Murderous Jews & the Bolshevik Revolution - July, 2010

I am glad that the gruesome story of Katyn - where over twenty thousand Polish intellectuals, politicians and military officers are said to have been murdered by the Soviet Union in 1939 - become better known around the world as a result of the tragic crash in 2010 of a Polish Air Force Tu-154 in Smolensk which killed the Polish president and his official entourage. I am also glad that President Putin at the time officially apologized for the brutal Soviet-era massacres for the first time. But, I have a question: Who will apologize to President Putin and the Russian people for the murder of millions of Christian Russians throughout the former Russian Empire? Both Katyn and the terrible scourge that inflicted Russia in the 1920s and 1930s were spawned after-all by the Bolshevik revolution. Ethnic Russians were the main victims of Bolshevism. For too long we have blamed Russians for the atrocities committed by Bolsheviks and their spawn. At worst, Russians can only be blamed for mismanaging their empire, thereby falling victim to foreign manipulations.

Blaming Russians for the evils of Bolshevism and the bloodbath that resulted as a result of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 is akin to blaming the murder victim for the actions of the murderer.

During the late 19-th and early 20-th centuries certain political interests entrenched in the Western world exported militant Marxism to the Russian Empire, which was in decline, for the sole purpose of creating instability within the much hated, coveted and increasingly vulnerable Eurasian empire. Bolshevism in Russia was born as such. Just as being an English speaker does not make one English, being a  Russian speaker does not necessarily make one an ethnic Russian either. The vast majority of the Russian-speaking Bolshevik leadership and activists, by some estimates over 90%, were not ethnic Russians. The Russian foot soldier and the nation's peasantry (in other words, the easily manipulated masses of any particular nation) do not matter in this equation. What matters is leadership and funding. The funding came from abroad and the vast majority of the Bolshevik leadership were of Jewish ancestry, many of them were in fact American-Jews. In a book he wrote in 1920, British journalist Robert Wilton had this to say about Bolshevism -
"The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader"
There may have also been more Armenians within the Bolshevik hierarchy than ethnic Russians. Taking into consideration that the entire Armenian population in the Russian Empire at the time was less than one million, that's astounding. Nevertheless, it is now clear that Bolshevism was imported into the Russian Empire to destroy it. And destroy, it did. With the venerable Romanov Empire already in decline and thus vulnerable at the start of the First World War, it's subsequent defeat at the hands of Germany during the Battle of Tannenberg more-or-less sealed its fate. The Russian Empire succumbed to the Bolshevik revolution in October, 1917. The main purpose of the Marxist-Bolshevik movement in the Russian Empire at the time was not to better the lives of ordinary Russians, but to destroy the Russian state. Losing a centuries old empire's entire wealth, national aristocracy, national church, large tracts of territory and literally tens-of-millions of people, Russians suffered by-far the worst fate under Western-financed and Jew-led Bolshevik revolution.
Joseph Stalin's sudden rise to power in the early 1920s after Vladimir Lenin's death and the long and bloody internal strife that subsequently followed (essentially a struggle between those like Stalin who wanted to preserve the Russian Empire and Marxist-Internationalists like Trotskyites who wanted to break-up the Russian Empire) in-effect helped preserve what had remained of the fallen Russian Empire. Thereafter, the onset of the Second World War, which whipped up strong nationalistic fervor inside Russian society, finished the process of "Russifying" the Soviet Union. It can therefore be said that Stalin's purges against Bolshevism and the German invasion of the Soviet Union Russified Communism. Consequently, ethnic Russians were able to avoid a fate even more tragic than the one they had already suffered. The following map taken from an article linked below this commentary depicts the general direction post-imperial Russia was heading in at the hands of Bolsheviks, before Joseph Stalin took control and brutally crushed their anti-Russian agenda -

It should be stressed that not only was the Bolshevik movement ultimately responsible for the deaths of millions of ethnic Russians, the utter decimation the Russian Orthodox Church, the virtual eradication of Russia's Romanov aristocracy and the thorough looting the empire’s massive wealth – they were also responsible for ceding to other nations lands populated by ethnic Russians. It therefore was not only Armenian lands that were given away as our professional Russophobes want us Armenians to believe. In fact, the Bolsheviks leadership at the time was even discussing doing away with the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. Had it been left up to the early (mostly Jewish) Bolshevik leadership to decide, Russia would have been broken-up into smaller pieces and God knows what would have happened to Armenia. The following article delves into this topic somewhat -
We do not to this day know if it was intentional, but it was Joseph Stalin that essentially saved Russia (and therefore Armenia) by "Russifying" Communism after the death of Vladimir Lenin. Lets recall that the early Bolsheviks had ceded Armenians lands to Turks and Azeris and had fused what had been remaining of Armenia with Georgia and Azerbaijan. It was under Stalin that Armenia became an official republic within the Soviet Union. It was under Stalin that Russian identity and hegemony was preserved in Eurasia.  It could therefore be said that Stalin saved the Russian Empire, and by extension Armenia, essentially by putting it under new management.

It's time we stopped blaming Russians for the evils of Bolsheviks during the early years of the Soviet Union.

Outside of former Soviet territories very little is known about Joseph Stalin and the period in question because as we know winners of wars and conflicts (Anglo-American-Jews and Europe's Globalist elite in this case) are always the writers of our history book and as well as the creators of the television programming and cinema that we have all been exposed to from birth. Although it is not generally speaking voiced in public, essentially because Organized Jewry still yields great influence in the country, this knowledge about Stalin is more-or-less why Russians remain faithful to his memory to this day. Naturally, until very recently this kind of information on Stalin was totally absent in the West. The Western/Jewish narrative, that which is relentlessly fed to the sheeple around the world, is that Stalin was simply a madman bent on destruction and bloodshed. Truth, as always, is much more nuanced and complicated, to say the least. Joseph Stalin ruthlessly crushed the anti-Russian agenda of the early Bolsheviks. He did similarly with various independence movements (including Armenian) that had begun to manifest themselves on the territory of the former Russian Empire. In doing so, Stalin helped preserve what had remained of the Russian Empire  from total annihilation. Despite the thousands of Armenians that were murdered by his security services - in the big historical context/picture - Stalin also helped save the Armenia state.

In his most recent marathon press conference, President Putin very interestingly touched upon this very subject. The Russian president even hinted about the ideological struggle that came forth after the Bolshevik revolution between men like Joseph Stalin (who espoused Russian Imperialism under the cloak of Communism) and men like Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky (avowed Marxist/Internationalists seeking to break-apart the Russian Empire). President Putin's comments were a not so subtle attack on Bolshevism -
Russia inherited myriad of ethnic ‘sore points’ after USSR collapsed, says Putin:
The Russian Federation is a massive landmass encompassing hundreds of different ethnicity, most of whom are natives of the land they live in. Bolsheviks essentially created a massive and bloody mess, a mess Russians (and us Armenians for that matter) are still grappling with today. Naturally, very little is written in the West about this subject matter. The following two books reviews are rare English-language looks at what in my opinion was Stalin's monumental struggle to save Russia from Marxists-Bolsheviks -
A magnificent account of Stalin’s opponents in the USSR:
All this should reveal to the reader that when it comes to the very complex time period in question, we the sheeple all too often have tunnel-vision and a shallow, even twisted understanding of time period. In recent years I came to the sobering realization that we have been taught from childhood to hate Joseph Stalin NOT because his security services were responsible for the deaths of countless people but essentially because he was responsible for single-handedly, albeit brutally, ruining the Anglo-American-Jewish plan to carve-up the Russian Empire. His fault was the brutality with which he used his security services to crush all opposition, real and imagined, against his effort to keep the territory of the former Russian Empire as intact as possible. In hindsight, however, knowing who and what he was up against, I realize he did not have a choice in the matter. In a nutshell: The man was feared and hated by the Anglo-American-Jewish world because he saved what had remained of the Russian Empire after the Bolshevik revolution. He was feared and hated becaise he Russified Communism. He was feared and hated because he began expanding the Soviet Union during the Cold War -
Did Hiroshima Save Japan From Soviet Occupation?:
All this is why Stalin was a major target not only for Western propagandists but also for assassins -
New Study Supports Idea Stalin Was Poisoned:
Russian hegemony in Eurasia was single-handedly preserved by Stalin. And thank God for that. From a historical/political perspective, the above is what the reader really needs to know about the man called Stalin. Everything else is more-or-less social engineering, psyops, propaganda and bullshit.

As mentioned above, with estimates of the dead in the tens-of-millions as a result of the ensuing upheavals brought upon by the Bolshevik  revolution, Christian Slavs suffered by-far the most under Bolshevik rule. The Russian Orthodox Church, its national aristocracy, its intelligentsia, its wealthy merchants, its military leadership and the vast economic infrastructure of the empire (an economy that was thought to be bigger than that of the United States at the time) was utterly decimated. Russia's immense national wealth was completely looted. Moreover, some in the Bolshevik leadership even attempted to replace Russia's Cyrillic alphabet with Latin script. The entire population of the former Russian Empire was terrorized into submission -
The Jewish Bolshevik Revolution (video):
Blaming Russians for the evils of Bolshevism is akin to blaming the murder victim for the actions of the murderer. Quite frankly, the fear of the Jewish establishment in the Western world is the main reason why no one today, including Russians, dares to speak the truth about Bolshevism. Bolshevism in the 1920s and the 1930s made Nazis look like boy scouts. Yet, while it's a crime in much of the Western world to display a Nazi Swastika, it's totally cool, rebellious, even commendable, to display Bolshevik symbols. Simply put: Bolshevism is sexy because it was Jewish. Nazism is evil because it was anti-Jewish.

