Guest Post: It's Not About Obama...

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution gained general victory against the empire’s sovereign, Czar Nicholas Romanov II, a monarchal ruler widely considered despotic and inhumane in his treatment of the Russian citizenry.  After the dethroned Romanov family was summarily executed by former members of the military, the Bolshevik rampage continued against the remnants of the “White Russians”, culminating in a bloody civil war.  In the minds of the common populace, the communist propaganda was legitimate.  The people had been terribly oppressed, and the world war in Europe was draining any hope of prosperity they had left.  The Russians were ready for an abrupt and even violent change in their political leadership. 

However, unbeknownst to them, a great upheaval was about to be supplied for them.  Their anger and rage, their revolutionary spirit, was about to be exploited to produce vast gains for international interests and create a massive experiment in collectivist tyranny that would span decades and claim millions of innocent lives. 

That’s right, in case you’ve never read a real history book with concrete facts, the Russian revolution was an almost entirely fabricated event.  International financial interests, known today as “globalists” with no patriotic ties to any particular nation, supplied the funding, the philosophy, and even the leadership of the Bolshevik uprising against Nicholas II:



Now, does this mean I support the tyranny of czarism?  No.  Does this mean I support the despotic actions of the Romanov dynasty?  No.  My point is that an immoral government was used by globalists to rally the downtrodden people around an even more immoral and destructive government which the money men had full control over.  The elitists gauge the revolutionary fervor of a particular society, and, when they believe the time is ripe, they co-opt that revolution by installing their own leadership and creating their own events. 

In my view, the American Revolution was a startling wake up call for the globalists.  The concept of centralized monarchy and godlike rulers was dead.  Common people were ready to fight for the right to participate in their own political systems, and as the American patriots proved, they could win.  The elites responded, cleverly, with events like the French Revolution.  They tested the waters for public discontent, then, manhandled revolutions into being when the moment was right.  If a revolt was about to occur, fine; as long as the globalists controlled the outcome, revolution could serve their interests.    

This strategy is used even today.  One merely need examine the escalation of the so-called “Arab Spring” to see that globalists manipulate legitimate social anger over legitimate oppression in order to create a rebellion that they can dictate.  The destabilization of Syria being perhaps the most blatant act of fabricated insurgency by international financiers in history.

Though brutal and bloody, revolution is actually a very natural human act of balance which counters the unnatural and engineered functions of centralization.  Human beings are not meant to be “ruled”.  The spirit of individualism, inherent in every person from the moment of birth, strikes hard against the visible construction of any cage.  We are designed to rebel.  It is a fact of our existence. 

Only an oblivious fool would try to deny that America is on the verge of revolution today.  Public discontent politically, socially, and economically, is at an apex not seen in decades.  The White House under the presidency of Barack Obama is in a shambles, sweltering in a sweaty sauna of corruption and scandal.  The revelation of Nixon’s Watergate is a joke compared to the Benghazi conspiracy of covertly funded Syrian insurgency and false flag treason against a U.S. diplomat, the IRS persecution of conservative opposition, the wiretapping and privacy invasion of mainstream journalists, the admission of assassination initiatives against American citizens, etc, etc.  Truly, whether you consider yourself on the “right”, or the “left”, if you have any sense of conscience or honor, Barack Obama is a monster of epic proportions.

That said, I challenge you to question whether or not Obama is the real danger, or just a boogeyman being used to control YOUR sense of rebellion?  

The American citizenry is ready to snap.  I can feel it, and I think many others out there can feel it too.  A fight is inevitable.  The question is, what will be the form of that fight, and who will ultimately determine the outcome?  There is a lot of talk in the Liberty Movement today concerning “solutions” which I believe, according to historical reference, are perfect examples of controlled opposition.  After several years working in the movement, I’ve heard it all…

Military Coup

The idea of military coup against the Obama Administration is alluring for several reasons.  For one, it comforts those people who fear personal sacrifice or direct conflict.  There are many out there, even in the Liberty Movement, who are desperate to avoid confrontation.  They don’t want to lose their property, they don’t want to lose their job security, they don’t want to enter into combat, and they certainly don’t want to lose their lives in the process.  These fears are understandable, but ultimately irrelevant.

