking forces in whose service you actually were? You would not have become a prisoner who had experienced defeat? Would you not have been in danger of death during the attack on the fortress if one of the attackers, not knowing that your uniform is only a mask, would have taken you for an enemy? Believe me: despite the statues and mausoleum - Communism is indebted to Kerensky much more than to Lenin. SSB : Yet another Jewish connection spy garbage, now a new bomb has been talked upon much more : the Jewish spy : the Jewish Trojan Horse. G. - You want to say that Kerensky was a conscious and voluntary defeatist? SSB : G. tries to point the discussion in another direction : back to defeatism as opposed to the Jewish connection. G. probably realizes R. would not look trustworthy to Hitler and Hitler may suspect the trick. Hence, G. wants to attack more on the defeatism flank which may look more plausible even to Hitler. R. has been continuously been underestimating Hitler thinking of Hitler mainly as a meeting politician and populist. Hitler was much more than this : a very clever gambler and a very clever opportunist as discussed and not only an opportunist but an opportunist who ONLY used opportunism in order to get elected and make Hitler’s theory proliferate and protrude inadvertently ( as Hitler hoped ). And Hitler was probably to succeed as per R. but Hitler made two mistakes : the conquering war ( not only the retrievable war aiming to re annex German territories lost in Versailles ) and the Holocaust. Thus, R. is trying to play poker against the best : a political pocked of David ( R. ) versus the Goliath ( Hitler ). Yet, much to every one’s astonishment, R. plays not so bad considering the impossibility of R.’s mission. Again, R. plays full hand betting everything ( communism, Trotsky, Stalin, on occasion, very slightly and carefully Lenin ( as now ) BUT one thing : the war. ( Once the war started, the biggest mistake of Hitler’s, as a general, was the opening of the Eastern front ( the attack against The USSR ) instead of keeping piece therewith and concentrate more on socialism than on national as Goering was right to point out. ) R. - Yes to me that is quite clear. Understand that I personally took part in all this. I shall tell you even more: Do you know who financed the October revolution? "They" financed it, in particular through those same bankers who had financed Japan in 1905, i.e. Jacob Schiff, and the brothers

Warburg; that means through the great banking constellation, through one of the five banks who are members of the Federal Reserve, through the bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., here there took part also other American and European bankers, such as Guggenheim, Hanauer, Breitung, Aschberg, the "Nya Banken" of Stockholm. I was there "by chance," there in Stockholm, and participated in the transmission of funds. SSB : Now, not only R. continues to lie though teeth but R. also strongly stresses on the personal highest position experience which is where R. can trustworthingly say R. has personally experience as well as being involved in the Jewish connection. Despite the effort of G. to get back to defeatism, R. continues to stubbornly push the Jewish connection and escapes cleverly into the new idea : not simple defeatism BUT Jewish controlled defeatism. Even the defeatism was arranged and manipulated by them Jews as per R. R. either slides cleverly on G.’s attempt for redirection or understands G. wrongly ( despite of the probable scenario of the recording ). G. wants to say to go back to defeatism, R. thinks G. says to relate defeatism to the Jewish connection. Looks like the Jewish connection was the strongest card of R.’s hand against Hitler’s Royal Flush. This is probably the mistakes of R. and the other scenarists of the prewritten recording. There were many more things to concentrate against as the financialism and the unfair Western capitalism against which Hitler was strongly and root for Hitler’s favorite National Socialistic Capitalism. R. even spells out Sverige ( Sweden ) as the probable country of transactions knowingly Sweden was a safe heaven for capitals much like Switzerland but more independent because of the lack of German population there thus more trustworthy to Jews and all non Germans. Until Trotzky arrived I was the only person who was an intermediary from the revolutionary side. But at last Trotzky came; I must underline that the Allies had expelled him from France for being a defeatist. And the same Allies released him so that he could be a defeatist in allied Russia ... "Another chance." Who arranged it? The same people who had succeeded that Lenin passed through Germany. Yes, "They" were able to get the defeatist Trotzky out of a Canadian camp to England and send him on to Russia, giving him the chance to pass freely through all the Allied controls; others of "Them" - a certain Rathenau - accomplishes the journey of Lenin through enemy Germany. SSB : Yet another bullshit of, now, softer FACILITATION of leaders. Lenin was not facilitated by anyone but, as clever as Lenin is, was able to go to Russia singlehandedly without anyone to suspect so. This was very easy then when people had toilet papers instead of passports and no information was shared between countries, not even within the same country. Lenin just had to disguise slightly and travel wherever Lenin wanted without any problems with fake toilet paper. Trotsky was released BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO KEEP TROTSKY FOR. Most likely, Trotsky was NOT allowed in the Western World because of Trotsky’s communist political views which were illegal in the capitalist world BUT TROTSKY WAS ALLOWED TO RETURN TO THE USSR BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING POSSIBLE FOR THE WEST TO DO TO STOP TROTSKY even by the lousy Canadian and British laws. ( Canada was part of Britain and not a country then ).

If you will undertake the study of the history of the revolution and civil war without prejudices, and will use all your enquiring capabilities, which you know how to apply to things much less important and less obvious, then when you study information in their totality, and also study separate details right up to anecdotal happenings you will meet with a whole series of "amazing chances." SSB : R. tells the listener to look globally to history. This way, one may more easily take what R. says as true only because a global view would dilute the events and facts. One thing for sure. What R. says in the conversation does look like a joke. G. - Alright, let us accept the hypothesis that not everything was simply a matter of luck. What deductions to you make here for practical results? SSB : G. pushes another idea for Hitler to use : communism is just a question of luck and Hitler has nothing to be afraid of as this luck is very unlikely to happen in Germany. This, however, is not true because communism is a natural continuation of the development of society. One way or another, all societies will become communist ones but in a longer run. The evolution of the society is very scientific and similar to the evolution of species. R.--Let me finish this little story, and then we shall both arrive at conclusions. From the time of his arrival in Petrograd Trotzky was openly received by Lenin. As you know sufficiently well, during the interval between the two revolutions there had been deep differences between them. All is forgotten and Trotzky emerges as the master of his trade in the matter of the triumph of the revolution, whether Stalin wants this or not. Why? This secret is known to the wife of Lenin - Krupskaya. She knows who Trotzky is in fact; it is she who persuaded Lenin to receive Trotzky. If he had not received him, then Lenin would have remained blocked up in Switzerland; this alone had been for him a serious reason, and in addition he knew that Trotzky provided money and helped to get a colossal international assistance, a proof of this was the sealed train. SSB : Trotsky had been working before, outside of Russia. R. lies again to push the Jewish ORDER over Lenin to accept the “ Jewish spy ” Trotsky. There had not been deep differences between Trotsky and Lenin. Deep differences are only these of a theoretical point. There have not bee differences between the conduction of the revolution either in terms of strategy, tactics theory and practice. There may have been some minor things like where, when only in cases where and when the difference between the suggested was insignificant as, for example, when there are many equal when’s and many equal where’s as in Russia during the period. Trotsky, again, had always been with Lenin outside and inside Russia and does not emerge from nowhere. Again : Lenin has always been saying Trotsky is the second in charge to become the first one until a few hours before Lenin’s death when Lenin chose Stalin as a strong man who gets the job done and the job has already been defined by Lenin and there is nothing to think of, as opposed to the weak intellectual Trotsky, pretty useless when there is no place for theoreticians any more as all the theory has already been created. Think this way : Lenin, the professor, chooses a junior assistant ( Stalin ) to become a professor and NOT the

main assistant ( Trotsky ) NOT BECAUSE OF ABILITY BUT BECAUSE THE PROJECT OF TROTSKY HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND CLOSED NOT TO BE REOPEN WHILE THE PROJECT OF STALIN HAS BECOME THE PRIMARY PROJECT OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK TO DO. Another bullshit to attempt to link Trotsky to them Jews : Trotsky has never collected any penny and has never been of interest to Lenin’s wife. NEXT R. IS PROBABLY GOING TO LIE TROTSKY FUCKED LENIN’S WIFE UNDER THE DIRECT ORDER FROM ROTHSCHILD : THE KING OF THEM JEWS : BIGGER ( WITH A BIGGER DICK ) THAN DAVID. One thing I am sure. R. goes too much off line. I do not know who has written their “ recorded conversation “ scenario but, whoever has done, must have been a comedian. G. is right : R. goes too much off line and underestimates Hitler a lot : Hitler would have never believed this recording to be nothing else but an attempt for disinformation which Hitler ( AND THE REST OF THE AUDIENCE ) would have disregarded CONSCIOUSLY AND SUBCONSCIOUSLY. R. does not seem to agree on the importance of the luck theory as R. thinks Hitler may also consider communism as a danger to National Socialism and very probable to happen in Germany. This was because of the politics inside Germany where there was a large number of people split into two parties : a communist one and a socialist one. Usually, socialist parties are capitalist parties ( social democratic capitalist parties ) and only the name is such. Germany, however, had a Social Democratic Party and the socialist party was kinda closer to the communist one and may unite with to create a larger communist party. Either way, the communist party had a huge presence in Germany and utilized the economic troubles in Germany to prove the only possible escape was communism which was true. Capitalism in Germany was very strong, yet the economic problems weakened the capitalist strength. Germany, also had deep roots into communism as Germany had experienced tremendous exploitation. Also, Marx and Engels were Germans, Christians with a Jewish ancestry. Marx and Engels were the strongest opponents to the Jewish capitalists of Germany INCLUDING THE ROTHSCHILDS and their theory threatened mainly the Jewish capitalists which were known of high level of exploitation. Thus, Jewish capitalists as well as all German capitalists did strongly support the German right wing capitalist parties with a second choice of Hitler’s National Socialism which Hitler cleverly transferred from socialism to capitalism ( the true name must be National Capitalism but Hitler kept the name ) nothing but capitalism which aimed at uniting ALL GERMAN PARTIES AND PEOPLE EXCEPT THE COMMUNISTS. Hence Hitler kept the name and attempted to put a new meaning in the word socialism : a society which unites all ( except the communists. Thus the capitalists in Germany had their first priority to be the German capitalist parties ( not very united ) and Hitler’s National Socialists who were considered a joke by most Germans until the capitalists saw a growing people’s support to the communist party and thus a growing tread. Germany, as well as Berlin was DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS MUCH BEFORE THE WORLD WAR II EVEN BEFORE STALIN WAS BORN AND THE USSR WAS NOT TO BE BLAMED FOR THE BERLIN WAR NEITHER SYMBOLICALLY NOR IN REALITY. East Berlin was a slum for the working class as opposed to the rich and opulent West Berlin. The same applies to Germany. The Munich driven machine, using the natural resources in the mountains defined

West Germany as an industrial part of Germany as opposed to East Germany which was preliminarily agricultural. Initially, the communist parties all over the world, saw the agricultural workers as vicious capitalists clung to a few yards of land and a couple of pigs ( mainly chicken ) which land and animals saved the agricultural workers from starvation and, thus, the agricultural workers were not to give their miserable piece of land and their low outcome extensive manual and bull driven methods and they were to oppose nationalization of their land and animals even stronger than the richest capitalists. However, The USSR proved the agricultural workers are just workers, the same as the factory workers, even exploited more. Once the villagers realized this they got to sing to a different tune and embraced the high productivity of the communist intensive agriculture and animal growing. Not only did they not starve and had even more food than what they would have but they also had what was considered as industrialism to come to their villages, such as electricity which was high tech and unthinkable space rocket ship of the early 20th centuries. While Lenin did not give a shit on whether the industry would be a capitalist one or a socialist one and introduced INDUSTRIAL capitalism in The USSR as a temporary measure ( nepmanism ) Lenin was unable to disregard the food making field of the society and kept strong nationalized high output intensive planned cooperative agriculture and animal growing with introduction of what was then high tech as, for example, agricultural machinery ( tractors including as opposed to the bull drive plow ), professional veterinary practice for the animal growers, etcetera. As a result of the communist way, Lenin did IN LESS THAN FOUR YEARS what no one had been able to do in 10 million years ( the estimated period when the monkeys became people ) : there was an abundance of food in The USSR unseen anywhere else ever. This successful communist agriculture and animal growing made the villagers think otherwise and gladly give whatever private piece of shit they may have had for the new opulence. The factory workers, on the other side of the story, understood the fact the LABOR OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND ANIMAL GROWING WORKERS WAS JUST AS HARD AND EVEN HARDER THAN THE LABOR OF THE FACTORY WORKERS AND THIS WAS THE ONLY REASON WHY THE AGRICULTURAL AND ANIMAL GROWING WORKERS PREFERRED TO LEAVE THE VILLAGES FOR THE TOWN FACTORIES ( MAINLY IN CAPITALISM AND FEUDALISM ) : THEY DID NOT OBJECT ON BEING PAID LESS AS LONG AS THEY DID NOT HAVE TO ENDURE THE HARSH ENVIRONMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND ANIMAL GROWING WORLD. Once them Germans realized the advancement of the communist agriculture and animal growing and the betterment of all, INCLUDING THE AGRICULTURALISTS AND ANIMAL GROWERS, East Germany, as said predominantly rural, embraced communism as their choice and, combined with the factory workers all over Germany, created a massive thread against the capitalist parties and thus against the capitalists. The German capitalists, however, did decide to fight in a “ civil war “ style against the communists. BECAUSE THE CAPITALISTS WERE UNABLE TO WIN A FAIR AND SQUARE ELECTION WHICH WAS TO SOON BE WON BY THE COMMUNISTS, the capitalists decided to enter a real, physical civil war against a democratic election. The German capitalist parties, however, did not offer this option very strongly as opposed to Hitler who did not want to ( mainly Goering ) but the capitalists did not know Hitler did not want to AND Hitler had to in order to win an election as Hitler had not any other choice because the

National Socialist Capitalist Whatever Opportunist Party was not supported by anyone except a few thousand thugs out of 80 000 000 Germans. With the capitalist support given to Hitler NOT BY JEWS BUT BY ALL GERMAN CAPITALISTS and with clever machinations, manipulations, tricks, etcetera engineered by the genius of Goering ( who was a genius and the most clever person amongst the Hitlerists ) combined with Hitler’s bullshits and meeting politics demagogy and populism, Hitler managed to lie over the stupid German people, some of whom trusted the Fuhrer ( very few ) and most of them ( probably even more stupid ) trusted them capitalists who portrayed communism as a destructive force and postulated there was only one person to save Germany from extinction : Herr Fuhrer Adolph Hitler. Thus, 44% of the Germans ( the stupid ones, mainly the Red Necks ) voted for Hitler who was still not able to get the power although supported by the capitalist parties and the capitalists in general. This was because the capitalist parties supported Hitler only as much : only in ensuring betterment of the capitalists mainly with economic measures and with a strong fight against the communists. Hitler, however, was not so easy to get. Hitler promised the capitalists all they wanted ONLY ON ONE CONDITION : FULL POWER. However, Hitler’s party was a new party never existed before and Hitler’s social system design offered a new, now capitalist friendly, system which HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED BEFORE. Only because of this, the conservative capitalist dickheads did not agree. In this case the conservatism ( i. e. dickheadism ) helped the society in general BUT THIS WAS THE ONLY CASE WHERE CONSERVATISM WAS NOT DESTRUCTIVE, thanks to Adolph, symbolically speaking. So, Adolph was fighting against the communists very weakly in order to get capitalist support for full power. Adolph was also threatening the capitalists Adolph would stick to the originally broad ( now narrowed for the negotiation purposes ) idea of socialism and threatened to enter an alliance with the socialists and, possibly with the communists, agreeing to their terms just to get the power. The capitalists realized Hitler was bluffing, but, most importantly, relied on the strong refusal of the communists to enter any alliance with Hitler BECAUSE THE NATIONALIST GENETIC BASED IDEA WAS 180 DEGREES OPPOSITE OF THE COMMUNIST IDEA FOR ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL WHICH IS NOT ONLY TRUE SCIENTIFICALLY BUT IS ALSO ONE OF THE BASES FOR THE COMMUNIST NON EXPLOITATION POINT WHICH WAS THE MAIN POINT OF COMMUNISM. Looks like Hitler lost to the capitalists and will never get the full power because the communists and the socialists ( copying from the communists ) strongly objected to unite and support Hitler and the capitalists decided to CONTROL HITLER with the so needed 7% which no one else was to offer. Hitler, however, knew Hitler must either get the full power immediately or will lose the next election as there was not much period for “ improvement “ with every week lost. Then Hitler, in stalemate, had only one chance : Hitler’s secret weapon : the Goering genius. Hitler gave almost the full power to Goering to try to get the necessary 7% but the clever Goering knew there was no way to get these 7% globally. Thus, instead of boxing the non national socialists in the head, Goering went to a non global level where less attention was paid and started to box the various opponents in the stomach : Goering realized whoever won Prussia would win Germany and Prussia was also ideal because Prussia was more vulnerable and because of Prussia’s low profile, as no one gave a shit on the agricultural garbage of Germany. Thus, without a possible election ( Hitler was afraid from a new election like a vampire from a silver bullet, because, Hitler knew Hitler would lose because people already got to know Hitler and Hitler mainly won because people did not know Hitler and believed Hitler will turn the poverty to prosperity with a can of fish like Jesus had done ), Goering

started to work 24 /7 and waged an opportunistic war over the stupid Prussia. People’s stupidity in Prussia was also one of the reason why Goering chose Prussia : stupid people ( as well as non informed ) are more easy to manipulate. Once the war was unleashed, Goering became the poker Goliath and Prussia, the poker David. With a few constantly changing tricks , Goering, now an elected official from the parliament to become a governor of Prussia, introduced fantastic instability and the stubborn stupid Prussians did not much realized what was going on but realized the instability. With the constantly changing, chaos infesting opportunism, Goering managed to also get the support of the other Prussian MP’s promising prospect and opulence to Prussia once Hitler got the 51%. The Prussian MP’s, scrambled well by Goering agreed also because Prussia was a very poor area and Goering was the only person in the world to have ever promised prosperity to the God and Germany forsaken Prussia. Once the lucrative promises were made and the Prussian MP’s had nothing else to do but to accept them like children who get expensive gifts on Christmas, the Prussian MP’s gave Goering what Goering asked in return : the much dreamed of 7%. Goering, happy and glorious like the Queen after a successful battle, delivered the gift to Sir Adolph, who, happy and shiny, gave the second place of the party to Goering without whom, Hitler was to hit the streets and beg homeless and unemployed without any possibility to be employed neither in a capitalist nor in a socialist society, not to mention the communist one. Once Hitler got the 51%, Hitler became unstoppable and thus made many mistakes : one of them : concentrating on war and not on economy unable to see how the superior quality German goods were to overtake the world with proper transportation which was becoming more and more easily available, thus, Hitler was to take the capitalist world by economic and not war measures, which the Germans eventually did after the war along with the Japanese to relent many years thereafter to China which was avoidable but they were unable to do so. Hitler was to. Thus, without the war, Hitler was going to shine over capitalism stronger than the sun. Goering did suggest so but Hitler refused continuing to be afraid from only one thing in Germany : communism because, communism was directly opposite to EVERYTHING IN HITLER’S THEORY AND PRACTICE AND WAS THE ONLY THING AGAINST EVERYTHING. This is also why, along with pleasing the Americans and winning them as supporters ) Hitler started the war against The USSR. Hitler’s stupidity came to play as every genius is also somewhat stupid in a given direction. Hitler decided to destroy the German communism by destroying NOT the German but the world communism of which the German communism was part. And this was stupid because Hitler was able to keep communism at bay only by unleashing the German genius power of design and development ( opposite to the overall German people’s stupidity ). Back to the topic : The question whether the Jews played any role in communism and the communist revolution ( other than Marx and Engels were genetic Jews ( probably not fully ) but against every other aspect of Jewism ) was answered as a 100% NO! Now the question is : DID ROTHSCHILD OR ANY OTHER JEWS HELPED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY HITLER? The answer is NO! The Jews and the Rothschilds did NOT BUT THE CAPITALISTS DID. Obviously, as there were many Jewish capitalists in Germany, SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE INDIRECTLY AND WEEKLY SUPPORTED HITLER WHO WAS ABLE TO DO WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT, BUT THIS WAS NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE CAPITALISTS. Even in this case, the amount of support is NEGLIGIBLE, the monetary support too, thus the answer is 0 support. Hitler got “ support “ from the Jews the way Hitler did best : Hitler just stole all of the property of the

Jews : personal AND private assets and money including factories, banks, financial organizations, gold and silver ). Obviously, this does not mean a Jewish support as this is a highway robbery over the Jews ONLY and people who are robbed do not want to be robbed thus they do not support the robbers. As a difference, communism is a society where the property ( private but not personal ) of ALL people is nationalized after free and fair election of a constitution which clearly says so and has clearly and consciously been elected by the people or the vast majority of them as a constitutional election requires 75% or more in most or all countries in the world the the constitution becomes NOTHING BUT a simple law yet the highest in power and CAN BE CHANGED IN FULL OR PARTIALLY BY THE PEOPLE WHENEVER PEOPLE WISH incase 75% or more of them vote for. Thus, the US gun law ( a constitutional amendment ) can change in any second to prohibit the personal and private possession of weapons and then, can change a second thereafter to revert to the present arrangement and then, a second after, can change again. In case of a constitution which constitutes a law of period of inactivity during which the constitution cannot change, this law has been elected by the people and can be changed any second to be gotten rid of, thus such a law is useless and there should not be any such at all as far as logic and reality are concerned. Furthermore it was the result of Trotzky's work, and not of the iron determination of Lenin that there was the unification round the insignificant party of the Bolsheviks of the whole Left-wing revolutionary camp, the social-revolutionaries and the anarchists. It was not for nothing that the real party of the "non-party" Trotzky was the ancient "Bund" of the Jewish proletariat, from which emerged all the Moscow revolutionary branches, and to whom it gave 90% of its leaders; not the official and well-known Bund, but the secret Bund which had been infiltrated into all the Socialist parties, the leaders of which were almost all under its control. SSB : Before, R. was saying to Hitler : go against Stalin only, not against The USSR as the Trotskyists are your friends and, when they overpower Stalin, you will be OK. Now, R. is saying to Hitler : well, true Trotsky was a Jewish spy, so, go against Trotsky too BUT there are many former Trotskyists who know this and are against this and they are your friends. When they overpower Stalin, they will also reject Trotsky too. They were with Trotsky because they did not know and they did not care as Trotsky closely kept up to Lenin. Now, they do and, once successful, they will stick closely to Lenin and against Stalin and Trotsky ( the Jewish spy part thereof ). Also, the Jew bomb has new ignition : a fictional Jewish proletariat which Hitler may not suspect to be a made up fake. G. - And Kerensky too?

