Discussion with Phil Eversoul, about Communism, Judaism and Christianity

by Peter Myers, August 13, 2019; update August 14, 2019.

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/phil-eversoul.html.

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

I have no record of the exact date I began my website Neither Aryan Nor Jew, but I do recall that it was a few months before Noam Chomsky began his.

I think my site started early in the year 2000; its address was http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/index.html. Some years later mailstar.net/index.html began as a duplicate site. Later the cyberone one closed. My site is now mailstar.net.

My site drew many responses in the early years, before it was censored during the Bush Jnr regime, and later by Google.

I invited respondents to join my mailing list, which operated as a forum for lively discussion. It was NOT archived (to a website), and thus respondents spoke more freely.

There were many debates between small-c communists such as Israel Shamir and Eric Walberg, and far right advocates such as Phil Eversoul.

Phil Eversoul (1944 - 2008), an accountant who lived in Los Angeles,, was born Jewish, and grew up in a pro-Stalinist family, but later changed sides. I think that you'll find his views as stimulating today, as I found them then.

The following discussion, between Phil Eversoul and myself, took place in my forum, in November and December 2000. Yes, that's how long my mailing list has been operating!

We were so primed to the real issues, that when 9/11 happened in September the next year, I instantly recognised it as a Mossad job; and engaged in debate with Jared Israel, who just as quickly jumped to Mossad's defence.

I uploaded the following discussion to my Letters webpage, where it appeared as Letter 18: Discussion between Phil Eversoul and myself, about the collapse of Christianity.

It was at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/letters.html, and more recently at http://mailstar.net/letters.html.

However, it was a little hard to read. I have now reformatted it to make it easier to follow, but have not changed the text at all. The discussion took place as a series of emails; note the datestamp at the start of each email.

(18) Discussion between Phil Eversoul and myself, about the collapse of Christianity

How and why, and what it portends for Western Civilization.

The timestamps indicate the sequence, except that my time is Australian Eastern (Summer), while Phil's is U.S. West Coast.

In each email, a statement by the other party is indicated by "> ".

Judaism, Aryanism, Christianity

Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:31:10 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>

... My name is Philip Podolner Eversoul. Call me Phil. "Podolner" is my family name; I believe it comes from the area known as Podolia, where my father's family came from. I'm a third generation American. My mother's parents came from an area near Pinsk, in a shtetl called "Motele" or "Motel." It happen to be the town where Chaim Weizmann was born.

About 28 years ago I took the name "Eversoul" as a sign of my spiritual rebirth, as a son of God through the spirit that Jesus bestowed on us after he departed. Now, I'm not Christian. The spiritual text that I've used most for my guidance is called the Urantia Book, or more properly, the Urantia Papers, aka the Fifth Epochal Revelation. Have any of you read it? The main point I want to make here is that the God of Jesus is the loving Father of Heaven, and NOT the Talmudic-rabbinic Jehovah. Jehovah, imo, is a bloodthirsty genocidal demon-god more accurately known as Moloch. This Jehovah is not worthy of respect by any decent person, and yet he is, officially, the god of the Jews. Jehovah is the core of Judaism.

Christianity is the attempt to harmonize the mission of Jesus with Jehovah, i.e., to combine the rabbinic version of the Old Testament with the apostolic version of the New Testament. The truth is that Jesus and Jehovah are absolutely incompatible, and therefore Christianity is based on a profound error. This error finds its highest expression in Paul's doctrine of the atonement. This error also makes Christianity inherently unstable and contradictory, and under the assaults, through the centuries, of the Jewish-Masonic alliance, Christianity has collapsed as a world power.

You could ask, is it good or bad that Christianity has collapsed, and the answer is another question: what has it been replaced with? Anything better? I don't think so. The Urantia Papers, imo, are supposed to be the new revelation of the better and higher way, but they have been suppressed. That is a story I can't get into now.

I'm telling you all this because I'm trying to explain, as briefly as I can, that I'm a follower of Jesus according to the teachings of the Urantia Papers and that I'm not a Christian. And why do I feel the need to tell you this? It is because I was born and raised as a Stalinist communist, like many other Jews in America. I was saturated with the atheist-materialist viewpoint of Marxism. Both sides of my family were pro-Bolshevik. When I got to college I started my spiritual path out of this darkness.

Many years later, at this point in my life, I find myself in support of white nationalism, largely because of what I learned about America from the Christian Patriot movement. America was intended to be a country for white people, and I think that was a good idea. At this time, however, America no longer exists; it died when Roosevelt's Fabian socialist revolution took over. We have experienced 67 years of increasing socialism-communism in this country, sponsored by international corporate capitalism. (Socialism and communism have always been fully subsidized subsidiaries of International Finance Capitalism).

So where does this put me? In a very strange and difficult position. I'm a recovering Jew, so to speak, now a follower of Jesus, supporting a white nationalism in a country that used to be based on white nationalism but that no longer exists. I sometimes wonder that if, by a miracle, America were to be resurrected, would it accept me? Probably, but a new understanding would have to be worked out. America was based on Christianity (God-given rights, etc), but Christianity, for the most part, has died -- it is certainly no longer a dominant power. Hence, for America to resurrect itself, it has to come to a new and better understanding of God. America was a nation conceived under the recognition of God and in obedience to the laws of God. A nation like America could not exist except in relation to God -- that's where common law rights come from, in part. Now that America is dead and Christianity is dead as a general cultural power, (the Jewish-Masonic alliance having succeeded in replacing them), a new and better relationship of man to God must be achieved before any improvement can be expected.