The military coup concept feeds into the apprehensions of the common activist by giving them a false “way out”.  If “patriotic” generals within the military rise up against the Obama regime and wrest power from its clutches, then average citizens will be spared the heartbreak and terror of fighting for themselves.  They will not have to devise their own strategies, their own structures, or their own end solutions.  They merely have to sit back, allow military factions to defeat the “evil usurper”, and then enjoy whatever government the leaders of the coup devise.  Surely, anything would be better than to continue under the rule of a communist thug…

I would point out, however, that this is NOT what the Founding Fathers did, which is one of the reasons why they were so successful.  Revolutionary leadership was maintained by citizens, not a cadre of military elites, and the aftermath of victory was managed by those chosen by the people to lead, not those chosen by generals. The war was fought by regular men, living regular lives, in support of beloved families.  It was exactly because those men had everything to lose that they were driven so completely to succeed.  They were fighting for their homes, and their principles.  Not for political power. 

I would also point out that most military brass hold views consistent with Neo-Conservative or even Neo-Liberal ideologies, both of which are slightly different versions of the same globalist religion.  They may preach to us about their grand designs for freedom, but in reality, many of them are seeking to co-opt our resolve and use it to foment a controlled and homogenized uprising that will end in the same tyranny that we originally hoped to defeat.     

A military coup is not a silver bullet solution to our problems.  It may appear to be easier, but there will never be true freedom for any of us without tangible sacrifice.  This battle is ours.  Beware of anyone who strolls out of nowhere and offers to fight it for you.

March On Washington D.C.

Our problems will not be solved by military coup exactly because Barack Obama is not the primary source of our problems.  He is a middle-man, a mascot, a salesman for the collectivist dictatorship, and nothing more.  Getting rid of him in the wrong way will only exacerbate our dilemma. 

Because our fight is with a globalist element that uses government as a tool, rather than a seat of power, removing one abusive president will change nothing.  This is why the “March on Washington” idea is strategic idiocy at its most dangerous and cliché.  I can’t tell you how many times over the years I have heard chest beating activists wail in anger, wondering “why, oh why!” we don’t all simply “take up arms” and march to the capital.  Well, here are few good reasons…

First, how many successful revolutions began with a march on a government center?  I can’t think of any.  But, I can think of a few military campaigns that were thwarted by dumb marches led by thoughtless leaders.  What about the battles of Lexington and Concord, in which Lt. Colonel Francis Smith of the British Army under the direction of General Thomas Gage led 700 regulars into a wasp’s nest of colonials who proceeded to wipe them out and fully launch the revolution with the American people clearly established in the eyes of the world as the defenders, and the British as the aggressors? 

What about the ill conceived Confederate march on Fort Sumter which painted them as dangerous aggressors against the North, haunting the southern campaigns throughout the Civil War, and has even been partly attributed as a reason for their eventual defeat?

What about the hubris driven march of George Armstrong Custer, right into the mouth of enemy territory, on ground which the enemy was vastly more familiar, and against a force of far greater strength?  That didn’t end so well either…

No one with any legitimate combat sense would ever suggest that a REVERSE Lexington is a good idea for the Liberty Movement today, and, no one with any understanding of asymmetric warfare would condescend to lead thousands of patriots into D.C., into what amounts to an elongated kill box, or an immediate surrender.  The message sent during such a campaign would be “hey, we’re gullible, please kill us”, or, “hey, we’re pansies, please take our weapons and lock us away without a fight”.  In either case, we lose, and all in the name of an ill conceived attack on a bunch of paid cronies and a puppet president, rather than the men behind the curtain.  Dumb.  Very dumb…         

Rely On Opposing Party Leadership

The Republican Party is an embarrassment to many conservatives, but not for the reasons that should be most embarrassing.  Sadly, many Americans only care about belonging to the “winning side”, rather than the right side.  Currently, Republican excuses for consistent losses revolve around the fantasy of “changing demographics” and “a disconnection from the more moderate and liberal public”.  These scapegoats have nothing to do with the disintegration of the Republican Party. 