From an Armenian perspective, let's recall that the Bolshevik revolution was the reason why Russian troops were forced to pull back from Western Armenia in 1917, abandoning Ottoman Armenians to their black fate. It can therefore be argued that Bolshevism was indirectly responsible for the Armenian Genocide. The threat of Bolshevism incidentally was also one of the fundamental factors behind the rise of Nazism in Germany. Ultimately, we need to understand that Bolshevism was a Western-backed Marxist/Internationalist agenda to destroy the Russian Empire. As noted above, the main intent/goal of the Bolshevik leadership was not the improvement of the sociopolitical situation in the Russian Empire but its utter destruction. This is why the Czar's personal reformer at the time was assassinated -
 Assassination of Pyotr Stolypin (September, 2012):
If Pyotr Stolypin's reform policies (which were fully backed by Czar Nicholas II) were given enough time to take effect and a robust middle class in the Russian Empire (which had already began to emerge) gotten bigger as a result, it could have deprived the  Bolshevik movement inside the Russian Empire the popular support and the momentum they needed to foment a bloody revolution. In other words, Marxist-Bolsheviks at the time were not genuinely interested in socioeconomic reform in the Russian Empire, they simply needed the Russian Empire in dire straits so that they could more easily exploit large numbers of Russia's landless peasantry in order to advance their political agenda against the Russian Empire and its Christian Czar. This is basically why Pyotr Stolypin was murdered by Jewish Bolsheviks. Despite all we now know about the rise of Bolshevism in Russia, we still have individuals among us that shamelessly bring-up the evils of Bolshevism in an effort to drive a wedge between Russians and the rest of the world. This is also done throughout the Armenian community. It is however encouraging that more-and-more people around the world, including Jews themselves, are beginning to rediscover the real true behind the history of Bolshevism -
"Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history"
The quote above is not mine, they are the words of an Israeli Jew. Read the rest of his revealing article on "Stalin's Jews" posted below this commentary. Incidentally, had a non-Jew written this article, it would not have seen the light of day in any mainstream news publication and its author would have been labeled an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi. One famous individuals who was accused of antisemitism was the famous outspoken critic of the Soviet Union Alexander Solzhenitsyn. One of the twentieth century's greatest novelist-writers, Solzhenitsyn could not keep his silence about this subject matter. See article about him towards the middle of this page. Some years prior to his death, Solzhenitsyn became quite vocal about disclosing the Jewish role in Bolshevik occupied Russia -

Russia and Russians were victims of Bolshevism. It's high time we take another look at the Marxist-Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Empire. It's time we exonerate the Russian nation and free the Russian people from the terrible burden of constantly being associated with the crimes of Bolshevism. Those to hang the crimes of Bolshevism around the necks of Russians are either idiots who have a lot to learn or agents of Western influence. It's therefore time we recognized the Russian nation not as the source of Marxist-Bolshevism but as the biggest victims of Marxist-Bolshevism.

July, 2010
(amended in 2019) 


It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo: It's making serious discussion of Russian geopolitics and history next to impossible

1. Introduction

Most people know about, but few are willing to condemn, the strict taboo in the media, of criticizing Jews as a group, using that term. One cannot even criticize a small subsection of Jews, a miniscule percentage of the Jewish population, even when they richly deserve it. Obviously, this is a ridiculous way to run a publication whose object is to get to the truth, so I am writing this to explain why, from now on, the pages of Russia Insider will be open to articles which fairly and honestly address the influence of Jewish elites, including pointing out when it is malevolent, which it often is, and try to understand it and explain it, with malice towards none.

I have become convinced that unless we break this taboo, nothing will improve in the human catastrophe unfolding in geopolitics. Millions have died over the past 30 years, and if we want it to stop that trend and avoid a cataclysm which seems to be approaching inexorably, we have to have the freedom to criticize those responsible. It is very clear to me, as it is to many others, that much of the guilt for this comes from Jewish pressure groups, particularly in the media. I can see as an editor, that much of what is written about geopolitics in the ‘public square,’ admirable though it may be in other respects, makes itself irrelevant by tiptoeing around this crucial issue.

I am a newcomer to the media world, unexpectedly thrust three years ago into the role of owner, publisher and editor of this fairly widely-read publication. We get about 10 million visits per month across all of our platforms from a sophisticated audience, and we are widely followed by so-called 'influencers.' We've made a big mark in a short time, and we did it by saying what others were not willing to say. Many subjects which we were the first to speak about on a major platform have now entered the mainstream.

Russia Insider is a grassroots phenomenon, and sometimes resembles a political movement as much as it does a publication. We exist solely because of small donations from readers. We get no funding from major donors, not to mention governments, foundations, or other organized groups. It is all private individuals. Our single largest donation over the past year was $5000, and the median gift is $30. We raised about $80,000 last year. This gives us the freedom to pretty much say what we want, something that can be said of very few publications, even in the alternative media space, most of whom are beholden to large donors.

I see every day how one can influence the public agenda by addressing or ignoring certain topics. One really can make a difference, and I have tried to have a positive impact, as I understand it. It has been a remarkable education in the power of the media, even of our relatively small Russia Insider. But this taboo is the great exception. It really is quite extraordinary to realize that you can publish about just about anything, except that. As I said, just about everyone knows about the taboo, and I did too in my previous career in business, but it is another thing altogether to enforce it — which I felt, until recently, compelled to do — and to have your nose rubbed in it every day when trying to make sense of world events.

2. The euphemisms

Some try to skirt the taboo with euphemisms. A veritable cottage industry has emerged, ever inventing new ones. Indeed, this is the new trend in the alt-media. We hear a lot about 'Zionists,' 'elites,' 'global elites,' 'globalists,' 'neocons,' 'liberal interventionists,' 'the war party,' 'the Israel lobby,' 'the deep state,' 'bankers,' 'new world order' (I've never understood what that is, actually), 'Bilderbergers' — sounds like a nice man from a central-European fairytale. My friend the Saker goes with 'Anglozionists.' But none of these terms work, do they? They all obscure the issue, actually enhancing the taboo’s inherent deceit.

Zionists? Really? I've never heard anyone describe themselves this way, or even other people describe them - 'Have you meet Max?, he's an enthusiastic Zionist!' I've never seen it mentioned as an interest in a social media profile (perhaps Facebook should include it as an Emoticon). Maybe Rachel Maddow IS a Zionist, what do I know, although as far as I understand, Zionism was a political movement that lost its urgency once the state of Israel was well on its merry way. Elites? Well, no, I would reckon many Jews are elites, but more Jews are not, and more elites are non-Jews, so no, that doesn't work. Well, you get the idea. These are attempts to slip past the ever-zealous censor, and they serve to maintain the confusion and deception.

No, the only trait that these people have in common is their Jewish heritage. Some are liberals, some are conservatives. Some are religious, some are not. Some are mixed Jewish heritage, some are not. Some care about Israel, some do not. Some support Israel others criticize her. They are politicians, journalists, academics, comedians, actors, or, businessmen. Some stem from Western Europe, others from Eastern Europe, and others from the Middle East.

3. Hostility to Putin's Russia is largely a Jewish phenomenon

Russia Insider's mission is to explain and describe Russia and her role in the world. As soon as you begin to drill into how other nations relate to Russia, and Russian history, it becomes obvious that the unreasonable hostility towards Putin's Russia, particularly coming from the US and the UK, is very much a Jewish phenomenon, and has been for centuries. And yes, 'Jewish' is the only term that accurately describes it, and not one of the many euphemisms we frequently see used. The most vitriolic and obsessive Russia-bashing journalists in the media are mostly Jewish. The publications which push these writers most energetically are ALL Jewish-owned, and as a publisher, I know very well, that is where the buck stops.

On the policy side, the neo-conservative movement, Russia's harshest foe, was conceived of, is led by, and consists mostly of, Jews. And their trouble-making extends far beyond Russia - they are responsible for America's disastrous debacle in the Middle East over the last 20 years - where their crimes have been stymied by precisely one country - Russia. The psychotically anti-Russian recent UN ambassadors, Nikki Haley and Samantha Power, were put there by the Israel lobby, and given an independent brief, in other words, they answer not to their presidents, rather to their Jewish sponsors.

In Congress the biggest Russia-Gate tub-thumpers are noticeably Jewish - Schiff, Schumer, Cardin, Blumenthal, Franken (although not as overwhelmingly as in the media). The Israel lobby routinely enforces legislation hostile to Russia. Bill Browder with his Magnitsky Sanctions - is Jewish.

4. The media

But let's talk about the media - for this is where the real power lies. All other levers and branches of government pale in comparison when it comes to real political influence.

At the two leading newspapers of the land, the New York Times and The Washington Post, both very Jewish in ownership, editors, and staff, have been waging an all-out jihad against Putin's Russia, and are guilty of the most grotesque dishonesty, slander and journalistic malpractice - exhaustively catalogued by one of the most authoritative and admired veteran journalists in America, Robert Parry, winner of the Polk award, among other accolades. You can see an archive of his extraordinary work criticizing these two publications, particularly in relation to Russia, here. Trump and his supporters are up in arms about these two papers' serial mendacity about him both before and after his election - well they have been doing the same with Putin and Russia for a good 18 years now, and gone much further in their dishonesty, hard as that might be to believe.

