Globalization or Finance Capitalist Trotskyism?

Now, of course, there have been countless works written on this complex and often enigmatic world system – some good, some bad. Without a doubt, all of the more competent works highlight the incontrovertible fact that the world system commonly known as “Globalization” is actually Atlanticist in origin, which is to say Anglo-Saxon, and it is championed and promoted most viciously by the United States via its primary political-economic-cultural nerve centers (i.e. the Pentagon, Wall Street and Hollywood).

Needless to say, it is not too often that the fundamental roots of this hellish monster are either explored or revealed by even the best or most famous writers. In many cases, the so-called “conspiracy” authors (or those labeled “conspiracists” by the mainstream media) do a much better job of exposing the Globalist golem for what it actually is: a leftover and yet greatly strengthened form of Trotskyite Internationalism, or more specifically: Finance Capitalist Trotskyism. In other words, Globalization is best defined as a postmodern/post-industrial phenomenon which is: economically Financialist, culturally Capitalist, and politically/socially Trotskyite. These three highlighted words represent the unholy trinity of Globalization.

To understand the historical roots of Globalization, its component parts and its goals, one must first go back to the height of the Cold War and inquire as to what ideological values were in dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union. This is to say, one must first understand the deepest spiritual impetuses for the geopolitical tensions that existed during the “hottest” years of the USA – USSR rivalry. And so, the following question must be posed:
What primary ideological values of Marxism were openly opposed by the United States?

Answer: materialism, anti-traditionalism, ethno-socio-cultural mass-leveling, gender equality, internationalism (the eradication of national borders), and anti-classism (socialism).

It is more than ironic that out of all of the principles of orthodox Marxism cited above, only the last (anti-classism) was prevented from taking root in American society. In all other respects, the United States and its NATO vassals were far more successful than the Soviet bloc countries in implementing these anti-traditional goals – and long before the Cold War had officially ended.

Indeed, all throughout the twentieth century the U.S. government poured vast amounts of money into the radical mass-leveling of American society – a fact that has become increasingly obvious since the famous counter-cultural upheavals of the late 1960s. What resulted was a profoundly liberal American worldview (accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike) which actually stood firmly against the professed “human rights” which were claimed to be upheld by the most radical voices of the counter culture. There developed a great paradox of ethnic and gender “equality” which only highlighted the multidimensional problems affecting the innately hypocritical American society – a society which is indeed multicultural and multiracial, yet which was also founded on the genocide, slavery and oppression of the same groups it now provides with a paternalistic “pat on the back.” And so, as the Trotskyite/Neocon Nathan Glazer proudly boasted in the title of his 1998 book: we are all Multiculturalists now.

Whether Democrat, Republican or so-called “Independent” – all of the American political elites have accepted the socio-political dimensions of the international communist ideology or what can be termed mass-leveling or mass-hyper-egalitarianism, i.e. Trotskyism. Under this perverse liberal Trotskyite ideology, every denizen of the planet possesses the same rights so long as the dogma of liberalism (or hyper-individualism) is never brought into question. For those who are card-carrying members of this stealthy totalitarian creed, all the earth’s people are “created equal” in the purest sense of the term – meaning, in the eyes of liberals all human beings are cut from the same American mold, they are all considered equally worthless as atomized pieces of consumerist cannon fodder who must readily serve the liberal Atlanticist elites. They must jump when the commissars in Washington and New York tell them to jump, they must go to war when the commissars in London and Brussels tell them to go to war, they must die when the commissars in Hollywood tell them it is “heroic” or culturally acceptable to do so. This is Globalization. This is Death.

If one should visibly rebel against the liberal worldview at any time, what follows is his or her branding as a “racist,” even though liberalism has fomented more ethnic and cultural chauvinism than any other creed known to man. Nevertheless, the heretic crusaders against liberalism will undoubtedly be called “racists.” Public censuring and total social alienation – loss of friends, livelihood and even one’s own family – inevitably come next. This is Trotskyism plain and simple. This is the legacy of Trotsky’s liberal Left Opposition. In fact it was Trotsky himself who first coined the term “racist” in 1927. Needless to say, Cultural Marxism or so-called “political correctness” falls clearly within the schema of Trotskyism. For those who are not familiar with Leon Trotsky and his connection to liberal Globalization, I will provide a concise historical background.