In truth, the Republican establishment continues to degrade not because it does not appeal to some imaginary growing faction of budding American socialists, but because it no longer appeals to conservatives and constitutionalists.  The Neo-Con leadership of the backwards party continuously supports nearly identical legislative actions to the hated Obama paradigm.  Unfortunately, there are still some naïve people out there who hope against hope that the GOP will rise up and defeat the Democratic stronghold, all while the GOP openly energizes Democratic policies.

Consider that both Republicans and Democrats strong armed the American public into massive banker bailouts which have so far produced no real jobs, and no tangible recovery, but have created perhaps the largest stock bubble the world has ever seen.

Consider the “Safe Act” legislation of New York, which imposes draconian restrictions on the 2nd Amendment; long held as a Republican line in the sand.  Yet, 11 Republicans voted YES in line with Democrats to pass the bill.

Consider that many Neo-Con Republicans attacked the filibuster against anti-gun rights legislation in the Senate as if the move was “outlandish”.

Consider that the wire tapping of the Obama Administration is merely an extension of the wire tapping used by the Bush Administration under FISA and the Patriot Act. 

Consider the expansion of executive assassination and rendition powers under the NDAA, which are widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

Consider that the AUMF, the resolution which is often used to justify the further passage of NDAA provisions for treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants”, was established under George W. Bush, and is defended to this day by many Republicans despite the abuses of Barack Obama. 

Consider that provisions within the latest immigration legislation that call for biometric ID’s as well as tracking of U.S. citizens are supported by both Democrats and Republicans. 

Consider that John McCain, often labeled a “die-hard Republican” and hero to islamophobes everywhere, has now personally visited with Syrian insurgents openly working with Al Qaeda to overthrow the Assad government.  These are the same insurgents that have been accused of false flag chemical weapons attacks which were then blamed on Assad, and the same insurgents that have a penchant for severing the heads and eating the raw hearts of their prisoners in front of video cameras.  For all the talk of Obama being secretly supportive of Islamic terrorism, the Republicans seem to be just as friendly. 

I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear; there is no light at the end of the election tunnel in the Republican Party.  The Neo-Cons and the Neo-Libs have the same objective, total centralization and the dissolution of U.S. sovereignty.  Both parties are merely continuing the perpetual game of good-cop vs. bad-cop, switching roles every decade or so to keep the public confused and dependent on the system rather than enforcing their own solutions.  Barack Obama is nothing more than a fulcrum point - a useful piece of leverage meant to push Americans from one fake initiative to the next, or to divide us completely.  Our fight is not with Obama, it is with ALL globalists who obstruct our liberty, regardless of what party they are affiliated with.  If we allow the debate, and the battle, to be framed around the superficial Obama presidency, then we have allowed ourselves to be co-opted, and any revolutionary action we take afterwards will end exactly like the fabricated Bolshevik rebellion; it won’t mean a damn thing.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
kliguy38's picture

Coming soon to a theater near you

otto skorzeny's picture

Like the army brass is going to jeoporadize their 6 figure pensions and cush MIC consulting jobs to lift a finger to helped the unwashed masses.

runningman18's picture

They would not act to help the masses, but they would act to co-opt the revolutionary fervor of the masses for the benefit of the elites.

economics9698's picture

The only thing that will return power to the people is a return to gold as money.  As long as there is central banking politicians have no reason to listen to the public.


WestVillageIdiot's picture

Oh my god, I just read the article for this thread.

Come on ZHers.  This is the biggest piece of shit history hack piece I have ever seen on Zerohedge.  I can't believe nobody blew this POS to bits in the first few comments.  WTF is going on tonight?

The Bolsheviks DID NOT overthrow the Tsar.  They did not achieve "general victory" in 1917 like is stated here.  I can't believe I am reading this on ZH. 

In February (by the Russian calendar) 1917 the Tsar abdicated to the Provisional Government, led (I use that term loosely) by Kerensky.  It wasn't until October 1917 (November on our calendar) that the Bolsheviks staged their coup d'etat against the Provisional Government.  This was an event that very few people in Russia even knew had taken place.  The coup's success was only made possible by the monumental failures of the Provisional Government, and their mishandling of the war.

The Bolshevik victory was far from certain.  The Bolshevik's half-assed coup succeeded mainly because Russia was such a basket case.