PBS, with its lily-white image as purveyor of Masterpiece Theater and other highbrow offerings, is wholly dependent on donations from wealthy Jews. Like some Gentile starlet submitting to Harvey Weinstein, that station has allowed itself to be used, churning out a relentless stream of the most ridiculous anti-Putin propaganda that would be funny if it wasn't so effective among the gray-haired, non-flyover denizens of America, and their deep pocketbooks. CNN, a deeply Jewish company, has been pushing Russiagate like a religion, to the point where their brand has suffered severe damage.

Rachel Maddow, the nation's most popular and influential liberal political show host is Jewish. She has gone so overboard demonizing Russia and pushing Russiagate that she has become a figure of fun. On the print side, the list is the same - the ones shrieking the loudest are mostly Jews, and disproportionately female - and there is an important lesson there too - Masha Gessen, Anne Applebaum, and Julia loffe, to name a few.

The refrain from the male chorus is no less strident. David Remnick, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer. Even comedy news hates Russia - John Oliver, Jon Stewart (previously), Bill Maher, all Jews, go to great efforts to convince Americans that Putin's Russia is, quite literally - and this term is frequently used - 'Hitlerian.'

Jewish-owned high brow magazines have been leading the charge against Putin - the Newhouse's New Yorker, the NY Review of Books (the management of this venerable magazine is obsessed with the subject). The New Republic, Newsweek, The Atlantic, and the Rothschild-owned Economist pump out story after story full of what can only be called lies, in a massive campaign to demonize Russia and Putin. Timothy Snyder, the Yale historian, and Michael Weiss, the neocon firebrand whose website, The Interpreter, is funded by the exiled Jewish oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, are two more prominent figures in this phenomenon.

The Economist deserves special mention with Ed Lucas leading the charge (previously), (he is the great nephew of Charles Portal, allegedly Jewish chief of the air staff in Britain during WW2 who was allegedly a relentless proponent of fire-bombing German civilians and is thought to be behind the burning of Dresden). I suppose having a purported war criminal in the family means never having to say you are sorry. Equally vitriolic are the writings of Ben Judah and his father, Tim.

But to draw attention to all this, or to investigate whether there is something about their Jewishness that makes them so hostile to Russia, is simply, verboten. Inevitably, when I point out this overwhelming ethnic imbalance, people say, well what about the many critics of the hostility to Russia who are Jewish? – the eminently admirable Glenn Greenwald is a prominent example, and there are many others. The answer is, that the exception to a trend doesn’t disprove it, and can often serve to mask it.

5. A de facto violation of free speech

The truth is, that in a nation which frantically pats itself on the shoulder for enshrining ‘free speech’ in its national credo, and ceaselessly lectures others on the subject with pompous sanctimony, speech is not de facto free on this crucial and world-threatening subject, a remarkable, and dangerous, state of affairs. I will not be clapped into prison for publishing this article, but the taboo works like a charm to keep the topic out of public discussion. Who needs repressive laws when you can con people into censoring themselves? In Germany, the dominant power in Europe, and in other European countries, I could be locked up for it – another shocking thought, for this son of Germany. The Jewish dominance of the Russia-bashing phenomenon is far more extensive than I can convey in a couple of short paragraphs, and I urge someone to do this in a more systematic way. I will be happy to publish it.

6. Shutting down an honest examination of Russian history

One of the most spectacular aspects of the taboo is how it whitewashes one of the most extraordinary events in the history of mankind, the Russian revolution. Many White Russians fleeing the revolution believed that it was mostly a Jewish coup d’etat, financed by wealthy bankers in New York and London who were sworn enemies of Christian Tsarism. Indeed there is strong evidence to suggest that this is true. This view argues that the terror visited on Russia during the civil war and its aftermath, continuing well into the Stalin years, for he could not really control it either, was a Jewish one. Cursory evidence also suggests that this is so, if only because so much of the Bolshevik leadership was Jewish, in particular, Trotsky, but also many other vicious personalities, especially in the secret police which so terrorized the Russian people.

Henry Ford was heavily influenced by this view, which he heard from Russian emigres, augmenting his anti-semitism, and it has been well-documented by liberal mainstream historians that the German National Socialist movement became radically more anti-semitic in reaction to this interpretation, which they adopted, strongly influenced by an influx of White Russians finding refuge in Europe. But one doesn’t hear a whisper about all this in mainstream historical articles, even to debunk it, presumably because someone might have their ‘feelings’ hurt.

This all reverberates to this day. The virulent and entrenched anti-semitism in today’s Ukraine is a direct heir of this White Russian view. This is because the Nazis had long-standing subversive programs implemented by their White Russian allies inside Ukraine and the Baltics, which were heavily German in ethnicity. The famines of the 30s increased the sentiment. When Hitler invaded, this work paid off magnificently, and Western Ukraine enthusiastically welcomed him and fought with his armies, as did many in the Baltics. After the war, German intelligence, in return for clemency, traded this network to the CIA, which continued the program to destabilize the USSR, and these programs, representing significant financial and institutional support continued right through the cold war, and into the present day.

What happened in 2014 in the Ukraine had a 100-year provenance, and is inextricably linked to alleged Jewish culpability for the revolution. But for all the gallons of ink spilled about the events of 2014, this crucial background is left largely undiscussed, even in the alternative media (I of all people, can attest to this). Such is the reach and devastating effect of this taboo.

The enormity of the omission is mind-boggling. The suffering of the Russian people in the decades after the revolution was extraordinary – and here there is little agreement – modern revisionists insist that the revolution and its aftermath claimed perhaps 2 million victims, others say it reached into the 10s of millions. And it is not just the number of people, but the way it was carried out – families ripped apart, fathers hauled off in the middle of the night, churches blown up, priests tortured and subjected to ritual murder, phony confessions beaten out of innocents, summary executions without trial, an enforced culture of snitching, millions sent to slave labor camps – a nation was held in terror for decades, traumatized to this day. If there is even the slightest suspicion that this was in essence, a Jewish pogrom against ethnic Russians, surely it deserves some public examination.

But no, it seems people think observing the taboo is more important. We try on Russia Insider to give exposure to this view of events, which I believe deserves a hearing – I am not enough of an expert to say whether it is correct - but so effective is the taboo, that there is little of quality available. There is a very substantial body of work available about this in Russian, most of it written since the fall of Communism, - in contrast to the West, this is a widely discussed view inside Russia – so the heavy lifting has been done – it just needs to be rendered into English.

7. The best alt-media journalists are neutered

One of the things we do at RI is to scan the alternative media for what we think are the best articles about Russia, and republish them with a link to the original. We also keep an eye on what we think are the most dishonest articles - and critique them, and it is this comprehensive surveying of the writers and the publications that gives me such a strong understanding of the Jewishness of the hostility. The casual reader’s awareness of it may be anecdotal – I can assure you, it is more pronounced than people realize. When you read, catalog, analyze, track, and critique this river of thought 8 hours a day it becomes starkly obvious.

I am routinely and happily amazed by the fantastic writing about Russia, left, right, and center, in the alternative media, which comes from a most impressive cast of characters, the bulk of it about geopolitics. The intellectual heft and scholarship is extraordinary. Borrowing from this brilliance, we put out a deeper and more thorough analysis of things Russia-related than news organizations with 20 times our budget. Some of these men are true heroes, speaking truth to power, fighting back against a system gone horribly wrong, brave, selfless, often sacrificing career and financial well-being - but there is one line they won't cross.

8. Much of what is written about Russian relations and history becomes meaningless and deceptive

Sadly, a lot of what they write, is, meaningless, and almost amounts to professional malpractice, because the Jewish push for confrontation with Russia is, by far, the most significant factor. Excluding it from a discussion of geopolitics is ignoring the elephant, not in the corner, rather the one dancing a Mazurka in the middle of the room. We should not forget that willful omission is a species of lying, and is recognized as such in a court of law, and this case is no different.

The omission is misleading, and sows endless confusion, for it compels writers to place blame where it does not really belong - the list of culprits is endless: 'Democrats,' Liberals,' sometimes it is 'America did this,' or 'Americans did that,' or it is Trump, or Obama, or Hillary, or Rex Tillerson, or John McCain, or the Military-Industrial-Complex, the Deep State, the Intelligence Community, and on and on. Yes, these individuals are complicit, (except ‘America,’ it is a ridiculous notion that we 350 million souls collectively agree on anything) but it is not their spineless treachery that is of prime importance, rather the powerful Jews in American politics and media who so easily compel them to dance to their tune.

9. A lesson in relevance from the Alt-Right

The Alt-Right is helpful in understanding Russia, because it has intellectual heft, and produces a lot of good writing about Russia and Russian relations, much of which is spot-on. We follow the Alt-Right media and republish the occasional article, and they are invariably very popular on Russia Insider – largely, I think, because they are offering a fresh point of view, and talking about vitally important issues others refuse to address.

