The Red Symphony

The Red Symphony
by
Steven Stanley Bayes
www.Steven-Stanley-Bayes.com

Preface :
The Red Symphony is a name of the conversation between two politicians in 1938 where they
discuss the politics of the era and before. The most referred to events took place in the second
half of the 19th
century and the first half of the 20th
century before the World War 2.
Communism and capitalism are the most covered topics in the conversation. The conversation
touches subjects ( although not the main subject of the conversation ) such as “ The Rulers of
the World “ which have made the conversation very popular amongst people with such
inclinations all over the world and mainly in the French speaking world and The U. S. A.
The author of this document has tried to provide the whole conversation as well as to offer an
independent opinion on the conversation. The author expresses but does not impose this
opinion on anyone. PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS MAY FIND THIS
DOCUMENT INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY MAY LEARN OTHER THINGS WHICH
THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN WHICH ARE INVARIANT ON THE AUTHOR’S OPINION.
Those of them who want to continue with their personal opinions after they have acquired this
knowledge can do this as they please.
1. Document Organization :
This document provides the conversation between two political leaders of the first half
of the 20th
century known throughout the world with the name “ The Red Symphony “.
I have made comments to this in order to provide own opinion because, I think, the
opinions of many people who have misunderstood this historic conversation are wrong.
The comments are in Italic Bold and begin with “ SSB : “, the original conversation is
in normal.
2. Prerequisite :
In order to understand the document, some preliminary knowledge is required. I will
try to provide this in a very short form.
2.1 History :
The conversation, called by people “ The Red Symphony “ takes place before the
World War II. Politicians in the whole world were then asking an important
question : will Germany attack the Soviet Union or the possible war will take place
only in the Western Europe?
One of the possible sub questions may have been : what is the National Socialist
Party of Germany : more socialists than nationalists, more nationalists than
socialists, more capitalist than socialist and nationalist combined, any other
combination amongst these three or something else?

A second sub question may have been : does the National Socialist Party of
Germany comply to logic or not? In case of yes, does the National Socialist party of
Germany apply a stable, long term logic or are they just opportunists who do
whatever they think is to be done only at a given point without having any agenda,
program, schedule, plan? Or the two thereof.
Another outcome question : are the National Socialist Party of Germany politicians
or economists ( money makers ) and or any combination thereof. In case of a
combination, here and before, to what extend do they mix these two ingredients?
Another question : who are the “ enemies “ of the National Socialist Party of
Germany inside Germany and out?
What kind of weapons do they have?
2.2 Politics :
Germany was devastated by the World War I with many parts taken by other
countries, mainly adjacent to Germany and a part of Germany controlled by
France to produce coal for France to pay reparations from World War I.
Neither The Soviet Union nor The U. S. A. have ever taken any German land. This
means there is no any direct reason for Germany to enter a war with these two
countries. Except the indirect incentive : a war against the Soviet Union is not a
war against the Soviet Union per se but is a war against socialism and future
communism. Such a war must, therefore, be strongly supported by all capitalist
countries except these with which Germany is at war. Not except : even these
countries should support Germany who comes to them as a liberator from
socialism and communism rather than an occupying force.
However, there is another interesting scenario : Germany becomes a socialist
country ruled by the National Socialist Party which becomes more socialist than
nationalist and does not attack The Soviet Union nor The U. S. A. but only attacks
the capitalist Europe thus being a liberator of Europe from capitalism.
The second scenario looks very promising for Germany except a few problems :
The Soviet Union is not as stupid as the Western capitalist countries and The U. S.
A. and will not bite this German hook. Neither will the internal German socialist
and communist parties who, along with The Soviet Union, want either their way
and not the promised National Socialist Party highway even though a divided one
and strongly built by concrete autobahn. Even the best autobahn is useless when
this autobahn goes in a wrong direction.
The internal capitalist parties and their protégés, the rich capitalists of Germany
will strongly disagree which may lead to a loss of the shallow non full majority win
of the National Socialist Party at the elections.

So, the political situation, contrary to what many think, is very weak for The
National Socialist Party. THEY SIMPLY CANNOT DO THE JOB ON THEIR
OWN AND THE WEAK PERFORMANCE AT THE ELECTION MAKES THE
THINGS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE RULERS.
So they need an ally : who? The Western Europe and The U. S. A. because the
National Socialist Party will give them the most desired gift : more desired even
than their independence : the destruction of socialism thus inability of transferring
to communism.
Words are words, weapons are weapons : The National Socialist Party can pick any
of these scenarios or chose many different ones BUT can they put their weapons
where their mouths are? Bad news for the rest of the world : the answer is yes : the
German weaponry is superior to any other in the world because of the non private
economy Germany has enjoyed since 1932. For only 6 years, the National Socialist
party has achieved what The U. S. A. and all the Western Europe has not achieved
since their creations and before : much superior industry and product. Much to the
dismay of The Soviet Union who stay big and undisturbed and so confident in the
huge power and size so does not consider even to manufacture weapons. The U. S.
A. can be represented as a sleeping giant. The Soviet Union as a Muscle Building
Beauty Competitor, a fashion designer of a sort while Germany is the knocked
down boxer who has not only fully recovered from the knock down when counted
to 6 but has also become stronger taking the much needed rest of lying down for a
while.
Yes, Germany did have the superior weaponry and the large amount of people
needed to win any war against anyone even against the whole world. The question
was to do so before the other caught up with the weaponry and also in the easiest
way. And the easiest way looked to be to lie to the West and to attack the non
trusting East.
But there is something to be added here : only one Soviet aircraft company was of
the size of all German aircraft companies.
2.3 Hegel :
Hegel was mentioned throughout the conversation. Preliminary information is
needed in order to understand the conversation.
Hegel is a German philosopher, scientists, thinker and, most importantly, logician.
Hegel is mistakenly pinpointed mainly by US ideologists and politicians as being a
communist. This is very wrong and is applicable only to politicians such as
McCarthy, to some extend Reagan and other of this sort. Hegel was working in

these sciences much before socialism and communism were ever discovered, much
before Marx and Engels, mostly likely, much before Tomas Man.
2.3.1 Author’s View on Logic :
Logic is an objective and strict science which shows people how to think
objectively. As such, everything in logic has to be proven strictly mathematically in
order to be used, i. e. there are theorems in logic which must be strictly proven,
otherwise, in case they are not true, they will mislead, rather than help people
think.
In the modern era, logic is mistakenly thought by people as what makes the
computer software work ONLY. The problem with this common mistake is the word
only. True, logic is used for to make computer software which is based on logic
only but logic is not used in computer software only but everywhere in any human
and, even, animal activity.
Logic with humans is not a must. People can opt out of using logic and say and do
illogical things, for example, using religious believes blindly.
There are two levels of logic in terms of advancements in this science : simple logic
and advanced logic. Simple logic is mistakenly called in English a “ common sense
“. Advanced logic is build in a level fashion up from the simple logic and the
difference between simple and complicated logic is mainly quantitative which may
or may not lead to quantitative differences. ( Quantity and quality are to be
discussed ).
There are two types of logic by what they are and by application: analogue and
digital. These two complement and mix with one another. Digital logic is based on
strictly defined constants and variables which variables can only have one of the
only possible two values. A toss of a coin is an example of digital logic : the
outcome can be either one of the two possible. This digital logic can be simple or
complicated. The complication comes from the amount of digital variables and
interconnection thereof. In the example, a combinational choice of a winning
combination among, say, 10 coins each of which can only land in only one of only
two possible is an example of simple digital logic complication. Analogue logic is
an amount logic and is based on amount. As an example, when a logger who
makes a preliminary cut on a tree in order to use gravity to break the tree does not
just make a scratch on the tree which will not do anything, neither does the logger
cut across the whole tree which will either make the tree sit on the cut log when
well balanced or will make the tree fall in the direction of the tree’s center of
gravity. The logger plays with amounts : how much do I cut and how much angle
do I give to the cut in order to use the gravity to make the tree fall in this direction?
Analogue logic can be simple and complicated. An example when analogue logic
can become complicated is when accuracy, precision, sensitivity, stability as well as
multi variable interaction as well as multi type multivariable interaction ( many

digital and many analogue variables ) are necessary. In the previous example the
logger has a low accuracy of action required. A guitar maker has to cut wood with
somewhat higher accuracy, hence making a guitar is more complicated than
making furniture which is more complicated than making an outdoor bench which
is more complicated than cutting logs.
The type of logic used in computer software is simple digital, also called
mathematical logic. This can become somewhat more complex and mixed at upper
levels of computer software development, mainly in areas such as artificial
intellect.
Whether simple logic is analogue or digital, any simple logic is logic and not sense,
thus human or animal thinking is necessary for everything AND NOT SENSE.
This important difference is misunderstood mainly in the English Speaking World
which comes mainly because of the stupidity of many British philosophers and
thinkers centuries ago. These have consistently claimed there was not such a thing
as simple logic but, instead, this is a sense which everyone has just the same as the
instincts of animals. They have also claimed no thinking is necessary in simple
logic. Thus, they have introduced the largely used term “ common sense “. They
have also been mislead by other scientists, mainly biologists, centuries ago who
have been consistently claiming and continue to claim, animals do not think but,
rather, they use their instincts. Animals DO think and instincts are nothing else but
thinking. However, animals can only think to a given level and not beyond unlike
humans. This is considered to be so because of the non complexity of animal’s
brains as opposed to the complex human brain. A consideration in this is the
number of neurons in human and animal brains.
2.3.2 Hegel’s Invention : The Top of the Summit of Logic
Hegel has made an invention in logic and has proven two things : the first thing is
this invention is true and the second thing is there is nothing else true but this
invention as well as there is no way to have anything else true, i. e. THIS
INVENTION IN LOGIC EXPLAINS EVERYTHING IN THE OBJECTIVE
REALITY which is only and always objective.
Hegel’s invention says :
Everywhere in physics, logic and anything else, there is nothing but :
1. Unity ( balance ) and fight between contradictive things
2. Quantitative accumulations lead to qualitative changes ( quantity leads to a
new quality ).
3. Negation of the negation : things negate each other, then other things negate
these things and this is how things get dynamically created
Explanation :