R. - Kerensky too ..., and also some other leaders who were not Socialists, the leaders of the bourgeois political fractions. SSB : Here is where R. has been going : ALL BOLSHEVIKS ARE EITHER STALINISTS OR TROTSKYISTS JEWISH PROPAGANDISTS. ONLY THE MENSHEVIKS ( SOCIALISTS AND NOT COMMUNISTS ) ARE OK. Thus, Hitler must trust those and none of the communists in The USSR and they, as per R., will come on top.

Initially, the Mensheviks were part of the communist party unlike the aforementioned anarchists and other socialists which did not support the communist party BUT were against the tsar and capitalism in general and thus supported the revolution because the revolution was against those. However, once in the new parliament, they, to some extend, rejected the Leninism part of communism and embraced Marxism in a broad view. The Mensheviks started to support the idea of a left wing capitalism in Russia to an extend. The Mensheviks, except from the national part, were the closest to Hitler’s “ socialism “ in The USSR and R. tried to convince Hitler they were Hitler’s friends and not Stalin, nor Trotsky which was the former strong card of R.’s. Lenin stripped the Mensheviks from their parliamentary status and arrested them after the revolution. G. - How is that?

R. - You forget about the role of freemasonry in the first phase of the democratic-bourgeois revolution? SSB : Yet another “ World Control “ garbage. R. tries to use this to make Hitler fight against the ghost of the “ World Government “ and use this in order to stay in power thus to avoid the war. The Freemasonry garbage has been around even, probably, before the fiction of an organized Jewish world control. Even now some stupid people, mainly in The US, think this bullshit is true. Freemasonry has either never existed or has been nothing but a Trade Union of the construction workers who have been one of the high tech workers at a given period. To strengthen the bullshit ( to petrify the bullshit ), these people claim all US presidents starting with George Washington have been Freemasons and they use this to “ prove “ all the US presidents have been taking ORDERS from the Freemasons who rule The US and the world. No one says how the Freemasons compare to them Jews. These idiots who support the Freemasons “ theory “ did not spare even Obama regardless of the president’s mixed race and mixed religion. Thus, Obama has been proclaimed a Freemason. When a Jew get elected to be the president of The US, the freemason “ theorists “ would make the Jew a Freemason and the Jewish world control “ theorist “ would make the said future probable president a Jewish and a Rothschild’s spy. I would definitely vote for a Jewish candidate just to see who can bullshit more : the Freemason “ theorists “, the Jews and Rothschilds “ theorists “ or the newly created Freemasonry and Jew Combinational “ theorists “. Then, who was first? The chicken or the egg? Them Jews or the Freemasons? AND WHO HAS A BIGGER? LYRICAL BREAK : What I am to say now is so stupid so I am unable to put this in the Red Symphony nor associated therewith BUT I can put this as a comic point to cheer people up. I could but I did not want to use this point against some conspiracy theories, simply because what I am to say is so stupid ain’t even worth to be used as said. So hare is what I am to say : There are people who are what I call “ Back to the Futurists “. These are people who think

people can travel in the ages, usually back but some of them even think forward too. Thus, some people say The US has invented a machine which can send people back and than return them to the present. In addition to this, George Washington said during the revolution against the British forces “ angles came in the woods to tell George Washington what to do. Obviously, the idea is simple, symbolic or not : George Washington explained the defeat against the stronger Britain not with objectivity but decide to use this victory to proclaim The USA was the God’s Will. Now, here comes the fun : some people say, The US government IN THE 20TH CENTURY, used the machine to send a few children back to George Washington with the purpose to convey a message to tell the general on how to win the war. And because children look more like angels than adults ( except some girls ) and would look more trustworthy to George Washington, The US government decided to send children with a message and specific instruction. The US government selected the most clever children. So far, so good BUT not as funny. Here is the top of the story : One of these children was the young Barak Obama. I wonder what more fun I can get by asking the question : How come a mixed race child would appeal to George Washington when slavery was very popular then and George Washington personally possessed a good number of slaves? A possible answer may be : Them Brits imposed the slavery in the US and the Black were against them. The Irish too. Thus, a mixture between a Black and an Irish would look trustworthy to George Washington in the war against them Brits. Would the quantity be higher than the threshold to make George Washington for racial equality and trust the child? In an era during which the white Americans said otherwise? G. - Were they also controlled by the Bund? SSB : Here is the R.’s answer : them Freemason’s were run by them Jews. Try to say this in the Southern States in front of a bunch or Freemason Red Necks. R. gives this answer because Hitler has been mainly opposing the Jews and not the Freemasons of which Hitler has never given a shit because these are neither dangerous nor do they “ possess “ the German economy nor can Hitler convince the stupid Germans of such as they, the Germans, are stupid BOT NOT AS MUCH AS the Americans. G. seems to also prefer this anti Jewish point rather than to go into the fairy tale world to try to squeeze the Freemasons for some concrete or charcoal. R. - Naturally, as the nearest step, but in fact subject to "Them."

G. - Despite the rising tide of Marxism which also threatened their lives and privileges? SSB : So, R. says the Freemasons were the “ designers “ of the capitalism and capitalist revolution. Now R. says they were run by them Jews, therefore them Jews created capitalism ( something Hitler would be happy to hear as Hitler was an anti capitalist and an anti communist). Then R. said all other communists were also run by them Jews ( ditto ). Thus, R. says the whole world except Hitler’s Germany have always been controlled by them Jews since the Pharaohs or, I would not be suppressed, even before ( extremely enormous ditto ). Generally, this is what Hitler has always been saying amongst other things. R. strongly wants Hitler to strongly concentrate against them Jews and NOT on most or all of the other things.

R. - Despite all that; obviously they did not see that danger. Bear in mind that every mason saw and hoped to see in his imagination more that there was in reality, because he imagined that which was profitable for him. As a proof of the political power of their association they saw that masons were in governments and at the pinnacle of the States of the bourgeois nations, while their numbers were growing all the time. Bear in mind that at that time the rulers of all the Allied nations were freemasons, with very few exceptions. This was to them an argument of great force. They fully believed that the revolution would stop at the bourgeois republic of the French type. SSB : R. says the masons were so stupid so they did not understand communism is against capitalism which is what even the dumbest mason would understand as this is what communism mainly was. R. now says the Freemasons stole land from Germany during the Versailles who Freemasons were run by them Jews. ( Good for Hitler ) Yes. There is a lot of imagination going on in this conversation. Mainly R.’s. G. - In accordance with the picture which was given of the Russia of 1917 one had to be a very naive person to believe all this ... SSB : IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PRINCIPLES, ONE HAS TO BE VERY STUPID TO THINK MOST THINGS R. HAS SAID. R. - They were and are such. Masons had learned nothing from that first lesson which, for them, had been the Great Revolution, in which they played a colossal revolutionary role; it consumed the majority of masons, beginning with the Grand Master of the Orleans Lodge, more correctly the freemason Louis XVI, in order then to continue to destroy the Girondistes, the Hebertistes, the Jacoboins etc..... and if some survived it was due to the month of Brumaire. SSB : In accordance with R., most any person in the world is either a Jew or run by them Jews or a Freemason run by them Jews. The whole world is stupid and only them Jews are clever. Sounds like Zionism. G. - Do you want to say that the freemasons have to die at the hands of the revolution which has been brought about with their co-operation?

R. - Exactly so. You have formulated a truth which is veiled by a great secret. I am a mason, you already knew about that. Is that not so? Well, I shall tell you this great secret, which they promise to disclose to a mason in one of the higher degrees, but which is not disclosed to him either in the 25th, nor the 33rd, nor the 93rd, nor any other high level of any ritual. It is clear that I know of this not as a freemason, but as one who belongs to "Them" ... SSB : In accordance with R., Freemasons want to self destroy. Sure sounds like The present US. I get to think all US politicians are Freemasons, then.

R. even claims an invaluable experience of a Freemason who, although not in the highest rank, knows the rumors around of the truthfulness of R.’s words. Adolph, did you hear this? G. - And what is it?

R. - Every masonic organization tries to attain and to create all the required prerequisites for the triumph of the Communist revolution; this is the obvious aim of freemasonry; it is clear that all this is done under various pretexts; but they always conceal themselves behind their well-known treble slogan. (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity - Transl.) You understand? But since the Communist revolution has in mind the liquidation, as a class, of the whole bourgeoisie, the physical destruction of all bourgeois political rulers, it follows that the real secret of masonry is the suicide of freemasonry as an organization, and the physical suicide of every more important mason. You can, of course, understand that such an end, which is being prepared for every mason, fully deserves the secrecy, decorativeness and the inclusion of yet another whole series of secrets, with a view to concealing the real one. If one day you were to be present at some future revolution then do not miss the opportunity of observing the gestures of surprise and the expression of stupidity on the face of some freemason at the moment when he realises that he must die at the hands of the revolutionaries. How he screams and wants that one should value his services to the revolution! It is a sight at which one can die ... but of laughter. SSB : Now, the masons are not so stupid but they are communists although they are capitalists, i. e. the masons created capitalism to only pave the way for communism. Adolph, go do the freemasons not The USSR and go easy on France : they are also victims of them masons, i. e. them Jews who used France in order to create communism. G. - And you still deny the inborn stupidity of the bourgeoisie? SSB : G. wants to point R. to go easy on the bourgeoisie on which Hitler depends. Hitler would not be happy to go against them. R. - I deny it in the bourgeoisie as a class, but not in certain sectors. The existence of madhouses does not prove universal madness. Freemasonry is also a madhouse, but at liberty. But I continue further: the revolution has been victorious, the seizure of power has been achieved. There arises the first problem, peace, and with it the first differences within the party, in which there participate the forces of the coalition, which takes advantage of power. I shall not explain to you that which is well known about the struggle which developed in Moscow between the adherents and opponents of the peace of Brest-Litovsk. I shall only point out to you that which had already become evident then and was later called the Trotzkvist opposition, i.e. these are the people, a part of whom have already been liquidated and the other part is to be liquidated: they were all against the signing of the peace treaty. That peace was a mistake and an unconscious betrayal by Lenin of the International Revolution. SSB : Now, R. gets to a very interesting direct point : ONLY JEWS WANT WAR AND THIS IS HOW THEY RULE. Therefore, Hitler, being against the Jews, must blame them for all wars and thus must not engage into a new war, which is what them Jews want. Pretty clever point regardless of being a lie. Hence Lenin have screwed them Jews by selecting piece instead

of waging a war of all capitalist countries which is also what them Jews wanted. So, as per R.’s, Lenin, although facilitated by them Jews is the only one who opposed them and screwed them. More Jew than all Jews. Marxism, Leninism, i. e. communism, has never wanted to impose the communist revolution by a war between a communist county ( s ) and a capitalist ( s ) ones. Marx and Lenin have said clearly : communism must and will win in every country in the world by a revolution conducted ONLY by the people of each and every country. Of course, wars have been used even by Lenin BUT NOT AS CREATORS OF COMMUNISM NOR A COMMUNIST REVOLUTION. Wars are also a destabilizing factor and a reason for people to go against their government. This HAS BEEN USED by Lenin THE SAME AS EVERY OTHER DESTABILIZING FACTOR. Thus Lenin did NOT want a war but Lenin had been waiting for ANY destabilizing factor. In case of a lack of war but a presence of another destabilizing factor, say, a destroyed economy, the communist revolution would have been done exactly the same way. Lenin did NOT create destabilizing factors but said they must have been WAITED TO HAPPEN AND THEY WOULD HAPPEN FOR SURE IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY AS THIS SOCIETY WOULD SELF DESTROY FOR SURE WITH 100% CERTAINTY BECAUSE OF THE SYSTEMATIC PROBLEMS WITH THE DESIGN AND THE PRODUCT OF THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM, I. E. THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM AND THE SYSTEM. This is why the Cold War was a bullshit which has contradicted to communism significantly. This bullshit has been engineered and used by the US in order to brain wash the people and thus to avoid a communist revolution claiming this will mean an annihilation of The US by The USSR which is not true as this is against the theory and practice of communism. Imagine to yourself the Bolsheviks in Versailles at the Peace Conference, and then in the League of Nations, finding themselves inside Germany with the Red Army, which had been armed and increased by the Allies. The Soviet State should have participated with arms in the German revolution ... Quite another map of Europe would then have emerged. But Lenin, intoxicated with power, with the help of Stalin, who had also tasted the fruits of power supported by the national Russian wing of the party, having at their disposal the material resources, enforced their will. Then was born "Socialism in one country," i.e. National-Communism, which has to-day reached its apogee under Stalin. It is obvious that there was a struggle, but only in such a form and extent that the Communist State should not be destroyed; this condition was binding on the opposition during the whole time of its further struggle right up to the present day. SSB : The Red Army has NOT been armed by the Allies and has rearmed themselves. The Allies ( mainly The U. S. A. ) sent a few trucks to The USSR during the Battle for Stalingrad and almost nothing else. The contribution : insignificant. R, says so in order to reinforce the Jewish connection with a “ support “ of the Allies to The USSR ( all of these : Jewish countries as per R. ) in order to exacerbate the war and maintain the war ( to make money as per R. ).

True : Marx has said Socialism can win only all over the world simultaneously and is NOT possible to win in one or a few countries only. Lenin has said Socialism in one country is possible and has probably meant The USSR because The USSR is not a country but, rather, a self sufficient separate planet which can fully exist without any other country or being in system contradiction therewith because of the strength of the Soviet Army to maintain the piece by protecting The USSR from attacks and invasions. HOWEVER, Lenin as well as Marx and Engels have clearly stressed, war is impossible to be initiated by a communist country. Thus, The Red Army is only for protection and not for attack. Marx, Engels and Lenin have clearly stated WARS ARE AN UNAVOIDABLE FEATURE OF THE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES AND DO NOT EXIST IN COMMUNISM. This is why the cold war was a US engineered garbage as no Soviet Leader would go against Marx, Engels and Lenin. Although contradictory at a first glance, Marx and Engels, on one side and Lenin on another, do not contradict themselves at a higher level of thinking ( but do contradict at a side level ) : Marx and Engels have said communism cannot exist in one or few countries and can only be achieved in the whole world NOT BECAUSE of R.’ fiction of National Communism which has never existed and cannot exist as per the design of the communist system but because Marx and Engels thought of a single ( or few ) communist countries being attacked constantly by the capitalist countries in the attempt to “ protect “ themselves from communism. This means a constant war and, in case of a war, there is not communism as communism is only possible without wars BECAUSE of ALL social reasons : people can not be united nor disunited by a war and to claim a union ( in case united ) is communism because this is a union because of a war as opposed to union because of the system and union because of war does take precedence as compared to union because of system because, in a war, primitive unification is dictated by basic human principles. Another reason for the impossibility of communism to exist in a war is because of a lack of a communist economy for the reason of system and people as opposed to a military economy ( regardless whether state or private ) which may have features of a communist economy but is not as military economy is economy for the military and NORMAL economy is only for people and, in a war, a military economy does take precedence and when similar to a communist economy, military economy is NOT a communist economy also because of the basic human principles, in other words, people work and cannot be exploited because they work not for themselves but for their basic principles, example : protection. The after war conditions may or may not lead to communism depending on the circumstances in a given country and people’s ability to understand as well as on the communist party in such a country. The mentioned side contradiction is in favor of Marx and Engels because, even without a real war, there is an economic war and war ( symbolically speaking ) for resources between capitalist and communist countries which, again, leads to abnormal run of the communist countries. In the case of The USSR the economy war took place mainly in maintaining super strong military equipment and people to be able to resist to a possible attack by a capitalist country, thus, the only period when The USSR had something like an economy was after the civil war ( which continued after 1917 because The White Army never surrendered and regrouped in and, mainly, out of The USSR ) and before the World War II during which period The USSR achieved a higher level of economy than the rest of the world, the capitalist one. This was one of the main reasons for Hitler to attack The USSR because Hitler knew the

advance economy achieved in The USSR and Hitler knew the German people would eventually want the same advanced communist economy for them. Hitler also knew Stalin had abandoned the military in order to have a communist economy, because, as mentioned, a communist economy cannot be achieved when and where there is a military economy. Stalin did so because one of the main reason for Lenin to appoint Stalin was to revoke the temporary capitalism ( nepmanism or nepism ) which Lenin had installed. Also, Stalin did so because Lenin had said “ In case we do not achieve a higher of the same level of the richest capitalist country for 20 years ( until 1938 ) we will have lost “. ( Russia was a poor feudal country before 1917. ) “. And Stalin delivered : in 1922 Stalin got rid of the temporary nepism ( which had been active for less than 4 years and thus had an insignificant destruction or constructional force in The USSR economy ) and Stalin started a closer to real communist economy which outperformed all capitalist economies such as the richest capitalist economy : The USA. Thus, in 1938, The USSR was the best economy and the richest ( the crisis of the 20’s had been recovered much before thus the higher performance of The USSR is not to be blamed on crisis’ with the capitalist economies but on the systematic reason for a better performance of the communist economy as well as a better implementation of the scientific and technical and technological advances ). However, The USSR military had been abandoned to an extend as the military economy had not been used for the previously mentioned reasons. Thus Hitler had : 1. Political Reasons ( to destroy the better performer and thus to do a favor to the other capitalist countries, mainly The U. S. A. ) ; 2. Economic reasons : to destroy a better performing economy to keep the capitalism ; 3. Natural Resources reason : to steal these from Siberia ; 3. Geopolitical Reasons : to destroy one of the anti German powers at Versailles and after thus, to return the German territories to Germany ; 4. Primitive Military reasons : The German Military economy was unleashed and Stalin did not use military economy, thus Hitler was strong and invincible as there was no force to stop Hitler with the lousy US economy at the period : military as well as not military and with Britain and France still fighting on horse backs despite of their colonies. The only thing Stalin had been keeping attention to is the aircraft for military purposes ( as well as mainly civilian ). This was because the only way to attack the USSR was in the air. No one would have even thought of land invasion because of the vastness of the country as well as the huge number of peoples. Hitler did and Hitler thought wrongly. Napoleon did and Napoleon thought wrongly. The only way to win a war against The USSR was to possess a weapon which can be delivered within the USSR and must be of extreme energy concentration : thus : not big but extremely powerful. These were the bombs in the period delivered by bombers supported by fighters all of these delivered to near The USSR on land / air or by aircraft carriers ( in the case of The USA and Japan ). Unless Hitler had known of the nuclear bomb and relied thereon, Hitler did make a mistake to attack The USSR by land as well as all in all as The USSR had aircrafts outperforming the German ones and a lot of them. Thus, Hitler could have won only one way : with a huge amount of nuclear bombs, some of which may reach some of The USSR locations ( main intend : cities ). Hitler did possess nuclear bombs in 1945 but did not use them. Obviously, in case Hitler had predicted most any country would have nuclear bombs soon, then Hitler decided to attack The USSR before The USSR can self protect with nuclear weapons. And Hitler may have predicted the nuclear age BECAUSE TO MAKE A NUCLEAR BOMB IS VERY SIMPLE although the US does not want to admit this. The simplest ways of making a nuclear bomb is by destabilizing not very stable materials by bombardment with electrons accelerated by an electro magnetic field. Even children could do this and so did the

US. EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHO HAD ELECTRICITY COULD HAVE DONE THIS AS NO HUGE POWER WAS REQUIRED AND A SIMPLE DEDICATED WATER ELECTRICAL PLANT WOULD HAVE DONE VERY SUFFICIENTLY. Obviously, such a knowledge may explain Hitler’s behavior. And this is probably why Einstein has said the nucleus can never be broken : in order to avoid wars based on war before nuclear age strategy. Funny enough but Einstein did also play some kind of a symphony? What color? Probably white color and white collar too. R. also said something which is true : everyone of the top communist party must only work in such a way as the communism and the communist state must not be destroyed. However, what R. tries to push with saying so is to say them Jews HAD ORDERED the communist state not to be destroyed. R. goes in a danger zone : R. tries to prove them Jews have not only installed communism but have also maintained the installed. Thus, R. wants to tell Hitler, peoples in countries in communism and capitalism are victims to them Jews who have created these societies to counter each other so they can make money. HOWEVER, this also means The USSR has been a Jewish created and maintained state and THUS Hitler must attack. So, R. self contradicts. R. decided to concentrate on the hand of cards which would tell Hitler the firstly said would prevail thus Hitler must go against them Jews. However, the way R. self contradicts may also mean to Hitler : 1. Hitler, go only against these Jews who run the world and not countries. 2. Hitler, destroy the communist states because they are Jewish ; 3. Hitler, destroy the capitalist states because they are Jewish or 4. HITLER, DESTROY THE CAPITALIST AND THE COMMUNIST STATES BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL JEWISH. And, of course, Hitler chose to attack them all. Whether Hitler knew of the coming nuclear age and R. did not OR Hitler chose the way which R. did not Hitler to choose BUT R. PREFERRED HITLER TO CHOSE THIS WAY, SO, IN CASE OF A WAR, HITLER WOULD FIGHT AGAINST THE WORLD AND NOT AGAINST THE USSR ONLY. One way or the other R. risked and lost. R. did get not the worst possibility, though. Thus, the world won against Hitler. The USSR would win against Hitler alone anyway because Stalin also knew making weapons is easy once the sky was protected so these weapons could be made BUT the victory of the USSR allied with others against Hitler was easier. Whatever said two things have been made clear : First, there is no such a thing as National Communism. National can only mean one thing : purified genetics and communism strictly opposes to this and has the all people are equal as one of the most important main bases. Second, the Jews have never created nor maintained communism neither on deivide and conquer nor on any other reason and way and the same applies to capitalism. CAPITALISM IS A NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIETY FROM THE LOUSY FEUDALISM TO A NOT SO LOUSY CAPITALISM. COMMUNISM IS A NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIETY FROM THE NOT SO LOUSY CAPITALISM TO A BETTER SOCIALISM AND BEST COMMUNISM. None of these societies have anything to do with Jews. Either of these societies is anti Jewish because either of these counters Jewish richness. This is why The Rothschilds have failed long ago. Because in capitalism, no one is stupid to be poor and everyone wants to be rich. Thus Rothschilds had a strong competition in capitalism based on

the most important feedback of the capitalism : people compete who becomes richer. True, in this competition every rich person tries to suppress ( to screw ) every one else ( rich or poor ). TRUE, THEORETICALLY, THE ROTHSCHILDS AND OTHER JEWISH OR NON JEWISH CAPITALISTS MAY HAVE TRIED TO SUPPRESS AND WOULD HAVE WON BUT THEY DID NOT WIN. WHY? REMEMBER : QUANTITY MAKES QUALITY AFTER A GIVEN THRESHOLD. THUS, THE ROTHSCHILDS DID NOT HAVE MONEY TO JUMP THIS THRESHOLD BUT WERE MUCH BELOW. This was the reason for our first failure and all those which followed. But the fight was severe, cruel, although concealed in order not to compromise our participation in power. Trotzky organized, with the help of his friends, the attempt on Lenin's life by Kaplan. On his orders Blumkin killed the ambassador Mirbach. The coup d'etat which was prepared by Spiridonova with her social-revolutionaries had been coordinated with Trotzky. His man for all these affairs, who was immune from all suspicions, was that Rosenblum, a Lithuanian Jew, who used the name of O'Reilly, and was known as the best spy of the British Intelligence. In fact he was a man from "Them." SSB : The reason for the failure of the rebellion of 1905 is NOT because of Jews ordering so nor because of the lack of a Jewish connection but because of POOR ORGANIZATION. This is why the events of 1905 are referred to as a rebellion and not revolution. Trotsky did not organize any attempt on Lenin because Trotsky was the closest ally of Lenin’s and because, without Lenin, the revolution may not succeed, the same as the failure of the 1905 rebellion. Lenin was a better practitioner of the revolution. Lenin also said a revolution could only be successful when there are the right conditions therefor. Lenin knew better how to measure these conditions. In 1905, people were not as much pissed off and they did not have the means to fight the tsar’s army as opposed to 1917 when they did because of the war. Trotsky did try to organize the 1905 rebellion and failed because of these reasons and, also, because Trotsky was not a very good organizer nor practitioner but only a theoretician. No, James Bond was not a Jew nor run by them. The reason why this famous Rosenblum was chosen, who was known only as a British spy, was that in case of failure the responsibility for assassinations and conspiracies would fall not on Trotzky, and not on us, but on England. So it happened. Thanks to the Civil War we rejected conspiratorial and terrorist methods as we were given the chance of having in our hands the real forces of the State, insofar as Trotzky became the organizer and chief of the Soviet Army; before that the army had continuously retreated before the Whites and the territory of the USSR was reduced to the size of the former Moscow Principality. But here, as if by magic, it begins to win. What do you think, why? As the result of magic or chance? SSB : The Red Army won over the White Army because almost all city workers joined the revolution and MAINLY because most of the villagers realized they had been oppressed and had a chance to be free now.

COMMUNISM HAS ALWAYS REJECTED TERRORISM AND CONSPIRACY. THESE WOULD ONLY GET RID OF ONE OR A FEW PEOPLE AND CHANGE NOTHING. REVOLUTION IS NOT TERRORISM NOR CONSPIRACY BUT AN ORGANIZATION WHICH MUST INCLUDE MOST OF THE PEOPLE, MORE THAN 67%, USUALLY 75% OR MORE IS A GOOD ESTIMATE. Here is an example : Booth killed Lincoln. What did Booth change? Nothing. The vice president became a president and did the same as Lincoln would have done. The same applies to Kennedy. To continue : In contrast more than 67% of the Vietnamese people supported the communist revolution and they not only won the revolution but also fought against the strongest and won because of the conditions of the war : the strongest ( US ) were unable to fight in the jungle and a guerilla style war. Hope they now learned. Contrary to what people in Alabama think, communism rejects terrorism and conspiracy much strongly than capitalism. People who do terrorism and conspiracy are not communists and cannot be because they are against a main point in communism. Thus, organizations as Khmer Rouge CALL THEMSELVES communists but they are not and no one else calls them so except, probably, the Alabamians for propaganda purposes. In truth, they are extremists, left extremists and not communists. Communism strongly rejects extremism, LEFT AND RIGHT too. I shall tell you: when Trotzky took over the top command of the Red Army then he had by this in his hands the forces necessary to seize power. A series of victories was to increase his prestige and forces: it was already possible to defeat the Whites. Do you think that that official history was true which ascribes to the unarmed and ill-disciplined Red Army the fact that with its help there was achieved a series of victories? SSB : Trotsky has never had any power over Lenin regardless of whether Trotsky has or has not been in charge of the Red Army as no one in the Red Army would go against Lenin. The Red Army was well equipped for the period and well organized. The strong organization of The Red Army would make them listen to Lenin and the top communist leaders as a whole and not to Trotsky whatever the position Trotsky had. Trotsky would not react against Lenin because Trotsky would loose and because Trotsky cannot explain any move against the person Trotsky had been proclaiming to be the best and the top. Trotsky has always been the closest to Lenin and this is why Trotsky has not gone against. G. - But to whom then?

R. - To the extent of ninety per cent they were indebted to "Them." You must not forget that the Whites were, in their way, democratic. The Mensheviks were with them and the remnants of all the old Liberal parties. Inside these forces "They" always had in their service many people, consciously and unconsciously. When Trotzky began to command then these people were ordered systematically to betray the Whites and at the same time they were promised participation, in a more or less short time, in the Soviet Government. Maisky was one of those

people, one of the few in the case of which this promise was carried out, but he was able to achieve this only after Stalin had become convinced of his loyalty. SSB : The liberals and the Mensheviks have always supported Lenin and the Red Army as their only alternative against the tsar because they have never had power nor people to support them. They were in a position to choose : either the communists or the tsar. No other choice. And they chose the communists who were closer to them. Trotsky has never commanded these and has never had any position over them. The only person who may have had any influence over the lefties was Lenin. This influence was not very strong as every party decided for themselves. In a similar way, almost 100% of the US people and 100% of the US government supported Fidel Castro against the mafia. They had to choose : either Castro or the mafia. There was not anyone else. Then, after Castro won, The US decided to go against Castro BUT ONLY AFTER the mafia was destroyed. This sabotage, linked with a progressive diminution of the help of the Allies to the White generals, who apart from all that were luckless idiots, forced them to experience defeat after defeat. Finally Wilson introduced in his famous 14 Points Point 6, the existence of which was enough in order to bring to an end once and for all the attempts of the Whites to fight against the USSR. The Civil War strengthens the position of Trotzky as the heir of Lenin. So it was without any doubt. The old revolutionary could now die, having acquired fame. If he remained alive after the bullet of Kaplan, he did not emerge alive after the secret process of the forcible ending of his life, to which he was subjected. SSB : Wilson did not do anything. The White Army surrendered SIMPLY BECAUSE they were overpowered extremely well by the Red Army. The Civil War did not strengthen the position of Trotsky per se, BUT OF ALL OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. Obviously, Trotsky was a member of the communist party and thus, Trotsky also enjoyed the support of these who supported the communist party but only indirectly : only as a member of the whole. Trotsky would have lost any battle against Lenin and the rest of the communist party even in case Trotsky had wanted such and Trotsky had not. Lenin was not killed. Rumors for the top echelon of the communist party are something normal. The same as in capitalism : how many rumors has anyone heard of Kennedy? R. wants to say them Jews who “ rule “ the world have killed Lenin who have been against them. R. now tells Hitler Lenin would have been different and there would not have been problems between The USSR and Germany nor the rest of the world but, as per R., Lenin was taken out by them Jews who made The USSR against Germany to conquer all who would be against them and to divide and dictate their rules to the two sides. R. does not want to say NOT EVERY DIVISION between countries and people is arranged by someone else to divide and conquer. Yes, division brings weakness which may or may not be exploited by Red Butler alikes in an opportunistic way but these cannot bring weakness always and only exploit the opportunity. Only in a few cases of history one has been able to arrange a divide and conquer principle and ONLY with a huge physical power and not with Jewish tricks to which there are

not very many people to get tricked so easily at the higher levels of governing of the country ( s ). For in formation, here is the Wilson’s Point 6 : “

The evacuation of all Russian territory, and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest co-operation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy, and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing, and more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of heir comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy. “ The only thing Wilson says is : “ we do not want to fight against Russia and Russia does not want to fight against us ”. Lenin has clearly said : communism can win in one country only. Thus, Lenin reassured Wilson The USSR has got nothing against the US and does not want to fight against The US in order to liberate the US from capitalism. Instead, Lenin said, the only people who could to this were the people of The US should they choose to do so. Also, in 1917 and before, the US supported any anti feudal revolution, any anti tsar revolution also because the US and France were the only somewhat developed republics then. Here is a brief estimate of the world communist leaders : Marx and Engels : excellent theoreticians, their estimate as practitioners is unknown because they have never used any skills as practitioners. Trotsky : excellent theoretician, bad practitioner. Lenin : excellent theoretician, excellent practitioner. Stalin : bad theoretician, excellent practitioner. G. - Trotsky shortened his life? This is a big favourable point for our trial! Was it not Levin who was Lenin's doctor? SSB : G. wants to point R. to clarify R. means not Trotsky per se but them Jews.

R. - Trotzky? ... It is probable that he participated, but it is quite certain that he knew about it. But as far as the technical realization is concerned ..., that is unimportant; who knows this? "They" have a sufficient number of channels in order to penetrate to wherever they want. SSB : R. delivers. G. - In any event the murder of Lenin is a matter of the greatest importance and it would be worth while to transfer it for examination to the next trial ... What do you think, Rakovsky, if you were by chance to be the author of this affair? It is clear that if you fail to achieve success in this conversation ... The technical execution suits you well as a doctor ... SSB : G. strengthens the point of the conversation to go towards Lenin’s death as this is very important to drive Hitler to the conclusions they want. To explain why G. wants this direction of the conversation, G. stresses R. is, kind of, charged with Lenin’s murder. Also, G., thinks a few moves ahead : what would people think of this conversation in decades, even centuries? G. is soft but strong. R. is hard and also strong. The soft cop and hard cop routine. R. - I do not recommend this to you. Leave this matter alone, it is sufficiently dangerous for Stalin himself. You will be able to spread your propaganda as you wish: but "They" have their propaganda which is more powerful and the question as to qui podest - who gains, will force one to see in Stalin the murderer of Lenin, and that argument will be stronger than any confessions extracted from Levin, me or anyone else. SSB : R. advises G. the Jews may use this direction to attempt to destroy communism and destabilize The USSR in this so difficult situation. R. points out : better with Stalin than with anarchy and, now, because of Hitler, there is not any choice. Thus, when Hitler stops and does not attack The USSR, there would be more choice than the consolidated by Hitler Stalin. G. - What do you want to say by this? SSB : G. wants clarification to make the point stronger. R. - That it is the classical and infallible rule in the determination of who the murderer is to check who gained ..., and as far as the assassination of Lenin is concerned, in this case the beneficiary was his chief - Stalin. Think about this and I very much ask you not to make these remarks, as they distract me and do not make it possible for me to finish. SSB : R. delivers : in case they stress a lot on this point, Stalin would be the main suspect as people always look at the beneficiary of a crime as a main suspect. However, in this case, this should not be Stalin although people would be easily mistaken to suspect Stalin. TROTSKY IS THE ONLY BENEFICIARY because everyone thought Lenin would chose Trotsky. Lenin revealed the choice of Stalin just a few hours before Lenin’s death. Still, people would not trust this historic truth and would blame Stalin for everything as many of them have. G. - Very well, continue, but you already know ...

R. - It is well known that if Trotzky did not inherit from Lenin then it was not because by human calculations there was something missing in the plan. During Lenin's illness Trotzky held in his hands all the threads of power, which were more than sufficient to enable him to succeed Lenin. And measures had been taken to declare a sentence of death on Stalin. For Trotzky the dictator it was enough to have in his hands the letter of Lenin against his then chief - Stalin, which had been torn from her husband by Krupskaya, to liquidate Stalin.* SSB : Trotsky did play an important role during Lenin BUT Trotsky did NOT have the full power as no one than had the full power. In order for Trotsky to take the power forcefully, Trotsky had to fight against Lenin, Stalin, all members of the politburo and all members of the Communist party as well as most of the people of The USSR. Contrary to what the Americans believe, during Lenin, there was a full transparency to the members of politburo and government for sure and a lot of transparency thereafter. Trotsky, regardless of documents which Lenin may have sent, can only become a leader one way : when Lenin says so NOW and not before. Lenin may have said whatever before but this does not count now as Lenin may have said this for other purposes, tricky moves in the party, to keep Stalin in contempt as well as other reactionists OR BECAUSE THE SITUATION BEFORE WAS DIFFERENT AND LENIN THOUGHT LENIN WOULD LIVE LONGER TO DISCONTINUE THE LENIN INSTALLED CAPITALISM ( NEPISM ) AND TO START THE SOCIALISM WHICH IS THE FIRST STAGE OF COMMUNISM. Lenin was not killed neither by Trotsky nor by Stalin as neither of these had the physical ability to do so as Lenin was guarded very well by friends and Lenin had a lot of these as well as by KGB who would never attempt to do anything under the thread they would be killed. Trotsky did not even have the logical ability because most of the politburo thought of Trotsky as a useless intellectual who was in such a high position ONLY because Lenin kept Trotsky and no other reason. Without Lenin, Trotsky would have been a curator in the revolutionary museum or a cleaner thereof. Also, an attempt over Lenin would mean a huge publicity amongst the politburo and the government and most or all supported Lenin. In the practical world of the communist party, Trotsky was nothing but a protégé of Lenin’s. Trotsky was like a child of Lenin and only in monarchies can children become Kings and not even there as there would be regents until the child reaches the age of consent, usually 18 or 21. Krupskaya ( Lenin’s wife ) did not divorce anyone and played no role, direct or indirect nor Lenin ever asked or allowed so. When ill, all members of politburo came to see Lenin. Some stayed there almost constantly. Only one word by Lenin and Trotsky would be gladly sent to jail by the rest. Every one hated Trotsky but Lenin who was the only one to keep Trotsky and, hence, no one else even thought of getting rid of Trotsky. The reason for Trotsky to be hated was as mentioned : Trotsky was an intellectual and a theoretician. ONLY LENIN WAS INTERESTED IN THESE KIND OF PEOPLE AND NO ONE ELSE. EVEN, INTELLECTUALISM WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AGAINST THE COMMUNIST PARTY

OF THE PERIOD BY MANY BECAUSE MOST INTELLECTUALS HAVE PROVEN TO BE VERY BAD PRACTITIONERS AND TROTSKY WAS ONE OF THEM. The communist party as well as the capitalist ones as well as all people realized everything which had to be said, proven or disproven was done in the 18th century by Marx, Engels and Lenin on the communist side and by many bourgeois theoreticians on the capitalist side. Thus, while Trotsky was instrumental and very important during the philosophical 18th century, Trotsky proved to be incapable during the practical 20th century. And the communist party as well as the capitalist ones needed practicing. And Trotsky proved to be incapable to be one. Everything Trotsky did while in top positions in The USSR, was done not by Trotsky but by the helping “ father “ Lenin. Trotsky was nothing else but a secretary of Lenin’s and a very lousy one because Trotsky was not able to even make a cup of tea, not to mention coffee. Lenin, while ill, made clear to everyone Lenin worked on one important topic only while ill : who was to replace Lenin. All knew for days Lenin works on this and all expected Lenin’s answer regardless of what toilet papers Trotsky may have had. When Lenin named Stalin ( and naming was expected ), Stalin was to be in charge after Lenin and there was nothing in the world to stop this. The only think Trotsky was thinking was how Stalin takes the tea. Again, R. lies and bullshits with one purpose only : to perpetuate the made up fantasy of Trotsky and Krupskaya and Trotsky’s wife and whoever else whom R. blamed to be run by them Jews. The only one thing R. probably cannot lie was Lenin was also run by Jews. This would have made Lenin committing a suicide in order for the other Jewish puppets to take the power when Lenin would have been the main such. And, this would have made Hitler laugh from Berlin But a stupid mischance, as you know, ruined all our chances. Trotzky became ill unexpectedly and at the decisive moment, when Lenin dies, he becomes incapable of any action during a period of several months. Despite his possession of enormous advantages, the obstacle was our organization of the affair, i.e. its personal centralization. It is obvious that such a person as Trotzky, prepared in advance for his mission, which he was to realize, cannot be created at once, by improvisation. None among us, not even Zinoviev, had the requisite training and qualities for this undertaking; on the other hand Trotzky, being afraid of being displaced, did not himself want to help anybody. Thus, after the death of Lenin, when we had to be face to face with Stalin, who commenced a feverish activity, we foresaw then already our defeat in the Central Committee. SSB : Trotsky was not chosen by Lenin to be the replacement of Lenin NOT because of Trotsky’s alleged illness but because of Trotsky’s inability to be in charge of the party and the country. As mentioned, Trotsky was a bad practitioner in a period where the communist party needed practitioners only. Most likely, Trotsky was not ill at the period but the illness was consequently made up by Trotsky and the Trotskyists as an excuse for the choice of Lenin not to include Trotsky. Instead of admitting Lenin’s will to be because of Trotsky’s inability, Trotsky and the Trotskyists admitted Lenin chose Stalin but made up the reason for this choice to be Trotsky’s alleged “ illness “.

