There is this common mistake that since Trotsky was persecuted by Stalin he can't be "all bad." This is shown throughtout the 1940's and 1950's and even in the works by George Orwell all the way to today.

Let us clear up some misconceptions about Trotsky.

1. Trotsky was a Marxist. He disagreed with Stalin and Lenin because he believed in a permanent revolution of Communism into every country and peoples, while Lenin and Stalin believed in the Soviet state as the vanguard of the revolution.

2. Trotsky was a murderer and warmonger as well. Trotsky was heavily involved in the Russian Revolution and used the Red Army as the spearpoint of revolution before being hurled back by the Poles.

3. Trotsky and his ideology is NOT dead. In fact his ideology has been more successful than the Stalinist-Leninist state of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union. The neoconservatives who started out as Trotskyites and later became New Deal liberals and Cold War liberals are heavily influenced by the ideology of Trotsky and liberalism and they have a powerful hold in the U.S. government, especially in the Republican Party. The neoconservatives believe in a "permanent revolution" of their values of democracy, free-market capitalism, and feminism on the whole world and the majority of them are Jєωιѕн.

Neo-traditionalism is a variety of neo-conservatism, which was created by ex-Trotskyites with a Zionist agenda.  It is absolutely subversive.

For those who think Zionism wasn't born out of the Left, David Ben-Gurion was a Marxist.

http://forward.com/articles/147083/secrets-of-ben-gurions-leadership/?p=all

Here it is recounted he says he preferred Lenin to Trotsky.  Of course Ben Gurion was head of the Zionist Labor party.

Looking at Bishop Fellay's new associates, with their fondness for Zionism, (who chose Bishop Williamson's defense counsel from the ranks of a left-wing party) we begin to understand the change in policy, a policy that seeks a place in what Archbishop Lefebvre called "the revolutionary world government."

It is obvious that if many bishops had acted like Mgr. de Castro-Mayer, Bishop of Campos in Brazil, the ideological revolution within the Church could have been limited, because we must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jєωιѕн Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.

http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Aug2001/Spiritual_Journey.htm

The reality is that Archbishop Lefebvre would be shocked to see The Remnant tell us of "The Lessons of Hanukkah."  He would be completely shocked at Bishop Fellay's ridiculous comments about how he supposedly learned that errors in the Council weren't really errors in the text, that "religious liberty" is limited.  He would be shocked at the ostracism of one of his consecrated bishops for the sake of cozying up to Jєωιѕн groups who demand Nostra Aetate be accepted.  He would be amazed that any fake Catholics would have the audacity to claim to be "unimpeachable Catholics" while publicly admiring blasphemers such as Madonna.  He would be amazed that it would be permitted for such a fake to publicly, shamelessly defend "miniskirts" as being modest dress and still be permitted a role in the society.

This is all very obvious.