The Universe, even more global , the reality is created by nothing but
contradictory things and, in case of collaboration of SOME things, this
collaboration is contradictory to one thing or a collaboration of more than one
OTHER things. The best example is the Newton’s law of : every force gets
countered by another force of equal strength and opposite in direction force.
The two forces are in unity : they are present in the same place; they counter
each other with equal force and different directions. Neither of them wins.
Another best example is : Energy cannot be created nor stopped : energy only
changes shape and does not get created nor lost. There are many best examples
in quantum physics and in the theory of relativity : the electrons and the atoms
fight against each other : the electrons want to break free, the atoms want to
hold them and, as a consequence, the electrons get to stay OUTSIDE of the
atom and AT A GIVEN DISTANCE defined by the force exerted by the atom
which force can only keep the electrons at a distance which distance depends
on the strength of the atom’s keeping force : the weaker the force the higher
the distance.
I have been talking a lot on one important piece of this theorem : the balance
and the lack thereof. I will not write a lot here for now but I will only say the
contradictory forces may be in balance and they may stay in balance forever or
one of them can win JUST TO SEE ANOTHER CONTRADICTORY FORCE
AGAINST AFTER WINNING OVER TO THE PREVIOUS ONE. Thus the
theorem never stops, much like soccer : one team wins just to see the next team
and whoever wins the cup does so just to see the other team for the
qualifications for the next cup. SO, THERE ARE ALWAYS UNITY
( BALANCE ) AND FIGHT AMONGST CONTRADICTORIES AND THERE
IS NOTHING WHERE THERE AREN’T. The levels of indirection may
change but the theorem always works.
The most important Hegel’s law ( theorem ) is the quantity makes quality law :
the human brains are exactly the same as the animal brains JUST BIGGER, I.
E., WITH A HIGHER QUANTITY OF NEURONS which higher quantity of
neurons leads to a new quality of a brain capable of complicated logic. One gun
does not make an army and does not make a difference. Many guns do.
Thus, whoever sees different quality of an object, say, a car, this is NOT a
different quality BUT a different quantity which different quantity is above a
given threshold above which the quality can be counted as being different : a
four cylinder car is just the same as an eight cylinder car just the eight
cylinders has four more cylinders ( which may be of the same size ) and thus a
lot more power ( energy ) hence the eight cylinder car is a different quality
JUST BECAUSE of the different quantity : one can road race an eight cylinder
car and make this a road racer and cannot do so with a four cylinder car which
can only be a turn racer on a rally with many turns. Road racers and turn races
are different qualities. Why? Because of the different quantities of cylinders.

This law is also always present whenever there are different quantities : a
person who has $1 and another person who has $2 are equally poor because
the quantity of $1 difference does not jump over the threshold while a person
with $1 Billion is a different quality as compared to the other two.
Negation of negation is the law with the strangest name. Basically, this says the
countering things which, as mentioned, are in unity and fight, try to negate
each other : to win over each other. One soccer team tries to negate the win of
the other soccer team. To negate a win means to lose. So, one team tries to
make the other one lose. To make a team lose means to win over this team.
Thus, one team tries to win over the other team to make the other team lose.
The other do the same. The two teams negate each other. In non tournament
matches they may draw. In tournament matches, only one team will negate the
other and there is no way to draw. The electrons say : we want to break free, the
atom say : I want to keep you.
Here is an example where all three theorems ( laws ) are explained : The
electrons want to NEGATE what the atom says. The atom wants to NEGATE
what the electrons say. They exert countering forces to do so. These countering
forces define the distance at which the contradictions stay at UNITY
( BALANCE ) AND FIGHT ( the forces are present ). In case we introduce a
new electron in the atom, the QUANTITY of the electrons leads to an extra
force which either changes the distance from the atom or makes another
electron capable of breaking free. In any case this is a new QUALITY of atom
electrons system or a new QUALITY is made called electrical current. In case
we take an electron from the atom, the distance shortens and the other
electrons have lower chance of breaking free. This is also a new quality of atom
electrons system.
The theorem ( law ) of negation of the negation is a direct and important
consequence of the previous two theorems ( laws ) and can be proven by them.
However, the negation of the negation is a very direct and basic, as well as
close to the other two theorems ( laws ) and also very important consequence
which is worth putting as a separate basic theorem ( law). ANY OTHER
THEOREM ( LAW ) OF LOGIC AND ANY OTHER SCIENCE CAN BE
DERIVED FROM THESE THREE ( OR THE FIRST TWO BECAUSE THE
THIRD IS A DERIVATION OF THE FIRST TWO ) yet the derivation of all
other events is not as direct as the derivation of the third theorem ( law ) from
the first two. Hence, the third theorem ( law ) makes every other easier to
derive. However, there is another reason of the negation of negation theorem
( law ) to be put separately as a basic theorem ( law ). This theorem ( law ) as
well as the first two, is ALWAYS PRESENT EVERYWHERE AND WITH
EVERYTHING. Other theorems ( law ) derived from these three ( two ) may or
may not always be present in everything.

Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) are proven with simple logic ( analogue and digital ) and bring logic
to a different level of advanced logic. Everything higher and everything else is a derivation of
these three theorems ( laws ). Thus, these three theorems ( laws ) are the GENERALIZATION
basis of logic and any other science.
After this prerequisite, here is the conversation between Christian Georgievitch Rakovski
( marked with an R ) and Gavril Gavrilovitch Kuzmin ( marked with a G ) on January 26th
,
1938, known as “ The Red Symphony “ with comments. Pay attention to these things : I think
the only reason for this conversation is to be recorded and the recording to then be “ lost or
stolen “ by the Soviet dual intelligence thus “ delivered “ to the Government of Germany and
most importantly to Adolph Hitler to listen to. I think the message is very clear : Germany
must NOT attack The Soviet Union but must find someone else to blame and to use as an
explanation of any possible problems ( present, past and future ) problems as well as to use as
a “ gift “ to the Western world. Who is this “ someone else “? Find out yourselves. Am I right
or wrong? Also find out yourselves. Just to mention : THE INTERVIEW WAS RECORDED
AND WAS IN FRENCH WHILE ALL PARTIES SPOKE RUSSIAN PERFECTLY. Some say
the interview is in French, so the recording person ( a KGB officer, most likely ) does not
understand what is said. The why do they need a recording officer at all. Even then the
technology was intuitive and simple and everyone can make a recording on a reel to reel
magnetic tape recorder just by a press of a button. In case a vinyl was being cut ( unlikely )
everyone can cut a record also by pressing one button. Reel to reel tape recorders were used in
the 20’s and improved in the 30’s to record music quality which was improved in the 40’s to
reach the so called high quality of analogue audio music recording or high fidelity. The Soviet
Union was the leader or one of the leaders in tube technology since these were invented in
1890’s and 1900’s. For sure The Soviet Union had reel to reel tape recorders which can
perfectly record SPEECH. Also, why speak French? And why afraid from a KGB officer?
Who is this KGB officer from 1938 who would give information which Stalin and Stalin’s
closest people refer to as a “ state secret “? This may happen only with an approval by Stalin
and, in case Stalin wanted, Stalin was to get the information translated and then release to
whoever wants. Not very nice to switch to a foreign language which may bring inaccuracy and
miscommunication just because of a KGB officer, pretty useless in this case, who would never
dare say a word. Unless they wanted to have this officer as a “ witness “ of the conversation
and the “ witness “ of true recording and not tampering with the recording as well as editing
OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO “ SECRETLY “ DISTRIBUTE TO
WHOEVER STALIN SAYS TO.
Now, here comes the question : In case of such a top level Stalinist security, how can anyone
believe this audio interview was distributed without the order of Stalin : Answer 1. : NO ONE
EXCEPT KGB KNEW INFORMATION CANNOT LEAK FROM KGB. Rakovsky may or
may not have known because Rakovsky is a USSR ambassador to France which means
Rakovsky was a senior KGB officer yet at a slightly different level of indirection. Answer 2. :
KGB CAN MAKE ANY DISTRIBUTION LOOK LIKE AN INFORMATION LEAK. There
are many tricks for so. For example, KGB may attempt a delivery of the tapes to, say, The
USSR ambassador to The UK. Then, during the delivery, the airplane or the train crash land
in, say, Austria or German Switzerland. Then, with the highest probability, an Austrian
German or a Swiss German will either deliver to Germany OR SELL the audio tapes to

Germany, claiming high importance in the tapes after listening. In case Germany finds the
importance to have not been so high, the seller would say : “ I am a simple farmer. I took the
tapes from the plane or train crash and I listened with a cousin translating from French.
Then I decided they are extremely important for Germany AND I WANTED TO HELP. “ No
one would fight such an explanation nor ask for the money back or confiscate property
instead.
HERE IS “ THE RED SYMPHONY “ :
Gavriil G. Kus'min ( G. ) : In accordance with our agreement at the Lubianka, I had appealed for
a last chance for you; your presence in this house indicates that I had succeeded in this. Let us
see if you will not deceive us.
Christian G. Rakovsky ( R. ) : I do not wish and shall not do that.
Steven Stanley Bayes ( SSB : ) These opening comments sound like an arrangement not only
for an honest discussion but also and invitation of G. to R. to “ play “ along side The Soviet
Union and not against regardless of R.’s known disagreement with Stalin and agreement with
Trotsky who was a supporter of Lenin’s and an opponent to Stalin.
G. - But first of all: a well-meant warning. Now we are concerned with the real truth. Not the
"official" truth, that which is to figure at the trial in the light of the confessions of the accused ...
This is something which, as you know, is fully subject to practical considerations, or
"considerations of State" as they would say in the West. The demands of international politics
will force us to hide the whole truth, the "real truth" ... Whatever may be the course of the trial,
but governments and peoples will only be told that which they should know. But he who must
know everything, Stalin, must also know all this. Therefore, whatever may be your words here
they cannot make your position worse. You must know that they will not worsen your crime but,
on the contrary, they can give the desired results in your favour. You will be able to save your
life, which at this moment is already lost. So now I have told you this, but now let us see: you
will all admit that you are Hitler's spies and receive wages from the Gestapo and OKW.
SSB : OKW means Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, Supreme Command of the German
Army. More interesting is the moder style DISCLAIMER at the beginning. This way, K.
ensures the reader or the listener R. has been given an official disclaimer to say the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth and does not need help from God or Higher Force. This
is in case the listener believes. Or in case the listener believes the disclaimer will be a
disclaimer, mainly during Stalin’s rule.
Is that not so?
R. - Yes.
G. - And you are Hitler's spies?
R. - Yes.