Imo, nationalism and racialism have a valid place in this new future relationship of man to God. We are indeed, spiritually, all equal as sons of God IN POTENTIAL (but not in actuality), but we are also physical, emotional, and mental creatures with great differences, much of it genetic. Therefore, the different types of humanity deserve different (and more or less separate) homelands or nations. Just because we live in different homes does not mean that we cannot or should not be friendly to each other in the spirit of God's universality. Good fences make good neighbors.

I wanted you to know these things about me because you deserve to know where I'm coming from.

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:04:08 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>

{this one is out of order; it comes after the next one; but logically, it belongs here}

Phil,

"Aryan Christianity" was the combination of Aryan racialism with a Christian consciousness; it developed in the wake of the Viking (=Norman) invasion of Europe.

The Vikings settled down as the Normans (the aristocracy, First Estate), but adopted the Christian religion; the Church, blessing the Normans, became the Second Estate. This union launched the Crusades, and later the "white Christian" destruction of New World cultures. Part of the change was the overturning of Augustine's Pacifism, by Aquinas' Just War theology.

Both Aryanism and Judaism are particularist; Christianity, like Buddhism, is universalist. In our time, the contradictions between Particularisms and Universalisms are becoming obvious. I, for example, grew up "white Christian (Catholic)", and could not see the contradiction. Now I can; once the Devil was removed as a transcendental evil, I could see the human evil.

We're all guilty of it ... but what can we do? We have to live in the real world.

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:40:12 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com

{here, Phil replies to a reply from me. I do not have a copy of the latter}

> I agree with you - Christianity was really a new religion;
> it's incompatible with Judaism, it's more like Buddhism.
> But not only "Jewish Christianity" has "died";
> "Aryan Christianity" has died too - that was the hybrid
> formed after the Vikings brought Aryanism back to Europe.

I'm not familiar with "Aryan Christianity." It is, I imagine, something different from Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. Did Aryan Christianity recognize Jesus in any way?

> Strangely, in some ways Christianity as a universal
> ethic is not dying, but being realized. That's why we
> can now see that "Aryan Christianity" was a contradiction.
> Now the Aryan Christians are having terrible trouble
> articulating their worldview, blending Aryan racialism
> with an Old Testament consciousness borrowed from the Jews.

Yes, I imagine they would have such trouble. There need to be a general understanding that the Books of Moses were not written by Moses ( who lived in the 1400s BC according to my information) but by the Jewish priesthood (between 600 to 450 BC, roughly) for the racial-political purpose of creating Judaism as we know it today. Then we would realize that they are not holy scripture. Jesus called "the Law" the works of men.

> Now some questions ... 1. What do you make of
> (1) the Trotsky-Stalin divide

Trotsky was the heir apparent, so to speak, but Stalin outmaneuvered him. The real question in my mind is why Stalin, a non-Jew whose "anti-semitism" seems well established, wanted to rise to the top of a Jewish organization called communism.

I think Stalin was just as much dedicated to Marxism-Leninism as Trotsky. Their differences were tactical, about whether to launch a total world revolution now or later. Stalin proved his dedication to communism by preparing a massive invasion of Europe to be launched in July of 1941. Hitler beat him to the punch, in a preemptive strike, by just a few weeks. If Hitler hadn't done this, the Red Army would have rolled over all of Europe in 1941. See Suvorov's "Icebreaker."

> (2) the Israel-Soviet divide?
> It seems that Trotskyist groups are largely Jewish-dominated;
> why then did some Jews continue to support the USSR,
> after 1936 etc? In what ways did the rivalry between
> Moscow and Jerusalem split Jews and weaken Communism?

Stalin didn't mind Jews as long as they were thoroughly assimilationist. He didn't like Jews who wanted to be Jews. Jewish support, for the most part, for the Bolshevik Revolution was based on the assumption that it would allow them to remain Jews, i.e., to maintain a Jewish subculture. Certainly Trotskyist Jews withdrew their support for Stalinism, but non-Trotskyist Jews (like my father) supported Stalin all the way. For non-Trotskyist Jews, the Soviet Union was still the hope of mankind, the workers' paradise. Stalin was still god.

You ask, "In what ways did the rivalry between Moscow and Jerusalem split Jews and weaken Communism?"

What a great question, Peter. This is a vast subject with many aspects and ramifications, but I'll give you my view. The most important way in which this rivalry weakened communism is that it started the Cold War. The Cold War was absolutely NOT started by the American right wing or by anti-communist groups in America. The right wing has had no dominant political power in America since Roosevelt began another wave of socialist revolution. All American presidents since Roosevelt have been part of the same socialist program. After World War II, the American right wing did NOT regain power. Therefore, it was not the American right wing that initiated the Cold War.

The Cold War was initiated, I believe, by the Jewish International Nation Network (what I call the JINN), using its power in America to cause America to oppose the Soviet Union. Why? Because Stalin was getting too "anti-semitic." There was the Jewish Doctors Plot, the suppression of Jewish community, and most of all, there were rumors that Stalin was going to deport all the Jews to Siberia. All of this is in "Stalin's War Against the Jews," by Louis Rapoport. Stalin was no longer "good for the Jews." Hence the Cold War.

{The Doctors' Plot was in 1953. But the turning point was the proposal by the Jewish Antifascist Committe for a Jewish republic in the Crimea, a homeland for Jews from all over the world. Lozovsky and Mikhoels were shot for this; another proponent, Molotov's wife, was spared. Jews were the only nationality in the USSR with a home-base outside the USSR, and their international network made them uncontrollable. Mikhoels was the brother of one of the Kremlin doctors later accused in the Doctors' Plot. The Baruch Plan of 1946 probably exacerbated the falling-out.}

> 2. The Urantia Papers sounds very "New Age";
> can you supply some URLs for investigating this matter?

