Larry Wartel to Gregory Hartnell on Left v. Right: The Globalist Plot: ‘I hate colour revolutions! I am totally with you on this! Sure, colour rev’s are definitely intel operations. As far as I know I haven’t been recruited. Of course, I could be an ignorant dupe.’ Letter of veteran Victoria activists: Sept. 4, 2011.

Sunday, September 4, 2011 2:46:43 PM
Hello Gregory,
Very interesting!
And great!
But first, you’re great–you’re such a mental challenge, because you truly are a scholar, and have a rare desire to engage in rational dialogue, so rare these days for the obvious reasons.
You make me actually have to think!

Love what you said here:

Obama is a socialist who is becoming a fascist, like these above-mentioned gents.
Please tell me candidly, are you a CIA operative or asset trying to start a ‘colour revolution’ in little old Victoria?!

Heck NO! I’ll give you the syringe to take me out if I ever succumb to that! I hate colour revolutions! I am totally with you on this! Sure, colour rev’s are definitely intel operations. As far as I know I haven’t been recruited. Of course, I could be an ignorant dupe. And, I do know the NDP is certainly a target for such manipulation. But, there is a contradiction (that evasive Marxist word now). More further down about it.
Look at the genesis of Mussolini and Hitler’s parties… they were both socialists who became fascists, for crying out loud.
Fascism = Socialism.
Socialism = Fascism.
Did you know, when Obama was younger, he almost certainly worked for an intel operation:
Yah, I have succumbed to the “Left-Right Paradigm”. I can’t evade that one. So either I’m on cool-aid or there’s something to it. When I first learned about false “Left Right Paradigm” in the early 80’s, I had accepted the given explanation for the debate (“Nothing but Bourgeois Capitalist Press disinformation!”). Then when I started listening to Alex in 2005, I got very curious about the original source material.  So I challenged by own acceptance of the given explanation: Was Antony Sutton correct (where Alex gets his information from)?…


Or was this material extending from the original but discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which Hitler and Henry Ford circulated:

The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, page 130: 

Just as the Dreyfus affair identified Jews with the liberal and socialist forces of modernity, the existence of a Zionist congress provided anti-semites with new “evidence” of a Jewish “conspiracy” that needed to be fought and destroyed. The pamphlet made both of these points explicit. It accused Jews of manipulating social reformers and political revolutionaries, the press and the educational establishment, the banks and the labor movements. It insisted that “the Jews” wished to destroy Christian civilization and bring to power their “Elders of Zion.” Such wild claims made the Protocols extraordinarily useful for reactionaries, who now had a perfect group to blame for the first Russian revolution, which began in 1902 and reached its apex in 1905.

Is the “Left v. Right” paradigm false or real? One of the best articulations of the two positions–against the paradigm theory and for it, comes from Wikipedia (which of course many will say is itself totally controlled. And there is truth to that–but there is also the contradiction that it contains objective information. The trick is to know which is which–the process of developing critical analysis):,

Hitler and Mussolini were financed by globalists, no argument there. Was Lenin? Were the Bolsheviks? Were Marx and Engels? Stalin? Mao? These articles are much better explanations for what occurred in the early years of the so-called “Left” emergence–from a libertarian-capitalist promoting organization:

America’s Unknown Enemy: Beyond Conspiracy–What Do International Bankers Want? or

In all of Antony Sutton’s research, he doesn’t actually demonstrate a link between finance, creation and political control of the so-called “Left,” leaving open other explanations for world conflict. I’ve been looking for five years at this, on the web, in libraries, from people who subscribe to the explanation, and no one can document that the so-called “Left” advocates were at any time financed, controlled and promoted into conflict because of globalist finance.

So why world conflict? Michael Parenti says it simpler than anybody I’ve seen:

“Here at home and throughout the world people are fighting back against the forces of  wealth, privilege, and militarism — some because they have no choice, others because   they would choose no other course but the one that leads to peace and justice.” — Michael Parenti 

“A penetrating and persuasive writer with an astonishing array of documentation to implement his attacks.” — The Catholic Journalist,

You may enjoy this book of Michael:  The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome

The next issue is, what are the actual definitions of Communism, Socialism, Fascism and Capitalism? We use words and accept definitions, which historically can be debated, leading to new definitions. Words have “connotative” and “denotative” meaning, or loosely translated, they have inferred and actual meaning. I always prefer the actual meaning, because it is something we can maybe find agreement on–or discuss to reach a better definition for usage. Though the dictionary can and should be challenged, let’s first have a discussion about whether we accept the denotative meaning found for these four words:

advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community

1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Compare socialism free enterprise , Also called: private enterprise  an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions

To know if:

Fascism = Socialism.
Socialism = Fascism.

…we have to arrive at commonly understood definitions. What do you think of those definitions above? (I hope this isn’t too semantical–let me know if you think it’s a bunch of BS).

Shalom and Blessings,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: