Trotsky - Freemason and Illuminati agent

[ScottishStalinist1]

[edit: I recently posted this in a so-called communist forum filled of bourgeois-libs).

Thank god this agent of imperialism was killed.


It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the {pbk p. 125} aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress. ... {hbk p. 108, pbk p. 126} I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. ... The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. ... I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual develovpment.

pp. 107-127
-My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator, Thornton Butterworth Limited, London 1930

- Freemasonry was banned in the USSR for being subversive, terroristic and bourgeois. If I remember correctly, it was during Lenin's era.
- Trotsky was financed by a Freemason banker named Jacob Schiff to a tune of around 20 million US dollars.
- Trotsky called Stalin a greater threat to the proletariat than Hitler.
- Trotsky supported Ukranian nationalism and independence during the 1930s (the only time he supported nationalism was against the USSR!), so the Nazis could be at the gates of the Soviet Union!
- Trotsky wanted to ride back to power as dictator with Nazi tanks.

This is why Stalin was completely justified in murdering this rotten scoundrel.

[Berianidze]

Good post; although not only did Trotsky commit acts of treason against the U.S.S.R., ideologically his proposals would've been a disaster that would've led the Soviet Union into certain doom. His "radical" dream of world-wide revolution would've left the Sovet Union way behind while waiting for international proletarian movements to assume control throughout Europe. Also, Trotsky's plans would've destroyed the peasantry (just read Stalin's account of Leninism or Trotskyism?)

[ScottishStalinist1]

Comrade Molotov said it best:

"Trotsky said that a socialist revolution is a workers' revolution. Every Marxist says that. Trotsky was not so foolish as to put himself in a highly vulnerably position. So he would say: all of you recognise that socialism can be built only by the working class. What role can the peasantry play? If the peasantry would follow the working class...but it can't because it is petty-bourgeois. That is why we must set a course on socialism as far as the working class will be able to support us. But since the way is blocked by a peasantry that does not understand socialism, we cannot triumph in Russia under those circumstances unless we are supported by the workers in the West. They in fact will begin the building of socialism there while we trail along behind them.
According to this line, we had nowhere to turn. We had to give up, because we could not win without the peasantry--but they were against socialism. And there was no revolution in the West.
Lenin was right. We couldn't do without the peasant. We had to adapt our policy toward the peasantry. But within the peasantry the kulak, the well-to-do, too, were the strongest. What could the poor peasantry give? That meant we had to make concessions in some measure to the well-to-do peasantry. Lenin says it all clearly and well--there's no tripping him up: we understand an alliance with the peasants in the sense that the peasants support a dictatorship of the proletariat. At the time the middle peasant was to some extent neutral. But the poor peasntry, Lenin believed, could for the most part follow the working class. It's no good waiting for the West.
...But Lenin's view, by its very nature, was quite different from Trotsky. Lenin relied on the peasantry, lending the idea of revolutionary stages a different meaning. Stalin too had this difference with Trotsky.
The difference is that Trotsky did not believe in the cause of socialism. He said, let's try it, but we will fail. If we are not supported by revolution in Western countries, nothing will come of it in our country." Molotov Remembers, page 171-2


I still hear Trotskyites claim the USSR failed because of the mythical failure of socialism in one country and not waiting for the Western revolution; forgetting that socialism existed, and it was great, and only because of modern revisionism and the new bourgeoisis in the Party and state organs did the USSR restore capitalism and then collapse to the hell hole that is the Russian Federation.