Certainly: http://www.google.com/search?q=URANTIA

This google page will give you many options. If you find it overwhelming, let me know.

And yes, the Urantia Papers (generally known, less accurately, as the Urantia Book) have often been "marketed" within the New Age culture. I always thought this was a mistake because I never wanted the Urantia Book associated with that New Age stuff.

Btw, I think most of the New Age movement is Jewish-sponsored or Jewish-supported.

> 3. What, do you think, are the New World Order's goals,
> and what are the obstacles to those goals?

Another great question. To answer than, we need to ask, what groups are the leaders of the New World Order. If we know what they are, we should be able to determine their goals. The usual suspects are two: Jewry and Masonry. If you have ever read John Coleman's "The Committee of 300," you can see that he believes that it is the Brits who control everything. Coleman doesn't say so explicitly, but it seems obvious to me that these high-ranking British elite are also high-degree Masons. You should know that international Masonry is very powerful. In his book "Freemasonry and the Vatican," Leon de Poncins showed that a secret meeting of Freemasons in Paris in 1917 drew up the program for the Treaty of Versailles of 1919.

International Jewry (or the JINN, as I prefer), has always been the main suspect, and for good reasons. Perhaps you have read Michael Higger's "The Jewish Utopia," written in 1932, which outlines the Jewish plan for absolute world control. It is based on a vast research into rabbinic sources. In his book, Higger states that Jerusalem will be the world capital, the Jewish power will rule the world, and all gentiles must serve this Jewish power, through observance of Noahide laws. No "idolatrous" religions will be permitted, and that means that Christianity will be abolished.

The Jewish plan for world control, with or without the scheme in "The Jewish Utopia," derives from Deuteronomy and related books in the Old Testament, especially the Books of Moses. There is really nothing that the Jewish power is doing in the world that is not predicated on the core of Jewish culture, which is Jehovah and the Books of Moses. This means that Jehovah has promised the Jews that they will rule the world if they obey him. In achieving this goal, the Jewish people decided that they themselves would act as the collective messiah. Hence communism.

How can we tell who is ruling the world? Normally, the conqueror imposes his religion on the conquered. What is the dominant religion in the world today? I submit that it is the Religion of the Holocaust. I submit that in this way we can tell who rules the world.

There has always been a debate about whether the Jewish Power or the Masonic Power has the upper hand in the New World Order. I believe it is the Jewish Power; I believe the Jewish Power is the senior partner. We don't see the worship of Isis and Osiris, or of Nimrod, or of Baphomet imposed on the world. Instead we see the Religion of the Holocaust imposed on the world. As I see it, the Masonic Power (on the upper levels) is composed of those gentiles who hate Jesus, Christians, and Christianity, as much as the Jewish Power does. Recall that high-degree Masonry is largely based on the Cabala and uses the Jewish calendar. Hence these two Powers work together.

You ask what obstacles they face. Certainly the Internet comes to mind. But more than that, this seemingly huge power, the alliance of Jewry and Masonry, is in opposition to God and the Universe. Eventually it must fail because it is not based on truth. Other than that, the NWO has no problems.

> 4. What part would the rebuilt Third Temple of Solomon play?

Well, it would obviously be a symbol of global Jewish power.

> Which factions of the NWO are oriented to it,
> which oppose it, and which don't care?

Certainly Masonry would support it. The Temple of Solomon has always been a big deal in Masonry. This is another example of Masonry's Jewish roots.

> What effect might the rebuilding of the Third Temple
> have on Christianity? (e.g. make it more Jewish, or less Jewish).

Certainly Christian Zionists would totally approve. Christianity, as a world power, has already succumbed to Judaism. It has been beaten, except for the diehard fundamentalists. The reigning doctrine is that Christianity is the ultimate cause of the Holocaust, and because Christianity, in general, has agreed with it or acquiesced in it, Christianity, in general, has become the lapdog of Judaism. "Mainstream" Christianity, Catholic and Protestant, lost all its spiritual power by agreeing that no one, particularly Jews, need Jesus to find salvation. In other words, Christianity has been stripped of Jesus in the "ecumenical" movement. Judaism cannot tolerate Jesus, so Jesus has been removed as an essential factor.

I hope I answered your questions sufficiently. If not, let me know.

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:05:40 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>

Phil,

You seem to be saying something like this:

1. The Cold War has been won by Zionism, in conjunction with its allies (Fabian Socialists, Masons etc.).

2. Communism and Zionism were meant to co-exist, with Jews running both. The Zionists had to help Stalin against Hitler, but later Stalin got out of hand (refused to accept subordination) and became the New Hitler.

3. The Cold War became a struggle between Communism and Zionism, but each side was also co-operating against Aryanist forces (the WASP establishment in the West; apartheid regimes in the Third World).

Q1: suppose Trotsky, not Stalin, had won power and installed his successors. Would Communism then have fitted in with Zionism better, as intended? Might the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government have been accepted by a Trotskyist USSR?

After Roosevelt's election, H. G. Wells (an advocate of World Government and an admirer of Lenin) had interviews with both him and Stalin. Wells' one-hour discussion (debate) with Stalin has been published, and it shows that Stalin was no fool, contrary to Trotskyist propaganda. Anyone who could debate H. G. Wells for one hour would be no fool. I think that Wells was sounding out the prospects for World Government, back then (about 1934).