Historically “ illness “ has been used as a reason for a given communist leader to be replaced by another one. The party did not want destabilization and, instead of giving the correct reason, lied a person was replaced because of the person’s “ illness “ or “ old age and illness “. And, yes, Trotsky was incapable of action but not because of an “ illness “ and not because Trotsky was run by them Jews BUT because Trotsky was a bad practitioner : stupid in practical ways, clever in theoretical only. One of the reason may have been Trotsky had never considered practice to be of any importance and may have disregarded such totally to concentrate on theory only because the stress Trotsky put on theory was enormous. As far as an organization based on personality centralization ( which is different than personality cult ), this is also not per the communism theory which says the system of a communist country must be a communist system in order for the country to be a communist one but never says this country must have one person in power as opposed to the capitalist theories which are based on a pharaoh sitting on the top of the capitalist pyramid. The country which closely resembles a primitive capitalist country is The U. S. A. with a pharaoh on top called president with a cult of personality which makes this pharaoh a commander in chief of the military and even allows the pharaoh to wage a war whenever pleased to do so. In a communist system, power is not to be given to a single person, military power not at all. However, because of a temporary capitalism ( nepotism ) installed by Lenin in The USSR in the period 1917 to 1925 ( roughly ) AND because of the civil war against The White Army AND because of the counter revolution, mainly organized by the left overs of the White Army ABROAD AND because of the transient period from feudalism ( with some characteristics of a slave even the older Slave Ownership Society ) via temporary capitalism to socialism, a slightly more centralized power offered a compensation for the difficult for the period synchronization and hence Lenin preferred such a system to be continued by the next person in charge. Such a person in charge was not to be the incapable Trotsky but the very capable Stalin. After The World War II MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE WORLD WAR II Stalin did NOT establish a cult of personality contrary to what people thought, but, instead, BECAUSE OF THE POST WORLD WAR II PERIOD, Stalin strengthen the system just to soften when the post war period was to be over. However, Stalin died before or around the next period which would not be connected to the war and was unable to soften the system which was done by Khrushchev instead. BECAUSE I MAY HAVE MISSED BEFORE : HERE ARE THE STAGES OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIETY FROM THE WORST TO THE BEST :

1. TRIBAL PRIMITIVE COMMUNAL SOCIETY ( A. K. A. TRIBAL OR PRIMITIVE COMMUNAL SOCIETY )

2. SLAVE OWNERSHIP SOCIETY ( A. K. A. SLAVERY ) 3. FEUDAL SOCIETY ( A. K. A. FEUDALISM ) 4. CAPITALIST SOCIETY ( A. K. A. CAPITALISM )

5. COMMUNIST SOCIETY WITH A FIRST TEMPORARY STAGE OF A SOCIALIST SOCIETY ( COMMUNISM WITH TEMPORARY STAGE OF SOCIALISM )

There have not been any other type society except these so far and these have been available during a given period of history for sure everywhere. Adolph Hitler and Benitto Musolini claimed to have invented a new society called National Socialist or Fascist Society ( a. k. a. National Socialism or Fascism ) which is a super capitalist and socialist society combining the two thereof united under the National feature based on genetics. I seem to disagree with this because I claim National Socialism or Fascism was nothing else but capitalism, exactly the same as everywhere and the genetic union did not have any significant effect whatsoever on the society as a whole. When Hitler realized this society cannot work, Hitler listened to Goering to try to convert the capitalism into socialism which may have been successful but the war was over shortly thereafter and Goering was no longer in charge. Germany was divided in two societies thereafter : a capitalist one and a socialist as a first stage to a communist one. R. continues to push the idea Trotsky was supposed to be made in charge of The USSR as per the ideas of them Jews and Rothschilds. We had to improvise a decision: and it was to ally ourselves with Stalin, to become Stalinists more than he himself, to exaggerate in everything and, therefore, to sabotage. The rest you know already: that was our uninterrupted subterranean struggle and our continuous failure to Stalin's advantage, while he displays police talents of genius, having absolutely no equals in the past. And even more: Stalin, possessing national atavism, which had not been uprooted in him by his early Marxism, apparently for that reason underlines his pan-Russianism, and in this connection resurrects a class which we had to destroy, that is the class of National-Communists, as opposed to the Internationalist-Communists, which we are. He places the International at the service of the USSR and it already accepts his mastery. SSB : R. claims the communists decided to ally with Stalin and thus they became National Communists. Again, this is not true. Stalin did not push any National Communism but a stronger organizational abilities to move The USSR towards socialism as the first stage of communism. Stalin was not a policeman but a defender of the revolution instead. R. makes up the imagined National Communism to make Hitler understand The USSR is also based on nationalism, the same as Germany and Italy, but a different one : National Communism as opposed to the Hitler’s National Capitalism. Still NATIONAL, though. Yet another good reason for Hitler not to attack. What R. did not understand very well was Hitler wanted to attack The USSR not only to keep The US at bay BUT because Hitler was paranoid afraid from communism : the only society which outperformed Hitler’s Germany. Hitler was not afraid of capitalism because capitalism was not able to deliver and, thus, no one in Germany would vote for an old underperforming society. Hence, the National Capitalism, called by Hitler National Socialism was safe and cannot be replaced by capitalism but by communism only which was the main LOGICAL reason for Hitler to attempt to invade The USSR and thus destroy the only thread to National Capitalism ( Socialism ).

Politics is a bitch and R. knows this very well. R. can well play whatever hand R. has against Hitler as far as politics goes. R. understands theory pretty well. Yet, everyone makes mistakes and not understanding and not very well attacking the main reason Hitler has against The USSR is not enough. However, R. does not have much of a choice as The USSR was proven in 1938 to be the best performing country in the world. There is no way for R. to say otherwise as even Hitler knew so although Hitler never admitted this. Because R. cannot do anything logical in this situation, R. plays them Jews out of I do not know which sleeve. R. would claim The USSR performs only at a level which them Jews order. In case them Jews order a higher level of performance, The USSR would do so. In case them Jews order a lower level of performance, The USSR would do so. Thus, the only card of R.’s are them Jews. R. frantically tries to push Hitler’s consciousness and subconsciousness think against them Jews as a reason for the higher performance of The USSR : because, as R. says, The USSR is run by Jews who make The USSR perform well in order to make money in the staggering US markets. And here is the trick : Hitler can safely say to all Germans Hitler’s society is the best in the world DESPITE AND NOT BECAUSE OF THEM JEWS and the only reason for the other societies to even be around is because of them Jews. Thus, Hitler can speculate in from of the trusting Germans, communism and capitalism are not normal societies and thus they cannot be compared with Hitler’s “ REAL “ societies. The unreal societies are run by the Jewish money and them Jews while Hitler’s society is run by honesty. There were something else R. was able to play but this was rather dangerous : R. could have tried to talk to Hitler the reason for the communist society to perform so well is yet another artificial reason : R. can claim the communist society cannot perform nad DOES NOT perform normally but performs rather ONLY DRIVEN BY THE IDEA to destroy capitalism. In other words : when capitalism is destroyed, communism will not be able to perform because communism cannot. Although communism cannot, communism now performs abnormally, like countries in a war as an example, in order ONLY to shut down capitalism. Thus, the honest German society performs better because the honest German society performs in a normal and neither military nor destructive way. This is a very good point which R. may have touched yet not exploited. This point was one of the more important points of the capitalist propaganda in Eastern Europe which brought the destruction of the European communism in the 1990’s EXCEPT Byelorussia. The problem with this point is the German people would have said “ OK. WE ALSO WANT THE ABNORMAL HIGHER PERFORMING COMMUNISM AS WE DON’T CARE WHETHER NORMAL OR ABNORMAL AS LONG AS HIGHER PERFORMING. “ This way, Hitler’s weapon would have turned against Hitler. Hitler may have envisioned this. If we want to find an historical parallel, then we must point to bonapartism, and if we want to find a person of Stalin's type, then we shall not find an historical parallel for him. But perhaps I shall be able to find it in its basic characteristics by combining two people: Fouche and Napoleon. Let us try to deprive the latter of his second half, his accessories, uniforms, military rank, crown and such like things, which, it seems, do not tempt Stalin, and then together they will give us a type identical with Stalin in the most important respects: he is the killer of the

revolution, he does not serve it, but makes use of its services; he represents the most ancient Russian Imperialism, just as Napoleon identified himself with the Gauls, he created an aristocracy, even if not a military one, one, since there are no victories, then a bureacratically-police one.

G. - That is enough. Rakovsky. You are not here to make Trotzkyist propaganda. Will you at last get to something concrete? SSB : Stalin became the strongest enemy of Trotsky’s who continued to fight against Stalin forever. G. wants R. to make a point. R. - It is clear that I shall, but not before I had reached the point at which you will have formulated for yourself an at least superficial conception concerning "Them," with whom you will have to reckon in practice and in concrete actuality. Not sooner. For me it is far more important than for you not to fail, which you must, naturally, understand. SSB : R. promises to deliver and not just to make propaganda. R. uses the position R. is into in order to continue to talk against Stalin with the reason to deliver a point after. G. - Well, try to shorten the story as far as possible.

R. - Our failures, which get worse every year, prevent the immediate carrying out of that which "They" have prepared in the after-war period for the further leap of the revolution forward. The Versailles Treaty, quite inexplicable for the politicians and economists of all nations, insofar as nobody could guess its projection, was the most decisive precondition for the revolution. SSB : R. goes towards the point. Not only the revolution has been arranged by the Jews but also Versailles which now is the main preposition to the revolution. Neither of these is true. The revolution came because feudalism and capitalism are lousy social systems. Only because of this and nothing else. There were some attempts before which was smashed by the tsar’s army. The only reason for the revolution to succeed during a war is because there is no one to smash the revolution and because people naturally do not want wars and to be forced in such intrigue wars as the European wars would make people prefer to fight in a revolution instead of fighting in a war and they do not have a choice not to fight. R. mentions Versailles because this is the major point of Hitler’s propaganda for a war and for to stay in power : Hitler vows to recover the lost territories taken away from Germany by Versailles as well as to stop the Versailles reparations which deprive Germany from coal and labor. G. - This is a very curious theory. How do you explain it? SSB : G. is happy as far as the new direction of the conversation goes. R. - The Versailles reparations and economic limitations were not determined by the advantages of individual nations. Their arithmetical absurdity was so obvious that even the most outstanding

economists of the victorious countries soon exposed this. France alone demanded as reparations a great deal more than the cost of all her national possessions, more than one would have had to pay if the whole of France had been converted into a Sahara; even worse was the decision to impose on Germany payment obligations which were many times greater that it could pay, even if it had sold itself fully and given over the whole of its national production. In the end the true result was that in practice Germany was forced to carry out a fantastic dumping so that it could pay something on account of reparations. And of what did the dumping consist?

An insufficiency of consumer goods, hunger in Germany and in corresponding measure unemployment in the importing countries. And since they could not import there was also unemployment in Germany. Hunger and unemployment on both sides; all this were the first results of Versailles ... Was this treaty revolutionary or not? Even more was done: one undertook an equal control in the international plane. Do you know what that undertaking represents in the revolutionary plane? It means to impose an anarchical absurdity to force every national economy to produce in sufficient volume all that it needs, while assuming that to attain that one does not have to take account of climate, natural riches and also the technical education of directors and workers.

The means for compensation for inborn inequalities of soil, climate, availability of minerals, oil, etc., etc. in various national economies, were always the circumstance that poor countries had to work more. This means that they had to exploit more deeply the capacities of the working force in order to lessen the difference which arises from the poverty of the soil; and to this are added a number of other inequalities which had to be compensated by similar measures, let us take the example of industrial equipment. I shall not expand the problem further, but the control of the working day carried through by the League of Nations on the basis of an abstract principle of the equality of the working day, was a reality in the context of an unchanged International Capitalist system of production and exchange and established economic inequality, since here we had to deal with an indifference to the aim of work, which is a sufficient production.

The immediate result of this was an insufficiency of production, compensated by imports from countries with a sufficient natural economy and an industrial self-sufficiency: insofar as Europe had gold, that import was paid by gold. Then came the apparent boom in America which exchanged its immense production for gold and gold certificates, of which there was plenty. On the model of any anarchy of production there appeared at that period an unheard-of financial anarchy. "They" took advantage of it on the pretext of helping it with the aid of another and still greater anarchy: the inflation of the official money (cash) and the hundred times greater inflation of their own money, credit money, i.e. false money. Remember how systematically there came devaluation in many countries; the destruction of the value of money in Germany, the American crisis and its phenomenal consequences ..., a record unemployment; more than thirty million unemployed in Europe and USA alone. Well, did not the Versailles Peace Treaty and its League of Nations serve as a revolutionary pre-condition? SSB : No. Capitalism did and capitalism was going to do the same regardless of Versailles. And “ They “, the Jews, did not do anything else but what every capitalist, American or not, Jewish or not, did.

G. - This could have happened even if not intended. Could you not prove to me why the revolution and Communism retreat before logical deductions; and more than that: they oppose fascism which has conquered in Spain and Germany ... What can you tell me? SSB : I can tell fascism was nothing else but capitalism in an attempt to be organized capitalism because the non organized one did not work. Thus, fascism was claimed to be a “ new “ society, the same as communism, which would suppress the problems of the standard, chaotic and non organized PRIMITIVE capitalism and introduce a new one, a higher level of capitalism which would only take the “ advantages “ of capitalism in case there are such. This idea of fascism as a higher, not so bad capitalism was not bad BUT the implementation thereof was extremely bad. Instead of organizing the capitalism BECAUSE the non organized capitalism did not work, the fascists did NOT admit this but made up a genetic reason for organization of capitalism : they needed a way to “ switch “ to an organized capitalism as the non organized did not work. Instead of pointing the reason, they simply made up another way for organization : the much easier to understand fascism which was not only easier to understand by the people BUT was also a strong protection of the riches of the capitalists from communism. R. - I shall tell you that only in the case of the non-recognition of "Them" and their aims you would be right ..., but you must not forget about their existence and aims, and also the fact that in the USSR power is in the hands of Stalin. SSB : I do not forget “ Their “ non existence. They simply do NOT exist. “ They “ are the same as every other non Jewish capitalist everywhere in the world. G. - I do not see the connection here....

R. - Because you do not want to: you have more than sufficient deductive talents and capabilities of reasoning. I repeat again: for us Stalin is not a Communist, but a bonapartist. SSB : R. again switches to Stalin as well as them Jews as being guilty for most problems and not the communism. Why? This will be seen soon. G. - So what?

R. - We do not wish that the great preconditions which we had created at Versailles for the triumph of the Communist revolution in the world, which, as you see, have become a gigantic reality, would serve the purpose of bringing victory to Stalin's bonapartism ... Is that sufficiently clear for you? Everything would have been different if in this case Trotzky had been the dictator of the USSR; that would have meant that "They" would have been the chiefs of International Communism. SSB : Here is the point : Stalin is not controlled by them Jews directly BUT is a dictator bonapartist. Trotsky is not as strong dictator but is controlled by them Jews. No other choice. Whoever came in power, neither of them was good. And The USSR is not to be blamed for this. Also, Stalin was the escape from them Jews, thus, not as bad as far as Hitler is

concerned. Now : in case Hitler does not attack The USSR, new communists would come into power who are neither Jewish controlled nor are dictator bonapartiests thus Hitler would not have a problem with The USSR. G. - But surely fascism is totally anti-Communist, as in relation to the Trotzkyist and the Stalinist Communism ... and if the power which you ascribe to "Them" is so great, how is it that they were unable to avoid this?

R. - Because it were precisely "They" who gave Hitler the possibility of triumphing. SSB : In case Hitler continues with the anti USSR actions, Hitler would only strengthen them Jews who control Hitler now. G. - You exceed all the boundaries of absurdity.

R. - The absurd and the miraculous become mixed as the result of a lack of culture. Listen to me. I have already admitted the defeat of the opposition. "They" saw in the end that Stalin cannot be overthrown by a coup d'etat and their historical experience suggested to them the decision of a repetition (repris) with Stalin of that which had been done with the Tsar. There was here one difficulty, which seemed to us insuperable. In the whole of Europe there was not a single aggressor-State. Not one of them was geographically well placed and had an army sufficient for an attack on Russia. If there was no such country, then "They" had to create it. Only Germany had the corresponding population and positions suitable for an attack on the USSR, and it was capable of defeating Stalin; you can understand that the Weimar republic had not been invented as an aggressor either politically or economically; on the contrary, it was suited to an invasion. SSB : And because Stalin cannot be overthrown, people see them Jews as controlling Hitler to go against Stalin. In case Hitler stops, Hitler will go against them Jews. Thus, R. says, Hitler has two choices in case Hitler needs to attack someone : either attack them Jews or Stalin : in case Hitler attacks Stalin, Hitler will work for them Jews. In case Hitler attacks them Jews, Hitler must not attack Stalin who is the strongest ally Hitler has against them Jews. And because Hitler does not want to be controlled by them Jews, the only way Hitler can take is to attack them Jews WITH and NOT against Stalin. On the horizon of a hungry Germany there sparkled the meteor of Hitler. A pair of penetrating eyes fixed their attention on it. The world was the witness to his lightning rise. I shall not say that all of it was the work of our hands, no. His rise, uninterruptedly increasing in extent, took place as the result of the Revolutionary-Communist economy of Versailles. Versailles had had in mind not the creation of preconditions for the triumph of Hitler, but for the proletarization of Germany, for unemployment and hunger, as the result of which there should have triumphed the Communist revolution. But insofar as, thanks to the existence of Stalin at the head of the USSR and the International, the latter did not succeed, and as a result of an unwillingness to give up Germany to bonapartism, these preconditions were somewhat abated in the Davis and Young Plans, in expectation that meanwhile the opposition would come to power in Russia ..., but that, too, did not happen; but the existence of revolutionary preconditions had to produce its results.

