1043 Discussion with Phil Eversoul, about Communism, Judaism and Christianity

Discussion with Phil Eversoul, about Communism, Judaism and Christianity

by Peter Myers, August 13, 2019

Newsletter published on August 13, 2019

This material is at http://mailstar.net/phil-eversoul.html.
You may prefer to read it online there, because the bold formatting
highlights the important bits.

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, since deceased, 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 that 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
http://mailstar.net/letters.html.