Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lloyd Miller's avatar

Finding the inventor of communism is probably a fool's errand. Why not Plato or Jesus Christ? Or thousands of communal cults?

However, the British, I think history shows, used Communism and other revolutionary movements to undermine its geopolitical enemies. Today, this strategy is called destabilization.

Also, the revolutionary duc de Orleans was Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masons. (See Wikipedia) Some think it is no accident that British Masons were essentially an adjunct to the Crown while in other countries, the Masons were revolutionary. The British may have encouraged Continental Masons to be revolutionary as part of their strategy of destabilization.

The Illuminati were associated with Masons. There was nothing "Bavarian" about the Illuminati except the location of some members. Backfired when Napoleon was eventually the result?

Expand full comment
Vanusha's avatar

A complex article, thank you Sir. And it requires a very long feedback :) The conspiracy arena is more than anything else controlled by the spooks. So there is no such thing as "Committee of 300", Adam Weishaupt was not "a Jesuit", "the British" didn't "invent" communism but certainly capitalism - I agree, David Rockefeller is not "a communist", the world is not run by a "Rothschildian empire" where the Rothschilds are just sitting on top of it and manipulating everyone with cheap financial tricks, history is not a demented "dialectical" process where "a cabal" is just manipulating everyone but yes, the freemasons think it is - it is called "the Great Work". I mostly agree with the idea that we must end materialism but I disagree that it came from the Germans or the French. If you look again who invented capitalism you will notice who invented "the Industrial revolution" and the "scientific revolution" as well and it is not the germans. But on the other hand royals of the British are German, so... yes, it is the Germans again. Kind of. In my opinion Richard Poe is not a nationalist, he is some kind of a Republican. Republicans have some interesting conspiracy theories about the royals and the aristocracy which I value since they seem to be the only ones who actually look into aristocracy. But all of them tend to "fight communism" which they tend to think was invented by the aristocracy. Partly true maybe, partly false. There are different flavors of "communism" and they are not the same. The British empire has its own branch - Fabianism, which the Alex Joneses of the world call "communism" but it is just the British imperialism disguised as "socialism". The Jesuits had their own branch with the Castro aristocracy running "socialism" in Latin America. The father of Che is Roberto Guevara Castro, so they are blood relatives with Fidel Castro from the Spanish house of Castro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Castro .

If "the globalists" can easily weaponize every psudo scientific ideology like "marxism", Marx was a Prussian agent https://www-wolfgang--waldner-com.translate.goog/der-marx-engels-schwindel/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp (Germany again), after that he probably worked for the British, even more easily "they" can weaponize religion, "New age" cults, Gnosticism, philosophy or other abstractions. Most people have zero analytical or critical thinking skills and it is even easier to sell them abstractions and/or promises for eternal life because manipulation works best with emotions, fears, hopes, etc. Which is why I tend to avoid any theorizing, religion, "the meaning of life" or ideology. If people can't tell 2 and 2 they certainly can't tell what Nietzsche was up to.

Back to Richard Poe. There is another author who is researching the aristocracy and the British/Phoenician/Guelph empire and who is also supposedly "fighting communism". He even organizes "anti communism conferences" and I am 90% sure that both of them are spooks. But anyway. I don't know how relevant is the argument if Alexander Horn provided the material for John Robison’s book because John Robison is a British agent himself. As Alex Benesch explains:

"It was a campaign by aristocratic intelligence networks of Welfen, Wettiner and Reginare, plus the additional British networks. The goal was to further destabilize France and draw attention away from the aristocratic networks. The conspiracy behind the Illuminati and behind the French revolution was simply painted as anarchistic and godless. None of these conspiracy books followed the many leads to aristocratic-british networks.

A new study by Professor Claus Oberhauser from Austria sheds new light on how these conspiracy books were made. The network included the intelligence asset Alexander Horn, the Royal-Society-head John Robison and many others.

It may initially seem surprising that Sir John Macpherson (1744 – 1821) played a fairly central role in Alexander Horn’s British networks, as he is particularly associated with his time in India. As early as 1767 he was in Madras for the first time for the East India Company. Several trips, political offices and, above all, political scandals during his time as deputy governor general of Bengal – he almost provoked a war – were to follow. Back in Great Britain he was active as a supporter of Edmund Burke in the fight against the French Revolution on the continent. His intimate relationship with the future King George IV (1762 – 1830) was also the subject of scandal."

https://candorintel.com/?p=1821

So the question who fomented the French revolution is not settled.

Expand full comment
36 more comments...

No posts