The economic predetermination of Germany would have forced the proletariat into revolutionary actions. SSB : Versailles was NOT a communist revolutionary precondition but a high way robbery of Germany by the allies, mainly France. Versailles was not orchestrated by people who wanted to push Germany into proletarization and a possible communist revolution BUT by the stupidity of the Western powers : they wanted not only to rob Germany as a compensation to what Germany had done BUT, mainly, to disable Germany from future actions against these countries. AND BECAUSE THE WESTERN NATIONS WERE STUPID AND FOR NO OTHER REASON, instead of protecting themselves from a possible German retaliation, they forced Germany to make a choice : either communism or misery ( as the Western stupidity was unable to predict the success of the communism during Versailles ). Either way, they did not care as Germany was a physical threat against them and communism was only a logical one. As long as they eliminated the physical possibility to again be attacked by Germany, they would be OK or so they thought. However, the Western powers were also stupid enough to predict the “ new “ society of fascism, i. e. organized capitalism based on genetic differences. Had they thought of this possibility and had they realized the genetics base of fascism, they would have realized a fascist Germany would be much more powerful against them and this possibility is far more dangerous than to rely Germany would not chose this. And, when they were not so stupid and they always were, they may have thought fascism and organized capitalism were only possible in Southern Europe and not in the North, BECAUSE, HISTORICALLY, THE SOUTHERN NATIONS HAD ALWAYS BEEN ORGANIZED AND HAD ALWAYS LOOKED FOR EVEN A BETTER WAY OF ORGANIZATION AS OPPOSED TO THE WILD GERMANS WITH THEIR CHAOTIC INDIVIDUALISM WHICH HAD BEEN DRIVING THEM DOWN AS FAR AS PERFORMANCE. Through the fault of Stalin the Social-International revolution had to be held up and the German proletariat sought inclusion in the National-Socialist revolution. This was dialectical, but given all the preconditions and according to common sense the National-Socialist revolution could never have triumphed there. That was not yet all. It was necessary that the Trotzkyists and Socialists should divide the masses with an already awakened and whole class consciousness - in accordance with instructions. With this business we concerned ourselves. But even more was needed: In 1929, when the National-Socialist Party began to experience a crisis of growth and it had insufficient financial recources, "They" sent their ambassador there. I even know his name: it was one of the Warburgs. SSB : True, Stalin’s hard line drove some of the international proletariat away BUT save The USSR which was more important because the international proletariat would come back after Stalin’s hard line while, with the destruction of The USSR, the international proletariat would suffer much more as they would not have a model to measure up to. And Hitler was NEVER HELPED by them Jews, Warburg, Rotschild or whoever. Hitler took power and raised from nothing because of ONLY ONE REASON : the inability of the capitalism. This made Germany suffer and, of course, Germany did not want to suffer. Thus, with the capitalists strongly holding power in the Weimar republic against the communists and with their inability to continue to hold power in the misery they had created with the inability

of capitalism, Hitler was the easiest option for the Germans who did not know communism very well but were able to easily understand the convenient genetics of the fascism which Hitler offered them. So, the Germans selected the easy way out which happened to be the most difficult but them Germans, as well as the whole West, were stupid enough to be able to see in a distance bigger than their dicks and fascism offered them something now and they did not thing for what was ahead as opposed to communism which gave them something ahead and not as much on their dicks now. In direct negotiations with Hitler they agreed as to the financing of the National-Socialist Party, and the latter received in a couple of years millions of Dollars, sent to it from Wall Street, and millions of Marks from German financiers through Schacht; the upkeep of the S.A. and S.S. and also the financing of the elections which took place, which gave Hitler power, are done on the Dollars and Marks sent by "Them." SSB : Bull. The National Socialists have never been paid by them Jews. The only people who may have paid something to Hitler were not the Jews but the American government and the American capitalists in order for Hitler to disallow the spread of communism in Germany. Even this, which is much more logical, is far fetched. However, R. does not understand the real way Hitler came to power : HITLER CAME TO POWER WITHOUT ANY MONEY, NOT EVEN A PENNY. This is the “ beauty “ of fascism : one does not need money to come to power because the election thereof is not based on money nor propaganda BUT on convenient genetics. Thus, NOW, with the deep problems of the US primitive capitalism, anyone who waves the American flag and spells out America for the Americans, will win as many seats as the crisis of the American capitalism is deep. IN OTHER WORDS, R. DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CONVENTIONAL POLITICAL ELECTION MONEY HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY A MUCH BETTER CURRENCY : GENETICS. And this and only this is how fascism was created from nothing and without money in Italy in the poorest areas of Sicily and this is how fascism was spread all over Europe WITHOUT MONEY BUT WITH GENETICS. In other words, the fascists in a country X would say : We are the only people who cares for X, ONLY for X, nothing but X and X’s genetics owners. While the capitalists would say : we do NOT care for X and X people, we only care for our capitals which will trickle y’all Xers into the paradise of abundance and beauty. And when the people see the lack thereof, they realize they would rather go to whomever defends X and the Xers and not to whomever promises to bring the the stars out of the sky into their houses. G. - Those who, according to you, want to achieve full Communism, arm Hitler, who swears that he will uproot the first Communist nation. This, if one is to believe you, is something very logical for the financiers. SSB : G. tries to avoid more Stalin and Jews complication ( absurdity ) but to attack in a direction also favorite of Hitler’s as well as The USSR : all of these are against the financial capitalism. ( The USSR is against this BECAUSE financial capitalism is still capitalism and Hitler is against this because Hitler blamed the financial capitalism as the one taking capitals away from PRODUCTION and destroying capitals in useless circulation. And Hitler was clever enough to understand what The US and The UK still did not even now : There is only

one way to have a society : ONLY PRODUCTION AND NOTHING ELSE, regardless of whether the society is a capitalist or any other. ) R. - You again forget the Stalinist bonapartism. Remember that against Napoleon, the strangler of the French revolution, who stole its strength, there stood the objective revolutionaries - Louis XVIII, Wellington, Metternich and right up to the Tsar-Autocrat ... This is 22 carat, according to the strict Stalinist doctrine. You must know by heart his theses about colonies with regard to imperialistic countries. Yes, according to him the Kings of Afghanistan and Egypt are objectively Communists owing to their struggle against His Britannic Majesty; why cannot Hitler be objectively Communist since he is fighting against the autocratic "Tsar Koba I"? (Meaning Stalin - Transl.) SSB : R. goes offline to tell Hitler only communists fight against Stalin because Stalin stole their revolution. Thus, Hitler must not. After all there is Hitler with his growing military power, and he already extends the boundaries of the Third Reich, and in future will do more ... to such an extent as to have enough strength and possibilities to attack and fully destroy Stalin ... Do you not observe the general sympathy of the Versailles wolves, who limit themselves only to a weak growl? Is this yet another chance, accident? Hitler will invade the USSR and as in 1917, when defeat suffered by the Tsar then gave us the opportunity of overthrowing him, so the defeat of Stalin will help us to remove him ... Again the hour of the world revolution will strike. Since the democratic states, at present put to sleep, will help to bring about the general change at that moment, when Trotzky will take power into his hands, as during the Civil War. Hitler will attack from the West, his generals will rise and liquidate him ... Now tell me, was not Hitler objectively a Communist? Yes or no? SSB : R. says an attack by Hitler against Stalin will bring not only the communist revolution back to the communists but will also install Trotsky into power who, as per R.’s, is controlled by them Jews and Rothschilds. G. - I do not believe in fairy tales or miracles ... Good point. R. - Well if you do not want to believe that "They" are able to achieve that which they had already achieved, then prepare to observe an invasion of the USSR and the liquidation of Stalin within a year. You think this is a miracle or an accident, well then prepare to see and experience that ... But are you really able to refuse to believe that of which I have spoken, though this is still only a hypothesis? You will begin to act in this direction only at that moment when you will begin to see the proofs in the light of my talk. SSB : A war would either strengthen Stalin or destroy Stalin. In either case Hitler loses : Hitler will face either strong Stalin style communism which has not spread in Germany but may as well do because a war would be a convenient point for a communist revolution or a Jewish controlled USSR in case Trotsky comes to power and there is not much of an alternative in The USSR for now. The other alternative may be other communists who are

neither Stalinists nor Trotskyists but real communists to come into power in which case communism would become attractive to most of the Germans who have suffered a war. G. - All right, let us talk in the form of a supposition. What will you say?

R. - You yourself had drawn attention to the coincidence of opinions, which took place between us. We are not at the moment interested in the attack on the USSR, since the fall of Stalin would presuppose the destruction of Communism, the existence of which interests us despite the circumstance that it is formal, as that gives us the certainty that we shall succeed in taking it over and then converting it into real Communism. I think that I have given you the position at the moment quite accurately. SSB : The fox R. also points out the impossible removal of the guard Stalin before a war waiting to happen as this may loosen the strength of the USSR at such a critical point. G. - Splendid, the solution ...

R. - First of all we must make sure that there would be no potential possibility of an attack by Hitler. SSB : THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT : NO ATTACK MEANS REAL COMMUNISM WHICH MAY BE ATTRACTIVE TO THE GERMANS BUT IS NOT AS BAD TO HITLER AS THE OTHER OPTION AND THERE IS NOT ANY BETTER OPTION TO HITLER AS THE USSR WILL ALWAYS REMAIN A COMMUNIST STATE. HITLER HAS TO CHOSE WHICH TYPE OF COMMUNIST STATE SUITS HITLER THE BEST. Obviously, neither R. nor G. nor probably even Hitler taught in 1938 Germany may win a war over the USSR as this was impossible for the period. Even after the invasion of the USSR by Hitler, although most of the people thought Stalin was losing to the slightly superior weapons of the Germans, Stalin was probably allowing the Germans to win and freely march towards Moscow in order to fight them on Russian soil, hundreds of miles from Germany and Europe where German supplies were almost impossible to come and also, to fight them during the Russian winter, something which the Germans are not very accustomed to. Stalin had only two priorities : First and foremost : KEEP SIBERIA AND TRANSFER ALL MILITARY TECHNOLOGY THERE. SIBERIA IS A SAFE HEAVEN WHICH WILL WIN ANY WAR. ; Second : Keep the big cities as much as you can. G. - If, as you confirm, it were "They" who made him Fuhrer, then they have power over him and he must obey them. SSB : G. asks : Well, Hitler must attack because Hitler must obey them Jews, must Hitler not? R. - Owing to the fact that I was in a hurry I did not express myself quite correctly and you did not understand me well. If it is true that "They" financed Hitler, then that does not mean that they disclosed to him their existence and their aims. The ambassador Warburg presented himself

under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race, he also lied regarding whose representative he was. He told him that he had been sent by the financial circles of Wall Street who were interested in financing the National-Socialist movement with the aim of creating a threat to France, whose governments pursue a financial policy which provokes a crisis in the USA. SSB : R. answers : Well, them Jews rule in conspiracy and manipulate Hitler indirectly. They do not give direct orders. R. also plays another card : Hitler hates France as well as all Germans because France robs Germany in terms of reparations for World War I. Now, Hitler plays the US ( mainly them Jews from Wall Street ) run Hitler against France which, allegedly, threatened the financial capitalism in the US. The truth is France did not play any role in the crisis of the world and American capitalism but the capitalism as such did. G. - And Hitler believed it?

R. - We do not know. That was not so important, whether he did or did not believe our explanations; our aim was to provoke a war ..., and Hitler was war. Do you now understand? SSB : Now Hitler becomes the allies’ creation. G. - I understand. Consequently I do not see any other way of stopping him as the creation of a coalition of the USSR with the democratic nations, which would be capable of frightening Hitler. I think he will not be able to attack simultaneously all the countries of the world. The most would be - each in turn.

R. - Does not a simpler solution come to your mind ..., I would say - a counter-revolutionary one?

G. - To avoid war against the USSR?

R. - Shorten the phrase by half ... and repeat with me 'avoid war" ... is that not an absolutely counter-revolutionary thing? Every sincere Communist imitating his idol Lenin and the greatest revolutionary strategists must always wish for war. Nothing is so effective in bringing nearer the victory of revolution as war. This is a Marxist-Leninist dogma, which you must preach. Now further: Stalin's National-Communism, this type of bonapartism, is capable of blinding the intellect of the most pure-blooded Communists, right up to the point at which it prevents their seeing that the transformation into which Stalin has fallen, i.e., that he subjects the revolution to the State, and not the State to the revolution, it would be correct ... SSB : Now, avoiding a war becomes an anti communist thing. Very convenient for Hitler to do. The best way for Hitler to attempt to destroy the enemy is not to have a war. Genious. Except from the fact NO HONEST COMMUNIST WANTS A WAR AS WAR IS AGAINST THE COMMUNIST THEORY. Lenin used OTHER PEOPLES’ WAR as a strong point in terms of WHEN to start the revolution. This is not because of the war per se but because

Lenin has waited for the right point when to start. Thus Lenin disagreed with the uprising of 1905 because this was not when to start the revolution as people were not ready and did not know very well what communism was as well as because they did not suffer as much as to start a revolution. The most important : they were not very well organized then. Revolution means organization first but organization does not necessarily mean revolution. G. - Your hate of Stalin blinds you and you contradict yourself. Have we not agreed that an attack on the USSR would not be welcome? SSB : True. R. self contradicts a lot. This is because R. tries to play any card possible against Hitler’s attack and there is no much of a way to do this except contradiction as the cards themselves are contradictory. R. tries to examine the war problem from every side and play many scenarios to Hitler as far as a possible war is concerned. All scenarios have the same outcome : DO NOT ATTACK THE USSR. Either way you may and will lose. R. - But why should war be necessarily against the Soviet Union?

G. - But on what other country could Hitler make war? It is sufficiently clear that he would direct his attack on the USSR, of this he speaks in his speeches. What further proofs do you need?

R. - If you, the people from the Kremlin, consider it to be quite definite and not debatable, then why did you provoke the Civil War in Spain. Do not tell me that it was done for purely revolutionary reasons. Stalin is incapable of carrying out in practice a single Marxist theory. If there were revolutionary considerations here, then it would not be right to sacrifice in Spain so many excellent international revolutionary forces. This is the country which is furthest from the USSR, and the most elementary strategical education would not have allowed the loss of these forces ... How would Stalin be able in case of conflict to supply and render military help to a Spanish Soviet republic? But this was correct. SSB : Neither Stalin nor the Comintern nor any other communist organization arranged the Civil War in Spain but this was done by the antifascists forces in Spain and was supported by the whole world, most noticeably, The New York Battalion and Canada. Obviously, The USSR also supported the Spanish anti fascist forces although not strongly and not by military presence as The US and Canada did. What probably R. wants to say is Hitler had better concentrate on internal issues as Franco did instead of going into a war and definitely not against Stalin who would use the war to support the German antifascists forces and, in this case, Stalin may succeed because of the closeness of Germany. This point is a bit dangerous because Hitler may decide to fight the USSR before this happens and not after, like Franco has done. Which is what Hitler did. There we have an important strategic point, a crossing of opposing influences of the Capitalist States ..., it might have been possible to provoke a war between them. I admit that theoretically this may have been right, but in practice - no. You already see how the war between the democratic Capitalist and fascist States did not begin. And now I shall tell you: if Stalin thought that he was capable of himself creating an excuse sufficient in order to provoke a war, in which

the Capitalist States would have had to fight among themselves, then why does he not at least admit, if only theoretically, that others too can achieve the same thing, which did not seem impossible to him? ... SSB : Stalin did not want any war as any of these may have negative repercussions against The USSR. No one knows when and which capitalist states may use the war to invade The USSR. Thus, Stalin was not very happy with the Spanish Civil war either. Stalin correctly decided to concentrate only on one thing : to keep the USSR and to peacefully show to the world which system is better thus to expect other people would also want to have the communist system. This strategy has always been in place in the USSR. Any Soviet involvement in other people’s wars may have repercussion against Stalin and the communist system of the USSR because people there did not want wars and this was one of the main reason to prefer the communist system which guaranteed them no war as opposed to feudalism and capitalism. Remember : people supported the communist revolution in the USSR during the war. This was also because they did not want more wars and used the communist revolution and party which obeyed the principles of communism as an against wars system to get them out of the war and to ensure stability thereafter. G. - If one is to agree with your assumptions then one can admit this hypothesis.

R. - That means that there is yet a second point of agreement between us: the first - that there must be no war against the USSR, the second - that it would be well to provoke it between the bourgeois States. SSB : The second point is not true. Not every war amongst the capitalist states would lead to revolution and any war may turn against the USSR. A winner may want to continue and not stop only by winning against the rest of the capitalist states. Most likely, this is what was to happen in Germany had Hitler not attacked The USSR but concentrated on Europe and mainly Britain instead. All Hitler’s generals were against a war on the Eastern Front but may have agreed once Europe was secured. The generals who disagreed with Hitler’s Eastern Front the most were the German generals in Africa. Once they secured the oil coming from the friendly to Germany anti semitic Arab countries, Germany did not need Siberia’s riches as much. Germany was winning the war in Africa and was to win for sure did Hitler not open The Eastern Front. Once Hitler did and the German armies in Africa started to lose as they did not have the sufficient support because everything was going to the Eastern Front, they even engineered a plot against Hitler who betrayed them and lost Africa and the Middle East and deprived Germany from oil, Gold, Silver, Steel, etcetera. Instead Hitler went to fight an impossible and much more difficult war when Hitler had all Hitler needed. G. - Yes, I agree. Is that your personal opinion, or "Theirs"?

R. - I express it as my opinion. I have no power and no contact with "Them," but I can confirm that in these two points it coincides with the view of the Kremlin.

G. - That is the most important thing and for that reason it is important to establish this beforehand. By the way, I would also like to know on what you base yourself in your confidence that "They" approve this.

R. If I had the time in order to explain their full scheme, then you would already know about the reasons for their approval. At the present moment I shall condense them to three:

G. - Just which?

R. - One is that which I had already mentioned. Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind. Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital. That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State. SSB : Which is a good thing to do as opposed to leaving the finances unattended to destroy the production ( the industrial capital ). The mistake of Hitler was Hitler did not directly take the industrial capital and the production as Goering wanted. Another positive thing of Hitler the financier is Hitler always based the money to a reference standard ( Gold and Silver ) and never printed these as toilet paper in order to create an interest in the German money and economy by the whole world and, most importantly, within Germany. Now, there was a reason for the German worker as well as capitalist to work and make the factories work. To an extend, of course. Nationalizing the whole industry as Goering wanted was to be much better. Eventually, Hitler submitted the industry to Goering ( in 1944 / 5 ) but Hitler did not do this at an appropriate point and lost a lot before giving the possibility to earn. He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism; this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy ... Here I give you two real facts for comparison. I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky; he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve. Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his "old reserve" was technical capacity and work ..., something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers. SSB : Again wrong : State capitalism is what Hitler did. There was not any state capitalism in Russia because the money had only a physical and not a capitalist logical purpose. Money could not be made by money in the USSR but can only be used for measurement purposes. True, technology was also used as a “ Gold Standard “ but not only : Hitler accumulated tons of Gold and Silver EXPORTING THE TECHNOLOGY TO THE REST OF THE WORLD ( MAINLY EUROPE BUT NOT ONLY : SOUTH AMERICA ( GOLD AND SILVER RICH ),

MIDDLE EAST ( OIL, GOLD, SILVER, STEEL RICH ), THE US AND CANADA, JAPAN, ETCETERA. G. - Thanks to increased re-armament. SSB : True too but NOT ONLY : Hitler did export weapons. Hitler did export superior industrial and personal machines as well : aircraft, cars, etcetera. R. - What does your re-armament give? If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peaceful production ... Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky ... For example the Commonwealth. If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions ... The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulation of a scientific kind. SSB : Rearmament gives gold as weapons are exported for such. Peron and Franco are amongst the best customers as well as the regime in Brazil. True. Hitler had to “ conquer “ Hitler’s enemy economically. To do this, however, Hitler had to pay Versailles off. Hitler did not agree. Japan, after the war, did not have to pay as the US run Japan and the US opened their markets to Japan as consequence of this Japan overtook The US industry which got destroyed in the 20th century much to be overpowered by China. And true. Hitler did not make science of the system : also a mistake. The problem with The US and The UK is they do NOT know and do not understand the theory of an economic war. The Japanese Emperor said : we did not lose the war, we just converted the war from the front lines to an economic one. And Japan did won the war and so did Germany. Obviously, the two of them lost to China. The US and The UK have to concentrate on NOT what is available in the shops and for how much BUT on WHO MANUFACTURES THIS AND FOR HOW MUCH. Until then, The US and The UK will continue to look like shitholes with their money being used for toilet paper. Thus, without duties, The US and The UK have only one alternative : either make everything better quality AND LESS EXPENSIVE than China or, in case you cannot, go blow the soup. This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms or a formulated doctrine; yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula. This is very serious. Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism. We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine. There is only one solution - war.

SSB : No. Nothing was to happen in case Hitler formulated Hitler’s system scientifically and The USSR was able to either fight this off or just disregard BECAUSE HITLER’S DOCTRINE BEFORE GOERING’S NATIONALIZATION WAS JUST A SIMPLE CAPITALISM, MORE INDUSTRIAL THAN FINANCIAL : the same old story just with some genetics into. R. - If the Termidor triumphed in the Soviet revolution then this happened as the result of the existence of the former Russian nationalism. Without such a nationalism bonapartism would have been impossible. And if that happened in Russia, where nationalism was only embryonic in the person of the Tsar, then what obstacles must Marxism meet in the fully developed nationalism of Western Europe? SSB : Contrary to R.’s, nationalism is very easy to fend off as nationalism is based on a story of genetics superiority which had been proven wrong scientifically even in 1938 and before. The only exception where genetics continued to be used against the scientific proves was in the Southern States of The U. S. A. which is not important to the world, not even to the Northern States of the said. R. wants to push Hitler into developing a scientific theory which may take a long while instead of going to a war without as well as to make Hitler concentrate on the industry as this is what will win the war for Hitler, even without a war. Certainly the war outside of The USSR which is supposed to be good enough for Hitler to stay in power and for Germany. Marx was wrong with respect to the advantages for the success of the revolution. Marxism won not in the most industrialized country, but in Russia, where the proletariat was small. Apart from other reasons our victory here is explained by the fact that in Russia there was no real nationalism, and in other countries it was in its full apogee. You see how it is reborn under this extraordinary power of fascism, and how infectious it is. You can understand that apart from that it can benefit Stalin, the need for the destruction of nationalism is alone worth a war in Europe. SSB : Marx was right because, the more industrialized the nation, the stronger the capitalism. However, when a nation is poor, as there is not any possibility to start high level capitalism as capitalism is a very slow society and takes decades to do what is supposed to take a month, the poor nations do not have any other alternative than communism which is the fastest design and development society. When applied correctly. G. - In sum you have set out, Rakovsky, one economic and one political reason. Which is the third?