The Alt-Right is a youth movement. Its leaders are mostly in their 30s, and the rank and file, which is large indeed, running, by some estimates, into the 10s of millions globally, seems to mostly range from mid-teens to mid-20s. Much of the Alt-Right has completely discarded this taboo and revels in flouting it, indeed, trampling on it, as is the wont of young people regarding the more tedious and preposterous conventions of every era.

It is axiomatic, I think, that one way youth benefits society, is that they question what the old men are saying - shake things up a bit, make them examine their assumptions. It is no coincidence that in the Emperor With No Clothes children’s story, it is a child who points out the obvious, what the adults are so desperately pretending not to see, because it will impair their material well-being. Pointing out the pernicious effects of the influence of certain Jewish elites on many aspects of American and European society and politics, as the Alt-Right does, greatly assists in understanding how politics really work.

If you doubt this, then I highly recommend that you listen to a couple of episodes of the most popular Alt-Right podcasts, like Fash the Nation, or Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right Politics, easily accessible by smartphone. The Fash the Nation hosts are two Beltway policy wonks who sound like they are in their late 20s or early 30s, who spend a couple hours each week talking politics. In their analysis, when relevant, and not over-stating it, they point out when Jewish interests are at play, when politicians, journalists, lobbyists, publishers, publications, foundations, or their main funders, allies, spouses, and backers, are Jewish. The gang at Alt-Right Politics does the same. It becomes very clear what is intuitively obvious - that blotting out any mention of this hampers any serious discussion.

(For Fash the Nation, I recommend episodes with Marcus Halberstram, like this one, and for Alt Right Politics, the year-in-review episode was a good one. The Fash the Nation hosts use obscenity on their show, which unfortunately detracts from their credibility, but don't be put off by it, put it up to youthful ignorance - they are worth listening to.)

By blowing up this taboo, the Alt-Right is making itself relevant, and those who cling to it, irrelevant. A taboo only works if it is universally observed - if a sizable number of people begin ignoring it, everyone else begins to look increasingly ridiculous. Liberals spend an inordinate amount of time wringing their hands about the Alt-Right. By refusing to openly and fairly discuss Jewish influence, they are handing them a powerful competitive advantage. The Alt-Right is doing society a service by addressing an issue that urgently needs sunlight, and by providing an ecosystem of websites and podcasts where authors can be published and critiqued, and points argued back and forth. Much of the discussion of Jewish influence in the Alt-Right is very scholarly, fair and balanced, i.e. the work of Kevin MacDonald or Michael Hoffman.

I believe the Alt-Right will continue to gain traction, simply because they intelligently discuss two sacred cows – the Jewish Question, and, closely linked to it, racial equality in terms of abilities, and the desirability of mixed-race societies. As long as they are addressing these two crucial issues, and no one else is, they will grow.

10. Malice towards none

Another pernicious effect of taboos is that they can lead to angry outbursts. When problems are not addressed, they tend to fester and worsen, until they become intolerable, and then there is sometimes a sudden and violent reaction. You can see this dynamic in the public discussion of the malevolent influence of Jewish elites. Some people, when they finally perceive its reach and harm, having been misled by people they admired and trusted, lash out in anger – a common reaction when you find out you’ve been deceived about something vitally important. This, I believe, is another reason to be rid of this taboo as soon as possible – it has a way of making things worse.

Obviously, this discussion should be done without any hatred or anger to Jews as a whole. The Jews who are causing the trouble – the ones at the pinnacles of political and media power, are a small group indeed. Anyone who has grown up with and knows Jews well, as I have, knows that they are like people everywhere - basically decent, and this has been my overwhelming personal experience. It is their elite institutions that for some reason are clearly malevolent, and this demands public examination, not the least by Jews themselves. What I am calling for is criticizing the elites who have given their nation a very bad name, and figuring out why this pattern repeats itself throughout history.

11. The problem extends to all areas of public life

The ongoing sex scandals which grace our front pages seem to provide an exclamation point to the phenomenon. Across the board, from Hollywood to entertainment to media to Washington, the poor sods being called out by the screeching harpy mob tend towards a certain ethnicity, not to mention the leading men in the spectacle. For all the talk and blather and belly button contemplation that the drama is evoking, no one, outside the Alt-Right, mentions this obvious fact, for it would be impolite.

The problem seems to arise when Jews get into positions of influence, i.e., when they join the dreaded 'elites.' Then, for some reason, regardless of their political sympathies or other particulars, they get up to no good - and something goes seriously wrong. Maybe the powerful Jewish institutions - the media, the banks, the movie studios, the music industry, etc, are in the hands of degenerates who demand bad behavior as the price of admission, and then enforce it. I really don't know, but obviously, the question begs for an examination, as the evidence suggests that much of human enterprise dominated and shaped by Jews is a bottomless pit of trouble with a peculiar penchant for mendacity and cynicism, hostility to Christianity and Christian values, and in geopolitics, a clear bloodlust.

Hollywood and TV dramas? A completely Jewish-dominated industry, and a soulless spiral of depravity and cynicism, which only worsens with each passing year. Financial markets? - ditto - just watch the movies The Big Short or The Wolf of Wall Street for a particularly vivid illustration. Pop music and the rap nightmare? - ditto. The state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians? - more of the same. American foreign policy? - an unmitigated disaster which has murdered millions and squandered trillions over the last 30 years.

And I think 'murder' is the right word here - I think if you would ask the relatives of the 2 or so million Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, East Ukrainians, or Serbs who died in the wars instigated by the largely Jewish-dictated US foreign policy over the past couple of decades, that they would back me up on that. In each of these cases, one sees a tendency towards dishonesty. Indeed the whole 'Fake News' phenomenon, is fundamentally Jewish. It is the Jewish-owned American and European media which churn out an astonishing quantity of what can only be called lies.

12. We need serious scholarship and analysis

Yes, 1900 years after the exasperated Romans scattered the Hebrew tribes to the four winds, the 'JQ' is still a huge, messy, unsolved problem, and in our age, it is reaching yet another crisis. I can only speak with authority on a subject I know a lot about: Western foreign policy towards Russia, and the Jewish influence there, is nothing short of an extinction-level threat to the entire planet. I am sure experts in Middle Eastern politics would confirm something similar. All this needs scholarship and serious inquiry, to finally get to the bottom of this ongoing tragedy, a tragedy for both Jew and Gentile alike. Some writers have made important inroads, like Kevin MacDonald, but much more needs to be done to understand the problem.

One serious writer, Michael Hoffman, in his book Judaism's Strange Gods, argues the problem is with modern Judaism, which has changed radically from the religion of the Old Testament, effectively hijacked by various Jewish sects such as the New Testament era Pharisees who inspire misanthropic behavior among elites. I really can't say, but it is precisely this kind of inquiry which is needed to figure out, as our president likes to say 'what the hell is going on.'

13. Low expectations from the existing alt-media

I know that many writers and editors in the alt-media, and the alt-lite, privately agree with what I have written here, but we should not expect many of them to break the taboo anytime soon. The reason is that they mostly barely hang on financially, and often work for tiny wages, and any such change in editorial policy would knock out a certain part of their funding (not to mention some of their better authors), making their financial situation untenable. Some are beholden to foundations or governments who would pull support. The needed intellectual work is going to be done on the few platforms whose support base will tolerate it – and this will mostly be on the Alt-Right, or publications that can buck the tide, like Russia Insider.

14. A call for articles and support

I met strong resistance to the ideas expressed here from colleagues, staff and columnists who contribute to RI. I've discussed it at length with many of them. Some of the best writers on the site, and some of the most articulate critics of America's inane policy towards Russia, are Jewish. Some agree with me privately, but say that to do so publicly would so damage their careers that they cannot. Some do not agree. Russia Insider depends heavily on reader contributions, and I suppose this will curtail donations from some, so if you agree with this article, then now would be a good time to click on the donate button.

Discussion of the Jewish problem (and 'problem' is the right word here) is obviously not going to be the focus of Russia Insider - we try to be primarily about Russia, but I am willing to give space to this issue, and not just as it relates to Russia. I invite all writers, including from the Alt-Right, to get in touch with me directly at with article ideas, proposals, or anything else, and yes, we will publish articles which use (((echoes))).

It is my great regret that we are not in a position to pay authors for articles. If anyone reading this is in a position to help provide funding to pay writers on this important subject, that would be helpful, because it immediately raises the quality and depth of the writing. If you are interested, please get in touch with me directly.

At the end of the day, I don't care whether other people agree with me on this or not, whether I lose or gain authors or donations, traffic or influence, or whether the big tech platforms try to hush us up (they are already actively doing so). I started this site in the Fall of 2014 to call out a terrible crime, a whopping lie being told, by the media, most vociferously by Jews in very influential Jewish-owned publications, (Andrew Kramer and the editorial board of the New York Times being the prime example) about the conflict in the Ukraine. I didn't see it as a Jewish problem then – I just knew it wasn’t true. I knew relatively little about Jewish influence at the time. But after three years of immersing myself in political analysis and media criticism, it is as plain as day that this is the case.

Ynetnews: Stalin's Jews

 "Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history"

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB. We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags. Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself. In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World, "Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined "terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate. All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women. Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist. In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things. Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.