Q2. Could the Great Depression have been engineered to remove the incumbent Republican administration and install a Jewish-dominated one (Roosevelt's)?

(In posing this question, it might seem that I oppose the New Deal. On the contrary, I grew up in postwar Australia under New Deal-type conditions - it was a golden age. The weakness of the New Deal was its borrowing of money from private bankers).

Q3. Consider the equation Stalin=Hitler, which it seems Zionists adopted. Who else thought like that? Hayek, Popper and their Mont Pelerin Society, which spawned all the think-tanks which in recent decades have undone the "New Deal" in the West. Popper, a Jewish philosopher, against Marx, another Jewish philosopher.

You argue that the New Deal entrenched Jewish Power in the U.S.; yet Jewish Power has survived the dismantling of the New Deal.

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:21:06 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com

> You seem to be saying something like this:
> 1. The Cold War has been won by Zionism, in conjunction
> with its allies (Fabian Socialists, Masons etc.).

Not merely the Cold War, but the world itself - for the moment. My view is that the Jewish International Nation Network is the dominant force in the New World Order Alliance and that this is proved by the imposition of the Religion of the Holocaust upon the world. This is the signature of the conqueror.

> 2. Communism and Zionism were meant to co-exist,
> with Jews running both.
> The Zionists had to help Stalin against Hitler, but later Stalin got
> out of hand (refused to accept subordination) and became the New Hitler.

Yes. Hence the Cold War.

> 3. The Cold War became a struggle between Communism and Zionism,

Yes, well said, (I hadn't thought of that formulation before) but of course it wasn't advertised that way. It was billed as the struggle of the Free World against communism.

> but each side was also co-operating against
> Aryanist forces (the WASP establishment in the West;
> apartheid regimes in the Third World).

Yes, again very well said. The communist forces won most of the victories against the "Free World." The American right wing was turned into hamburger meat in Vietnam.

> Q1: suppose Trotsky, not Stalin, had won power
> and installed his successors. Would Communism
> then have fitted in with Zionism better, as intended?

Excellent question. Of course, I can only make a guess. I think the main reason that there was so much friction between communism and Zionism was because Jewish communists were assimilationist minded and didn't - consciously - want to be Jews any longer. I recall my father once saying, "I am not a Jew." At the time, that remark puzzled me; I didn't know why he would say that. In the conflict between the Zionists and the communists, the Zionists really had the better argument because communism was run by Jews (and Judaized gentiles) and certainly not by the workers. Hence communist Jews were suffering from self-deception about their Jewishness (and the essential Jewishness of communism). The Zionists had no such self-deception. Trotsky was a very self-deceived Jew, the archetypal Jewish internationalist-secularist-assimilationist. Therefore, I can only assume that Trotsky would have had just as much trouble with Zionism as Stalin did. As I said last time, the Jewish communists just didn't grasp that communism was b.s. intended for the goyim, not for themselves. Jewish communists bought the b.s., and I think this was largely due to their ignorance of how the Soviet Union itself was built with Western capital, technology, and engineering.

> Might the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government
> have been accepted by a Trotskyist USSR?

I think it would have depended on whether Trotsky would have had a better relationship with the Zionists than Stalin had, and it doesn't seem likely. Baruch, I believe, was a Zionist. On the other hand, Trotsky didn't believe in socialism in one country. If he had attained power, I wonder if he would have concluded, as Stalin did, that socialism needed a breathing spell to gather its resources before assaulting the world. If he had not thought so, it seems likely he would have destroyed the Soviet Union by overreaching. Nevertheless, on the assumption that Trotsky would not have destroyed the Soviet Union through overreaching, we know that he was more of an internationalist than Stalin, and the idea of the internationalist Baruch Plan would have been more in keeping with his own outlook.

> After Roosevelt's election, H. G. Wells (an advocate of World Government and an admirer of Lenin) had interviews with both him and Stalin.
> Wells' one-hour discussion (debate) with Stalin has been published, and it shows that Stalin was no fool, contrary to Trotskyist propaganda.
> Anyone who could debate H. G. Wells for one hour would be no fool. I think that Wells was sounding out the prospects for World Government, back then (about 1934).

No doubt. I'm not familiar with this interview. However, world government was always an essential feature of the communist agenda, and I see Stalin as a loyal communist. He was simply more cautious than Trotsky about the timetable.

> Q2. Could the Great Depression have been engineered
> to remove the incumbent Republican administration
> and install a Jewish-dominated one (Roosevelt's)?

Absolutely. This is a historical fact that has been extensively written about. The only thing necessary to have prevented the Great Depression was the extension of credit to the nation. This was the very purpose of the so-called Federal Reserve. But it refused to extend the necessary credit. Surely you know that the Federal Reserve was created by Paul Warburg, a close associate of the Rothschilds.

> (In posing this question, it might seem that I oppose
> the New Deal. On the contrary, I grew up in postwar
> Australia under New Deal-type conditions - it was a golden
> age. The weakness of the New Deal was its borrowing
> of money (from private bankers).

Yes, it created an interest-bearing currency. What happened in America was that, in the 1930s, America went bankrupt, by arrangement, and had to turn its gold reserves over to England and France. What that meant is that America NO LONGER HAD ANY MONEY OF ITS OWN. America became a nation in receivership. To this very day, the American people, as a whole, HAVE NO MONEY. This is because the money they use was loaned to them - at interest - by a private, for-profit corporation called the Federal Reserve, whose stock is owned by international bankers. A nation in receivership can no longer be considered a sovereign nation. This is why America lost the last of its original constitutional structure. The collateral for the Federal Reserve's loan of currency to the American people is: all the property, all the income, all the labor of the American people. This collateral is assured through the social security system, which enrolls all Americans in the income tax extortion and enslavement system. I can only suppose that your Australian New Deal was similar to this, although I'm not familiar with the specific Australian facts.