R. - That is easy to guess. We have yet another reason, a religious one. Communism cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still living Christianity. History speaks very clearly about this: the permanent revolution required seventeen centuries in order to achieve its first partial victory - by means of the creation of the first split in Christendom. In reality Christianity is our only real enemy, since all the political and economic phenomena in the bourgeois States are only its consequences. Christianity, controlling the individual, is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or atheistic State by choking it and, as we see it in

Russia, things have reached the point of the creation of that spiritual nihilism which is dominant in the ruling masses, which have, nevertheless, remained Christian: this obstacle has not yet been removed during twenty years of Marxism. SSB : This is also not true. The impotence of religion and church has been well proven all over the capitalist world which was the first atheist world. Religion and church were only possible in feudalism to keep the feudal in power by brain washing the masses the feudals were chosen by God and similar. Many people, mainly in the US, think communism was against religion and this was not true. Communism was atheism just as capitalism was BUT communism had never fought against church and religion SIMPLY BECAUSE COMMUNISM IGNORED AND DISREGARDED THE ALREADY DESTROYED BY CAPITALISM RELIGION AND CHURCH ENTIRELY. Instead of fighting, no one gave a shit and the religion and the church simply stopped playing any role BECAUSE THEY LOST AND COULD NOT AS NO ONE TRUSTED THEM NOR BELIEVED THEM. Also, with the advancement of science and technology which explained everything previously thought of as having a God’s touch, no one believed in what the religion taught but, instead used religion and church as a tradition only, say as a retro fashion and nothing else. ( Some ceremonial and pageantry as well but not as much : only within tradition and fashion ). Let us admit in relation to Stalin that towards religion he was not bonapartistic. We would not have done more than he and would have acted in the same way. And if Stalin had dared, like Napoleon, to cross the Rubikon of Christianity, then his nationalism and counter-revolutionary power would have been increased a thousandfold. In addition, if this had happened then so radical a difference would have made quite impossible any collaboration in anything between us and him, even if this were to be only temporary and objective ... like the one you can see becoming apparent to us. SSB : Again wrong : the position of Stalin to ignore and disregard the already damaged beyond repair church and religion was correct. This is why Stalin did not do anything : simply because Stalin did not have any threat by religion and church and these seized to play any role with capitalism and NOT BECAUSE STALIN HAD BEEN A PRIEST WITH A HIGHER DEGREE OF LEARNING FROM A CORRESPONDING SEMINARY. ( In The Orthodox Christian Church, one can ONLY became a priest after completing an equivalent of an MSc in theology after a 4 year University style study. ) Stalin was not going to gain anything nor to lose anything had Stalin destroyed th church and the religion. Some people, capitalists supporters, spell out Stalin started to build a church and then stopped and this showed them Stalin was a destructor of the already destroyed church and religion. BUT they do not say Stalin stopped the construction of this church IN ORDER TO CONVERT THIS CHURCH INTO A BOMB SHELTER DURING THE WAR. And God was not going to save Moscow from them German bombs as God did not save London.

G. - And so I personally consider that you have given a definition of three fundamental points, on the basis of which a plan can be made. That is what I am in agreement about with you for the present. But I confirm to you my mental reservations, i.e. my suspicion in relation to all that which you have said concerning people, organizations and facts. Now continue to follow the general lines of your plan. SSB : Read : “ OUR PLAN “. R. - Yes, now this moment has arrived. But only a preliminary qualification: I shall speak on my own responsibility. I am responsible for the interpretation of those preceding points in the sense in which "They" understand them, but I admit that "They" may consider another plan to be more effective for the attainment of the three aims, and one quite unlike that which I shall now set out. Bear that in mind. SSB : Always remember them Jews is what R. tries to say. G. Very well, we shall bear it in mind. Please speak.

R. - We shall simplify. Insofar as the object is missing for which the German military might had been created - to give us power in the USSR - the aim now is to bring about an advance on the fronts and to direct the Hitlerist advance not towards the East, but the West. SSB : Yet another bullshit : The German military was created, despite this was disallowed by Versailles, with one purpose ONLY : to prevent any attack over Germany when Germany recovers the lost territories and stops the robbery of the UNFAIR reparations set by the capitalist West. The German military was not created to invade any country BUT to return the German territories to Germany. G. - Exactly. Have you thought of the practical plan of realization?

R. - I had had more than enough time for that at the Lubianka. I considered. So look: if there were difficulties in finding mutually shared points between us and all else took its normal course, then the problems comes down to again trying to establish that in which there is similarity between Hitler and Stalin.

G. - Yes, but admit that all this is problematical.

R. - But not insoluble, as you think. In reality problems are insoluble only when they include dialectical subjective contradictions; and even in that case we always consider possible and essential a synthesis, overcoming the "morally-impossible" of Christian metaphysicians. SSB : Synthesis would mean balance. G. - Again you begin to theorize.

R. - As the result of my intellectual discipline - this is essential for me. People of a big culture prefer to approach the concrete through a generalization, and not the other way round. With Hitler and with Stalin one can find common ground, as, being very different people, they have the same roots; if Hitler is sentimental to a pathological degree, but Stalin is normal, yet both of them are egoists: neither one of them is an idealist, and for that reason both of them are bonapartists, i.e. classical Imperialists. And if just that is the position, then it is already not difficult to find common ground between them. Why not, if it proved possible between one Tsarina and one Prussian King ... SSB : True : generalization is the scientific way and must always be applicable. In rare cases where generalization can only be applied with a very high dispersion, then the generalization is generalization in these cases is difficult due to high variations of the objects of generalization. The difference between Stalin and Hitler is : whatever Stalin does Stalin must do so in accordance with the communist system. Whenever Stalin or anyone else has not done so, these have committed a crime against the constitution as the system has been voted in the constitution with a huge majority in a free election. Hitler can do whatever Hitler wants to do. G. - Rakovsky, you are incorrigible ...

R. - You do not guess? If Poland was the point of union between Catherine and Frederick - the Tsarina of Russia and the King of Germany at that time, then why cannot Poland serve as a reason for the finding of common ground between Hitler and Stalin? In Poland the persons of Hitler and Stalin can coincide. And also the historical Tsarist Bolshevik and Nazi lines. Our line, “Their” line - also, as Poland is a Christian State and, what makes the matter even more complex, a Catholic one. SSB : Ditto. Poland can either be a communist country or a national socialist / capitalist. There are only two ways to achieve the two in a country : either division of the country ( as Germany has been divided ) or division of the society. Division of the society is an interesting topic and this is not what R. has meant to say. Division of the society is where two or more systems can coexist in a country ONLY IN CASE THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THIS. A country with two or more systems has never been created although the Chinese have been spelling this concept out after recovering Hong Kong from the British. The closest example, also not good, is Israel where there are people who have chosen the Kibuts system and people who have chosen the standard Israeli capitalism. The problem is, the Kibuts system has never been official and is based much on what the Hippies based their “ system “ in the 60’s : on nothing. The division of the society idea ( this is not a popular idea : I have invented this idea although, I am sure there have been many people to have done this long before I have ) consists of a constitutional possibility for one to choose in which system to contribute : thus, one can choose to live in a communist or capitalist or any other system in the same country. THIS IS

NOT THE CLICHÉ OF COUNTRY WITHIN A COUNTRY : This is the same country with the same legal, financial, political, economic, etcetera sub systems each of which allows the two or more systems and considers them. Here is an example : The U. S. A. : The U. S. A. may look to some as the most improbable country for this but is the most probable BECAUSE the present U. S. A. is nothing but anarchy and chaos which they mistakenly call freedom. Here is an imaginative example : The U. S. A. can maintain their present and beloved system as well as to constitutionally allow a multi system arrangement where people, say by choice, would be allowed to choose to unite into a separate system, say a communist one, which is also available inside and not outside of the country. In this communist system, people who have chosen, will create people’s owned companies where, the owner will be all people of the system and not some. Those who chose to go to the other system will have their share limited by the period they have stayed in the communist system. Determination on who is in which system can be easily done by a legally stated choice. Once the choice is made, one may be required to perform as per the choice : people can still be neighbors and be in different systems as the system is NOT territorially based. Which system owns what resources is very simple to be determined : the same as now : for the US, the communist system of the US is to be considered as a PRIVATE COMPANY, just the same as their other private companies. Thus, whatever the communist system purchases is what the communist system owns the same as for any other company. In spheres of society where there is no interaction between the systems as in the mentioned resource sharing, however, the communist system would differ from the capitalist one : they may have their own free healthcare, education, science, technology, trade with the other system or other countries, etcetera. All this is 100% possible and 100% doable in case people want this to be 100% possible and 100% doable and vote for a multi system society. From the point of view of an individual, those who stay in the communist system will have 100% stability. This may or may not be covered by lower salaries as depends on the development of the system : in case the system works better because of the superior organization, then, possible is for the people in the communist system to have higher salaries than their capitalist counterparts and 100% stability. This, again, will come from the better organization and not from anywhere else. Obviously, in cases where the communist system finds oil or gold, then, yes, the riches would also come from the natural resources. This is rather a physical intervention than a logical one. Logically, organization is the only place where the richness may come from. Obviously, I can write a research on multi system societies and answer all possible questions such as system synchronization, etcetera BUT this is not the main subject of this document. Back to G. and R. : R. has meant to say Stalin and Hitler are pretty much similar dictators in similar societies which is not true BUT can make Hitler think against attacking Stalin. Or may make Hitler attack Stalin in order to become The Top dictator. Again, R. is playing slightly dangerously. R. also wants to say, in a broad picture, the two societies : National whatever and communism are similar in the sense of being created by them Jews. Also untrue.

G. - And what follows from the fact of such a treble coincidence?

R. - If there is common ground then there is a possibility of agreement.

G. - Between Hitler and Stalin? ... Absurd! Impossible.

R. - In politics there are neither absurdities, nor the impossible.

G. - Let us imagine, as an hypothesis: Hitler and Stalin advance on Poland.

R. - Permit me to interrupt you; an attack can be called forth only by the following alternative: war or peace. You must admit it.

G. - Well, and so what?

R. - Do you consider that England and France, with their worse armies and aviation, in comparison with Hitler's, can attack the united Hitler and Stalin?

G. - Yes, that seems to me to be very difficult ... unless America ...

R. - Let us leave the United States aside for the moment. Will you agree with me that as the result of the attack of Hitler and Stalin on Poland there can be no European war?

G. - You argue logically; it would seem impossible.

R. - In that case an attack or war would be useless. It would not call forth the mutual destruction of the bourgeois States: the Hitlerist threat to the USSR would continue in being after the division of Poland since theoretically both Germany and the USSR would have been strengthened to the same extent. In practice Hitler to a greater extent since the USSR does not need more land and raw materials for its strengthening, but Hitler does need them.

G. - This is a correct view ..., but I can see no other solution.

R. - No, there is a solution.

G. - Which?

R. - That the democracies should attack and not attack the aggressor.

G. - What are you saying, what hallucination! Simultaneously to attack and not to attack ... That is something absolutely impossible.

R. - You think so? Calm down ... Are there not two aggressors? Did we not agree that there will be no advance just because there are two? Well ... What prevents the attack on one of them?

G. - What do you want to say by that?

R. - Simply that the democracies will declare war only on one aggressor, and that will be Hitler.

G. - Yes, but that is an unfounded hypothesis.

R. - An hypothesis, but having a foundation. Consider: each State which will have to fight with a coalition of enemy States has as its main strategical objective to destroy them separately one after another. This rule is so well known that proofs are superfluous. So, agree with me that there are no obstacles to the creation of such conditions. I think that the question that Stalin will not consider himself aggrieved in case of an attack on Hitler is already settled. Is that not so? In addition geography imposes this attitude, and for that reason strategy also. SSB : Sounds a good hypothetical discussion except : in case of a common country there will be common agreements not only on non attack BUT on common defense and this is where R. loses the point. However, the only thing interesting in this discussion is : had Hitler made a National Socialism instead of National Capitalism, Hitler would have been more prosperous and would have had some relations with The USSR to secure their pact. The reason got G. and R. to have this hypothetical discussion is to say the two countries have a lot of similarities and can collaborate very well instead of fighting. I would say they do NOT have many similarities BUT they CAN collaborate. G. and R. are giving ideas to Hitler which Hitler may decide to use, fully or to an extend, instead of war. However stupid France and England may be in preparing to fight simultaneously against two countries, one of which wants to preserve its neutrality, while the other, even being alone, represents for them a serious opponent, from where and from which side could they carry out an attack on the USSR? They have not got a common border; unless they were to advance over the Himalayas ... Yes, there remains the air front, but with what forces and from where could they invade Russia? In comparison with Hitler they are weaker in the air. All the arguments I have mentioned are no secret and are well known. As you see, all is simplified to a considerable extent. SSB : True : The USSR and Germany were the most advanced countries in any kind of weaponry and Germany was in a possession of the atomic bomb, almost fully ready. During the period, the most advanced weapon the US had was a pickup truck. G.- Yes, your arguments seem to be logical in the case if the conflict will be limited to four countries; but there are not four, but more, and neutrality is not a simple matter in a war on the given scale.

R. - Undoubtedly, but the possible participation of many countries does not change the power relationships. Weigh this in your mind and you will see how the balance will continue, even if others or even all European States come in. In addition, and this is very important, not one of those States, which will enter the war at the side of England and France will be able to deprive

them of leadership; as a result the reasons which will prevent their attack on the USSR will retain their significance.

G. - You forget about the United States.

R. - In a moment you will see that I have not forgotten. I shall limit myself to the investigation of their function in the preliminary programme, which occupies us at present, and I shall say that America will not be able to force France and England to attack Hitler and Stalin simultaneously. In order to attain that the United States would have to enter the war from the very first day. But that is impossible. In the first place because America did not enter a war formerly and never will do so if it is not attacked. Its rulers can arrange that they will be attacked, if that will suit them. SSB : True. Of that I can assure you. In those cases when provocation was not successful and the enemy did not react to it, aggression was invented. In their first international war, the war against Spain, of the defeat of which they were sure, they invented an aggression, or, more correctly, "They" invented it. In 1914 provocation was successful. True, one can dispute technically if there was one, but the rule without exceptions is that he who makes a sudden attack without warning, does it with the help of a provocation. Now it is like this: this splendid American technique which I welcome at any moment, is subject to one condition: that aggression should take place at a suitable moment, i.e. the moment required by the United States who are being attacked; that means then, when they will have the arms. SSB : Here come them Jews again : R. will probably soon reach the point where R. would state a union between Germany and The USSR may be hypothetically possible but is impossible because them Jews will not allow so OR will destroy so once created. How? By “ arranging “ a provocation against the US and by dictating on the US politicians how to use this provocation to enter the war. Does this condition exist now? It is clear that it does not. In America there are at present a little less than one hundred thousand men under arms and a middling aviation: it has only an imposing fleet. But you can understand that, having it, it can not persuade its allies to decide on an attack on the USSR, since England and France have preponderance only at sea. I have also proved to you that from that side there can be no change in the comparative strengths of the forces.

G. - Having agreed with this, I ask you again to explain once more the technical realization.

R. - As you have seen, given the coincidence of the interests of Stalin and Hitler with regard to an attack on Poland, all comes down to the formalization of this full similarity of aims and to make a pact about a double attack.

G. - And you think this is easy?

R. - Frankly, no. Here we need a diplomacy which is more experienced than that of Stalin. There ought to have been available the one which Stalin had decapitated, or the one which now decays

in the Lubianka. In former times Litvinov would have been capable, with some difficulties, although his race would have been a great obstacle for negotiations with Hitler; but now this is a finished man and he is destroyed by a terrible panic; he is experiencing an animal fear of Molotov, even more than of Stalin. His whole talent is directed towards making sure that they should not think that he is a Trotzkyist.

If he were to hear of the necessity of arranging closer relations with Hitler, then that would be enough for him to manufacture for himself the proof of his Trotzkyism. I do not see a man who is capable of this job; in any event he would have to be a pure-blooded Russian. I could offer my services for guidance. At the present moment I would suggest to the one who begins the talks, that they should be strictly confidential, but with great open sincerity. Given a whole wall of various prejudices only truthfulness can deceive Hitler.

G. - I again do not understand your paradoxical expressions.

R. - Forgive me, but this only appears to be so; I am forced by the synthesis to do so. I wanted to say that with Hitler one must play a clean game concerning the concrete and most immediate questions. It is necessary to show him that the game is not played in order to provoke him into war on two fronts. For example, it is possible to promise him and to prove at the most suitable moment that our mobilization will be limited to a small number of forces, required for the invasion of Poland, and that these forces will not be great.

According to our real plan we shall have to place our main forces to meet the possible Anglo French attack. Stalin will have to be generous with the preliminary supplies which Hitler will demand, chiefly oil. That is what has come to my mind for the moment. Thousands of further questions will arise, of a similar character, which will have to be solved so that Hitler, seeing in practice that we only want to occupy our part of Poland, would be quite certain of that. And insofar as in practice it should be just like that, he will be deceived by the truth. SSB : Regardless on the expressions : the idea of a fair play and being truthful to Hitler is the best in this hypothetical scenario. G. - But in what, in this case, is there a deception?

R. - I shall give you a few minutes of time so that you yourself can discover just in what there is a deception of Hitler. But first I want to stress, and you should take note, that the plan which I have indicated here, is logical and normal and I think that one can achieve that the Capitalistic States will destroy each other, if one brings about a clash of their two wings: the fascist and the bourgeois. I repeat that the plan is logical and normal. As you have already been able to see, there is no intervention here of mysterious or unusual factors. In short in order that one should be able to realize the plan, "Their" intervention is not required. Now I should like to guess your thoughts: are you not now thinking that it would be stupid to waste time on proving the improvable existence and power held by "Them." Is that not so? SSB : Surprisingly, R. delivers an ingenious thought : to play Jewish tricks on them Jews. This means, to organize the scenario in such a way as to please them Jews in what they want

to achieve, mainly wars and conflicts, so they do not fuck with The USSR and, in this scenario, with Germany. Because the USSRG ( USSR and Germany ) cannot be attacked by the inferior capitalist countries, the capitalist countries whether dictated by them Jews or by capitalism, will start fighting and fucking each other and thus them Jews will get what they want : conflicts and money made therefrom as well as full Jewish control over the conflicting capitalist countries. INGENIOUS. AND AN INGENIOUS SOLUTION PROVIDED TO HITLER. G. You are right.

R. - Be frank with me. Do you really not observe their intervention? I informed you, wanting to help you, that their intervention exists and is decisive, and for that reason the logic and naturalness, of the plan are only appearances ... Is it really true that you do not see "Them"?