The Jerusalem Post: Was the Russian Revolution Jewish?,fl_lossy/t_JD_ArticleMainImageFaceDetect/398850

A hundred years after the Bolsheviks swept to power, historians and contemporaries still struggle to understand the prominent role played by Jews

On April 9, 1917, a train pulled into a station at Thayngen, a Swiss town on the German border. There was a group of 32 Russians on board and the customs officials confiscated chocolate and sugar from them. The passengers were exceeding the legal limit on importation of goods. Then the train shuffled in to Gottmadingen on the German side of the border. Two German soldiers boarded the passenger cars and separated the Russians from the rest, moving them to second- and third-class berths.

The “Russians” were an eclectic group, including 10 women and two children. Their names would have been known in left-wing and revolutionary circles of the time, so some traveled under aliases. On board was Karl Radek from Lvov in what is now Ukraine, and Grigory Zinoviev and his wife, Zlata, also from Ukraine. There was the half-Armenian Georgii Safarov and his wife as well as Marxist activist Sarah “Olga” Ravich. Grigory Useivich from Ukraine was accompanied by his wife Elena Kon, the daughter of a Russian woman named Khasia Grinberg. The vivacious French feminist Inessa Armand sang and cracked jokes with Radek, Ravich and Safarov. Eventually their shouting angered the leader of the group, who poked his head into their berth and scolded them. The leader was Vladimir Lenin, and he was taking his small group by sealed train for a weeklong journey that would end at Finland Station in St. Petersburg. Half a year later Lenin and some of his cohorts would be running a new state, the Russian Soviet Republic.

Some observers saw Lenin and his band as a motley group of Jewish revolutionaries. Alexander Guchkov, the Russian minister of war in the Russian Provisional Government after Tsar Nicholas II abdicated in March 1917, told the British military attaché General Alfred Knox that “the extreme element consists of Jews and imbeciles.” Lenin’s train had included 19 members of his Bolshevik party, several of his allies among the Mensheviks and six Jewish members of the Jewish Labor Bund. Almost half the passengers on the train were Jewish. Yet history has largely forgotten them. Catherine Merridale’s recent Lenin on the Train doesn’t delve into the preponderance of Jews. A recent article in The New Yorker about “Lenin and the Russian Spark,” chronicling 100 years since the journey, entirely discounts the Jewish aspect of the revolutionaries.

The reason for this is complicated and tied up with notions of antisemitism as well as attempt by the revolutionaries themselves to whitewash their ethnic and religious differences. Even though Lenin often praised Jews in his circle, his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya’s own Reminiscences of Lenin (1933) sought to remove these touchy subjects in line with Soviet policy.A hundred years after the Russian Revolution, there is nostalgia and renewed interest in those figures who led it and the tragedies it unleashed. The 2016 Spanish film The Chosen follows Ramon Mercader, the assassin of Leon Trotsky, and this year’s British film The Death of Stalin turns that event into something of a comedy. In Russia, a new series looks at Leon Trotsky. Producer Konstantin Ernst told the Guardian, “I think he [Trotsky] combines everything, good and evil, injustice and bravery. He’s the archetypal 20th-century revolutionary. But people shouldn’t think that if Trotsky had won and not Stalin, things would have been better, because they wouldn’t have been.”

The question of “what might have been” is uniquely tied to Trotsky because he often symbolized the anti-Stalinist, the wild revolutionary with global impulses and intellectual imagination, as opposed to the doer and statist Stalin with his murderous purges. Part of that motif is tied up in Trotsky’s Jewishness and the larger number of Jewish revolutionaries, activists and followers who were attracted to Communism in the late 19th century.

The role of Jews in the Russian Revolution, and by extension Communism writ large, has always been a sensitive subject because antisemitic voices often painted Soviet Communism as a Jewish plot, or “Jewish Bolshevism.” When Alexander Solzhenitsyn began work on a book called 200 Years Together, he was criticized for what touching this taboo issue. His own comments to the press didn’t help the matter, claiming two-thirds of the Cheka (secret police) in Ukraine were Jewish.“I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited.” Unsurprisingly, his book has been posted in PDF form on antisemitic websites.

On October 16, the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow hosted an exhibition called “Freedom for All? The History of One People in the Years of Revolution.” With exhibitions and first-person accounts, it focused on Jewish luminaries of the era, such as Trotsky, Julius Martov, Marc Chagall, Vera Inber, Simon Dubnov and Vasily Shulgin.Dubnov, born in 1860 in what is now Belarus, was an enthusiastic Jewish activist. A professor of Jewish history in St. Petersburg (then called Petrograd), he supported Jewish self-defense units and literature and thought the revolution would bring equality. However, he left in dismay in 1922, eventually settling Riga, Latvia. He was murdered by the Nazis in 1941. Before his death he reflected on Jews like Trotsky who joined the Revolution.“They appear under Russian pseudonyms because they are ashamed of their Jewish origins. It would be better to say that their Jewish names are pseudonyms; they are not rooted in our people.

”Winston Churchill agreed. In a piece in the Illustrated Sunday Herald in 1920, he broadly stereotyped Jews as either “international” communists, loyal nationalists or Zionists. He called it the “struggle for the soul of the Jewish people” and claimed the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution “probably outweighs [the role] of all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.”

Churchill claimed that the driving power came from Jewish leaders, who eclipsed their counterparts. He named names: Maxim Litvinoff, Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Radek, Leonid Krassin. He called this tendency “astonishing” and accused Jews of playing “the prominent, if not indeed the principal part in the system of terrorism” that had then become known as “red terror” or the suppression of those in the Soviet Union who deviated from the communist line.

One of those whom Churchill singled out for opprobrium was Bela Kun, the Hungarian Jew who briefly played the leading role in Hungary when it was a Soviet republic in 1919. Kun fled when Hungary was invaded by Romania, fleeing to the Soviet Union where he was put in charge of the Revolutionary Committee in Crimea along with Rosalia Zemlyachka. Their regime there was responsible for murdering around 60,000 people. Kun was arrested during Stalin’s purges, accused of promoting “Trotskyism” and executed in 1938. His life was symbolic of so many others: a young revolutionary whose idealism was colored by the murderous methods of Communism and who ended up a victim of the very regime he sought to create, like so many Jewish revolutionaries, accused of being counter-revolutionaries.

HOW DID it all go so wrong? To look for some answers, YIVO Institute for Jewish Research held a conference on Jews in and after the Russian Revolution earlier this month in New York City. In the introduction to the conference they note the paradoxical role of Jews and their fate during the revolution.“The Russian Revolution liberated the largest Jewish community in the world. It also opened the floodgates for the greatest massacre of Jews before the Second World War amid the civil war and its aftermath in 1918 to 1921.” However, Jews also “entered into nearly every sphere of Russian life while, in time, much of the singular richness of Jewish cultural life in Russia was flattened, eventually obliterated.”

The roughly three million Jews of the Soviet Union at the time of the revolution constituted the largest Jewish community in the world, but they were only around 2% of the USSR’s population. They were concentrated in the Pale of Settlement (a western region of Imperial Russia) and in Ukraine and Belarussia, where they were 5% to 10% of the population, whereas in Russia itself the 1926 census found only 600,000 Jews.

As a group in the vastness of the USSR, they were one of the largest minorities, alongside Georgians, Armenians, Turks, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgiz, Tartars, Moldovians, Poles and Germans. None of these other groups played such a central role in the revolution, although members of many of them rose to senior levels. Stalin was a Georgian. Felix Dzerzhinsky, who established the Soviet secret police, was a Polish aristocrat. Given the Soviet Union’s complexity and predilection for numerous layers of bureaucracy it is a difficult to quantify the number of Jews throughout senior leadership positions during and just after the revolution of 1917. Half of the top contenders in the Central Committee of the Communist Party to take power after Lenin’s health declined in 1922 – Lev Kamenev, Trotsky and Zinoviev – were Jewish. Yakov Sverdlov, the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee from November 1917 to his death in 1919, was Jewish. Born in 1885, he had joined the Russian Social Democratic Party in 1902 and became a member of the Bolshevik faction with Lenin early on. Like others of his generation he took part in the 1905 revolution. His father converted to Russian Orthodoxy.

The large number of Jews in leading parts of the party was not lost on those non-Jews around them. V.M. Molotov, the powerful foreign minister of the Soviet Union under Stalin, made many remarks about Jews to Felix Chuev in a series of conversations between 1969 to 1986 that became the basis for the 1991 book Molotov Remembers. He recalled that as Lenin lay dying “at the time Jews occupied many leading positions, though they made up only a small percentage of the country’s population.” Of Zinoviev, he recalled, “He didn’t even look like a Jew.”

Antisemitism was an issue within the party. Molotov recalled in 1912 when he was at the Russian newspaper Pravda, “We received a letter from [Nikolay] Krestinsky. He wrote that Lenin was an antisemite.” This was because Lenin had opposed the Mensheviks, a separate communist faction.“Almost all the Mensheviks were Jews. Even among the Bolsheviks, among the leaders there were many Jews. Generally, Jews are the most oppositional nation. But they were inclined to support the Mensheviks.”Molotov also claimed that many of the men around Stalin had Jewish wives.“There is an explanation. Oppositionist and revolutionary elements formed a higher percentage among Jews than among Russians. Insulted, injured and oppressed, they were more versatile. They penetrated everywhere, so to speak.” He claimed that Jews were more “active” than average Russians.