I'm not going to go into the full incident of the Bolshevik move on Petrograd but this article is a royal piece of shit.  Somebody needs to explain how it got any face time on ZH.  The Bolsheviks did murder the Romanovs.  That is true.  The rest of this is just stupidity.  I did not watch the video.  I could not justify watching it when the article started with such colossal misstatements of fact. 

Ace Ventura's picture

Be that as it may, I think you lost the whole point of the article in your rush to make a correction of the historical facts. Unless I'm misreading here (which is always possible since I'm only on cup #1 of morning coffee)....the primary idea being conveyed was the Bolshevik revolution was an engineered event designed to bring about a system of government useful to the elites. Whether it was the Boslheviks or the Provisional Government who ultimately overthrew the Tsar is significant from a strict historical perspective, but not so much in terms of the idea being presented in the article.

Sort of like dismissing an entire article discussing the victory of the American Revolution after the surrender of Cornwallis in Yorktown......because it wasn't Conrwallis himself who actually surrendered to Washington.

*Disclaimer: I did not watch the video, so there may be something therein which presents a better context for dismissal of the article.

WestVillageIdiot's picture

The point of the article was to prove that the Bolsheviks were part of a master plan of domination and control.  That could be the case.  I don't know.  I just don't understand how somebody could make such a sweeping generalization when they don't even understand the history behind the event that is supposed to back their theory.

My point is all about the credibility of the author.  If the person can't take an hour to do a little leg work then all of their pontificating needs to be thrown in the garbage can. 

duo's picture

But wasn't Vladmir Olinov (Lenin) smuggled into Russia through Germany (from Switzerland) by Western bankers to tip the balance of the Bolsheviks over the Menshiviks (who wanted change also, but less violently)?

ratso's picture

Brandon Smith is writing pure crap dressed in historical disinformation.

runningman18's picture

The frothing ad hominem attacks from some of the posters against this article only make me want to read it again, to be honest.  I haven't seen an intelligent criticism yet.  In most cases, the writers that are directly over the target seem to catch the most flak, or troll swarms...

Manthong's picture

It’s not about Obama but my complaint is that you can’t get the Irish-Kenyan out of your face..

It seems he is everywhere.

I’m just waiting for the huge Stalin and Mao like posters strung from every building of size across the country.

runningman18's picture

True.  The cult-like Obama worship propaganda crossed the line a long time ago.  But, that's a product of the establishment too, just like Obama himself.

kaiserhoff's picture

Why does ZH continue to promote this shit?

The whole world is divided between producers and parasites.  The left is nothing but thugs and parasites, never has been, never will be.

WestVillageIdiot's picture

The Bolsheviks in general, and Lenin in particular, are more a symbol of zealotry moving from religion to politics.  Their bible was written by Marx.  Lenin was merely one of the early high priests of politics. 

BigDuke6's picture

If you aren't Russian I think u should keep quiet.

BigDuke6's picture

If you aren't Russian I think u should keep quiet.

runningman18's picture

WestVillageIdiot would do well to read "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution" by Anthony Sutton.  All the documented facts that debunk his rather uneducated theories on the communist overthrow in Russia are there.  Acting indignant and throwing a hissy fit about the article doesn't make up for a backwards education.  Every statement within Smith's piece is correct.    

WestVillageIdiot's picture

Thanks for the laugh.  The Bolsheviks had nothing to do with February 1917.  Lenin was still in Switzerland.  They were a tiny party. 

Of course big money had an interest in the overthrow of the Tsar.  The Germans most certainly wanted a government in Russia that would remove Russia from the war.  That is why Lenin, along with many others, was shipped back in to Russia.  The Germans hoped that one of the many parasites on that train would infect Russia.  As history showed, Lenin was the most powerful of the viruses sent back in to the body of Russia.

You state that every part of Smith's writing is accurate.  His first sentence is, "In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution gained general victory against the empire’s sovereign, Czar Nicholas Romanov II".  That, right out of the gate, is wrong. 

Peddle your wrath, and sanctimony, on somebody else. 

runningman18's picture

The abdication WAS a victory for the Bolsheviks, and the Wall Street interests that backed them.  You still aren't seeing the big picture.  You should really read Anthony Sutton's book and educate yourself further. 

illyia's picture

Rearranging chairs on the Titanic this morning?

