We publish second part of speech given by Michal Semin on the conference in Russia
Destroying national identities on the way to world government
Nations and states would disappear and give way to a cosmopolitan and internationalist New World Order based on the premise that “the worker has no country.” Tell me, how does this Marxist vision differ from the vision of a continental state, like the European Union (with borders being abolished between its members), that is to become the building block of a future global world state? The globalization process that accelerated after the “fall of Communism” is intentionally used as a tool for dismantling the Nation-State, erasing national identity in Europe, and creating instead a post-national and post-modern political entity, able to integrate itself into an ever-higher power center, the world government. Internationalism, globalism, cosmopolitism: these are concepts that are antithetical to the worldview of the traditional Right. The Liberal forces masquerading today under the Right-wing banner, are thus advancing an ideological program traditionally associated with the Left and the Trotskyite vision of permanent revolution.
Perhaps (I assume) this is the political aspect of the diabolical disorientation, spoken about by Sister Lucy. So the paradox is that the West defeated the East in the Cold War with a more effective and powerful anti-family, anti-state and pro-globalist ideology. From this perspective, can we be surprised that a growing number of my fellow citizens, even among those who originally supported the inclusion of the Czech Republic in the EU and NATO, view the EU as the new USSR, and Brussels or Washington as the new Moscow?
Anyone who follows the agenda of the European Union in the field of family issues, must come to the conclusion that its directives and laws could not become more perverse and anti-Christian. Fortunately, countries like Poland and Hungary, especially in the last couple of years, are showing some positive signs of resistance to this neo-Marxist jihad, with attempts to revive the consciousness of their Christian roots and translate these into public life. The opposition of the domestic liberal and socialist Left, but even more the EU political apparatus, is obviously fierce. But there is the hope that these new developments, especially in these two countries, will be obstacles to the otherwise-straightforward march toward an even more cohesive centralization of Brussels’ power.
As we see from all these concrete examples, the “errors of Russia” are alive today more than ever and reach far beyond Russian borders.
In fact, contemporary Russia seems to be much less imbued by them than so-called Western “democracies.” Frankly, I am puzzled by the term “errors of Russia.” Why?
The “Errors of Russia” were imported from the West
This term seems to refer to a place of origin, as if these particular errors were born here, and from here were spread to the rest of the world. But the reality is different, isn’t it? Communism, which I assume is the most fundamental “error of Russia,” with its atheism and anti-Christian spirit, was not born in Russia, but in the West. Its founders and original theoreticians were not Russians. Communism did not occur by chance ex nihilo [out of nothing]; it was the fruit of a long process, building up for centuries.
We remember for a reason – as Angelus Press did at their latest conference in the USA – the anniversary of both the Bolshevik revolution and the Fatima Apparitions; along with two other revolutionary events, one in 1517 – the revolt of Martin Luther – and the second in 1717, the foundation of the first Freemasonic lodge. Both Protestantism and naturalism hugely contributed to the birth of Socialism and Communism. As these were not born in Russia, they can rightly be called the “errors of the West.” But it’s even trickier than that: The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia would never have happened and succ eeded without the direct support and involvement of some very influential members of the Western political and financial elite.
Briefly, the Revolution was financed by wealthy bankers in London and New York. Both Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests, both before and after the November putsch. In January of 1916, Trotsky was expelled from France and went to the United States. There, he wrote for a Russian socialist paper, Novy Mir (New World), and gave revolutionary speeches at mass meetings in New York City. He would never have survived if he had depended merely on the honorariums from writing and speaking events. Nevertheless, he had a high mode of stylish living: he had an excellent apartment in New York, used a telephone, and occasionally even a chauffeured limousine. We have also learned from the archives that on his way to Russia (he went through Canada) he was entrusted with $10,000 U.S. dollars, in gold. To return to Russia he needed a U.S. passport. He was provided one thanks to the intervention of none other than the President of the U.S.A.,Woodrow Wilson, accompanied by a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa.
And in Switzerland, the exiled Lenin boarded (with the help of the German Secret Service) the famous sealed train, taking him through Germany to Saint Petersburg. This was not facilitated by his fellow Russians, but by people like Jacob Schiff, J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers and other members of the Wall Street bank cartel.
The Bolshevik Revolution was not specifically Russian, if by ‘Russian’ we mean something else, something more decisive, than just the place where it happened. What emerges is a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the West; from men, who supposedly were “capitalists” and who, according to the conventional view, should have been the mortal enemies of Socialism and Communism. Their support did not end at the moment of the successful coup d’état, but continued for years and even decades. In fact, it never really ended.
The Soviets employed more than 350 foreign concessions during the 1920s. These concessions, introduced into the Soviet Union under Lenin’s New Economic Policy, enabled foreign entrepreneurs to establish business operations in the Soviet Union. In the period 1917–1930, Western assistance in various forms was the single most important factor, first in the sheer survival of the Soviet Regime, and secondly in industrial progress to prerevolutionary levels.
For example, every single plant opened during the first 5-Year Plan (1928–1933) was built by a Western company. Anyone who wants to learn more about this important subject should read the extremely well-researched books written by the American historian and economist of British origin, Antony Sutton: Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (three volumes, covering three consecutive time periods) and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Mr. Sutton was no brainless YouTuber, but an economics professor at California State University in Los Angeles, and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
The Bolshevik Revolution cannot properly be called “Russian,” also from the standpoint of the ethnic origin of its perpetrators. With the notable exception of Lenin, most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917–1920 were Jews, including Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) and Yakov Sverdlov (Yankel Solomon, who was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and, as chairman of the Central Executive Committee, head of the Soviet government). Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld), etc. Stalin was Georgian. Dzerzhinsky, the infamous founder of Cheka – notorious for mass summary executions performed especially during the Red Terror and the Russian Civil War – was a Pole. I am not saying this to feed any silly anti-Jewish or anti- Georgian sentiments and prejudices – I just want to stress the point that one of the first victims of the Bolshevik terror, and of the “errors of Russia,” was the Russian nation itself.
To sum it all up in one sentence: The Bolshevik Revolution that unleashed so much evil into the whole world, can be counted as the first successful color revolution of the modern era.
To be continue