Roosevelt's New Deal did not solve the economic problems of the American people. It was only World War II that did that. By contrast, Hitler's economic program put all the German people to work and created a labor shortage - without going to war and without building a war economy (Yes, he built up the German military, but that is different from creating an economy that is dependent on war, as Stalin's economy was). It was Britain, the Soviet Union, and America that were building war economies - in concert - with the intention of going to war against the Axis. The reason for this is that the Allied Powers, having been taken over by the Jewish-Masonic international Power, were committed to waging a Holy War against white nationalism. Hitler was "evil" because he was proving that white nationalism could be very successful.

> Q3. Consider the equation Stalin=Hitler,
> which it seems Zionists adopted. Who else
> thought like that? Hayek, Popper and their
> Mont Pelerin Society, which spawned all
> the think-tanks which in recent decades
> have undone the "New Deal" in the West.
> Popper, a Jewish philosopher, against Marx,
> another Jewish philosopher.

I suppose this is the "neo-con" movement. The "New Deal" may have become ideologically discredited to some extent, but it still prospers, stronger than ever in America. The last time I looked, Bill Clinton had a one-year trillion dollar budget. It is true that free-market economic theory is very respectable these days, but don't you think it has a valid place?

> You argue that the New Deal entrenched
> Jewish Power in the U.S.; yet Jewish Power
> has survived the dismantling of the New Deal.

What dismantling? I am unaware of it. Bill Clinton is directly in the heritage of Roosevelt.

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:17:10 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>

On Lenin:

Soon after the Versailles Conference, Lenin wrote, in September 1920,

"... somewhere in the proximity of Warsaw lies the center of the entire current system of international imperialism ... because Poland, as a buffer between Russia and Germany ... is the linchpin of the whole Treaty of Versailles. The modern imperialist world rests on the Treaty of Versailles ... Poland is such a powerful element in this Versailles peace that by extracting this element we break up the entire Versailles peace. We had tasked ourselves with occupying Warsaw; the task changed and it turned out that what was being decided was not the fate of Warsaw but the fate of the Treaty of Versailles"

- from Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive, pp. 100-101.

By "extracting" Poland, Lenin was referring to the USSR's attack on Poland in 1920, which - had it succeeded - would have seen Poland affiliated with the USSR and the Red Army giving support to the German Communists trying to overthrow the Government there.

The Treaty of Versailles was the work of the Zionist-Fabian Socialist forces, but they did not get their way completely; as E. J. Dillon noted, the Anglo-Saxons were dominated by Jews; but the Anglo-Saxons dominated the other camps, so Aryanism still shared power with Zionism.

Was Lenin opposing Zionism-Fabianism, or just the Aryanism still present in the Versailles system?

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:26:07 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>

> You seem to concur with me, that we've got
> Zionism because we didn't get Communism.
> Zionism is the price for the defeat of Communism.

I think we got both, although by 1989 Soviet communism did die and Zionism is still here. For the entire period of the Cold War, communism continued to win almost all the battles, which in itself is highly suspicious. As Gary Allen ("None Dare Call It Conspiracy") once said, you would have thought that by the law of averages the West would have won half the time. But it didn't. Soviet communism continued to grow.

As of today, you could say that Zionism is the price for the defeat of communism. But various forms of strong socialism still continue to dominate Western countries, not to mention Australia, where you are. Also, Chinese communism seems to be continuing to grow.

I think Zionism and communism were meant to complement each other in the Jewish plan, but it didn't work out too well because too many Jewish communists believed in assimilation. I believe the original idea was: communism for the goyim (but led by Jews), and Zionism for the Jews. Apparently many communist Jews didn't get it. They didn't realize, in their naiveté, that communism was b.s. for the goyim. They believed the b.s.

> In other words, the usual interpretation of the Cold War is quite wrong.

I agree. I found the Cold War exceedingly difficult to understand, and I still find many puzzling things about it. The mystery was that it was both a mock conflict and a serious conflict. If it had not been a mock conflict, the West would have won far more often than it did. If it had not been a serious conflict, the East-West tensions would not have been so great. Witness the October Missile Crisis of 1962. Here's my theory about it: The Soviet Union, by pre-arrangement with the West, sent missiles to Cuba. This was supposed to neutralize America and force a deal with the Soviet Union to preserve "peace." Kennedy was supposed to let this happen, but he didn't. Apparently he defied his orders. He actually fought for American national security, i.e., a nationalist purpose in direct conflict with a communist purpose. What could be worse than that? He was a traitor. I think this is the reason he was assassinated. Of course, there could have been other reasons as well.

One must remember that from the very beginning, the industrial-military power of the Soviet Union was 75% made in the USA, the rest in other western nations. The Soviet Union always was entirely a scarecrow built by international capitalism. (This did not mean that the Soviet Union was not dangerous). See "National Suicide," by Anthony Sutton. In Vietnam, American troops were shot to pieces by military equipment made in the Soviet Union in plants designed by Western technology. The Ho Chi Minh trail was filled with Ford trucks sending equipment to the communists. America's defeat in Vietnam was made in the USA, in more ways than one. Among other things, it was a way to destroy and discredit the American right that sincerely wanted to fight communism but was led into the Vietnam ambush. American defeat in Vietnam was planned in Washington, DC.