“Biding their time, they sniff around, stir things up, but are always prepared.” Molotov also acknowledged Zionism’s pull on Jews. “The Jews had long struggled for their own state under a Zionist flag. We, of course, were against Zionism. But to refuse a people the right to statehood would mean oppressing them.”The fork in the road of history that led some Jews in the Russian Empire to embrace Zionism and many others to embrace various leftist revolutionary movements that eventually led to the Soviet Union was reached in the 19th century. Beginning in 1827, the Russian Empire sought to modernize its army through a universal draft. Jews had to serve 25 years and their own communities had to choose approximately four conscripts for every 1,000 members of the community (1,500 to 3,000 a year), according to the YIVO Encyclopedia.

Although non-Jews served the same amount of time, Jews were recruited at age 12 and not 18 like others, which led to their “Russification.”Tsar Alexander II abolished this system and allowed Jews to move out of the Pale of Settlement into Russian cities, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg.“As a result of these policies, many Jews became more involved in the cultural and intellectual life of Russia,” notes the Center for Israel Education in Atlanta. After Alexander II was assassinated in 1881, a wave of hundreds of pogroms swept the country.New restrictions were imposed, limiting where Jews could live and work. This helped cause a vast migration of Jews abroad, including 2.3 million who left for the New World between 1881 and 1930. When Theodor Herzl visited the Russian Empire in 1903, he met Count Witte, the minister of finance. According to Leonard Schapiro, who authored The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in 1961, Herzl found that “50% of the membership of the revolutionary parties was Jewish.” Herzl asked Witte why.

“I think it’s the fault of our government. The Jews are too oppressed.” Schapiro argues that Jews moved into revolutionary circles as they gained access to intellectual circles. Ironically then, the more Jews gained wealth and freedom in the empire, the more they also awakened to their predicament and joined the slow gurgling rebellion against the ancient regime. Distinct choices emerged among Jews. Many, like former Israel prime minister Golda Meir’s family, went to the New World. Around 40,000 decided to move directly to the Land of Israel, becoming the leading members of what became known as the First Aliya. Among those were men like Joseph Trumpeldor, who was born in Pyatigorsk, Russia, in 1880 and moved to Ottoman Palestine in 1911 after serving in the Russian army. Isaac Leib Goldberg, the founder of the Hovevei Zion movement in 1882, was born in Poland in 1860 but grew up under the Russian Empire, and played and influential role in Zionist circles, co-founding Haaretz in 1919.

Immigrant Jews founded the Society for the Support of Jewish Farmers and Artisans in Syria and Eretz Israel in 1890, which helped settle Rehovot and Hadera. Often called the “Odessa Committee,” this group had over 4,000 members. Similarly, the Bilu group founded in Kharkov sent its members to found Gedera in Palestine.Jews embraced self-defense in reaction to the pogroms as well. The writer Leon Pinsker from Odessa was emblematic of that awakening, turning from embracing assimilation to realizing that Jews would always suffer antisemitism as the proverbial outsiders.Pinsker’s friend Meir Dizengoff, a veteran of the Russian army, was the first mayor of Tel Aviv. Among the founders of the first self-defense organization in Palestine, called Hashomer, were Alexander Zaid from Siberia and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi from Poltava in Ukraine.

Of those millions who chose to stay under the empire, many fought for Jewish rights in Russia. Maxim Vinaver, a resident of St. Petersburg from 1906 to 1917, was born in 1862 in Warsaw. A lawyer, he founded the Party of Popular Freedom (Constitutional Democratic Party-Kadets) and was chairman of the League for the Attainment of Equal Rights for the Jewish People in Russia (Folksgrupe). Described as a “tall, imposing, cultured man” by the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, he was elected to the first State Duma created in the wake of the 1905 revolution. He arrived alongside 12 other Jewish deputies out of 478. Two of these Jews were Shmaryahu Levin and Leon Bramson, who had the support of the Jewish Labor Bund. Levin went on to support the creation of the Technion in Israel, and Bramson helped found ORT. Another Jew elected was Nissan Katznelson, a friend of Herzl.

Vinaver came to lead the group of Jews in the Duma and pressed for equality of minorities in the empire. “We Jews represent one of the nationalities which have suffered more, yet never once have we spoken only about ourselves. For we consider it to be inappropriate to speak just of this and not of civil equality for all,” he said in a speech.

Vinaver created and chaired a cornucopia of Jewish groups, including the Jewish National Group, the Jewish Society for the Encouragement of the Arts and Jewish Historical-Ethnographic Society. In contrast to Jews who gravitated toward more radical communist groups, or toward Zionism, Vinaver represented those who sought equality in the empire in a milieu that was proudly Jewish.Trotsky’s 1930 autobiography My Life sought to downplay his Jewishness. Lessons at school on the Jewish people “were never taken seriously by the boys,” he writes in discussing his Jewish classmates. Although he admits the discriminatory atmosphere of the 1880s and he lost a year of schooling due to anti-Jewish quotas, he writes, “In my mental equipment, nationality never occupied an independent place, as it was felt but little in everyday life.”

Furthermore, he argues that although “national in-equality probably was one of the underlying causes of my dissatisfaction with the existing order, it was lost among all the other phases of social injustice. It never played a leading part, not even a recognized one in the lists of my grievances.”Of particular interest, Trotsky never mentions the word “Jew” after his fifth chapter dealing with his early education up to the year 1891. Despite being surrounded by Jews, he buries this ethnic and religious issue entirely.How could he skip over the Jewish context when it was all around him? Stepan Mikoyan, born in 1922, a test pilot and son of prominent Stalin-era politician Anastas Mikoyan, wrote an autobiography in 1999. In it, he calls Stalin a “militant antisemite.” Molotov, however, insisted that Stalin was “not an antisemite… he appreciated many qualities in the Jewish people: capacity for hard work, group solidarity and political activeness.”

However, being from a non-Russian minority, Stalin always seemed suspicious of this other minority group. When he was commissar of nationalities from 1917 to 1924, he was called upon to investigate a “mess,” according to Molotov. He didn’t appoint a single Jew to the committee and Lenin wondered why. Trotsky’s aversion to seeing himself in a Jewish context likely derived from the early disputes in 1904 when the revolutionaries had to decide whether Jews would be included as a distinct group in the organization.

FOR THE Jewish revolutionaries, the years from 1904 to the revolution were spent in a fever of activity. In 1904, a dispute at the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party between Julius Martov and Lenin led to the creation of Lenin’s Bolsheviks and Martov’s Mensheviks.Martov was Jewish, as were many Mensheviks. At the heart of the debate that led to the split in the RSDLP was a dispute over whether the General Jewish Labor Bund (the “Bund”), which had cofounded the RSDLP in 1898, could remain an autonomous group. This was a harbinger of things to come. Eventually those Bund leaders, such as Mikhail Liber, who sought to remain part of the revolution, but distinctly Jewish, would be sent into exile or shot in the 1930s. Martov left Russia in 1920, calling the civil war that erupted after the revolution a “growing bestiality of men.” He died in exile. Some Jewish Bundists remained in the USSR and rose to senior positions. Israel Leplevsky from Brest-Litovsk became minister of internal affairs of Ukraine before being arrested and shot in 1938. David Petrovsky from Berdychiv became an influential economic planner until being arrested and shot in 1937. His wife, Rose Cohen, a founder of the Communist Party of Great Britain, was also shot.

Trotsky’s life before the revolution is more instructive of the networks of Jewish Bolsheviks. Arrested in 1906, he was sent into exile by the tsarist state. He escaped and made his way to Vienna, where he became friends with Adolph Joffe. Joffe came from a family of Jewish Crimean Karaites and became an editor of Pravda. Close friends for the rest of their lives, they opposed the more lenient attitude of their fellow Jews Kamanev and Zinoviev on the Central Committee in 1917, opposing the inclusion of other socialist parties in the government that emerged after the revolution. Trotsky was expelled from the Central Committee in 1927 along with Zinoviev. He went into exile in 1929 and was assassinated on Stalin’s orders in 1940. Joffe committed suicide in 1927; his wife Maria and daughter Nadezhda were arrested and sent to labor camps and were not released until after Stalin’s death in 1953.

Late in life, as many thousands of Jews were being executed in the purges by Stalin, not as Jews but as leading communists, Trotsky penned several thoughts on Jewish issues. He said that in his early days, “I rather leaned toward the prognosis that the Jews of different countries would be assimilated and that the Jewish question would thus disappear.” He argued, “Since 1925 and above all since 1926, antisemitic demagogy – well camouflaged, unattackable – goes hand in hand with symbolic trials.” He accused the USSR of insinuating that Jews were “internationalists” during show trials.

The Central Committee of the USSR is instructive as an indicator of the prominence of Jews in leadership positions. In the Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and its Central Committee elected in August 1917, we find that five of the committee’s 21 members were Jewish. This included Trotsky, Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Sverdlov and Grigori Sokolnikov. Except for Sverdlov, they were all from Ukraine. The next year they were joined by Kamenev and Radek. Jews made up 20% of the central committees until 1921, when there were no Jews on this leading governing body.

The high percentage of Jews in governing circles in these early years matched their percentage in urban environments, politburo member Sergo Ordzhonikidze told the 15th Congress of the party, according to Solzhenitsyn. Most Jews lived in towns and cities due to urbanization and laws that had kept them off the land.