G. - No, Rakovsky, no. Tell the real truth, but not the court proceedings one.
R. - We are not spies of Hitler, we hate Hitler as you can hate him, as Stalin can hate him;
perhaps even more so, but this is a very complex question.
SSB : R. probably makes a joke with the disclaimer taking more than full advantage thereof
and starts with a sense of humour and also provides a POSSIBILITY FOR G. TO SHOW
HOW INTELLIGENT G. IS. R. also gives the possibility for G. and R. TO SAY WHO THEY
REALLY ARE to make sure the listener knows two super high Russian politicians and
diplomats are talking and this is not a kitchen debate. The French language can also be
explained to an extend this way.
G. - I shall help you ... By chance I also know one or two things. You, the Trotzkyists, had
contacts with the German Staff. Is that not so ?
SSB : G. NAMES WHO R. IS PART OF. OBVIOUSLY G. IS KNOWN. THE PARTIES OF
THE CONVERSATION ARE NOW KNOWN.
R. - Yes.
G. - From which period?
R. - I do not know the exact date, but soon after the fall of Trotzky. Of course before Hitler's
coming to power.
SSB : R. NOW SAYS THEY, THE TROTZKISTS ARE THE CLOSEST FRIENDS TO
GERMANY OUTSIDE OF GERMANY, CERTAINLY THE CLOSEST FRIENDS OF
GERMANY IN THE SOVIET UNION.
G. - Therefore let us be exact: you were neither personal spies of Hitler, nor of his regime.
R. - Exactly. We were such already earlier.
SSB : I think at this point is very clear who the intended listener of this conversation is to be :
THE GERMAN ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE AND ANY OTHER MILITARY GROUP
COMMANDMENT mainly. These are very strong anti Nazis and very strong Hitler’s
opponents. Thus, the conversation parties rely strongly on German Army opposition against a
German invasion of The Soviet Union. This opposition erupted when the Eastern Front was
opened and led to an attempt of German officers and generals coupe against Hitler. Of
course, G. and R. did not know this was to happen BUT knew enough of the strong anti Nazi
attitude of the German Army, Navy, Air Force ( mainly ) and Military.
G. - And for what purpose? With the aim of giving Germany victory and some Russian
territories?

SSB : The explanation of the purpose is the most important point which would make some
listeners believe in the truthfulness and straightforwardness of the conversation. You must
not!
R. - No, in no case.
G. - Therefore as ordinary spies, for money?
R. - For money? Nobody received a single Mark from Germany. Hitler has not enough money to
buy, for example, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, who has at his disposal freely
a budget which is greater than the total wealth of Morgan and Vanderbilt, and who does not have
to account for his use of the money.
G. - Well, then for what reason?
R. - May I speak quite freely?
G. - Yes, I ask you to do so; for that reason you have been invited.
SSB : Another disclaimer aimed at the listener to believe in the truthfulness. Are you so stupid
to do so?
R. - Did not Lenin have higher aims when he received help from Germany in order to enter
Russia? And is it necessary to accept as true those libelous inventions which had been circulated
to accuse him? Was he not also called a spy of the Kaiser? His relations with the Emperor and
the German intervention in the affair of the sending to Russia of the Bolshevik destroyers are
quite clear.
G. - Whether it is true or not does not have any bearing on the present question.
R. - No, permit me to finish. Is it not a fact that the activity of Lenin was in the beginning
advantageous to the German troops? Permit me ... There was the separate peace of Brest-Litovsk,
at which huge territories of the USSR were ceded to Germany. Who had declared defeatism as a
weapon of the Bolsheviks in 1913? Lenin. I know by heart his words from his letter to Gorky:
"War between Austria and Russia would be a most useful thing for the revolution, but it is hardly
possible that Francis-Joseph and Nicholas would present us with this opportunity." As you see,
we, the so-called Trotzkyists, the inventors of the defeat in 1905, continue at the present stage
the same line, the line of Lenin.
SSB : Not only R. has rejected some of the illogical reasons BUT R. also gives a history lesson
to the listener of the alliance of the Communist Party during Lennin toeards Germany as well
as the alliance of the Trotzkists towards Germany. Thus, R. says to the German Military : “
look men, we are your friends : we give you territories and piece so you do not have to work
and you give us power inside The Soviet Union which you do not care of : the same as before
ion 1905 : check with your history in case you do not believe but I have just told you what
happened : I was there “

G. - With a small difference, Rakovsky; at present there is Socialism in the USSR, not the Tsar.
R. - You believe that?
G. - What?
R. - In the existence of Socialism in the USSR?
G. - Is the Soviet Union not Socialist?
R. - For me only in name. It is just here that we find the true reason for the opposition. Agree
with me, and by the force of pure logic you must agree, that theoretically, rationally, we have the
same right to say - no, as Stalin can say - yes. And if for the triumph of Communism defeatism
can be justified, then he who considers that Communism has been destroyed by the bonapartism
of Stalin and that he betrayed it, has the same right as Lenin to become a defeatist.
SSB : This is the first point in the conversation where R., proving sanity with two disclaimers,
openly attacks Stalin and tells the Germans : “ Guys, Stalin is the problem for all of us and for
others too. Help us get rid of Stalin and we will give you your lands, even more, some of our
lands and piece. We will also be on your side to return your lands in Western Europe which
you lost during the World War I. “ Well this is not exactly said but closely. ” We will give you
our lands “ is said and “ We will help you regain you other lands “ is a direct consequence of
land talking : just a cause effect chain.
G. - I think, Rakovsky, that you are theorizing thanks to your manner of making wide use of
dialectics. It is clear that if many people were present here, I would prove this; all right, I accept
your argument as the only one possible in your position, but nevertheless I think that I could
prove to you that this is nothing other than a sophism. But let us postpone this for another
occasion; some day it will come. And I hope that you will give me the chance to reply. But at the
present moment I shall only say this: if your defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has as its
object the restoration of Socialism in the USSR, real Socialism, according to you - Trotzkyism,
then, insofar as we have destroyed their leaders and cadres, defeatism and the defeat of the USSR
has neither an objective nor any sense. As a result of defeat now there would come the
enthronement of some Führer or fascist Tsar. Is that not so?
SSB : G. tries to show the listener G. plays soft against R. and to show to the listener R. says
the truth as R. is NOT in a danger by “ admitting “ what R. has “ admitted “ because, as G.
says, R. uses dialectics which is used by no others but Marx, Engels, Lenin and even Stalin
themselves. Hence, because of the use of dialectics, G. smoothens the situation of R. and
makes the naive listener believe R. says the truth because R. is not in danger and to prevent
future danger of execution as said at the beginning.
R. - It is true. Without flattery on my part - your deduction is splendid.

G. - Well, if, as I assume, you assert this sincerely, then we have achieved a great deal: I am a
Stalinist and you a Trotzkyist; we have achieved the impossible. We have reached the point at
which our views coincide. The coincidence lies in that at the present moment the USSR must not
be destroyed.
SSB : At this point G. and R. send this clear message to the listener : “ In case you or anyone
else attack The USSR, The USSR will not give land as the Trotzkyists would without an attack,
on the contrary, The USSR will fight back. Thus, instead of attacking the USSR, better work
with the Trotzkyists and we will give you lands for free. But this is the only way you will get
anything for free. Otherwise, we all will fight back regardless whether we as Trotzkists or
Stalinists. “
R. - I must confess that I had not expected to face such a clever person. In fact at the present
stage and for some years we cannot think of the defeat of the USSR and to provoke it, as it is
known that we are at present in such a position, that we cannot seize power. We, the
Communists, would derive no profit from it. This is exact and coincides with your view. We
cannot be interested now in the collapse of the Stalinist State; I say this and at the same time I
assert that this State, apart from all that has been said, is anti-Communistic. You see that I am
sincere.
SSB : R. says Stalin will NOT be overthrown NOW but may be in a long while or before.
Thus, the listener must not rely on the anti Stalinism and attack the Soviet Union which NOW
is united. Thus, the only way for Germany to get things for free, without a fight, from the
Soviet Union is TO DO NOTHING NOW and wait for a possible support of the Trotskyists IN
A WHILE AND NOT NOW. Attacking now is pro Stalin and against Germany. Settling down
in a while is pro Germany and pro Trotskyists and anti Stalin who has just been blamed in not
only not being a communist but also being an anti communist. In case the German military
believes this point, they will know Trotskyists really do need their support because the
Trotskyists were communists and Stalin was an anti Communist thus their enemy. Hence the
Trotskyists can only get rid of Stalin to reinstate communism in The USSR one way : with the
help of Germany. Germany will get their lands which is what they want and will get a more
friendly government towards them when Stalin is out. Stalin may be an anti communist but is
also, as they all know, an anti capitalist and an anti German. Also, R. wants the Germans to
believe, with Stalin anti Germany politics will continue in The USSR and this has not been
present during Lenin and will not be present during the Trotzkyists. R. relies the apolitical
German Military will not give a shit on the real communism which was to be established again
with a German help contrary to the US and British politicians but the German Military would
mainly care of “ land for free “ and no real war with the mighty USSR.
One thing for sure : those who prepared the conversation ( maybe R. and G., may be others )
for R. and G. to read in front of a microphone had been very clever. Obviously, they knew this
is a long shot and they did not rely only on the influence of this conversation into the German
military BUT THEY TRIED TO DO THE BEST THEY COULD with this long shot.
G. - I see that. This is the only way in which we can come to terms. I would ask you, before you
continue, to explain to me that which seems to me a contradiction: if the Soviet State is anti-

Communistic to you, then why should you not wish its destruction at the given moment?
Someone else might be less anti-Communistic and then there would be fewer obstacles to the
restoration of your pure Communism.
R. - No, no, this deduction is too simple. Although the Stalinist bonapartism also opposes
Communism as the napoleonic one opposed the revolution, but the circumstance is clear that,
nevertheless, the USSR continues to preserve its Communistic form and dogma; this is formal
and not real Communism. And thus, like the disappearance of Trotzky gave Stalin the possibility
automatically to transform real Communism into the formal one, so also the disappearance of
Stalin will allow us to transform his formal Communism into a real one. One hour would suffice
for us. Have you understood me?
SSB : G. and R. tell the German Military again : no one wants to destroy Stalin in order to
substitute Stalin with a real Capitalist against whom to fight thereafter. Stalin is the second
best for the Trotzkyists. Hence, Germany must NOT attack The USSR in order to help the
Trotzkyists because, on the opposite, they will destroy them entirely in favour of the Stalinists.
THE ONLY THING THE GERMAN MILITARY MUST DO FOR EVERYONE’S SAKE IS
TO DO NOTHING NOW, then, in the future, the Trotzkyists may ask for some kind of help in
exchange for land. The second important point G. and R. make : there is nothing else in the
Soviet Union but Trtzkists and Stalinists. You can only choose between these two. You cannot
put someone else ( a capitalist or a national socialist ) in power BECAUSE SUCH DOES
NOT EXIST AND WILL NOT as the Soviet people can only take one of the two. Any attempt
for full annihilation of the Soviet Union will result in a strong war of the Soviet Union against
Germany.
G. - Yes, of course; you have told us the classical truth that nobody destroys that which he wants
to inherit. Well, all right; all else is sophistical agility. You rely on the assumption which can be
easily disproved: the assumption of Stalin's anti-Communism. Is there private property in the
USSR? Is there personal profit? Classes? I shall not continue to base myself on facts - for what?
R. - I have already agreed that there exists formal Communism. All that you enumerate are
merely forms.
G. - Yes? For what purpose? From mere obstinacy?
R. - Of course not. This is a necessity. It is impossible to eliminate the materialistic evolution of
history. The most that can be done is to hold it up. And at what a price? At the cost of its
theoretical acceptance, in order to destroy it in practice. The force which draws humanity
towards Communism is so unconquerable that that same force, but distorted, opposed to itself,
can only achieve a slowing down of development; more accurately - to slow down the progress
of the permanent revolution.
G. - An example?
R. - The most obvious - with Hitler. He needed Socialism for victory over Socialism: it is this his
very anti-Socialist Socialism which is National-Socialism. Stalin needs Communism in order to

defeat Communism. The parallel is obvious. But, notwithstanding Hitler's anti-Socialism and
Stalin's anti-Communism, both, to their regret and against their will, transcendentally create
Socialism and Communism ...; they and many others. Whether they want it or not, whether they
know it or not, but they create formal Socialism and Communism, which we, the Communist-
Marxists, must inevitably inherit.
SSB : G. and R. know for someone to call Stalin an anti communist then will be unrealistic to
the German listener. They may suspect something or may think R. is crazy or wants to be a
hero. Thus R. explains clearly the point of calling Stalin an anti communist. Even more : R.
gives a GERMAN EXAMPLE which the German listener will surely be able to understand.
This example gets to bring the most “ trustworthiness “ to the German listener. Even more :
R. says indirectly the Trotzkyists are the National Socialists of The USSR ( in all points except
war and anti German views ) : they are the people whom Germany should trust. THEY ARE
ALSO THE PEOPLE WHOM HITLER SHOULD TRUST. This is a clever addition because
they know the listener may not be the German military or not the German military ONLY.
Hitler and the rest of the government may also listen.
So far the conversation is at a point : Blame Stalin for everything.
Thus : hate Stalin NOT the communists and The USSR. This trick was used by others,
starting with Nikita Khrushchev a few decades thereafter.
G. - Inheritance? Who inherits? Trotzkyism is completely liquidated.
R. - Although you say so, you do not believe it. However great may be the liquidations, we
Communists will survive them. The long arm of Stalin and his police cannot reach all
Communists.
SSB : Now, G. and R. make a clear message to the listener “ Trotskyism is still strong. Do
NOT think there is no more Trotskyism. No need to invade. Know there is and support
Trotskyism.
G. - Rakovsky, I ask you, and if necessary command, to refrain from offensive hints. Do not go
too far in taking advantage of your "diplomatic immunity."
SSB : G. points out R. is an ambassador of The USSR to France : a top ranking diplomat to a
capitalist country. This may appeal to a non communist listener.
R. - Do I have credentials? Whose ambassador am I?
G. - Precisely of that unreachable Trotzkyism, if we agree to call him so.
R. - I cannot be a diplomat of Trotzkyism, of which you hint. I have not been given that right to
represent it, and I have not taken this role on myself. You have given it to me.

G. - I begin to trust you. I take note in your favour that at my hint about this Trotzkyism you did
not deny it. This is already a good beginning.
R. - But how can I deny it? After all, I myself mentioned it.
G. - Insofar as we have recognized the existence of this special Trotskyism by our mutual
arrangement, I want you to give definite facts, which are necessary for the investigation of the
given coincidence.
R. - Yes, I shall be able to mention that which you consider necessary to know and I shall do it
on my own initiative, but I shall not be able to assert that this is always the thinking also of
"Them."
G. - Yes, I shall look on it like that.
SSB : R. clearly reinstates the point Trotskyism is strong and available. R. distinguishes from
being an official ambassador of Trotskyism. This is to say the organization is strong but still
needs help as the organization is not at the level to win themselves. Also, any mistake or
dislike of the listener towards R. is not to be against the Trotskyism. R. says to those who now
believe R. will be executed for what R. has said : “ I am not the main person and not even the
ambassador of the Trotskyism. Even in case of a problem, there are many to rely upon. I am
also not the only one and not the last and certainly not the leader. “ This is to make the
listener realize Trotskyism will continue to need German support regardless of the outcome of
the R. trial. Thus, Germany will be needed and will be able to get lands for free. As long as
Germany does not attack. Also, Germany must support Trotskyism in order to get their lands
and not R. personally. Thus, Germany must not attack just to keep R. from execution but,
instead, must do nothing and wait until the main Trotskyists contact them like in 1905. R. is
afraid Germany may get the message wrong and decide to attack in order to keep R. whom
they may mistakenly believe to be the main Trotskyist listening to this conversation.
R. - We agreed that at the present moment the opposition cannot be interested in defeatism and
the fall of Stalin, insofar as we do not have the physical possibility of taking his place. This is
what we both agree. At present this is an incontrovertible fact. However, there is in existence a
possible aggressor. There he is, that great nihilist Hitler, who is aiming with his terrible weapon
of the Wehrmacht at the whole horizon. Whether we want it or not, but he will use it against the
USSR? Let us agree that for us this is the decisive unknown fact or, do you consider that the
problem has been correctly stated?
SSB : R. decides to clearly combine the fact The USSR will strongly stand united to fight a
possible German invasion and will put the necessary resistance of which the German military
is so afraid in 1938. The division between Trotskyism and Stalinism will NOT exist in case of
a German invasion. Thus, the German military cannot rely on the “ divide and conquer “
principle. On the opposite : Germany and the rest of the world will lose the Trotskyists as their
only friends in The USSR. Things will become more difficult for Germany after and during an
invasion then they are now. R. also gives another prove why R. can speak so freely to dilute
any opinion the conversation may have been prearranged.

G. - It has been well put. But I can say that for me there is no unknown factor. I consider the
attack of Hitler on the USSR to be inevitable.
R. - Why?
SSB : G. and R. start the good cop bad cop routine : G. says Stalinists think Germany will
invade and consider Germany an enemy while R. says otherwise : Germany is a friend and
will not invade but rather help the Trotskyists thereafter in exchange of lands and help of
Trotskyists towards Germany regain lost World War I territories.
G. - Very simple; because he who controls it is inclined towards attack. Hitler is only the
condottiere of international Capitalism.
R. - I agree that there is a danger, but from that to the assumption on this ground of the
inevitability of his attack on the USSR - there is a whole abyss.
SSB : G. looks at Hitler not only as a National Socialist but as a capitalist. R. agrees. But R.
does not seem to state strong hate against the Capitalist countries which will mostly suite the
German military as well as the capitalist forces of Germany. R. also takes a position to show
capitalists have nothing to be afraid from the Trotskyists who are their friends and have to be
cherished instead of destroyed by a German invasion.
G. - The attack on the USSR is determined by the very essence of Fascism. In addition he is
impelled towards it by all those Capitalist States which had allowed him to re-arm and to take all
the necessary economic and strategic bases. This is quite obvious.
R. - You forget something very important. The re-armament of Hitler and the assistance he
received at the present time from the Versailles nations (take good note of this) - were received
by him during a special period, when we could still have become the heirs of Stalin in the case of
his defeat, when the opposition still existed ... Do you consider this fact to be a matter of chance
or only a coincidence in time?
SSB : R. says The West and Germany have supported the Trotskyists and because of so
allowed the re armament of Germany : against Stalin not against the real communists
( Trotskyists ). Thus R. says this support has to continue which means Germany must not
invade but do as the Trotskyists say in order for them and their Western allies to succeed in
their anti Stalin endeavors.
G. - I do not see any connection between the permission of the Versailles Powers of German re-
armament and the existence of the opposition ... The trajectory of Hitlerism is in itself clear and
logical. The attack on the USSR was part of his programme already a long time ago. The
destruction of Communism and expansion in the East - these are dogmas from the book "Mein
Kampf" that Talmud of National-Socialism ..., but that your defeatists wanted to take advantage
of this threat to the USSR that is, of course, in accordance with your train of thought.

R. - Yes, at a first glance this appears to be natural and logical, too logical and natural for the
truth.
G. - To prevent this happening, so that Hitler would not attack us, we would have to entrust
ourselves to an alliance with France ..., but that would be a naiveté. It would mean that we
believe that Capitalism would be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of saving Communism.
R. - If we shall continue the discussion only on the foundation of those conceptions which apply
for use at mass meetings, then you are quite right. But if you are sincere in saying this then,
forgive me, I am disappointed; I had thought that the politics of the famous Stalinist police stand
on a higher level.
SSB : G. defends popular Hitler propaganda from the period before the war and wants R. to
tell Hitler how to AVOID DOING what Hitler has said. In other words, how to avoid the war
with The USSR and get around the threads Hitler has made even before the election. Also,
how Hitler can explain the neutrality towards The Soviet Union to Hitler’s Western allies.
G. - The Hitler attack on the USSR is, in addition, a dialectical necessity; it is the same as the
inevitable struggle of the classes in the international plane. At the side of Hitler, inevitably, there
will stand the whole global Capitalism.
SSB : G. wants R. to explain why Germany not attacking The USSR does NOT contradict
Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) which may be popular in Germany or amongst some Nazi
ideologists. Hitler may try to explain the socialist part of the Nazi’s theory as “ initiated “ by
Hegel. Thus, not attacking Germany must NOT contradict Hegel.
R. - And so, believe me, that in the light of your scholastic dialectics, I have formed a very
negative opinion about the political culture of Stalinism. I listen to your words as Einstein could
listen to a schoolboy talking about physics in four dimensions. I see that you are only acquainted
with elementary Marxism, i.e. with the demagogic, popular one.
SSB : R. starts the explanation in blaming this consequence of Hegel’s theorems ( Germany
will attack The USSR because of union and fight of the opposites, quantitative accumulation
of weapons which leads to qualitative change of Germany annihilating The USSR and the
negation of the negation : National Socialism negates Communism ) to misinterpretation and
oversimplification of Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) the same way like children would use twisted
and untrue simple logic to play jokes or to fight with words one against another.
G. - If your explanation will not be too long and involved, I should be grateful to you for some
explanation of this "relativity" or "quantum" of Marxism.
SSB : The sarcasm of G. surely grabs the attention of the listener.
R. - Here there is no irony; I am speaking with the best intentions ... In this same elementary
Marxism, which is taught even in your Stalinist University, you can find the statement which
contradicts the whole of your thesis about the inevitability of the Hitler attack on the USSR. You