{There is an irony here. The Soviet Union won Vietnam, but lost China. After the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese Government had to choose between its two backers. It chose the USSR, renewing a defence treaty with it which excluded China. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia elicited China's invasion of Vietnam, in 1979, in response. The US warned the USSR not to intervene, and it did not, failing to honour its treaty with Vietnam. The American support must have moved Deng more to the American camp; I read that, during the 1980s, China allowed the CIA into China to monitor Soviet nuclear tests. Lee Kuan Yew disclosed Deng's thinking: "LEE KUAN YEW: ... So when I met Deng Xiaoping, when he came here in '78 in November, just before the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, to try and prepare the ground for us to support him against the Vietnamese ... He spent about two hours recounting why we must all get together and fight this Cuba of the Russian Bear. There's a Cuba in Southeast Asia, the Vietnamese, who will eat us all up." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_leekuanyew.html}

> From the point of view of the Zionists,
> there was no difference between Hitler and Stalin.
> I only came to see this within the last 2 years.

Well, Stalin was idolized and deified by the world Jewish media - until he was seen as bad for the Jews.

> Stalin, himself, came to realize this. What a shock!

That would be the period in which he realized he was in a deadly conflict with the Zionists. That made the Cold War "real."

> Our understanding of Stalin is especially erroneous.
> Please don't think I'm making him out to be a hero;
> far from it; but we've got him wrong. Please check
> this article at my website: stalin.html

I did. I have a few questions. You wrote:

"7. Soon after the Conference, Lenin wrote, in September 1920, "... somewhere in the proximity of Warsaw lies the center of the entire current system of international imperialism ... <snip> . Lenin's opposition shows that the Internationalist forces were in two opposed camps, whereas The Protocols of Zion implies that they are all in one camp."

My question is, Lenin's opposition to what? {to the carve-up of the world by the Versailles powers}

You wrote:

"8. Pavel Sudoplatov, Stalin's spymaster, made startling disclosures in his 1994 memoirs, Special Tasks. He notes the importance of Jewish support for the USSR during World War II: "During World War II, more than ninety percent of the lonely soldiers spread throughout Western Europe who sent us crucial information that enabled us to beat back the German invasion were Jews whose hatred of Hitler spurred them to risk their lives and families" (p. 4). He says that the Soviet atomic program depended on assistance from Western scientists such as Robert Oppenheimer and Neils Bohr (both Jewish), and backed this up with further information in a later edition of the book. But since Baruch and Lilienthal were Jews on the American side, pushing for World Government on American terms before the USSR got the bomb, it looks as if Jews were divided over that too.

I'm wondering if you have heard the story of Major George Jordan from 1943. He found out that Roosevelt, using Harry Hopkins, was sending all the secrets of the Manhattan Project (for the atomic bomb) to Stalin. All the blueprints and all the materiel necessary for building the atomic bomb were being shipped to Siberia via Great Falls, Montana. On Roosevelt's orders. How's that for proof that on the highest level American and Soviet foreign policy were the same, and that therefore there had to be a secret international method of coordination, a secret level of power. I believe that's where people like Averell Harriman fit into the picture, as well as Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, and their friends. Harriman was a Skull and Bones man. Have you read Sutton's book on Skull and Bones? During World War II, Harriman went to Moscow to "advise" Stalin.

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:32:43 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com

In Leon DeGrelle's book, "Hitler--Born At Versailles," I learned that the Versailles Allies were very supportive of Lenin's communism. For example, when the Soviet Republic of Bavaria was formed in 1919, they offered to recognize it and exempt it from German reparations. (How's that for showing your hand!!) They also put up innumerable roadblocks to the Russian anti-communist generals fighting the communists in 1919-1920. So I have to think that Lenin saw the Versailles Allies as essentially a friendly force. This fits perfectly with the idea that the NWO is a capitalist-communist synthesis.

Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 00:04:48 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com

> 1. Do you think Judaism is primarily racial,
> or primarily religious?
> If the latter, why can it also be seen as the former?

Hi Peter,

I think that the best answer was given by Joseph Klausner, who said that Judaism is a religion about a certain people, the people of Israel (even if they aren't, as we know, really lineal descendants of the House of Israel). Now, most of these people today are not religious at all, but Judaism does not stand simply as a religion, but as a certain group. The cultural-ethnic-genetic tie is in modern times much stronger than any religious tie, for most people who consider themselves to be Jews. However, if the so-called "religious fundamentalists" such as the Gush Emunim continue to gain control of modern Israel, the definition of a Jew will shift to a more religious definition, in Talmudic-Cabalistic terms.

One of the interesting characteristics of Judaism is that Jews do not define themselves by doctrine or dogma, at least not nearly as much as Christians have. There is no one orthodox theology that all Jews must accept; a Jew can choose among the opinions of any respected rabbi. This is because Judaism is much more ethnically based than Christianity. In Judaism, it is much more important to be a Jew than to believe a certain doctrine. Also, in Judaism, if one is religiously inclined, observance or practice is much more important than doctrine. As Fackenheim said, there is indeed an orthopraxis but not a theological orthodoxy.

> 2. You write, "Communism was meant to be b.s. for non-Jews",
> but that some Jewish Communists were assimilationist.

It seems that most Jewish communists were assimilationist, at least in theory. However, I have not done a study of that particular point. Many Jews were self-deceived on this point. They thought they were assimilationist but they actually lived, for the most part, among Jews. I think this is a big reason for the conflict between Jewish communists and Jewish Zionists. The Zionists were not self-deceived about their Jewishness. In my own upbringing, I simply thought I was an American; I didn't think of myself as Jewish even though I had communist beliefs.