The correct answer is: "The only way to win is to not play."

The parasites only live because the host allows them. Stop feeding the corp/gov/banksters and they will die.

There are lots of other things to do rather than feed the beast.

runningman18's picture

Of course, any parasite must first be identified before it can be removed...

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Well, WestVillageIdiot, you are right about one thing. You are a fucking idiot.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture


Sorry, I'm not biting.  Regardless of historical errors that may be present regarding an event of almost 100 years ago, his fundamental theme of 'Regime Change in the USA cum USSA' is valid. 

Yours is an attempt of re-direction via sophistry.  You're doing the VERY thing that Brandon is talking about:  Take control by re-framing/redefining the argument.  And to clutter the blog with "noise".  Nice try, no cigar.


IamtheREALmario's picture

Ace, you have it exactly right... and you should watch the video. It is worthwhile for the added context. The details of how the change in government occurred are irrelevant to me other than there was a change of government that occurred to the benefit of global financial interested, funded by global financial interests and trained by global financial interests (as you may recall, the Romanov Tsar opposed the financial globalists gaining too much power... so he and his family were murdered). It reminds me of how a Libyan central bank, tied to the BIS, was set up in Benghazi long before Libya was captured and Gadhafi murdered. This makes it VERY obvious what is going on. Libya as Russia was a globalist conquest and mass murder ... same for Iraq and Afghanistan.

IMO, good never comes from evil acts and honestly it is hard to tell one evil psychopath from another, regardless of their label or rhe corporation they represent. It is unfortunate however that evil rules the world and good must endure and resists the temptation to use evil to combat evil... as we are apparently being driven to do. A violent revolution only plays into the hands of the psychopaths. They need us more than we need them and there are many more of us than them. To beat them we just have to deny them and be willing to sacrifice any desire to become them.

WestVillageIdiot's picture

You do realize that Tsar Nicholas II abdicated voluntarily, but only after sending hundreds of thousands of his subjects to slaughter in a war that made no sense for said subjects.  He was not killed until a year and a half after his abdication.  I just don't see how that fits the narrative that is being put forward.

What was Tsar Nicholas' wealth?  Where did that come from?  In a poor country he was certainly not poor.  Let's not pull a Lincoln on this bastard and turn him into a saint after his demise. 

JOYFUL's picture

  Somebody needs to explain how it got any face time on ZH///

somebody needs get up to speed with how things really work on ZH... a 'guest author' posts a load o tripe... the punters swoop in with the necessary corrective\antidote ... a cacophony of debate ensues... it's what made ZH... ahh...ZH. Your point is well taken... but Brandon's is too.

Everybody's a winner. \till the threadjack sockpuppets moved in here... on a fulltime basis\

LongPAU's picture

Like a high-brow Fark sans drama then. Got it, thanks.

Clashfan's picture

WVI, I've attacked Smith's pieces before on certain points (esp about 911), but he's largely on target here and goes to lengths to explain that he is no supporter of the royals. So I'm not sure why you're still bitching.

I'm glad to see you correcting an error, but as others are noting, that error is somewhat trivial compared to the overall truth he's quite clearly communicating.

Clashfan's picture

I might also add that he's on target w/the noting (finally) that the elite belong to a religion. He will not say luciferianism--I have yet to see Smith say this, but he's getting closer: I would also point out that most military brass hold views consistent with Neo-Conservative or even Neo-Liberal ideologies, both of which are slightly different versions of the same globalist religion.

pslater's picture

Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" if you want to know what really happened in Russia in 1917.  Documented research without hyperbole.

The banking interests own the sytem - we are all serfs at some level....

SelfGov's picture


Brandon can put a good narrative together but the facts almost always escape him.

runningman18's picture

Where is the mistatement?  The Tsar advocated in the wake of the uprising in the hopes of saving his family from the Bolsheviks, which obviously didn't work.  The coup was well underway, and the monarchy knew it.  You act as if the Bolsheviks just came out of nowhere after abdication.  The reality is that the organization of the overthrow had been brewing for years, and Wall Street interests were involved.  Just because they didn't teach you these facts in your high shool textbook doesn't make them any less relevant.  Read a book, brother.  Learn beyond what the mainstream has taught you...