are also taught that the cornerstone of Marxism is the assertion that, supposedly, contradictions
are the incurable and fatal illness of Capitalism ... Is that not so?
G. - Yes, of course.
R. - But if things are in fact such that we accuse Capitalism of being imbued with continuous
Capitalistic contradictions in the sphere of economics, then why should it necessarily suffer from
them also in politics? The political and economic is of no importance in itself; this is a condition
or measurement of the social essence, but contradictions arise in the social sphere, and are
reflected simultaneously in the economic or political ones, or in both at the same time. It would
be absurd to assume fallibility in economics and simultaneously infallibility in politics - which is
something essential in order that an attack on the USSR should become inevitable - according to
your postulate - absolutely essential.
SSB : R. is not very clear here and this is one of the most important points of the conversation.
I think, what R. tries to say is to give a well known example in the West which is the politics
and the economy are two different thing yet connected and changes in one lead to the changes
in the other in the same direction. Most likely, R. tries to direct the decision of Germany to
attack The USSR to be a political one and not the economic one. Then R. makes a strong
point : Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) are applicable ONLY when logic is used. Politics and
economy, says R., are part of the society and society means group of people. PEOPLE AND
THEREFORE SOCIETY DO NOT USE LOGIC AND ARE NOT ALWAYS CAPABLE OF
THINKING MAINLY BUT NOT ONLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO THINK.
THUS HEGEL’S THEOREMS ( LAWS ) DO NOT APPLY TO SOCIETY AND PEOPLE
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALWAYS USE LOGIC AND SOME OF THEM CANNOT. This
is why people are totally wrong to think “ Common Sense “ is a sense. NO. This is elementary
logic. Not every human is capable of this. AND NOT ALWAYS. People also do make a lot of
mistakes with elementary logic. Everywhere where there is thinking, there are mistakes. Also,
different people apply elementary logic for different things and only for some and not many
things. Not being able to think elementarily logically does not mean the human is an animal.
Humans are humans because they are able to think at a LOWER level than elementary logic
and whoever cannot think elementary logic at all is also human. This person can see, hear
and smell can process the information gleaned by these. This is good enough to be a human.
The next level is elementary logic, then, elementary logic everywhere, then complicated logic
as well as elementary : complicated when needed by assessment of objects, then complicated
and elementary for everything except for those things which do not require complicated logic.
MOST HUMANS ARE AT THE PROCESSING LEVEL WHICH IS BELOW THE
ELEMENTARY LOGIC THINKING LEVEL.
Thus : politics, more than economics, and economics do NOT conform to logic because these
are made by people and therefore Hegel’s theorems do NOT apply to their thinking as this is
mostly or fully illogical. Hence, there is no logical point whatsoever to claim Germany will
attack The USSR. This truthful explanation may suite Hitler well in explaining the decision of
non attacking : German people are not ready for this NOW and after this will be replaced with
support to the Trotskyists against Stalin and Stalinists.

G. - This means that you rely in everything on the contradictions, fatality and inevitability of the
errors which must be committed by the bourgeoisie, which will hinder Hitler from attacking the
USSR. I am a Marxist, Rakovsky, but here, between ourselves, in order not to provide the pretext
for anger to a single activist, I say to you that with all my faith in Marx I would not believe that
the USSR exists thanks to the mistakes of its enemies ... And I think that Stalin shares the same
view.
SSB : G. tries to smoothen the things for R. up and says whatever said is pro Soviet Union and
Marxism and against the Capitalist mistakes which are permanent and always existing as
Capitalism does not have a structure of thinking but is rather chaotic and based on peoples
stupidity and lack of information.
One of the most important roles of G. has been to smoothen the things up so the conversation
looks truthful and R. has got nothing to be afraid of the coming trial as far as this discussion
is concerned. This is what G. wants to show to the listener. R. wants to be direct and well
understood, G. smoothens things up to avoid suspicion because most of the people who listen
may think “ No one talks like this in The USSR. Must be a disinformation of a sort.”.
G. also asserts Stalin is a politician who, whether the only one or one of a few, does use logic.
R. - But I do think so ... Do not look at me like that, as I am not joking and am not mad.
SSB : R. continues regardless of what Stalin may or may not think.
G. - Permit me at least to doubt it, until you will have proved your assertions.
R. - Do you now see that I had reasons for qualifying your Marxist culture as being doubtful?
Your arguments and reactions are the same as any rank and file activist.
SSB : R. previously insulted G. with thinking like a cop because most people say cops cannot
think. R. previously insulted G. with saying G. thinks like a child. Now R. insults G. with
saying G. thinks like a bureaucrat.
R. wants to show the listener the difference between the real communist whom the listener
should support and the Stalin type of activists.
G. - And they are wrong?
R. - Yes, they are correct for a small administrator, for a bureaucrat and for the mass. They suit
the average fighter ... They must believe this and repeat everything as it has been written. Listen
to me by way of the completely confidential. With Marxism you get the same results as with the
ancient esoteric religions. Their adherents had to know only that which was the most elementary
and crude, insofar as by this one provoked their faith, i.e. that which is absolutely essential, both
in religion and in the work of revolution.

SSB : G. claims all problems the Western world has with The USSR come from application of
communism partly and not in full : only the simple things and not all things. R. also blames
G. in incorrect thinking because of the same reason.
G. - Do you not now want to open up to me the mystical Marxism, something like yet another
freemasonry?
SSB : G. wants to ensure R. and the Trotskyists do NOT take Marxism as a secret society for
control over people.
R. - No, no esoteric. On the contrary, I shall explain it with the maximal clarity. Marxism, before
being a philosophical, economic and political system, is a conspiracy for the revolution. And as
for us the revolution is the only absolute reality, it follows that philosophy, economics and
politics are true only insofar as they lead to revolution. The fundamental truth (let us call it
subjective) does not exist in economics, politics or even morals: in the light of scientific
abstraction it is either truth or error, but for us, who are subject to revolutionary dialectic, it is
only truth. And insofar as to us, who are subject to revolutionary dialectic, it is only truth, and
therefore the sole truth, then it must be such for all that is revolutionary, and such it was to Marx.
SSB : R. tries to insert the thought “ only material things are important and proven “. What
society things, even the political, economic and social structures are invented by people
( Capitalism being the most unreal and invented by people society, either many or most likely
just a few with not very well known names ). Politics is not a strict material think but is a
reflection of people. Revolution is material because many people do material things
( fighting ) because they are right. They act and do not only sit and talk bullshits.
In accordance with this we must act. Remember the phrase of Lenin, in reply to someone who
demonstrated by way of argument that, supposedly, his intention contradicted reality: "I feel it to
be real" was his answer. Do you not think that Lenin spoke nonsense? No, for him every reality;
every truth was relative in the face of the sole and absolute one: the revolution. Marx was a
genius. If his works had amounted to only the deep criticism of Capitalism, then even that would
have been an unsurpassed scientific work; but in those places where his writing reaches the level
of mastery, there comes the effect of an apparently ironical work. "Communism" he says "must
win because Capital will give it that victory, though its enemy." Such is the magisterial thesis of
Marx ...
SSB : R. claims Lenin said politics is not objective and only revolution is in a strange way.
Marx claimed The Soviet Union as well as Germany must NOT attack anyone in order to
impose their anti capitalist views but must rather patiently wait for the Capitalism to surrender
because of inability of existence. Pretty much what happens in the modern world. Also, R.
asserts Marx is a genius which is true even according to most Capitalist ideologists.
Can there be a greater irony? And then, in order that he should be believed, it was enough for
him to depersonalize Capitalism and Communism, having transformed the human individual into
a consciously thinking individual, which he did with the extraordinary talent of a juggler. Such
was his sly method, in order to demonstrate to the Capitalists that they are a reality of Capitalism

and that Communism can triumph as the result of inborn idiocy; since without the presence of
immortal idiocy in homo economico there could not appear in him continuous contradictions as
proclaimed by Marx.
SSB : Again, R. clearly explains to the listener there is no need to do nothing against the
capitalism as the capitalism will self destroy based on the contradictions therein which are not
balanced to create but rather balanced to destroy ( or better said imbalanced ). R. also tries to
explain Hitler why Hitler has to continue with the development of Germany and avoid
attacking either the capitalist countries physically or The Soviet Union. Better is Hitler to
concentrate on the internal revolution Hitler claims to be doing or have done and now
develops the post revolutionary society. However, R. does not want to touch one topic directly.
Hitler has created a superior weaponry. Can this be developed even more to be significantly
better than this of the rest or there will be saturation in development of weaponry which
means all countries would have pretty much the same weapons with no significant difference
amongst. Looks like Hitler believed there is no room for more significant development and
now is the moment when Germany is superior and may not be for ever. G. and R. should have
clearly said whatever the difference in weaponry superiority the vast territory and human
strength of The USSR compensate for.
To be able to achieve the transformation of homo sapiens into homo stultum is to possess
magical force, capable of bringing man down to the first stage of the zoological ladder, i.e. to the
level of the animal. Only if there is homo stultum in the epoch of the apogee of Capitalism could
Marx formulate his axiomatic proposition: contradictions plus time equal Communism. Believe
me, when we who are initiated into this, contemplate the representation of Marx, for example the
one which is placed above the main entrance to the Lubianka, then we cannot prevent the inner
explosion of laughter by which Marx had infected us; we see how he laughs into his beard at all
humanity.
SSB : Now as before R. defends the revolution as the means. Thus R. says although true
Capitalism will self destroy and Marx did say so, the revolution is the most important catalyst
for bringing the capitalism down and not the war. Thus Hitler had better concentrate on the
internal revolution in order to destroy capitalism in Germany in favour to whatever Hitler
calls National Socialism instead of attacking Western countries. “ Capitalism will self destroy.
Fair enough. Help this destruction by revolution, don’t sit and wait. “
G. - And you are still capable of laughing at the most revered scientist of the epoch?
R. - Ridicule, me? ... This is the highest admiration! In order that Marx should be able to deceive
so many people of science, it was essential that he should tower above them all. Well: in order to
have judgments about Marx in all his greatness, we must consider the real Marx, Marx the
revolutionary, Marx, judged by his manifesto. This means Marx the conspirator, as during his
life the revolution was in a condition of conspiracy. It is not for nothing that the revolution is
indebted for its development and its recent victories to these conspirators.

SSB : R. says the most important of Marx is the manifesto ( the theory of revolution and the
practical act by Marx in this cause) rather than the rest of the political, economic and social
systems.
G. - Therefore you deny the existence of the dialectical process of contradictions in Capitalism,
which lead to the final triumph of Communism?
R. - You can be sure that if Marx believed that Communism will achieve victory only thanks to
the contradictions in Capitalism, then he would not have once, never, mentioned the
contradictions on the thousands of pages of his scientific revolutionary work. Such was the
categorical imperative of the realistic nature of Marx: not the scientific, but the revolutionary
one. The revolutionary and conspirator will never disclose to his opponent the secret of his
triumph ... He would never give the information; he would give him disinformation which you
use in counter-conspiracy. Is that not so?
G. - However, in the end we have reached the conclusion (according to you) that there are no
contradictions in Capitalism, and if Marx speaks of them then it is only a revolutionary-strategic
method. That is so? But the colossal and ever-growing contradictions in Capitalism are there to
see. And so we get the conclusion that Marx, having lied, spoke the truth.
R. - You are dangerous as a dialectician, when you destroy the brakes of scholastic dogmatism
and give free rein to your own inventiveness. So it is, that Marx spoke the truth when he lied. He
lied when he led into error, having defined the contradictions as being "continuous" in the history
of the economics of capital and called them "natural and inevitable," but at the same time he
stated the truth because he knew that the contradictions would be created and would grow in an
increasing progression until they reach their apogee.
G. - This means that with you there is an antithesis?
R. - There is no antithesis here. Marx deceives for tactical reasons about the origin of the
contradictions in Capitalism, but not about their obvious reality. Marx knew how they were
created, how they became more acute and how things went towards general anarchy in
Capitalistic production, which came before the triumph of the Communist revolution ... He knew
it would happen because he knew those who created the contradictions.
SSB : R. now claims there are contradictions in capitalism and they lead to complication of
capitalism but they only lead to revolution as a means of self destruction and not clearly of
self destruction alone. Then R. tries to shift the discussion not on the contradictions of
capitalism of such but on the creation thereof. R. claims the origin of these contradiction was
known to Marx but Marx did not say so not to allow the capitalists to rectify these
contradictions to an extend and thus delay the revolution and the self destruction of
capitalism.
I, personally, think the answer of the origin is very clear and self explanatory. These
contradiction originated with the design of the capitalism and the reason from their origin is
only the flowed design of capitalism. These contradictions ARE SYSTEMATIC : THEY

CANNOT BE AVOIDED : THEY COME FROM THE SYSTEM AND STAY WITH THE
SYSTEM. The system cannot work without these contradiction and these contradiction cannot
work very well without the system or with another system. And as said before, capitalism is not
a natural society but is an engineered one with chief design engineers : the French
revolutionaries and chief test engineers : the British capitalists and capitalist ideologists then
transferred in The U. S. A. where capitalism remained close to the originally designed most
cruel shape.
R. however wants to point out the disinformation practice is used only and mainly by the
Stalinists in KGB and not by R. thus the listener can trust R.
G. - It is a very strange revelation and piece of news, this assertion and exposal of the
circumstance that that which leads Capitalism to its "suicide," by the well-chosen expression of
the bourgeois economist Schmalenbach, in support of Marx, is not the essence and inborn law of
Capitalism. But I am interested to know if we will reach the personal by this path?
R. - Have you not felt this intuitively? Have you not noticed how in Marx words contradict
deeds? He declares the necessity and inevitability of Capitalist contradictions, proving the
existence of surplus value and accumulation, i.e. he proves that which really exists. He nimbly
invents the proposition that to a greater concentration of the means of production corresponds a
greater mass of the proletariat, a greater force for the building of Communism, is that not so?
Now go on: at the same time as this assertion he founds the International. Yet the International
is, in the work of the daily struggle of the classes, a "reformist," i.e. an organization whose
purpose is the limitation of the surplus value and, where possible, its elimination. For this reason,
objectively, the International is a counter-revolutionary organization and anti-Communist, in
accordance with Marx's theory.
G. - Now we get that Marx is a counter-revolutionary and an anti-Communist.
R. - Well, now you see how one can make use of the original Marxist culture. It is only possible
to describe the International as being counter-revolutionary and anti-Communist, with logical
and scientific exactness, if one does not see in the facts anything more than the directly visible
result, and in the texts only the letter. One comes to such absurd conclusions, while they seem to
be obvious, when one forgets that words and facts in Marxism are subject to strict rules of the
higher science: the rules of conspiracy and revolution.
SSB : R. tries to explain how things which are logical but observed only shallowly and partly
can look by this improper observation as totally different. The International may have started
as a reformist ( socialist rather than communist ) organization dealing mainly with the unfair
profit of the capitalists but this was the beginning when people do not understand very well as
well as do not have a great concentration span and thus can only concentrate on one very
important thing which is the profit : this is the most important problem of the capitalist society
ever since engineered until now. High profit used to lead to huge exploitation and now leads
to this as well as high process which lead to low consumption which leads to a lower
production and lower circulation caused by the inability to purchase.

And again R. tries to tell Hitler revolution and conspiracy to commit or carry out such are the
most important.
G. - Will we ever reach the final conclusions?
R. - In a moment. If the class struggle, in the economic sphere, turns out to be reformist in the
light of its first results, and for that reason contradicts the theoretical presuppositions, which
determine the establishment of Communism, then it is, in its real and true meaning, purely
revolutionary. But I repeat again: it is subject to the rules of conspiracy, that means to masking
and the hiding of its true aims ... The limitation of the surplus value and thus also of
accumulations as the consequence of the class struggle - that is only a matter of appearances, an
illusion, in order to stimulate the basic revolutionary movement in the masses. A strike is already
an attempt at revolutionary mobilization. Independently of whether it wins or not, its economic
effect is anarchical. As a result this method for the improvement of the economic position of one
class brings about the impoverishment of the economy in general; whatever may be the scale and
results of the strike, it will always bring about a reduction of production. The general result:
more poverty, which the working class cannot shake off. That is already something. But that is
not the only result and not the most important one. As we know, the only aim of any struggle in
the economic sphere is to earn more and work less. Such is the economic absurdity, but
according to our terminology, such is the contradiction, which has not been noticed by the
masses, which are blinded at any given moment by a rise in wages, which is at once annulled by
a rise in prices. And if prices are limited by governmental action, then the same thing happens,
i.e. a contradiction between the wish to spend more, produce less, is qualified here by monetary
inflation. And so one gets a vicious circle: a strike, hunger, inflation, hunger.
SSB : R. tries to make the listener concentrate on the class struggle in capitalism and
continues to insist on revolution and conspiracy as being the most important points of
overthrowing capitalism. R. has never denied any point of communist theory, just
concentrates of what R. thinks are the most important things. R. points out again the surpluss
value ( the added value, the profit ) is not as important and is mainly a reformist’s point and
not a revolutionary’s point. Marx, however, thinks the most important point in the theory of
capitalism is the ADDED VALUE called the surplus value which is very close to what is
known as profit. Marx defines this by using the most important equation in capitalism : M’ =
M + deltaM, where M is money, deltaM is the added value ( surplus value ) M’ is money :
Money equals Money and Profit. This is easily explained as this : a capitalist has money, then
the capitalist does something with the money ( manufactures goods and sells them ), from this
something, the capitalist makes profit ( surplus value, added value ), this profit is added to the
recovered initial money ( initial capital before the reaction ) and thus the capitalist has money
prime ( M’ ) which is the initial capital and profit. ( Please, note, profit and added ( surplus )
value are slightly different in meaning but the approximation of being the same is good
enough for this explanation. ) Why does Marx thing this is the most important point of the
theory? Because Marx asks the question where the added ( surplus ) value ( profit ) comes
from. How can a capitalist with this much money do something and get more? Where does the
energy of the process come from? Energy can neither be made nor lost, just changes shape.
The answer which Marx provides is : FROM EXPLOITATION OF A HUMAN BY
ANOTHER HUMAN. Once this found, obviously, this means people in capitalism are

exploited. Who wants to be exploited? No one. Thus the necessity of overthrowing the
capitalism. There are two types of exploitation : direct and indirect. Also, there is a
combination between. Direct exploitation is when the capitalist does not pay the full amount
of working energy to the workers : pays them less and thus makes the profit from “ saving
money “ from paying less for the labor. Indirect exploitation is when the capitalist pays the
full amount of the working energy and puts a higher price of the product. THE PERSON
WHO PURCHASES THE PRODUCT IS THE EXPLOITED ONE BECAUSE THIS
PERSON GIVES A PROFIT TO THE SELLER WHICH PROFIT COMES FROM THE
MONEY WHICH THE PURCHASER HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE PURCHASER’S
WORKING ENERGY AFTER WORKING FOR ANOTHER COMPANY. Thus, when people
pay higher price for a given product ( the price of the product and the profit ) they are
exploited because they give their own money for the capitalist to make a profit and their
money have been paid to them for their labour by the place they work in. Thus, they give their
labour for the seller to make a profit. The labour they give to the seller has NOT been paid by
the seller. The labour they give to someone else was paid by another person in order for this
other person to purchase the working energy of the purchaser. Thus the seller steals working
energy from the purchaser hence the indirect exploitation. R. does not oppose to this most
important point in the theory of capitalism, R. just says this necessity of overthrowing
capitalism is not as important as the way of overthrowing capitalism. In other words the
question WHY is not as important as HOW. R. as well as Lenin consider this, as per them,
most important point of HOW to be through revolution and conspiracy. The question of
importance is the biggest difference between Marx and Engels on one side and Lenin on the
other. The Trotskyists, such as R., have been the closest to Lenin. However, Lenin personally
chose Stalin as a successor because Trotsky was more like a theoretician who was very close
to Lenin, closer than anyone while Stalin, most likely, has ever barely understood the theory,
unknown is whether Stalin has ever been able to read and write very well, yet Stalin was the
person who, whether knowingly or not, will somehow remain close to Lenin as far as the
theory goes, mainly because Stalin does not know what theory is and whatever Stalin has been
told by Lenin, Stalin listened as much as possible and did not care at all to understand. What
Stalin knows, however, is HOW to maintain and, when needed, continue the revolution as well
as how to protect the revolution from a counter revolutionary forces whether misled or not
very clear what they do. Trotsky is a person who is NOT misled but does not know very well
what to do as far as the protection of the revolution is concerned or, not as good as Stalin.
Thus, R. is not against this approach, R. thinks Stalin does not know very well how and
blames Stalin in Bonapartism which is also known as the cult to personality.
Also, in order for Lenin to introduce a soft transition from feudalism ( this had been the
system in Russia before the revolution ) to socialism, Lenin made capitalism in The USSR. In
other words, while Lenin was in charge of THE SOVIET UNION, THE SOVIET UNION
WAS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY. Lenin said this was to be a TEMPORARY
TRANSITIONAL MEASURE. While choosing a successor, Lenin realized the successor had
to be a person who had to stop the temporary transitional capitalism, i. e. to do a micro
revolution within the revolution. Obviously, this person was the strong fighter Stalin and not
the soft theoretician Trotsky.

What R. tries to do is to tell Hitler : do NOT attack The USSR. Concentrate on your
revolution. In case you do NOT, you will face counter revolution conspiracy regardless
whether you have classes or not.
Also, R. maintains allegiance to communism and has never contradicted the communist
theory. This is also because G., looks like, has written a thesis in which G. has predicted a
possible German invasion. Thus, R. wants to say to the whole world there are other
communists who do not think so. Thus, Hitler is not supposed to attack The USSR just
because someone, G., has predicted this and thus G. has created a possibility for The USSR to
attack Germany first in a Sicilian Defense fashion where the attack is the best defense. Before
and during the attack on Poland, Hitler is sure Stalin will retaliate and the question is not if
but when. Thus, Hitler cheated Stalin by signing a contract with Stalin for no attack on any of
the two sides. This contract is known as Ribbentrop Molotov Contract ( not cocktail ), signed
by the two ministers of foreign affairs. A whole week after the attack on The USSR, Stalin has
been given full and complete information on the invasion and DID NOT BELIEVE there has
been an attack. Stalin may have thought the attack had been a military move by Hitler in
order to surround Poland or another European country. Stalin got to believe when the
German army got to approach Moscow. Stalin did what R. tried to convince the listener
( Hitler and or the Military ) NOT to attack because the politics says so and the politics got
nothing to do with logic. Instead, politics may use some logic at a different level, for example :
in case of a German attack, The USSR will strongly retaliate united and there will not be any
difference of opinions between the Trotskyists and the Stalinists, so Hitler best not to invade
regardless of how advanced weaponry Hitler possesses. The German Military was the
organization which agreed strongly with R. They realized Hitler may lose the oil of the Arabs (
Hitler may lose The Suez Canal, the battle for Africa ) in case Hitler attacks The USSR. Thus,
instead of having two sources of oil, Hitler may as well get nothing. Hitler, however, was also
afraid from a Soviet attack and wanted to be first. Hitler also wanted the oil and metals of
Siberia.
G. - With the exception when the strike takes place at the expense of the surplus value of
Capitalism.
SSB : G. insists on the importance of the added ( surplus ) value ( profit ) which leads to
strikes.
R. - Theory, pure theory. Speaking between ourselves, take any annual handbook concerning the
economics of any country and divide rents and the total income by all those receiving wages or
salaries, and you will see what an extraordinary result emerges. This result is the most counter-
revolutionary fact, and we must keep it a complete secret. This is because if you deduct from the
theoretical dividend the salaries and expenses of the directors, which would be the consequence
on the abolition of ownership, then almost always there remains a dividend which is a debit for
the proletariat. In reality always a debit, if we also consider the reduction in the volume and
quality of production. As you will now see, a call to strike, as a means for achieving a quick
improvement of the well-being of the proletariat is only an excuse; an excuse required in order to
force it to commit sabotage of Capitalistic production. Thus to the contradictions in the
bourgeois system are added contradictions within the proletariat; this is the double weapon of the

revolution, and it - which is obvious - does not arise of itself: there exists an organization, chiefs,
discipline, and above that there exists stupidity. Don't you suspect that the much-mentioned
contradictions of Capitalism, and in particular the financial ones, are also organized by someone?
... By way of basis for these deductions I shall remind you that in its economic struggle the
proletarian International coincides with the financial International, since both produce inflation,
and wherever there is coincidence there, one should assume, is also agreement. Those are his
own words.
SSB : R. says as mentioned and also says strikes are NOT revolution and do NOT necessarily
lead to one. They may help BUT this help may be insignificant. Revolution means
organization and not ONLY strikes. However, R. says capitalism introduces contradictions in
the working class too. Thus, the organization of the revolution is very difficult. This was also
said by Marx, Engels and Lenin. This way, using this point in the communist theory, R. tells
Hitler to take care of the organization of the German “ National Socialist Revolution “ as
Hitler called what Hitler did in Germany. Most importantly, R. also tells Hitler : the working
class and thus The Soviet Union politicians, also suffer from contradictions and there are
many types of communists not only one. Thus, Hitler must not attack The USSR because the
government there may change to a more Germany friendly government such as the
Trotskyists. R. also says capitalism is an engineered society. I also said the same. R., however,
does not yet say who engineered this society. I clearly said this and will repeat : The French
Revolutionaries with the help of the British private property owners ( nobility ).
G. - I suspect here such an enormous absurdity, or the intention of spinning a new paradox, that I
do not want to imagine this. It looks as if you want to hint at the existence of something like a
Capitalistic second Communist International, of course an enemy one.
R. - Exactly so. When I spoke of the financial International, I thought of it as of a Comintern, but
having admitted the existence of the "Comintern," I would not say that they are enemies.
SSB : R. states the division in the working classes more strongly although they are not
enemies. The Financial Communist International ( ComIntern ) is a reflection of the starting
( in the period ) Financial Capitalism. The labour ComIntern is the reflection of the Industrial
capitalism. Financial capitalism was just getting started in the period. The financial
capitalism overcame all other types of capitalism and became the leading and, NOW, the only
capitalism in 1980’s.
Financial capitalism is a very dangerous type of capitalism which entirely destroys the
industry and economy and then self destroys. This comes again from a very simple theorem
( law ) : one cannot get energy from nothing and cannot create energy. Energy just changes
form. Thus, financial capitalists cannot make money out of nothing. There must be
production of goods ( industry ) in order for them to do so. Money is not real but rather
fictional. Even when money is pure gold, this gold is worth MAINLY when there is something
to purchase against. True, gold is also used for other things BUT the main value of money
comes not from the limited usage of gold but from THE OTHER GOODS which can be
exchanged against gold. Hence the expression : ONE CANNOT EAT GOLD!

G. - If you want to make us lose time on inventions and phantasies, I must tell you that you have
chosen the wrong moment.
R. - By the way, are you assuming that I am like the courtesan from the "Arabian Nights," who
used her imagination at night to save her life ... No, if you think that I am departing from the
theme, then you are wrong. In order to reach that which we have taken as our aim I, if I am not to
fail, must first of all enlighten you about the most important matters, while bearing in mind your
general lack of acquaintance with that which I would call the "Higher Marxism." I dare not evade
these explanations as I know well that such lack of knowledge exists in the Kremlin ... Permit me
to continue.
G. - You may continue. But it is true that if all this were to be seen to be only a loss of time to
excite the imagination, then this amusement will have a very sad epilogue. I have warned you.
SSB : G. blames R. in fantasizing and subjective idealism to which blames R. strongly opposes
and blames G. back in oversimplification. Subjective idealism is to think what you think is
true and can make a difference and not ONLY what is objective is true ( obviously, when one
thinks objectively and in full, the thoughts will be true BUT the thoughts are true because they
are objective and the objective reality is true AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND : the
objective reality does not change and does not become true just because someone thinks so ),
in other words, hardware works one way only and software uses this way. Software cannot
change hardware in a defined suystem. Oversimplification is making mistakes by not
observing and evaluation the whole truth but only part of the truth. Thus, R. blames G. for
oversimplifying Marxism ( not using ALL or even most of the Marxism ) when G. applies
Marxism to predict and prove the inevitability of a German attack thus making Hitler use G.’s
thesis as a propaganda or as an idea for the attack.
R. - I continue as if I have heard nothing. Insofar as you are a scholastic with relation to Capital,
and I want to awaken your inductive talents, I shall remind you of some very curious things.
Notice with what penetration Marx comes to conclusions given the then existence of early
British industry, concerning its consequences, i.e. the contemporary colossal industry: how he
analyses it and criticizes; what a repulsive picture he gives of the manufacturer. In your
imagination and that of the masses there arises the terrible picture of Capitalism in its human
concretization: a fat-bellied manufacturer with a cigar in his mouth, as described by Marx, with
self-satisfaction and anger throwing the wife and daughter of the worker onto the street. Is that
not so?
At the same time remember the moderation of Marx and his bourgeois orthodoxy when studying
the question of money. In the problem of money there do not appear with him his famous
contradictions. Finances do not exist for him as a thing of importance in itself; trade and the
circulation of moneys are the results of the cursed system of Capitalistic production, which
subjects them to itself and fully determines them. In the question of money Marx is a
reactionary; to one's immense surprise he was one; bear in mind the "five-pointed star" like the
Soviet one, which shines all over Europe, the star composed of the five Rothschild brothers with
their banks, who possess colossal accumulations of wealth, the greatest ever known ... And so