> (a) Marx was a Jew; was Engels?

So I've read. {I do not think so}

> (b) Do you think Marx & Engels were anti-goy
> conspirators (zionists), or was their movement
> later taken over by anti-goy conspirators?

You come up with great questions, Peter. I don't know enough about what Marx or Engels personally thought about that point. I'm familiar with their theories and public writings to a certain extent, which don't address the question you ask. I have read David McCaulden's "Exiles from History," which is a brief psychohistory of the Jews and of Marx. McCaulden wrote: (p.9)

"Perhaps the most profound summary of all was provided by Karl Marx himself, a short time before his death of bronchitis, at the age of 64, in 1883. In a rare moment of candor, he had told his octoroon son-in-law Paul LaFargue: 'Ce qu'il y a certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.' -- 'One thing I am certain of; that is that I myself am not a Marxist.'

"What better summary could there be of a man who was tormented through his life by hypocrisy. On the one hand he despised workers, Slavs, Negroes, and proletarians generally. Yet at the same time he wrote about the eventual takeover by the working class. He loathed Jews and Jewish characteristics, yet he knew deep down that he himself was a Jew through and through, and that that could never change. ... He sought refuge with his WASP aristocratic wife Jenny von Westphalen and with the Germanic Friedrich Engels, but nowhere could he escape the eternal truth of his own origins. He was rebelling against himself. He was caught up in an eternal Jewish struggle -- the underlying self-hate, and the overlay of compensatory arrogance and 'assimilation.' "

So, if Marx really loathed proletarians personally, did he really believe that they were destined by history to rule the world? I don't know, but if I were to guess, I'd have to say that he really didn't believe his own theory -- at least, not on a literal, superficial level. He may have realized that his writing was only a propaganda tool by higher-level Judaist planners.

One has to take into consideration the fact that Marx was strongly influenced by Moses Hess, who was both a socialist and a Zionist.

Now, if Marx himself said on his deathbed that he was not a Marxist, then that suggests that his writings had a deeper, underlying purpose. Zionists such as Hess would have shown him that deeper purpose. Yet Marx hated his Jewishness, even though he could not really deny it.

> (c) You seem to imply that the assimilationist
> Jews became the supporters of Stalin;

Yes. It is also interesting that Stalin, although a Georgian, identified himself as a Russian. He certainly didn't identify himself as a Jew, even though he ruled a Jewish state that gradually became more Russian.

> those who supported a separate Jewish
> secular subculture stayed with Trotsky;

This may be so. I haven't read anything yet specifically on that point, but it seems logical.

> the religious separatists identified as Zionists,
> but were able to do so as Communists in the USSR,
> until Stalin forced a choice upon them.

Yes. Rapoport's "Stalin's War Against the Jews" supports this. Again, this seems logical.

> (d) "b.s. for non-Jews" - what does this mean?
> Perhaps like Feminism today - a false utopia
> masking a kind of slavery? as Gershon Shalom
> tells goys they will be better off when ruled by Jews?

In my mind, communism had three main purposes: to destroy Christianity, to destroy nationalism (particularly Christian nationalism), and to destroy the family. These were the tree main pillars of white civilization (faith, nation, and family) that had to come down before Jews could rule. They are also the natural and essential barriers against totalitarian global government.

> (e) How does Feminism fit into the picture?

Its purpose is to destroy the family by destroying relationships between men and women.

> 3. I erred in describing 1950s Australia as "New Deal".
> It was not a welfare state - there was no welfare;
> but it had a full-employment policy, and was quite socialist,
> in terms of government ownership of the telephone monopoly,
> the overseas airline, one of the 2 domestic airlines,
> the main shipping line, the railways, a major bank
> plus the reserve bank, the universities etc.
> In those days, the Australian currency was higher
> than the US currency. It was a wonderful economy
> to live in, a paradise by comparison with today.

I see. What I don't know is whether Australia in those days had interest-bearing currency. If it did, then it was economically ruled by the international bankers, just as the USA was and still is. When a nation has its own sovereignty, it issues its own currency, and it does not charge itself interest for doing so. There would be no point to that. When a nation does not issue its own currency, it has lost the most important foundation of its sovereignty, as the Rothschilds well know.

Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 21:56:51 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>

1. You're right about governments paying interest on the currency they issue ... this point is made in the Protocols of Zion. Do you believe that document is genuine?

2. Communism, and National Socialism, escaped this trick. My theory is that the capture of a country's currency is the Zionists' main trick, and that Communism showed how to escape it (it issued its currency in the way the Protocols advises). In other words, there are lessons to learn from Communism.

3. Do you agree that Jews lost control of the USSR ... i.e. they were unable to dominate the Russians - and for that reason, mounted the emigration campaign?

4. What about Gorbachev? Would you agree that he's really a Fabian?

Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 21:56:14 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>

> Phil, Yes, in the 1950s the Australian government
> was paying interest on its currency, but it kept
> the real interest rate very low, around 1-2%.
> The trans-Australia railway was built (earlier in
> the century), I believe, by the government issuing
> its own currency without interest (as Lincoln did
> during the Civil War). In 1953 the Federal Government
> here passed Double Taxation legislation. This allows
> mulninational cvompanies to pay tax offshore, in tax havens.
> It's a major reason for the foreign debt of the U.S. & Australia.

Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:01:03 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com

> 1. You're right about governments paying interest
> on the currency they issue ... this point is made in
> the Protocols of Zion. Do you believe that document is genuine?