WestVillageIdiot's picture

The "overthrow had been brewing for years".  Thanks for such insight.  Since Lenin's own brother was executed for trying to kill a Tsar this is pretty easy to figure out.  Did Wall Street figure in to the actions of Lenin's brother? 

The Tsars were miserable tyrants.  I hate to see them made out to be anything better than they were. 

If the Bolsheviks were such a tool of Wall Street then why did the Soviet Union not set up a central bank that was friendly to Wall Street's interests? 

Your statements are insulting in their tone and in their lack of any understanding. 

runningman18's picture

If you read "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution" your questions will be quickly answered with extensive research and evidence, unless that is, you are afraid of being wrong...

Promethus's picture

Wow, this article is total CRAP. The Czar was ousted by a provisional government in March of 1917, not the Communist. The South didn't march on Fort Sumter. The Fort is an island so no marching on water allowed. The British at Lexington and Concord weren't wiped out. Custer was wiped out, the British had casualties. And the Military over throwing the President - the author has obviously never been in the military.

runningman18's picture

The Czar was not "ousted", he abdicaterd in the face of an overthrow by the Bolsheviks which he KNEW was coming.  The South did march on Fort Sumter; to march or to "muster against" means to "attack", I'm sure the author was not infering that they walked on water.  The British were indeed wiped out.  When you lose a third of your forces and are being shot at on the run all the way back to your hidey hole, that is called being wiped out.  Also, there have been many groups over the years that have suggested military coup against Obama.  Smith only pointed out that this strategy has been used in the past by the globalists, and that it is a bad idea to support such a thing.  

This article clearly ruffled some feathers, as the illogical behavior of some of the responders has shown.   But, then again, that's what great writers do - ruffle the feathers of sleeping fools.

ECE's picture

what the hell do you think is happening right now?   the elites have never been as wealthy and the discrepancy between the rich and poor is now at all time record.

so much for the liberal bleeding heart to always put the small guy first.   what horsecrap.

the system is certainly broken but the socialist policy of the left is blowing another hole in an already sinking ship.

nice try with the comparative article though.   and John Mccain is no conservative.    Just another part of the problem with this leviathan government.


Son of Loki's picture

Panasonic to cut 5,000 workers(Reuters)


I guess moar of the 'jobless recovery' in action.

Akrunner907's picture

I am trying to figure out who our own "Baghdad Bob" is for the US.  

stuman's picture

That would be Jay Carney.

lolmao500's picture

Statists harbor the R and the D sign. Have them hanged, drawned and quartered, all of them, and let their God sort them out. Let the libertarians inherit the earth, let the government-is-our-mommy and you-need-a-permit-for-this trash die or eat each other...which will happen as soon as one big catastrophe wipes out this thing we see as a civilization.

F. Bastiat's picture

Won't happen because "libertarians" don't have, and will never have, the religious fervor of the marxists, islamists, or Christians.

Numerous reason for that, but I'll give you four:

- All wars are, at the heart of it, religious

- In terms of religion, most libertarians today are closer to marxists (atheism, sodomite marriage) than the other main religions.

- Today's libertarianism is mostly juvenile nonsense that's only slightly less confused than its neo-marxist cousins.

- The libertarian "philosophy", if that's what you want to call it, doesn't stand up to serious intellectual scrutiny.


otto skorzeny's picture

What a stupid fucking comment.

F. Bastiat's picture

Feel free to critique it.  I've yet to find a libertarian who can articulate the virtues of sodomy or atheism - two primary tenets of their core neo-marxist dogma.

Funny thing is - today's libertarians have more in common with their neo-marxist cousins than anyone else.

howenlink's picture

Libertarianism is NOT about the virtues of sodomy or atheism.  It is about allowing people to make free choices without using the coercive powers of the state to prevent actions that you deem immoral.  We advocate freedom.  You advocate force.

F. Bastiat's picture

You advoctate license. There is no utopia where freedom exists without virtue.  Never has been, never will be.  For myriad reasons.

You're spewing out the same utopian nonsense that Karl Marx conjured up.