Jewish membership in top circles continued to decline in the 1920s. By the 11th Congress, only Lazar Kaganovich was elected to the Central Committee in 1922 alongside 26 other members. Subsequently few Jews served in these leadership positions. In 1925 there were four Jews out of 63 members. Like the rest of their comrades, almost all of them were killed in the purges. Others elected in 1927 and 1930 were shot as well, including Grigory Kaminsky, who came from a family of blacksmiths in Ukraine. With the exception of Lev Mekhlis and Kaganovich, few senior communist Jews survived the purges.During the 1936 Moscow Trials, numerous defendants were Jewish. Of one group of 16 high-profile communists at a show trial, besides Kamenev and Zinoviev, names like Yefim Dreitzer, Isak Reingold, Moissei and Nathan Lurye and Konon Berman-Yurin ring out as Jewish. In a twisted irony, some of these Bolsheviks who had played a prominent role executing others, such as NKVD Director Genrikh Yagoda, were themselves executed. Solzhenitsyn estimates that Jews in leading positions went from a high of 50% in some sectors to 6%. Many Jewish officers in the Red Army also suffered in the purges. Millions of Jews would remain in Soviet territories, but they would never again obtain such prominent positions in the USSR.

In a July 1940 letter, Trotsky imagined that future military events in the Middle East “may well transform Palestine into a bloody trap for several hundred thousand Jews.” He was wrong; it was the Soviet Union that was a bloody trap for many of those Jews who had seen salvation in communism and thought that by total assimilation and working for a zealous greater good they would succeed.

Instead, many ended up being murdered by the system they helped create.

WITH 100 years of hindsight it is still difficult to understand what attracted so many Jews to communism in the Russian empire. Were their actions infused with Jewishness, a sense of Jewish mission like the tikkun olam and “light unto the nations” values we hear about today, or were their actions strictly pragmatic as a minority group struggling to be part of larger society? The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Many Jews made pragmatic economic choices to leave for the New World when facing discrimination and poverty. Others chose to express themselves as Jews first, either through Jewish socialist groups or Zionism. Still others struggled for equality in the empire, so they could remain Jews and be equal. One group sought a radical solution to their and society’s predicament, a communist revolution, and one that would not include other voices such as the Bund or Mensheviks, but solely that of their party. They had no compunction at murdering their coreligionists. They were not more or less ethical than their non-Jewish peers. How can we explain their disproportionate presence in the leadership of the revolution? It would be as if the Druse minority in Israel made up half of Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet, or Armenians were half of Emmanuel Macron’s government in France.Perhaps the only way to understand some of it is to recognize that at Nelson Mandela’s 1963 Rivonia trial in South Africa five of the 13 arrested were Jewish, as were around one quarter of the 1960s Freedom Riders in the US. The 20th century was a century of Jewish activism, often for non-Jewish causes and often without an outwardly “Jewish” context. The Freedom Riders didn’t go as a “Jewish voice for African- Americans,” they went as activists for civil rights.

We prize minorities today who act for social justice as minorities, but the 20th century required a more nuanced approach. The situation Jews were born into in the 19th-century Pale of Settlement has no parallel with today’s Jewish experience. But despite economic hardship there was a spark in this community amidst unique circumstances of radical change that impelled it forward to leadership in numerous sectors in Russia and abroad.



The unprecedented catastrophe of the Russian revolution required an explanation… For very many this lay in the coming to power of the Jews, and their hatred for the Russian people. For after the revolution of February, 1917 the Jews acquired full rights with the rest of the population, and the (already very porous) barriers set up by the Pale of Settlement were destroyed. Jews poured from the western regions into the major cities of European Russia and soon acquired prominent executive positions in all major sectors of government and the economy.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written, February brought only harm and destruction to the Russian population. However, “Jewish society in Russia received in full from the February revolution everything that it had fought for, and the October coup was really not needed by it, except by that cutthroat part of the Jewish secular youth that with its Russian brother-internationalists had stacked up a charge of hatred for the Russian state structure and was straining to ‘deepen’ the revolution.” It was they who through their control of the Executive Committee of the Soviet – over half of its members were Jewish socialists – assumed the real power after February, and propelled it on – contrary to the interests, not only of the Russian, but also of the majority of the Jewish population, - to the October revolution.

Nevertheless, at the time of the October revolution only a minority of the Bolsheviks were Jews (in the early 1900s they constituted 19% of the party). “At the elections to the Constituent Assembly ‘more than 80% of the Jewish population of Russia voted’ for Zionist parties. Lenin wrote that 550,000 were for Jewish nationalists. ‘The majority of the Jewish parties formed a single national list, in accordance with which seven deputies were elected – six Zionists’ and Gruzenberg. ‘The success of the Zionists’ was also aided by the Declaration of the English Foreign Minister Balfour [on the creation of a ‘national centre’ of the Jews in Palestine], ‘which was met by the majority of the Russian Jewish population with enthusiasm [in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities there were festive manifestations, meetings and religious services]’.”

The simultaneous triumph of the Jews in Russia and Palestine was indeed an extraordinary “coincidence”: Divine Providence drew the attention of all those with eyes to see this sign of the times when, in one column of newsprint in the London Times for November 9, 1917, there appeared two articles, the one announcing the outbreak of revolution in Petrograd, and the other – the promise of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (the Balfour declaration).

This coincidence was reinforced by the fact that the theist Jews who triumphed in Israel in 1917, and especially in 1948 after the foundation of the State of Israel, came from the same region and social background – the Pale of Settlement in Western Russia – as the atheist Jews who triumphed in Moscow in 1917. Sometimes they even came from the same families. Thus Chaim Weitzmann, the first president of Israel, points out in his Autobiography that his brothers and sisters were all either Zionists or Bolsheviks. M. Heifetz also points to the coincidence in time between the October revolution and the Balfour declaration. “A part of the Jewish generation goes along the path of Herzl and Zhabotinsky. The other part, unable to withstand the temptation, fills up the band of Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin.” “The path of Herzl and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to stand tall and immediately become not simply an equal nation with Russia, but a privileged one.”

Indeed, the Russian revolution may be regarded as one branch of that general triumph of Jewish power which we observe in the twentieth century in both East and West, in both Russia and America and Israel. The mainly Jewish nature of the Bolshevik leadership – and of the world revolution in general – cannot be doubted. Such a view was not confined to “anti-Semites”.

Thus Winston Churchill wrote: “It would almost seem as if the Gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the Divine and the diabolical… From the days of ‘Spartacus’ Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”

Douglas Reed writes: “The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprised 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties… were 55 Jews and 6 others.”

Richard Pipes admits: “Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik Party and the early Soviet apparatus a role disproportionate to their share of the population. The number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was striking: in Hungary, for example, they furnished 95 percent of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s dictatorship. They also were disproportionately represented among Communists in Germany and Austria during the revolutionary upheavals there in 1918-23, and in the apparatus of the Communist International.”

According to Donald Rayfield, in 1922, the Jews “reached their maximum representation in the party (not that they formed a coherent group) when, at 15 per cent, they were second only to ethnic Russians with 65 per cent.”

The London Times correspondent in Russia, Robert Wilton, reported: ”Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.”

On June 9, 1919 Captain Montgomery Shuyler of the American Expeditionary Forces telegrammed from Vladivostok on the makeup of the presiding Soviet government: “… (T)here were 384 ‘commissars’ including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood-thirsty part of the Bolshevik State apparatus, the Cheka, which, writes Brendon, “consisted of 250,000 officers (including 100,000 border guards), a remarkable adjunct to a State which was supposed to be withering away. In the first 6 years of Bolshevik rule it had executed at least 200,000. Moreover, the Cheka was empowered to act as ‘policeman, gaoler, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner’. It also employed barbaric forms of torture.”

So complete was the Jewish domination of Russia as a result of the revolution that it is a misnomer to speak about the “Russian” revolution; it should more accurately be called the Russian-Jewish revolution.

That the Russian revolution was actually a Jewish revolution, but at the same time part of an international revolution of Jewry against the Christian and Muslim worlds, is indicated by an article by Jacob de Haas entitled “The Jewish Revolution” and published in the London Zionist journal Maccabee in November, 1905: “The Revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, for it is a turning point in Jewish history. This situation flows from the fact that Russia is the fatherland of approximately half of the general number of Jews inhabiting the world… The overthrow of the despotic government must exert a huge influence on the destinies of millions of Jews (both in Russia and abroad). Besides, the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because the Jews are the most active revolutionaries in the tsarist Empire.”

But why were the Jews the most active revolutionaries? What was it in their upbringing and history that led them to adopt the atheist revolutionary teachings and actions of Russia’s “superfluous young men” more ardently than the Russians themselves? Hatred of Christ and the Christians was, of course, deeply imbedded in the Talmud and Jewish ritual – but the angry young men that began killing thousands of the Tsar’s servants even before the revolution of 1905 had rejected the Talmud as well as the Gospel, and even all religion in general.

Donald Rayfield writes: “The motivation of those Jews who worked for the Cheka was not Zionist or ethnic. The war between the Cheka and the Russian bourgeoisie was not even purely a war of classes or political factions. It can be seen as being between Jewish internationalism and the remnants of a Russian national culture…

“…What was Jewish except lineage about Bolsheviks like Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev or Sverdlov? Some were second- or even third-generation renegades; few even spoke Yiddish, let alone knew Hebrew. They were by upbringing Russians accustomed to a European way of life and values, Jewish only in the superficial sense that, say, Karl Marx was. Jews in anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia had few ways out of the ghetto except emigration, education or revolution, and the latter two courses meant denying their Judaism by joining often anti-Jewish institutions and groups.”