this fact, so colossal that it misled the imagination of the people of that epoch, passes unnoticed
with Marx. Something strange ... Is that not so?
SSB : G. says the same as I have said : financial capitalism is NOT important and cannot
exist. Financial capitalism is only an addition which facilitates the industrial capitalism and
cannot exist separately nor can financial capitalism play an important role. AT THE
BEGINNING OF CAPITALISM, yes : financial capitalism was important BECAUSE OF
THE NEED OF A STARTING CAPITAL ( INITIAL CAPITAL ) FOR THE CAPITALISM
TO GET ROLLING. With the development of capitalism, the initial capital became largely
available from the same place where to be applied : say, a given factory which used to make
whatever and now wants to start to make whatever : they have their initial capital from the
first whatever. Then R. says Marx did concentrate a lot on the industrial capitalism BUT
ALMOST NOT AT ALL ON MONEY AND THE FINANCIAL CAPITALISM. This is what
Marx has been blamed the most : Marx should have concentrated on money and finances as
well. Most likely, Marx used a clever trick : Marx did not talk money because Marx was a Jew
in genetic origin thus, in case Marx was to talk money, many people would have found out
the, what they call “ application of Jews “ in money and would have blamed Marx in what
they call “ being Jewish “, i. e. thinking and talking only money and WRITING AND LYING
FOR MONEY. In order for Marx to protect the theory of Communism and Capitalism and
avoid disrespect and repulsion of non Jewish people, Marx was very careful to mention money
and finances throughout Marx’ theories. The same applies for Engels. Lenin was not Jewish
but was somewhat reluctant on talking money because Lenin wanted to have a moneyless
society. Money was a capitalist MEANS ( only means and nothing else ) and, since this was to
be destroyed and since this is just a weapon of the destroyed capitalism, money was not worth
talking. Lenin was to switch to moneyless society after Lenin’s temporary and transitional
capitalism. I guess, Stalin was supposed to do so but did not because of other events in the
period, for example the war. The rest of the socialist leaders kind of forgot and disregarded
this or thought as presently impossible and to be carried out in the future when possible. And
this is one of the main BUT NOT THE ONLY MAIN ONE difference between Socialism and
Communism : SOCIALISM HAS MONEY, COMMUNISM DOES NOT. This is why, the US
politicians look stupid when they use the word communism. Communism is not a country
which has a communist party in charge BUT COMMUNISM IS A SYSTEM WHICH HAS
YET NEVER BEEN APPLIED NOWHERE IN THE WORLD AND NO COMMUNIST
COUNTRY HAS EVER EXISTED IN THE WORLD. Thus Marx is still right to have said :
communism will win at once all over the world and cannot win in a given country ONLY. Has
to be the whole world at once. Communism cannot BUT SOCIALISM CAN. Thus, THE
USSR HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY! THE USSR HAS ONLY BEEN A
CAPITALIST AND THEN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY BUT NEVER A COMMUNIST ONE!
This difference is very important so various politicians stop barking against a system they
have never seen and never known anything thereof. What the USA has been barking against
is socialism. In this way, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SOCIALISM IN FRANCE OR
BRITAIN CONTRARY TO THE GARBAGE THEIR POLITICIANS TALK. THERE HAS
ONLY BEEN CENTRIST CAPITALISM AND RIGHT WING CAPITALISM IN THESE
COUNTRIES AS WELL AS IN ALL MAJOR COUNTRIES ( EXCEPT THE USA WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN A RIGHT WING CAPITALISM ONLY REGARDLESS OF WHICH
PARTY RUNS THE USA ).

And here we go now : much to the pleasure of all French or French related people as well as
all non Jewish people, R. drops a fake bomb : R. mentions the Jews and Rothschild and the
stupid people start to dogmatize what R. has said. AND R. HAS SAID NOTHING THEY
WANT TO HEAR. First R. says the communist symbol, the YELLOW SHINY five beam star
is related to the Jews : NO, THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG AND IS THE OTHER WAY
AROUND : THE STAR IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE JEWISH STAR BECAUSE THE
JEWISH STAR HAS SIX BEAMS AND THE COMMUNIST START : 5. BECAUSE THE
COMMUNIST STAR IS THE OPPOSITE TO THE JEWISH STAR, R. LIES THE
COMMUNIST STAR IS RELATED TO JUDAISM BY MAKING UP A TOTALLY UNTRUE
STORY SAYING THE FIVE BEAMS REPRESENT THE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY. This is
so stupid and untrue as is to say : “ Everyone who has a five dollar bill in their pockets or
wallet is a Jew because 5 represents the Rothschild family and money represents Jews. SO
HOW COME THIS INTELLIGENT PERSON DROPS THIS LIE? VERY SIMPLE, THERE
ARE A FEW REASONS TO LIE : 1. R. DEFENDS MARX THIS WAY MAINLY THE
OVERLOOKING OF MONEY AND FINANCES BY MARX. 2. R. GETS TO THE MAIN
POINT OF THE CONVERSATION : R. TELLS THE LISTENER ( HITLER ) TO BLAME
THE JEWS FOR EVERYTHING, EVEN FOR COMMUNISM, AND NOT THE RUSSIANS.
HITLER CLAIMS CAPITALISM IS A JEWISH INVENTION. R. CLAIMS THE
COMMUNISM IS SUCH TOO. THUS, R. TELLS HITLER THIS : CONCENTRATE ON
THE REASON ALWAYS! ( THIS IS WHY R. SAID MARX KNEW THE REASONS OF
THE CAPITALIST CONTRADICTION. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS. THIS WAS
MENTIONED CLEARLY. ) THE REASON IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING : YOU
GET RID OF THE REASON, YOU CORRECT THE PROBLEM. THUS, ADOLPH, DO
NOT ATTACK THE USSR : USSR IS NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING BUT, INSTEAD, IS A
VICTIM OF JEWS JUST THE SAME AS GERMANY IS. ADOLPH, GET RID OF THE
REASON AND THEN WE, THE TROTSKYISTS WILL COME IN POWER IN THE USSR
WITH GERMEN HELP AND WILL GET RID OF THE REASON IN THE USSR TOO
AND, MAYBE, WE WILL USE YOUR EXPERIENCE. JUST DO NOT ATTACK THE
USSR, EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE OK. WE, YOU AND US, WILL GET RID OF THE
REASON FOR OUR PROBLEMS.
Thus, do not be stupid and do not be naïve : when you read The Red Symphony : remember :
there is nothing in The Red Symphony to say Jews run the world and organize wars and
systems because they have money : NEITHER OF THIS IS TRUE : JEWS DO NOT RUN
THE WORLD AND AND BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE MONEY. R. LIES FOR ONLY
ONE PURPOSE : TO PROTECT R.’S COUNTRY : THE USSR, FROM HITLER’S
ATTACK. R. HAS TO GIVE A BONE TO HITLER : THIS BONE IS THE LIES OF THE
JEWISH CONNECTION. JUST A CLEVER POLITICAL TRICK.
OBVIOUSLY, IN 1938, R. DID NOT KNOW AND COULD NOT PREDICT HITLER
WOULD EXTERMINATE 6 000 000 JEWS. R. THOUGHT HITLER WOULD JUST
NATIONALIZE ( AND THEN, MAYBE SELL ) THEIR PROPERTIES FOR MASS
PRODUCTION AND THIS NATIONALIZATION IS VERY COMMON AND NOT A
PROBLEM TO THE JEWS. THE WHOLE USSR HAD BEEN NATIONALIZED
WITHOUT PROBLEMS OF THE SAME AMPLITUDE AS HITLER’S EXTERMINATION.

Back to the specifics : the communist five beam star has got nothing to do neither with the
Jewish 6 beam star nor with Rothschild. A star is a representation of brightness and
enlightenment, also, representation of something which is desired. Star is a representation of
something strong, untouchable and indestructible by men and unstoppable by men. Stars have
also given A DIRECTION to people even before the Jews appeared as a tribe. Stars also
provide light at nioght when the moon is hidden by a cloud. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED
TO REALIZE STARS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JEWS? STARS WERE USED AS
SYMBOLS BEFORE THE JEWS APPEARED AND CONTINUED TO BE USED
THEREAFTER. THUS THE PRIMARY AND MAIN MEANING OF A STAR IS AS
OUTLINED AND DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH JEWS AND
ROTHCHIELDS. OBVIOUSLY, UNDER THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, EVERYONE
CAN USE A STAR, JEWS AND ROTHCHIELD TOO. HOWEVER, THOSE WHO USE A
STAR DO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH ROTHCHIELD AN JEWS AS THE MAIN AND
PRIMARY REASON FOR A STAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE. HOWEVER,
WHEN ROTHCHIELD AND JEWS USE A STAR THEY USE THE STAR ALSO BECAUSE
OF THE PRIMARY AND MAIN REASON. Why 5 beams. SIMPLY BECAUSE THESE
WERE THE MOST POPULAR STARS IN THE PERIOD BECAUSE THEY WERE
POSSIBLE TO BE EASILY DRAWN WITHOUT LIFTING THE PEN ( FEATHER AND
INK ) FROM THE PAPER WHEN DRAWING THEM AS OPPOSED TO THE 6 BEAM
JEWISH STAR WHICH WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO DRAW AS THE ALL OF THE
STARS WITH BEAMS GREATER THAN 5. THUS PEOPLE REALIZED THIS : MORE
THAN 5 BEAMS : DIFFICULT, LESS THAN 5 : DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A STAR : 5
BEAM OK. THUS ALL PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ( EXCEPT THE JEWS FOR
RELIGIOUS PURPOSES ) HAVE BEEN AND ARE DRAWING 5 BEAM STARS : THE US
ARMY MAINLY. TO CLAIM THE COMMUNIST STAR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH
ROTHSCHILD OR OTHER JEWS IS THE SAME AS TO CLAIM THE US ARMY IS THE
MAIN JEWISH ORGANIZATION IN THE US. STUPIDITY, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
Can the six beam star be used by others than Jews. Sure can. However, while star was defined
as a symbol even before the Jews appeared, the number of beams was never defined : as a
gross generalization, the number of beams was defined LOOSELY ( which means not defined
very much ) this way : MUST NOT VERY MANY BEAMS NOT TO BE MISTAKEN WITH
THE SUN and MUST NOT HAVE TOO FEW BEAMS TO BE RECOGNIZABLE THIS IS A
STAR. Thus, the specific number of beams was to be defined by the user. The Jews chose six
beams mainly because all other used five beams. The Jews could have chosen five beams
under the freedom of expression principle BUT they did not because they wanted to be
different IN THIS SYMBOL. The communists did NOT want to be different in this symbol
because this symbol was not to represent them ( they have the hammer and sickle symbol as
their main symbol for recognition ) but because they wanted to say communism enlightens
people and shows them the way in the darkness as well as the communism must be a dream of
everyone because communism is better for 99% of the people. Also, the communists wanted to
use the most popular star in order to be understood by most as opposed to using the most
unpopular star : the six beam star used BY JEWS ONLY. Most of the people in Western
Europe did NOT know what Jew means and certainly did not know what the Jewish star was.
ALSO : because of the specificity of the number of beams the six beam star was also taken as

The Red Symphony

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (10)

Similar to The Red Symphony

Similar to The Red Symphony (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Red Symphony