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was the chief proponent of International Socialism/Communism in the USSR – he represented the anti-Leninist interests of the so-called Left Opposition, or more precisely: the liberal internationalist communists. What can only be described as the “National Bolshevik” tendency (or centrist position) of the Bolshevik Party was championed by Joseph Stalin who happened also to be the originator and proud exponent of the “Socialism in One Country” doctrine, not to mention the rightful political heir to Lenin.

In February of 1929 Stalin effectively banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union on account of his subversive liberal-internationalist propaganda which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the Soviet Union at the most critical period of its development after the great human tragedies of the First World War (1914-17) and the subsequent Russian Civil War (1917-1922). What the Soviet people needed more than ever during this period (in the absence of Lenin who died in 1924) was a strong man in the Kremlin who represented the great bulk of the Russian and Soviet masses. They needed a great man of steel who represented the humble class origins of the peasantry and yet also embodied the combined supra-national aspirations of the people. The man the Soviet people needed was Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili: Stalin.

Certainly, volumes can be written on the subject of the Stalin-Trotsky rivalry, however the main reason for the dispute and Trotsky’s eventual exile (along with the famous trials against the Left and Right Opposition members) can be summed up thus: Stalin was a National Bolshevik (not ideologically but in his deeds) – he restored greatness not only to the Russian folk, but to all the other Eurasian ethnic groups who comprised the former Tsarist and then Soviet peoples. Stalin brought back order, hierarchy, patriarchy, religious tolerance, national patriotism, civic pride, as well as a renewed interest in the arts and sciences. Most importantly, all of these achievements were accomplished within a national or supra-national context; i.e. they were accomplished for the Soviet people and the Soviet people alone. The liberal-internationalist Trotskyites, on the other hand, spoke in terms of a world revolution. They promoted the view that nations and cultures do not exist – that an inorganic world community of workers must have the unique Soviet experiment foisted upon them mercilessly for the sake of internationalism. Does any of this sound familiar to the reader? If not, perhaps I should replace the word “internationalism” with “globalization.”

At any rate, the Stalin-Trotsky feud is absolutely crucial if one is to understand the ideological mechanics (if not the roots) of postmodern Globalization. It is also important to recall Stalin’s chief accusation against the Trotskyites: that they were the paid agents of international capitalism. The validity of Stalin’s claim is glaringly clear if one conducts the proper research, particularly the well-documented collusion between Monopoly Capitalism, the Federal Reserve Bank and Leon Trotsky – three of the foremost pawns of the Atlanticist-American elites.

For example, it is a fact of history that Leon Trotsky (real name: Lev Bronshtein) was admitted into the United States during World War I, and welcomed with open arms by his fellow radical internationalists in New York City. Yet far from living the meager lifestyle of a “comrade worker,” Trotsky lived an extravagant lifestyle, owning one of the city’s first refrigerators and frequently being chauffeured around in a limousine. Even more disconcerting, President Woodrow Wilson provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to advance the cause of international revolution. This is not at all surprising when considering the fact that Wilson had one of the most liberal administrations in U.S. history. Some of Wilson’s most influential and trusted advisors were: Paul Warburg, Henry Morgenthau, Louis Brandeis, Bernard Baruch, and Stephen Wise (just to name a few). These same folks were instrumental in the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Other names which directly funded Trotsky’s cause include: William Boyce Thompson – director of the Federal Reserve Bank and a large stockholder in the Rockefeller/Rothschild-controlled Chase Bank; Thompson donated 1 million dollars to Trotsky for propaganda purposes. Eugene Boissevain – a prominent New York banker connected to the Guaranty Trust Company. Alexander Gumberg – a Wall Street businessman who also had connections to Chase Bank. All in all, most of the pro-Trotskyite support originated from one single address: 120 Broadway, New York City.