G. - Speaking sincerely, no. SSB : And neither do I. R. - The logic and naturalness of my plan is only an appearance. It would be natural and logical that Hitler and Stalin would inflict defeat on each other. For the democracies that would be a simple and easy thing, if they would have to put forward such an aim, for them it would be enough that Hitler should be permitted, make note "permitted" to attack Stalin. SSB : Back to basics for R. : them Jews will “ permit “ Hitler to attack The USSR and Hitler will obey their order dictated by them Jews and with the agreement of the capitalist countries, in other words them Jews would arrange such so Hitler and the other capitalist countries attack their pact partner The USSR. In other words, R. says such a pact would be incredibly unstable and vulnerable. And thus, easily destroyed by them Jews. And why would such pact be unstable and vulnerable? R. does not say her but probably means the dictatorial differences between one and the other and the desire of each of them to take the other now, when Poland belongs to the two of them only and there is a geographical contingency between The USSR and Germany. Do not tell me that Germany could be defeated. If the Russian distances and the dreadful fear of Stalin and his henchmen of the Hitlerite axe and the revenge of their victims will not be enough in order to attain the military exhaustion of Germany, then there will be no obstacles to the democracies, seeing that Stalin is losing strength, beginning to help him wisely and methodically, continuing to give that help until the complete exhaustion of both armies. In reality that would be easy, natural and logical, if those motives and aims which are put forward by the democracies and which most of their followers believe to be the true ones, and not what they are in reality - pretexts. SSB : R. claims something else : R. claims in a possible war within the USSRG, the capitalist countries would support the weaker until the stronger equalizes with the weaker and maintain the war between them until the two of them are exhausted. R. claims the opposite effect will take precedence in case of a pact which is not very logical but R. would blame this on them

Jews, probably. The whole idea of such a pact would be not to attack each other but to help each other not to be attacked by the rest. There is only one aim, one single aim: the triumph of Communism; it is not Moscow which will impose its will on the democracies, but New York, not the "Comintern," but the "Capintern" on Wall Street. Who other that he could have been able to impose on Europe such an obvious and absolute contradiction? What force can lead it towards complete suicide? Only one force is able to do this: money. Money is power and the sole power. SSB : Now R. goes back to reality to say not the pact will destroy the capitalist world but the capitalist world and mainly the financial capitalism will self destroy which idea has been around since Marx and Engels. Why does R. says this here? To strengthen the idea of the NEW for the period financial capitalism as the force to self destroy capitalism thus Hitler does not have to do nothing but wait and, after capitalism get self destroyed, without a war, Hitler can take the lost territories back and much more : the riches of the self destroyed capitalist countries or the whole countries. G. - I shall be frank with you, Rakovsky. I admit in you an exceptional gift of talent. You possess brilliant dialectic, persuasive and subtle: when this is not enough for you, then your imagination has command of means in order to extend your colourful canvas, while you invent brilliant and clear perspectives; but all this, although it provokes my enthusiasm, is not enough for me. I shall go over to putting questions to you, assuming that I believe all that you have said.

R. - And I shall give you replies, but with one single condition, that you should not add anything to what I shall say, nor deduct.

G. - I promise. You assert that "They" hinder or will hinder a German-Soviet war, which is logical from the point of view of the Capitalists. Have I explained it correctly?

R. - Yes, precisely so.

G. - But the reality of the present moment is such that Germany has been permitted to re-arm and expand. This is a fact. I already know that in accordance with your explanation this was called forth by the Trotzkyist plan, which fell through thanks to the "cleanings-out" now taking place; thus the aim has been lost. In the face of a new situation you only advise that Hitler and Stalin should sign a pact and divide Poland. I ask you: how can we obtain a guarantee that, having the pact, or not having it, carrying out, or not carrying out the partition, Hitler will not attack the USSR?

R. - This cannot be guaranteed.

G. - Then why go on talking?

R. - Do not hurry. The magnificent threat to the USSR is real and exists. This is not an hypothesis and not a verbal threat. It is a fact and a fact which obliges. "They" already have superiority over Stalin, a superiority which cannot be denied. Stalin is offered only one

alternative, the right to choose, but not full freedom. The attack of Hitler will come in any case of its own accord; "They" need not do anything to make it happen but only leave him the chance of acting. This is the basic and determining reality, which has been forgotten by you owing to your excessively Kremlin-like way of thinking ... Egocentrism, Sir, egocentrism. SSB : Stalin did not obey them Jews. Thus, them Jews want to destroy Stalin. They may attempt to use Hitler. Hitler may not obey them. Then, they may simply sit and wait and Hitler will do this on own accord. WHY? G. - The right to choose?

R. - I shall define it exactly once more, but shortly: either there will be an attack on Stalin, or there will come the realization of the plan I have indicated, according to which the European Capitalistic States will destroy each other. I drew attention to this alternative, but as you see it was only a theoretical one. If Stalin wants to survive then he will be forced to realize the plan which has been proposed by me and ratified by "Them." SSB : Proposed by R. : yes, ratified by them Jews : NO! G. - But if he refuses?

R. - That will be impossible for him. The expansion and re-armament of Germany will continue. When Stalin will be faced by this gigantic threat ..., then what will he do? This will be dictated to him by his own instinct of self-preservation.

G. - It seems that events must develop only according to the orders indicated by "Them." SSB : And the funny thing is what R. says MAY happen EVEN WITHOUT THEM JEWS. Than what is the point for one to falsely BELIEVE them Jews are behind everything when ALL SCENARIOS proposed by R. can develop NATURALLY without any intervention by them Jews at all and without them Jews having interacted at all throughout the history. R. - And it is so. Of course, in the USSR to-day things still stand like this, but sooner or later it will happen like that all the same. It is not difficult to foretell and to suggest for carrying out something, if it is profitable for the person who must realize the matter, in the given case Stalin, who is hardly thinking of suicide. It is much more difficult to give a prognosis and to force to act as needed someone for whom that is not profitable, but who must act nevertheless, in the given case the democracies. To have kept the explanation for this moment to give a concrete picture of the true position. Reject the wrong thought that you are the arbiters in the given situation, since "They" are the arbiters. SSB : This where R. is so wrong : just because someone has a profit from something does not necessarily mean this someone does something to obtain this profit, neither does this mean this someone does have the means to do this something in order to obtain the profit regardless of the fact capitalism is a profit driven society. One of the reasons for this statement is R. keeps forgetting or not stating capitalism is also loss driven society : one may win or one may lose in

a capitalist environment. Thus, even in the hypothetical existence of them Jews who “ run “ the world as per R., them Jews would not only think of how to realize a profit but also how to prevent a loss. G. - "They" both in the first and the second case ... Therefore we must deal with shadows?

R. - But are facts shadows? The international situation will be extraordinary, but not shadowy; it is real and very real. This is not a miracle; here is predetermined the future policy ... Do you think this is the work of shadows? SSB : R. has never provided a proof them Jews run the world neither in shadowy nor in direct way. Instead, R. claims such a proof is impossible because them Jews run the world in a closed conspiracy and proof of this is impossible to be found just speculated with based on the outcomes. However, all outcomes so far have been proven to be possible to have happened without any Jewish rule. G.--But let us see; let us assume that your plan is accepted ... But we must have something tangible, personal, in order to be able to carry out negotiations.

R. - For example?

G. - Some person with powers of attorney and representation.

R. - But for what? Just for the pleasure of becoming acquainted with him? For the pleasure of a talk? Bear in mind that the assumed person, in case of his appearance, will not present you with credentials with seals and crests and will not wear a diplomatic uniform, at least a man from "Them"; if he were to say something or promise, then it will have no Juridical force or meaning as a pact ... Understand that "They" are not a State; "They" are that which the International was before 1917, that which it still is nothing and at the same time everything. SSB : R. says them Jews cannot directly organize the pact from which, as mentioned, them Jews will profit as them Jews do not have any jurisprudence. Imagine to yourself if it is possible that the USSR would have negotiations with freemasonry, with an espionage organization, with the Macedonian Komitadgi or the Croatian Ustashi. Would not some Juridical agreement be written? ... Such pacts as the pact of Lenin with the German General Staff, as the pact of Trotzky with "Them" -- are realized without written documents and without signatures. The only guarantee of their execution is rooted in the circumstance that the carrying out of that which has been agreed is profitable for the parties to the pact, this guarantee is the sole reality in the pact, however great may be its importance.

G. - From what would you begin in the present case?

R. - Simple; I should begin already from to-morrow to sound out Berlin ... SSB : Very interestingly said considering this is the reason for the whole conversation.

G. - In order to agree about the attack on Poland?

R. - I would not begin with that ... I would display my willingness to yield and would hint about certain disappointments among the democracies, I would soft-pedal in Spain ... This would be an act of encouragement; then I would drop a hint about Poland. As you see - nothing compromising, but enough so that a part of the OKW ( German High Command ), the Bismarckists, as they are called, would have some arguments to put before Hitler.

G. - And nothing more?

R. - For the beginning, nothing more; this is already a big diplomatic task.

G. - Speaking frankly, having in mind the aims which have been dominant in the Kremlin until now, I do not think that anyone would at present dare to advise such a radical change in international policy. I propose to you, Rakovsky, to transform yourself in imagination into that person at the Kremlin who will have to take the decision ... On the basis only of your disclosures, arguments, your hypotheses and persuasion, as I see it, it would be impossible to convince anyone. I personally, after having listened to you and at the same time, I shall not deny it, having experienced a strong influence from your explanations, of your personality, have not for a single moment experienced the temptation to consider the German-Soviet pact to be something realizable. SSB : The funny thing is a similar pact was to soon be realized between Molotov and Ribbentrop : the two foreign ministers. The pact did not divide Poland but ensured no attack shall be carried from each side to the other. Based on this pact, Hitler attacked and took Poland which was OK by Stalin, who, as per the pact, did not attack Germany for the invasion of Poland and neither did the UK although the UK was blowing ballooni to attack Germany in such a case. As mentioned, The UK did not do so not only because The UK was also buffing and not only because The UK did not give a shit as far as Poland was concerned. The UK simply did not have the power to attack Germany, mainly, lacked weapons to match the German ones and so did France and The US. Stalin practically gave the feudalist / capitalist Poland to Hitler in order to prevent any Hitler’s attack over The USSR even though Stalin gave also Germany a possibility to have a common border with The USSR which was very dangerous. Although Hitler took Poland and the so praised ( in propaganda ) Danzig, Hitler used this as a possibility to regroup and to fend off any possible reaction by The USSR for getting closer. Once Hitler managed to concentrate huge armies in Poland, which may have looked OK to Stalin because Hitler just took Poland the speech praised Danzig, Hitler used this to continue with an attack against The USSR. Initially, some say, Stalin did not believe the attack. Even when proven the German armies were on the USSR territories, Stalin may have thought they just maneuver there in order to take more Eastern European countries as well as Austria of which Stalin did not care too. Once the strongest and the best German army came to the big cities ( Stalingrad ) or close enough, Stalin came to believe Germany was attacking.

One way or the other, with or without a pact, I cannot blame Stalin because no one, not even the top German generals believed this was the case. Winning in Africa and destroying the British troops there, Hitler did not need The USSR at all. Some say the reason of Hitler to attack the USSR was to please The US and to prevent them from entering the European / African part of the war. Japan, an ally of Germany, with or without Hitler, thought they will even more prevent The US from going to Europe by attacking the US attempting to take the US possessions in the Pacific ( not so many, mainly Hawaii which was not such a big deal for the US to react ). One way or another, instead of concentrating on Japan only as per Hitler’s plan, The US, believe this or not, decided to play Hitler’s strategy against Hitler and attacked the whole axis ( Germany, Italy and Japan ) all over the place, even in Africa. A good reason for this may have been this : After the US take Africa, Hitler has no choice but to continue against The USSR because this was the only place Hitler can take natural resources from. Thus US would : either have The USSR destroyed at the expense of much more difficult for the US war ( and almost impossible to win but they did not know this ) or the US would have Germany, Japan and Italy destroyed, in which case, The US would negotiate the after war circumstances with The USSR which would not have a direct reason to attack the US and neither would the US. The second possibility happened. And neither the US attacked The USSR nor The USSR attacked the US. They only showed off who had a bigger around Cuba. R. - International events will force with irresistible strength ...

G. - But that would be a loss of valuable time. Consider something concrete, something which I could put forward as a proof of your veracity and credibility ... In the contrary case I should not dare to transmit your information about our conversation; I should edit it with all accuracy, but it would reach the Kremlin archives and stay there. SSB : G. tells Hitler the conversation has not been arranged. I do not know whether Hitler has believed so but I have not for sure. R. - Would it not be enough to bring about that it is taken into consideration if someone, even in a most official manner, were to have a talk with some very important person?

G. - It seems to me that this would be something real.

R. - But with whom?

G. - This is only my personal opinion, Rakovsky. You had mentioned concrete persons, big financiers; if I remember correctly, you had spoken about a certain Schiff, for example; then you mentioned another who had been the go-between with Hitler for the purpose of financing him. There are also politicians or persons with a big position, who belong to "Them" or, if you like, serve "Them." Someone like that could be of use to us in order to start something practical ... Do you know someone? SSB : G. says : Your talk is good, R., but would you put your practice where your mouth is? G. also wants to extort more names.

R. - I do not think it is necessary ... Think: about what will you be negotiating? Probably about the plan which I have set out, is that not so? For what? At the present moment "They" need not do anything in this context; "Their" mission is "not to do." And for that reason you would not be able to agree about any positive action and could not demand it ... Remember, consider well.

G. - Even if that is so, yet in view of our personal opinion there must be a reality, even if a useless one ..., a man, a personality which would confirm the credibility of the power, which you ascribe to "Them."

R. - I shall satisfy you, although I am sure of the uselessness of this. I have already told you that I do not know who is a part of "Them," but have assurances from a person who must have known them. SSB : Very convenient. G. - From whom?

R. - From Trotzky. From Trotzky I know only that one of 'Them" was Walter Rathenau, who was well known from Rapallo. You see the last of "Them" who occupied a political and social position, since it was he who broke the economic blockade of the USSR. Despite the fact that he was one of the biggest millionaires; of course, such also was Lionel Rothschild. I can with confidence mention only these names. Naturally I can name still more people, the work and personality of whom I determine as being fully "Theirs," but I cannot confirm what these people command or whom they obey. SSB : The economic blockade was called off after the US realized they could not do anything but irritate the self sufficient country of The USSR. However, with the blockade lifted, the US can sure get some natural resources and other things much less expensively than the Arabs offered and after the Germans have been depleting most any other country either stealing or purchasing their resources. The US was even lacking rubber for military bicycles, for fuck’s sake. Not to mention copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc : everything. I would not be suppressed in case facts were to reveal the US was even lacking water. G. - Mention some of them.

R. - As an institutions - the Bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of Wall Street; to this bank belong the families of Schiff, Warburg, Loeb and Kuhn; I say families in order to point out several names, since they are all connected among themselves by marriages; then Baruch, Frankfurter, Altschul, Cohen, Benjamin, Strauss, Steinhardt, Blom, Rosenman, Lippmann, Lehman, Dreifus, Lamont, Rothschild, Lord, Mandel Morgenthau, Ezekiel, Lasky. I think that that will be enough names; if I were to strain my memory, then perhaps I would remember some more but I repeat, that I do not know who among them can be one of "Them" and I cannot even assert, that any one of them is definitely of their number; I want to avoid any responsibility. SSB : How come R. forgot Rothschild? R. must have lost the touch. ALL THESE NAMES ARE NAMES OF SIMPLE CAPITALISTS AND NOTHING ELSE. ALONG WITH THEM,

THERE WERE VERY MANY WHO COULD ALSO PROFIT FROM A POSSIBLE WAR, EVEN MUCH MORE. FOR EXAMPLE FORD.

Ford would profit the most from a possible war and did. So did Chrysler. And all the names of GM. Texas oil companies : even more. Go tell them Texan Red Necks they are Jews. ( The opposite : most of them are of pure Arian German descent for all I care. ) The person who has profited from the war the most is Onassis. Onassis was a telephone operator and listened ( illegally ) to a conversation between two big names in business ( not known to be Jews ) who discussed the war needed oil and those who had oil would become the richest. Those who did not could make money with oil transportation. Onassis remembered the conversation and purchased a lousy tiny rusty and broken ship and started to transport oil much to become rich enough to get another ship and then another and another and many more. Once crazy rich, Onassis also got into oil business much to become THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD during and after the oil. Onassis profited the most of them all and started from zero. For the record, Onassis was a pure Greek and did not have anything Jewish. Friends with the Kennedys, Onassis married Jacqueline Kennedy after the assassination of the president. Jacqueline allegedly said one of the main reason to marry a man much older than the woman who could have any man in the world was because of the security Onassis’ riches would bring. But I certainly think that any one of the persons I have enumerated, even of those not belonging to "Them," could always lead to "Them" with any proposition of an important type. Of course, independently of whether this or that person does or does not belong to "Them," one cannot expect a direct reply. The answer will be given by facts. That is the unchangeable tactic which they prefer and with which they force one to reckon. For example, if you would risk beginning diplomatic initiatives, then you would not need to make use of the method of a personal approach to "Them"; one must limit oneself to the expression of thoughts, the exposition of some rational hypothesis, which depends on unknown definite factors. Then it only remains to wait. SSB : Jews run Jews. But do the reader not want to take this : Jews do NOT run Jews. They are just organized. Shouldn’t the Americans be? Why not? Do the Americans not think organization can bring more output of their capitalist system? G.--You understand that I have not got a card-index at my disposal at the moment, in order to establish all the men you have mentioned: I assume that they are probably somewhere far away. Where?

R. - Most of them in the United States.

G.- Please understand that if we were to decide to act, then we would have to devote much time to it. But the matter is urgent, and urgent not for us, but for you. Rakovsky.

R. - For me?

G.--Yes. for you. Remember that your trial will take place very soon. I do not know, but I think it will not be risky to assume that if all that had been discussed here were to interest the Kremlin, then it must interest them before you appear before the tribunal: that would be for you a decisive matter. I think it is in your personal interests that you should propose something quicker to us. The most important thing is to get proofs that you spoke the truth, and to do this not during a period of several weeks, but during several days. I think that if you were to succeed in this, then I could nearly give you fairly solid assurances concerning the possibility of saving your life ... In the contrary case I answer for nothing. SSB : Give facts and proofs, R. Enough bullshit. G. has been and continue to push R. to provide names and proofs. Only this way Hitler may agree to listen. R. - In the end I shall take the risk. Do you know if Davis is at present in Moscow? Yes, the Ambassador of the United States.

G. - I think he is; he should have returned.

R. - Only an exceptional situation gives me the right, as I see it, against the rules, to make use of an official intermediary.

G. - Therefore we can think that the American Government is behind all this ...

R. - Behind - no under all this ...

G. - Roosevelt?

R. - What do I know? I can only come to conclusions. You are all the time obsessed with the mania of political espionage. I could manufacture, in order to please you, a whole history; I have more than sufficient imagination, dates and true facts in order to give it veracity in appearance, which would be close to looking obvious. But are not the generally known facts more obvious? And you can supplement them with your own imagination, if you wish. Look yourself. Remember the morning of the 24th October 1929. The time will come when this day will be for the history of the revolution more important than October, 1917. On the day of the 24th October there took place the crash of the New York Stock Exchange, the beginning of the so-called "depression," a real revolution. SSB : R. wants Hitler to think the US is also run by them Jews not only economically but politically. This may tell Hitler : go fight against the US if you can. Leave The USSR alone. R. also bullshits with the crisis of the 20’s : the Great Depression. NOT THE JEWS ARRANGED THIS BUT THE CAPITALISM BY DEFAULT AND DESIGN.

