Review of the Struggle for World Power

Knuppfer’s argument is fairly simple: Soviet communism could not exist from the wealthy business class in the West. But it’s more than that. The capitalist bankers in London and New York had two goals: 1) destroy the Tsar and impose a Soviet style system in America (and presumably, other parts of the West). England had long wanted to destroy Tsarist Russia, for the Tsar was the only thing that kept England’s Empire in check (Betrand Russell elsewhere admits that the only reason Russia expanded her terrorities in the East was to keep an eye on England). That’s not too controversial a thesis. The very existence of the Crimean War proves as much. It is Knuppfer’s second thesis that seems contradictory.

Here’s how conventional wisdom goes: Banks are businesses, and businesses can’t function in Communist societies. Therefore, bankers couldn’t have wanted a Soviet style government. That’s partly true. If the operative assumption is a level playing field for all businesses and banks, then no, communism can’t work. But if the goal is to control the money supply by means of state socialism (e.g., today’s America), then there is no tension between Big Money and Communism if Big Money is at top. In fact, if given the opportunity, yea even given capitalist principles, there is no reason why bankers–provided they are the victor–would not want a state apparatus. It allows a certain wealthy elite to control the money supply (and essentially, all of the government) and eliminate all competition (I hope this sounds very familiar–it is the American Regime today).

Therefore, Knuppfer proceeds to argue that there were two anti-Christian forces in the world that seemed to be opposed to each other: the Liberal Totalitarian West and the Communist Totalitarian East. Both are bad news for the average free man. Interestingly, Soviet Russia can be seen as Frankenstein’s monster. The West created the Soviet monster as a way of destroying monarchy and the old order. The West did not expect the military machine ala Stalin (which destroyed 80% of the Nazi army). All of a sudden, Sovietism has become too much and is now the “bad guy.”

But in calling Sovietism the bad guy, it must be noted that America never actually opposed ideological communism. America only opposed Communism whenever Communist states set up rival economic blocs that challenged NATO hegemony and the dollar. Otherwise, America cheerfully supported Marxist states (Tito in Yugoslavia, Ceacescu in Romania, the Marxists in South Africa, and even at times the Soviet Union).

Fortunately, things have changed since Knuppfer wrote his book. While America has become almost totally Marxist, many Eastern European and Asian countries have thrown off the mantle of Communism and are establishing rival trading and military blocs to challenge the D.C./Brussels/London/Tel Aviv Regime.