Hi Peter,

Well, well. This is the hottest hot potato, isn't it. I've done a certain amount of study on this subject and I still have more to learn about it. I have L. Fry's book, "Waters Flowing Eastward," which is a study of this question, but I haven't read most of it yet.

First, to answer your question directly, we have to split it into two parts: authorship and contents. From all I know so far, the authorship is not proven or in doubt, or (from the Jewish side) it is denounced. As far as the contents go, they have proven to be quite accurate and predictive, in my opinion. So that's my own bottom line: authorship in doubt, contents good.

Hans Schmidt, who wrote "End Games/End Times," a year or two ago, has a very interesting theory. He believes that while the content is true, the Russian secret police did write it from notes that they had kept over many years of surveillance of revolutionary Jews. Schmidt does not believe that there was any such secret conclave at Basel in 1897 that would have or could have produced such a document. He finds the Protocols inconsistent what what Jews would have said at a secret world-revolutionary meeting. He believes that the Russian secret police had the book published in order to warn the world of what they had learned of Jewish world-revolutionary intentions and doctrines.

Norman Rockwell, the American Nazi leader and author of "White Power," wrote (in 1967):

"The Jews howl bitterly that these documents are a 'forgery.' But this is as irrelevant as claiming that a man did not commit a murder with one particular knife -- but another knife altogether. It matters not which knife was used. The fact is that somebody did a murder. The Protocols, long before World War I or II, set forth with horrible clarity exactly what some group would bring about in the ways of world wars, inflations, depressions, and moral subversions -- how they would do it, and to whom they would do it.

"And sixty years later, not one word has failed of fulfillment exactly as set forth in the Protocols. If they are 'forged' then it was done by a genius who knew exactly what the Jews of the world would do for sixty years, with not partial, but perfect accuracy. The Protocols alone, of all knowledge on this earth, give one the power to predict historical events successfully, as I have been able to do since studying them. And a theory which enables scientific, calculated prediction is not the mark of a fraud, but always the mark of a realistic theory." (p. 244).

Douglas Reed, in his "Controversy of Zion," (1955) wrote:

"...in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an official of the Department of Foreign Relations at Moscow, published a book, of which the British Museum in London has a copy bearing its date-stamp, August 10, 1906. Great interest would attach to anything that could be elicited about Nilus and his book, which has never been translated; the mystery with which he and it have been surrounded impedes research. One chapter was translated into English in 1920. This calls for mention here because the original publication occurred in 1905, although the violent uproar only began when it appeared in English in 1920.

"This one chapter was published in England and America as 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'; I cannot learn whether this was the original chapter heading or whether it was provided during translation. No proof is given that the document is what it purports to be, a minute of a secret meeting of Jewish 'Elders.' In that respect, therefore, it is valueless.

"In every other respect it is of inestimable importance, for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed by Weishaupt's papers. Many other documents in the same series had followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one transcends all of them. The other were fragmentary and gave glimpses; this one gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective. It adds nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but it puts all the parts in place and exposes the whole. It accurately depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the counterforce."

A different story is given in the publisher's forward to L. Fry's "Waters Flowing Eastward" (1953):

"In 1937 a Russian ex-officer of the Czarist Intelligence Service asked to see a friend of ours. The Russian ex-officer was accompanied, on the occasion of the meeting, by a man well and favourably known to our friend. The ex-officer informed our friend and his wife that, in 1897, he had been called from Washington, where he was working for the Czarist government, and sent to Basle, Switzerland, where the first Zionist Congress was being held that year. He was given a small detachment of picked secret service men. While the Jews were in secret conclave, his men staged a sham fire and dashed into the room shouting Fire! Fire! In the ensuing confusion he made his way quickly to the President's or Lecturer's table and took possession of all the papers that were on it. These papers contained the originals of the Protocols.

"This Russian officer escaped out of Russia in 1917 and lived mostly in Paris. he was an old man in 1937. Needless to say our friend's veracity and reliability are unquestioned."

> 2. Communism, and National Socialism, escaped this trick.
> My theory is that the capture of a country's currency is
> the Zionists' main trick, and that Communism showed how
> to escape it (it issued its currency in the way the Protocols
> advises). In other words, there are lessons to learn from Communism.

To me, the lesson is: don't finance your government with foreign loans, issue your own national non-interest-bearing currency, and if at all possible, keep a supply of gold and silver as backing for the paper. The value of fiat currency always moves towards zero.

> 3. Do you agree that Jews lost control of the USSR
> ... i.e. they were unable to dominate the Russians - and
> for that reason, mounted the emigration campaign?

As far as I know, Stalin had no trouble with Jews who believed in assimilation and who were therefore willing to accept Russian-communist culture. Stalin did indeed have trouble with Jews who wanted to remain Jews and to preserve a separate Jewish community. So, yes, the specifically separate Jewish community gradually lost control of the USSR, because such a community could become defined as nothing other than Zionist, especially after 1948. Zionist Israel gave Jews an identity, if they wanted it, separate from Russian communism. Naturally, then, Zionism within the USSR was a separate political power, and that was something that Stalin -- and communist doctrine -- could not tolerate.

> 4. What about Gorbachev? Would you agree
> that he's really a Fabian?

I don't know about the "Fabian" part, I plead ignorance, but he certainly became an instant favorite with the NWO elite, who financed his foundation in San Francisco. In his own book, Gorbachev described himself as a Leninist. See "The Perestroika Deception," by Golitsyn. The main point of this book is that the collapse of Soviet communism is a deception designed to lull people into a false sense of security.

END

Read more of Phil Eversoul's discussions at letters.html.

Write to me at contact.html.

HOME