The bankers have been funding communism since it was invented because it is the easiest way to get control of a nation's assets.
it has effe all to do with politics.
Jacob Schiff was openly supportive of the Russian Revolution and in a letter published in the New York Times on 17 March, he ‘thanked the Almighty that a great and good people had been freed from their autocratic Czarist shackles’.  Two days later he voiced his opinion that Russia would, before long, rank financially amongst the most favoured nations in the money markets of the world.  Interestingly, that same issue of the New York Times reported that there had been a rise in Russian exchange transactions in London 24 hours preceding the revolution. Ah, the Rothschilds, as ever, a day ahead of the rest of the world. It was explained away as mere coincidence.
Why did Jacob H. Schiff decide to financially sponsor the Russian Revolutions of 1917?
(Ummm...see link above.)
Schiff encouraged and financed armed revolt against the Czar. He provided financial support for Jewish self-defence groups in Russia, including Bolshevik and other socialist revolutionaries. He was set on fomenting revolution in Russia. The America author, G. Edward Griffin, pondered the question of Schiff’s involvement and unequivocally stated that Schiff ‘was one of the principle backers of the Bolshevik revolution and personally financed Trotsky’s trip from New York to Russia’.  Years later, Jacob Schiff’s grandson admitted that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of communism in Russia. ...
...Professor Spence agreed that Schiff ‘had a track record of financing revolutionaries’, and was ‘pro-German’.  This latter observation somewhat lets his thesis down. The German born Schiff was not pro-German. He and his German born Warburg partners in Kuhn, Loeb bank on Wall Street, and his good friend (and their brother) Max Warburg in Germany, together with their close Rothschild links in France and London, were not operating a nationalist agenda, whether it be German, British or American, but an internationalist agenda. And that agenda was the domination of the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. 
(PRO HINT: the US LOST WW 1 and 2, AND the cold war... duh! They just SAID you won!)
...They were globalists, first and last, seeking control of the entire world. It is why the question of their support for political Zionism, and how that fitted into their agenda, is of critical importance when considering both the Bolshevik Revolution and the Balfour Declaration. The time-scale within which the Anglo-American global-elites power-base moved from London to New York, and the ever growing influence of political Zionism
(Say, where the hell is das with a tin foil hat meme?)
Last edited by Danbones; 2 weeks ago at 05:51 AM..