The four years of the Government of Hoover - are years of revolutionary progress: 12 and 15 millions on strike. In February, 1933 there takes place the last stroke of the crisis with the closing of the banks. It is difficult to do more than capital did in order to break the "classical American," who was still on his industrial bases and in the economic respect enslaved by Wall Street. It is well known that any impoverishment in economics, be it in relation to societies or animals, gives a flourishing of parasitism, and capital is a large parasite. SSB : True : Financial capitalism is a parasite and has a negligible role in assisting the industrial capital for which purpose the financial capital was created and which purpose the financial capital surpassed just to destroy the industrial capital. One of the way to do so is by requiring higher and higher profit which the industrial capital was unable to provide and, in order to do so, the industrial capital had to raise and raise the prices. This, combined with the competition for a higher profit reduced the consumption of the society and thus destroyed more and more industrial capital which, in turn, allowed for higher and higher prices which continued the increase of prices which continued this destructive feedback until the whole industrial capital was closed as very few wanted to consume and very few wanted to produce with no one at a lower price. This brought the destruction of the US which is currently reduced to three automakers soon to be closed because the high gasoline prices call for European and Japanese type of cars where the US companies cannot outperformed the Asian and European ones. With the advancement of the Chinese automakers, their future is certain depending on whether the US government would allow Chinese cars on the US market and they will because, the way China works in the US is by working for US companies who require the US government to open the market in order for them to temporarily make profit until they can no longer after the Chinese companies take over. When the fake “ openness “ of the Chinese market to US investments come to play and with the investors having interest ( much less than what the Chinese take ) in Chinese cars and products the US will run deeper in the situation of only import. Robotisation, very slow in the US for the reason of prices again, cannot help the US because, whatever they have the Chinese have too. Thus, the expenditure in production is mainly concentrated in storage and transportation in which the Chinese are masters at much lower price. Thus, the US has become nothing else but an import and service bureau. Because of so, the US dollar, currently artificially maintained to some extend will continue to plunge which will make the prices even higher at no increase of salaries and losses in savings. Thus, the US has only one alternative : either to keep the dollar by exporting natural resources such as gold, silver, oil and other or to preserve the natural resources scrapping the dollar to the price of the toilet nylon paper on which the dollars are printed. In this case, whenever allowed, people will revert to converting their money into gold, silver and whatever available. The problem is, the US may disallow them to export these and thus to attempt to artificially preserve these minerals just for the people to get them converted in whatever the US allows to be exported. Then, when nothing is allowed to be exported, nothing will be imported and this may start the US back again from the stone age BUT this will only happen in case THEY allow this. And THEY are not them Jews as per R. and others but, the real THEY are the capitalists being THEY financial or industrial. This has been happening over the last half of a century, slowly but steadily. At the beginning, there was Japan. Then Korea and China. Germany and Italy also taking their share, yet negligible as compared to the inexpensive ones. Some may argue, the prices in Asia will

increase and even give Japan as an example. Japan did increase the prices in order to purchase most of the US but, even though, Japan failed BECAUSE Japan increased their prices and, with the yen plunging down and with most of the Japanese losing their money in Japan and with the low and slow US economy, the only way for the Japanese to make money was to invest in China and Korea much to destroy their own industries relying now on a few decaying Japanese car makers who are soon to bankrupt. There is nothing Jewish in this Mr. R. and G. There is a simple capitalism. And no, them Jews did not invent capitalism. Them French did as well as, contrary to what one may think, them Brits. The only reason for the US to survive so far are the “ New Events “ which miraculously appeared in the technology revolution : in the 60’s this was electronics. In the 80’s computers. In the 90’s Internet and thus more computers. In the 00’s Plazma, LCT, TFT and LED. In the 10’s : nothing. The electrical cars looked like a good idea to save the US butt in the 10’s BUT they failed because of the inability to store concentrated amount of electrical energy which to be made available on demand at any temperature and relative humidity. Lithium batteries did not perform well at high levels of energy exchange and lacked the ability to charge immediately and to release the charged energy on demand, usually, slowly. Some chats of super capacitors appeared but they remained at the level of the flux capacitor : just a myth more than anything else. The few electric car companies which came here and there increased their prices to a level impossible to be purchased and no one did regardless of their promise of almost zero fuel and maintenance expense. Thus, so far, there is nothing in the horizon to save the US butt again until the next failure. Combined with this US doom, the European Union continues to get power miraculously from elsewhere and does what The USSR has not wanted to do : the EU, trying to save their own butt started to even manufacture large scale commercial airplanes to make the US Boeings obsolete. The only reason the US still exists is the few Arab dictators as well as Israel who still purchase US weapons. However, although the USSR did not want to destroy the US by introduction of their products, the former USSR republics do not hesitate to release their weapons to the international markets to make Israel the only country interested in purchasing weapons from the US anywhere in the world. Thanks to NATO, though, the US still manages to force the NATO members to purchase from the US claiming well kept secret of their weapons and this is the only thing the US exports now. By force rather than logically. And logically, no one anywhere in the world wants to purchase US products other than Red Neck hats. Not even within the US. Except a few gas guzzle pickup trucks which a few still want. More and more mainly for business. For what business. There ain’t no business no more in the US. Except plumbers. But why do people want plumbers when anyone can do plumbing themselves? Not to get dirty? The US economy is maintained by the people’s disgust. Or by the disgusting people. Certainly not Jews.

But this American revolution pursued not only the one aim of increasing the power of money for those who had the right to use it, it pretended to even more. Although the power of money is political power, but before that it had only been used indirectly, but now the power of money was to be transformed into direct power. The man through whom they made use of such power was Franklin Roosevelt. Have you understood? Take note of the following: In that year 1929, the first year of the American revolution, in February Trotzky leaves Russia; the crash takes place in October ... The financing of Hitler is agreed in July, 1929. You think that all this was by chance? SSB : Yes. Either by chance or by CAPITALISTS and certainly NOT by Jews. The only people who may have interest in the new National Capitalist Hitler of 1929 are the capitalists. Although remotely : all they would want is to stop the coming communism in other than The USSR countries, mainly in the US. They must have wasted their money. Because communism is only possible where there are people,. In the US, there have never been people ( natives and brought excluded ). Only monkeys. And Trotsky has never left The USSR. Trotsky was kicked out by Stalin who decided not to kill Trotsky or expose ( or arrange ) Trotsky in betrayal to avoid publicity. The only reason for Trotsky to leave The USSR then, other than kicked out, was to take advantage of the world crisis of capitalism and organize communist revolutions elsewhere being a direct descendent of Marx, Engels and, mainly, Lenin and against the internationally hated Stalin. However, because Trotsky was a bad practitioner, Trotsky failed to do so in Scandinavia and even in the almost communist Mexico. Some may argue Che Guevara and Fidel Castro were fruits of Trotsky’s attempt but this is way far fetched. The same applies to Chile where the US supported a fascist dictator who came in power after a military toppling of the elected Allende just to prevent communism in The Americas although Chile was way too far from the US. US did the same in Nicaragua and Venezuela. And very hardly tried agaist Cuba even with a physical military intervention in the Bay of Pigs just to fail in Cuba but succeed most anywhere in Latin America as, for example, in Brazil and Argentina where the US kept fascist dictators in power very similar and, maybe worst, than Pinochet. US jeopardized the whole world with the unsuccessful attempts in Vietnam and Korea. Good The USSR did not want any intervention and China was the only player around and China did not have the necessary weaponry to endanger the world then in the clash against the US. Only numbers of soldiers which numbers did not threaten the world but did threaten the US. Twice. Tens of thousands died and the US is very lucky only tens of thousands died because The USSR did not support the Chinese and did not provide neither them not Vietnam not Korea with advanced weapons with the exception of a few obsolete rusty ( although Aluminum ) MiG’s to Vietnam, so few, Vietnam preferred to allow the US bombers and fighters to bomb rather than to use their precious plane or two. And the funny thing is : no country in Latin America except Cuba had a communist or socialist government : Not even Allende was a socialist nor communist. All of them were centrist capitalists as well as their governments. But this is not the point for the US : they either did not know what they were or they were afraid from even a centrist capitalist government. And may I ask why? R. would say because of them Jews. NO. Because of them capitalists and because of the struggling self destroying capitalism of the 60’s which was so much over, the US was afraid even from the Conservative Party of

the UK as being “ communists “, i. e. centrist capitalists. Again, the US was over in the 60’s. Vietnam was meant to be a distraction to turn against the US as soon as started. Vietnam was the US crusade against communism : unsuccessful inside and out. So why did not the US endure a communist revolution in the 60’s? Them Jes again? No. Them stupid people again. Yes, but there is more. AN EVENT CAME ON FROM JESUS : THE NEW COMING OF JESUS TO THE WORLD, IN THIS CASE JESUS LANDED IN THE US : The invention and implementation of solid state electronics. And this is also why Reagan survived : continuation of solid state electronics and also, the emerging and then emerged, computers. Funny or not, Clinton was the president in the easiest years : the Internet and the huge computer sales. Although made in China, the market opened so hugely, like a nun’s pussie, so the US managed to exist only based on sales and storage and not on production. Not any more. The four years of the rule of Hoover were used for the preparation of the seizure of power in the United States and the USSR; there by means of a financial revolution, and here with the help of war and the defeat which was to follow. Could some good novel with great imagination be more obvious to you? You can understand that the execution of the plan on such a scale requires a special man, who can direct the executive power in the United States, who has been predetermined to be the organizing and deciding force. That man was Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. And permit me to say that this two-sexed being is not simply irony. He had to avoid any possible Delilah. SSB : And Tom Jones is an anti Jewish fighter. What is a financial revolution? A capitalist revolution in the capitalist world. Why do they need a revolution when capitalism as such created them and allowed them to continue. G. - Is Roosevelt one of "Them"?

R. - I do not know if he is one of "Them," or is only subject to "Them." What more do you want? I think that he was conscious of his mission, but cannot assert whether he obeyed under duress of blackmail or he was one of those who rule; it is true that he carried out his mission, realized all the actions which had been assigned to him accurately. Do not ask me more, as I do not know any more. SSB : I do : Roosevelt was a typical US president. Didn’t know anything. G. - In case it should be decided to approach Davis, in which form would you do it?

R. - First of all you must select a person of such a type as "the baron"; he could be useful ... Is he still alive?

G. - I do not know.

R. - All right, the choice of persons is left to you. Your delegate must present himself as being confidential or not modest, but best of all as a secret oppositionist. The conversation must be

cleverly conducted concerning that contradictory position into which the USSR has been put by the so-called European democracies, by their union against National-Socialism. This is the conclusion of an alliance with the British and French Imperialism, the contemporary real Imperialism, for the destruction of the potential Imperialism. The aim of the verbal expressions must be to conjoin the false Soviet position with an equally false one of American democracy ... It also sees itself forced to support Colonial Imperialism for the defense of democracy within England and France. As you see, the question can be put onto a very strong logical foundation.

After that it is already very easy to formulate a hypothesis about actions. The first: that neither the USSR, nor the United States are interested in European Imperialism and thus the dispute is brought down to the question of personal hegemony; that ideologically and economically Russia and America want the destruction of European Colonial Imperialism, be it direct or oblique. The United States want it even more. If Europe were to lose all its power in a new war, then England, not having its own forces, with the disappearance of Europe as a force, as power, would from the first day lean, with all its weight and with the whole of its Empire, speaking the English language, on the United States, which would be inevitable both in the political and economic sense ... Analyze what you have heard in the light of the Left conspiracy, as one might say, without shocking any American bourgeois. SSB : I must admit : the strategy is very good, although fake. Points out Hitler against the US too and threatens Hitler with a US USSR alliance. Having got to this point, one could have an interval for a few days. Then, having noted the reaction, it will be necessary to move further. Now Hitler comes forward. Here one can point to any aggression: he is fully an aggressor and of this there can be no doubt. And then one can go over to asking a question: What common action should be undertaken by the United States and the Soviet Union in view of the war between the Imperialists, who want it? The answer could he - neutrality. One must argue again: yes, neutrality, but it does not depend on the wish of one side, but also of the aggressor. There can be a guarantee of neutrality only when the aggressor cannot attack or it does not suit him.

For this purpose the infallible answer is the attack of the aggressor on another Imperialist State. From this it is very easy to go over to the expression of the necessity and morality, with a view to guaranteeing safety, for provoking a clash between the Imperialists, if that clash were not to take place of its own accord. And if that were to be accepted in theory, and it will be accepted, then one can regulate the question of actions in practice, which would be only a matter of technique. Here is a scheme: (1) A pact with Hitler for the division between us of Czechoslovakia and Poland (better the latter). (2) Hitler will accept. If he is capable of backing a bluff for the conquest, i.e. the seizure of something in alliance with the USSR, then for him there will be full guarantee in that the democracies will yield.

He will be unable to believe their verbal threats as he knows that those who try to intimidate by war threats are at the same time partisans of disarmament and that their disarmament is real. (3) The democracies will attack Hitler and not Stalin; they will tell the people that although both are guilty of aggression and partition, but strategical and logical reasons force them to defeat them one by one: first Hitler and then Stalin.

G. - But will they not deceive us with truth?

R. - But how? Does not Stalin dispose of freedom of action in order to help Hitler in sufficient measure? Do we not put in his hands the possibility of continuing the war between the Capitalists until the last man and the last pound? With what can they attack him? The exhausted States of the West will already have enough on their hands with internal Communist revolution, which in the other case may triumph.

G. - But if Hitler achieves a quick victory and if he, like Napoleon, mobilizes the whole of Europe against the USSR?

R. - This is quite improbable! You forget about the existence of the United States. You reject the power factor, a greater one. Is it not natural that America, imitating Stalin, would on its part help the democratic States? If one were to co-ordinate "against the hands of the clock" the help to both groups of fighters, then thus there will be assured without failure a permanent extension of the war. SSB : So far so good except one : Hitler was fully capable to take the whole Europe except The USSR easily. And Hitler did. Hitler mistake ( or precaution ) was not to fully take The UK but rely on air strikes only. This is only because Hitler did never have a strong fleet relying on submarines only. Instead of a direct attack, Hitler decided to surround the UK waiting for them to surrender. Hitler, even, did not use V1 and V2 to a full capacity against the UK and shot only a few. This is because Hitler was overconfident with the unstoppable power of the submarines and the inability of the island of the UK to be self sufficient. Had the UK not been an island they would have been one of the first to be occupied by Germany in literarily a week or two. Hitler also underestimated the role which the UK could play as an American base. Hitler concentrated on conquering the British skies instead of on conquering the UK. And again, this was mainly because of the opening of the Eastern Front. Instead, Hitler was supposed to concentrate the UK. Then, there were two ways for the US to reach Europe only : through a neutral country or through The USSR. The USSR was to agree BUT how can the US travel for tens of thousands of miles through half of the Globe? Very slowly through railroads and roads which did exist. A hundred thousand miles of them. Also, The USSR would be reluctant to allow capitalist through their country and would not agree unless threatened by Hitler. Thus, without an Eastern Front, the US can only try through China, the Arab world and India or through a neutral country in Europe, such as Spain. Yet the US have to first conquer Spain. Scandinavia was a more probable option with Finland only supporting Hitler and the other two remaining neutral. Of course, there was always the neutral and friendly Ireland for the US but the US was barely able to cross the English channel after Hitler was destroyed. How could they cross through so much water with the UK being part of Germany? The Middle East was another passage heavily controlled by Hitler’s Africa and Mussolini as well as the whole Mediterranean Sea. G. - And Japan?

R. - Is not China enough for them? Let Stalin guarantee them his non-intervention. The Japanese are very fond of suicide, but after all not to such an extent as to be capable of simultaneously attacking China and the USSR. Any more objections? SSB : True. Japan’s biggest mistake was to attack the US when Japan was able to take most of China as they already took Manchuria. The reasons for the Japanese attack over the US have already been discussed. G. - No, if it were to depend on me, then I would try ... But do you believe that the delegate ...?

R. - Yes, I believe. I was not given the chance of speaking with him, but note one detail: the appointment of Davis became known in November, 1936; we must assume that Roosevelt thought of sending him much sooner and with that in mind began preliminary steps; we all know that the consideration of the matter and the official explanations of the appointment take more than two months. Apparently his appointment was agreed in August ... And what happened in August? In August Zinoviev and Kamenev were shot. I am willing to swear that his appointment was made for the purpose of a new involvement of "Them' in the politics of Stalin. Yes, I certainly think so. With what an inner excitement must he have traveled, seeing how one after another there fall the chiefs of the opposition in the "purges" which follow one on another. Do you know if he was present at trial of Radeck?

G. - Yes.

R. - You will see him. Have a talk with him. He expects it already for many months.

G. - This night we must finish; but before we part I want to know something more. Let us assume that all this is true and all will be carried out with full success. "They" will put forward definite conditions. Guess what they might be?

R. - This is not difficult to assume. The first condition will be the ending of the executions of the Communists, that means the Trotzkyists, as you call them. Then, of course, they will demand the establishment of several zones of influence, as I had mentioned. The boundaries which will have to divide the formal Communism from the real one. That is the most important condition. There will be mutual concessions for mutual help for a time, while the plan lasts, being carried out. You will see for example the paradoxial phenomenon that a whole crowd of people, enemies of Stalin, will help him, no they will not necessarily be proletarians, nor will they be professional spies. There will appear influential persons at all levels of society, even very high ones, who will help the Stalinist formal Communism when it becomes if not real, then at least objective Communism. Have you understood me?

G. - A little; you wrap up such things in such impenetrable casuistry.

R. - If it is necessary to end, then I can only express myself in this way. Let us see if I shall not be able yet to help to understand. It is known that Marxism was called Hegelian. So this question was vulgarized. Hegelian idealism is a widespread adjustment to an uninformed understanding in

the West of the natural mysticism of Baruch Spinosa. "They" are Spinosists: perhaps the matter is the other way round, i.e. that Spinosism is "Them," insofar as he is only a version adequate to the epoch of "Their" own philosophy, which is a much earlier one, standing on a much higher level. After all, a Hegelian and for that reason also the follower of Spinosa, was devoted to his faith, but only temporarily, tactically. SSB : Spinosa was nothing more than a simple philosopher who thought philosophy ( not only logic ) was a mathematical subject and attempted to mathematise philosophy. Whatever philosophy Spinosa accepted. Nothing else. Spinosa was more of logician than a philosopher. Spinosa’s ideas were right. Most of any philosophy can be mathematised. Most of the philosophy concentrates on generalizing of science and society. The problem with most phylosophers has been they consider society a humanitarian subject while society is nothing more than one or many control systems and, because cybernetics is the “ science “ describing and analyzing control systems based on heavy use of mathematics, then yes, society can easily be cybernatised and therefore mathematised. Just remember : most of the social systems are systems with changing parameters and most or all of them are statistical systems and not hardly defined. As well as most of them are non linear. Strangely enough, Hegel was an idealist. Not in Hegel’s dialectics but in other Hegel’s views. The usual explanation of this was the era in which Hegel lived when religion ruled. The inability of explaining elementary physical events then may have been another reason. Or mainly Hegel lied to be an idealist to save Hegel’s ass from the all powerful church and inquisition. The matter does not stand as is claimed by Marxism, that as the result of the elimination of contradictions there arises the synthesis. It is as the result of the opposing mutual fusion, from the thesis and anti-thesis that there arises, as a synthesis, the reality, truth, as a final harmony between the subjective and objective. Do you not see that already? In Moscow there is Communism: in New York Capitalism. It is all the same as a thesis and anti-thesis. Analyze both. Moscow is subjective Communism, but Capitalism objective - State Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective. A personal synthesis, truth: the Financial International, the Capitalist-Communist one. "They." SSB : The thesis, antithesis, synthesis process is true as well as the balance process. The thesis, antithesis, synthesis process says when there is a thesis ( an idea ), a counter thesis MAY be invoked. Then the thesis and the antithesis would contradict with each other and, eventually, one may prevail. Once this happens, the right idea would bring synthesis of something new. The problem is the right idea may be impossible to be found thus, neither of this can win. The theory of thesis, antithesis, synthesis claims this is impossible. The truth may not be found now but may be find in the future. The synthesis will happen then. The theory does not say what happens until then. Because, when two contradiction fight, they may as well destroy each other as well just to reappear in the future. Balance can, however, be achieved in these cases instead of destruction as well as in order to wait for the resolution. Generally speaking, when two thesis’ fight ( thesis and antithesis ) either the truth will win or the false will TEMPORARILY win or neither will win ( balance ) or the two of them will win : in case

the two of them are true or the two of them would lose ( when the two of them are false ). However, the possibility for the two of them to win and be true is only in case of a mistaken definition because, there is no way a thesis and antithesis to be true the two of them otherwise they will not be “ anti “ one another. AND THERE IS ALWAYS ONLY ONE TRUTH AND NOT MORE THAN ONE. Thus, this possibility is logically impossible. Thus, capitalism and communism can only coexist in case they are totally separate and there is no sharing of resources between. However, this does not mean communism will destroy capitalism, contrary to the believe of the US BECAUSE communism clearly says : communist revolution can only be achieved by the people in a given country ( Lenin ) or the whole world ( Marx and Engels ). Communism cannot be imposed on people in their country by people of another country. Thus, the only people who can achieve communism in the US are the Americans themselves. This, however, means an alliance between two countries with a different system can be, temporarily or not, achieved. This is what happened in the World War II to some extend. And there has never been subjective communism in the USSR Moscow as communism is always objective. In case of subjectivity, then there would not be communism in this place at all. Neither there has been objective nor state nor capitalism at all. Nor money as capital. New York does not even know what communism is. As far as the subjective capitalism in New York goes, this may be the only truth of the last paragraph of R.’s. One thing for sure : this or any other capitalism in New York has been clearly conducted by all capitalists. Not by them Jews. Sorry, R., not even Hitler got mislead by your sayings. France, however, did. But France has always been an independent country ( except during World War II ), have they not. NOTHING HAS EVER DEPENDED ON FRANCE. R. is transparent as far as I am concerned. However, I have an intriguing question to R. : Who in hell was “ the baron “ ?