When one investigates the matter thoroughly, one thing becomes perfectly clear: the so-called “red menace” turns out to be much more of a green menace, due to the vast amount of U.S. greenbacks which funded the cause of Trotsky’s failed International Revolution. A sufficient primer for those who might be new to the subject would be: Antony C. Sutton’s Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. While not an entirely accurate work, it does highlight the early twentieth century roots of Globalization quite convincingly, along with Sutton’s other works such as Wall Street & FDR, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and The Federal Reserve Conspiracy.

And so, a clear picture emerges from a rigorous investigation of the facts: Big Business, the Federal Reserve Bank, and Leon Trotsky – all firmly under the control of the Atlanticist elites – worked in collusion to bring about an international communist regime inside Russia with two ultimately liberal goals: (1) the neutralization of all business competition that could pose a threat to the monopolistic hegemony of the United States and Britain, and (2) the promotion of a radical social world agenda. Needless to say, there is a plenitude of corroborating evidence behind the latter point, as it has always been the richest members of the economic and political classes (the robber barons and their political capos – the “bosses”) who have supported the most outlandish forms of social experimentation. Typically, the more outrageous the cause, the more funding it received. Thus, the ideology of International Communism may well have been born in 1848 – the year Marx published his famous work. But as a viable political force International Communism was created and bankrolled in the midst of World War I by the wealthiest one-percent of the banking class, their political lackeys and the radical agitator “hitmen” of Trotskyism.

By the 1930s, mass droves of the latter group – the radical agitator Trotskyites – immigrated to the United States where they were welcomed with open arms by the Roosevelt administration. Immediately the disciples of Bronshtein burrowed like plague-bearing rats into positions of power within the Democratic Party. Many – like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, and Irving Howe – found the Republican Party to be just as easy to infiltrate, yet under the guise of “Neoconservatism.” In time, the GOP was successfully commandeered by the sons of these “former” card-carrying Trotskyites – by second generation Neocons like William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Podhoretz, et al. This second generation would go on to form the backbone of the Neoconservative Movement of the 1990s and 2000s – a rabid group of liberal free-market radicals whose political trademark can be found in virtually every one of their works and speeches through the recurrent use of the word “Globalization.” This conspicuous trademark of theirs is simply another way of saying “Internationalism.”

The Finance Capitalist world system created by the abovementioned second-generation Trotskyites is the same one that emerged victorious from the Cold War. It currently poses the greatest existential threat to every living person on this planet simply because it is depriving entire nations, peoples, and cultures of their inherent right to pursue their own traditional and unique ways of life independent of American control. This is unipolar Globalization in the proverbial “nutshell.” It is an attack on true autonomy – since true autonomy can only exist within a multipolar context – and thus it is an affront to the collective dignity of all mankind.

Globalization must therefore be destroyed by any means possible. And when the usurious banking industry and the power of stock companies and the U.S. military industrial complex – which provides the armed muscle for the first two – are all finally destroyed, the Atlanticist cobra will no longer have any venom in his fangs. (And what threat is a cobra if it is deprived of its only means of attack?)

Finance Capitalist Trotskyism (i.e. Globalization) is the venom that is currently poisoning the world. It is being employed by whites and non-whites alike, by Christians and non-Christians, Jews and non-Jews, left-wing and right-wing; by members of every race, confession and political creed on the planet – but all for the benefit of one select group: the wealthiest one-percent of the liberal Atlanticist power elites. To put it another way: for the benefit of the Anti-Christs.

And so, to conclude, it could rightly be said that the Cold War was eventually won neither by Capitalism (Thesis) nor Communism (Antithesis), but by Finance Capitalist Trotskyites – the deceptive International Synthesis of the two. The Neo-Eurasianist worldview is therefore vehemently opposed to the diabolical synthesis – the unholy union – of both systems, i.e. the Atlanticist/Anglo-American extortionist racket which currently runs the world under the guise of “Globalization.” And peace-loving people all over the world ought to be against this racket too!