This can be illustrated from the deathbed confession of Yurovsky, the murderer of the Tsar: “Our family suffered less from the constant hunger than from my father’s religious fanaticism… On holidays and regular days the children were forced to pray, and it is not surprising that my first active protest was against religious and nationalistic traditions. I came to hate God and prayer as I hated poverty and the bosses.”

At the same time, the Bolshevik Jews did appear to sympathize with Talmudism more than with any other religion. Thus in 1905 the Jewish revolutionaries in Kiev boasted that they would turn St. Sophia cathedral into a synagogue. Again, in 1918 they erected a monument to Judas Iscariot in Sviazhsk, and in 1919 - in Tambov! Perhaps the strongest evidence of the continued religiosity of the Bolshevik Jews was the fact that when the Whites re-conquered Perm in 1918 they found many Jewish religious inscriptions in the former Bolshevik headquarters – as well as on the walls of the basement of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg where the Tsar and his family were shot.

While officially rejecting the Talmud and all religion in general, the revolutionaries did not reject the unconscious emotional energy of Talmudic Judaism. This energy was concentrated in a fiercely proud nationalism, a nationalism older and more passionately felt by virtue of the fact that the Jews had once truly been the chosen people of God. Having fallen away from that chosen status, and been scattered all over the world by the wrath of God, they resented their replacement by the Christian peoples with an especially intense resentment. Roma delenda est – Christian Rome had to be destroyed, and Russia as “The Third Rome”, the Rome that now reigned, had to be destroyed first of all. The atheist revolutionaries of the younger generation took over this resentment and hatred even while rejecting its religious-nationalist-historical basis.

L.A. Tikhomirov wrote: “It is now already for nineteen centuries that we have been hearing from Jewish thinkers that the religious essence of Israel consists not in a concept about God, but in the fulfilment of the Law. Above were cited such witnesses from Judas Galevy. The very authoritative Ilya del Medigo (15th century) in his notable Test of Faith says that ‘Judaism is founded not on religious dogma, but on religious acts’.

“But religious acts are, in essence, those that are prescribed by the Law. That means: if you want to be moral, carry out the Law. M. Mendelsohn formulates the idea of Jewry in the same way: ‘Judaism is not a revealed religion, but a revealed Law. It does not say ‘you must believe’, but ‘you must act’. In this constitution given by God the State and religion are one. The relationships of man to God and society are merged. It is not lack of faith or heresy that attracts punishment, but the violation of the civil order. Judaism gives no obligatory dogmas and recognizes the freedom of inner conviction.’

“Christianity says: you must believe in such-and-such a truth and on the basis of that you must do such-and-such. New Judaism says: you can believe as you like, but you have to do such-and-such. But this is a point of view that annihilates man as a moral personality…”

Thus Talmudism creates a personality that subjects faith and truth to the imperative of action. That is, it is the action that is first proclaimed as necessary – the reasons for doing it can be thought up later. And this corresponds exactly both to the philosophy of Marx, for whom “the truth, i.e. the reality and power, of thought must be demonstrated in action”, and to the psychological type of the Marxist revolutionary, who first proclaims that Rome (i.e. Russia) must be destroyed, and then looks for an ideology that will justify destruction. Talmudic Law is useful, indeed necessary, not because it proclaims God’s truth, but in order to secure the solidarity of the Jewish people and their subjection to their rabbinic leaders. In the same way, Marxist theory is necessary in order to unite adherents, expel dissidents and in general justify the violent overthrow of the old system.

So the Russian revolution was Jewish not so much because of the ethnic composition of its leaders as because the Satanic hatred of God, Christ and all Christians that is characteristic of the Talmudic religion throughout its history was transferred – by spiritual rather than genetic heredity – from the nationalist Talmudic fathers to their internationalist atheist sons.


Lazar Kaganovich: Stalin's Mass Murderer 
Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich (Kogan), of Jewish descent, was born in Kubany, near Kiev, Ukraine, in 1893. In 1911 he joined the Jewish-founded Communist Party and became involved with the Bolsheviks (Lower East Side New York Jews). Kaganovich took an active part in the 1917 takeover of Christian Russia by Communism and rose rapidly in the Party hierarchy. From 1925 to 1928, he was first secretary of the party organization in Ukraine and by 1930 was a full member of the Politburo.
Kaganovich was one of a small group of Stalin's top sadists pushing for very high rates of collectivization after 1929. He became Stalin's butcher of Christian Russians during the late 1920s and early 1930s when the Kremlin launched its war against the kulaks (small landowners who were Christians) and implemented a ruthless policy of land collectivization. The resulting state-organized forced famine, was a planned genocide and killed 7,000,000 Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933, and inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan.
Josef Stalin (Dzhugashvili) altered census figures to hide the millions of famine deaths when the Ukraine and northern Caucasus region had an extremely poor harvest in 1932, just as Stalin was demanding heavy requisitions of grain to sell abroad to finance his industrialization program which was on top of enforced collective farming of 1929. Stalin is conservatively estimated to have been responsible for the murder and/or starvation of 40,000,000 Russians and Ukrainians during his reign of terror, while the total deaths resulting from the de-kulaklization and famine, by way of Kaganovich, can be conservatively estimated at about 14,500,000.
On any analysis, Kaganovich, was one of the worst mass murderers in history, and little wonder that during World War II large numbers of Ukrainians greeted the Germans as liberators, with many joining the Waffen-SS to keep Communism from enslaving all of Europe. 
Ilya Ehrenberg - The Man Who Invented The 'Six Million'
He was a prolific writer, celebrated author of various novels and other works of fiction. He was the top Soviet propagandist during the Second World War. He was a notorious liar and a pathological monster. He was a Jew. As a a leading member of the Soviet-sponsored Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, Ilya Ehrenburg appeared at fund-raising rallies in the United States, raising support for the Communist cause while displaying fake bars of soap allegedly manufactured by the Germans from the corpses of dead Jews. But Ehrenburg was perhaps most notorious for his viciously anti-German hate propaganda in World War II. In it, he exhorted Soviet troops to kill all Germans they encountered without pity.*
In one leaflet entitled "Kill," Ehrenburg incited the simple Russian soldier to treat the Germans as subhuman. The final paragraph concludes: "The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word 'German' is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word 'German' strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime ... If you have already killed a German, then kill another one - there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don't count the days, don't count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! ...  - Kill the Germans! Kill!"
And in another leaflet:  "The Germans must be killed. One must kill them ... Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast? ... Kill a German! If you are a righteous an conscientious man - kill a German! ... Kill!"

This is typical of the steady diet of pathological hate fed to millions of Soviet troops by this Jew, safely ensconced far from the front. But it wasn't only the ordinary German soldier Ehrenburg was talking about, whom he accused of the very atrocities the Communists were themselves committing. Ehrenburg's incendiary writings were, in fact,  a prime motivating factor in the orgy of murder and rape against the  civilian population that took place as Soviet troops rampaged into the heart of Europe. Appealing to the lowest, most subhuman instincts of this  Bolshevik horde, he reiterated his genocidal message:

"Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army."

The crowning achievement of Ehrenburg's career came on December 22, 1944, when this hate-crazed fiend became the first person to mention the kabbalistic figure of Six Million alleged Jewish victims of National Socialism, and then proceeded to introduce that figure into Soviet propaganda. After the war he joined with co-racial and fellow propagandist Vasily (Iosif Solomonovich) Grossman to produce a fictitious "Black Book" and  lay the foundation for what has come to be known as "The Holocaust."**  The rest is history. Ehrenburg never forgot his Jewish roots, and before his death he arranged for the transfer of his private archives to the tribal cult center at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. And so, it is altogether fitting that the birthday of this psychopathic  lie-master should have been chosen as a day on which to remember the hoax which he concocted and of which he was the original inventor.


Trotsky the Jew
According to, there are presently in existence 199 biographies of Leon Trotsky—almost a quarter as many as there are of Marilyn Monroe (810). Joshua Rubenstein’s new work, Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary’s Life, is a specialized one issued by a Yale series called “Jewish Lives,” which is “designed to illuminate the imprint of eminent Jewish figures” on culture, broadly defined. There is no question that genetically speaking, Trotsky was a Jew. But personally and culturally, he emphatically denied any connection with the Jewish people. Quoting from my book Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime:
Trotsky—the satanic “Bronstein of Russian anti-Semites”—was deeply offended whenever anyone presumed to call him a Jew. When a visiting Jewish delegation appealed to him to help fellow Jews, he flew into a rage: “I am not a Jew but an internationalist.” He reacted similarly when requested by Rabbi Eisenstadt of Petrograd to allow special flour for Passover matzos, adding on this occasion that “he wanted to know no Jews.” At another time he said that the Jews interested him no more than the Bulgarians. According to one of his biographers [Baruch Knei-Paz], after 1917 Trotsky “shied away from Jewish matters” and “made light of the whole Jewish question.”
So, it is questionable whether Trotsky can be properly treated as an “eminent Jewish figure.” He certainly would have resented it. He had no idea what caused anti-Semitism, claiming it to be “one of the more malignant convulsions of capitalism’s death agony,” as if it had not existed in the Middle Ages, long before capitalism was born. He was a renegade. This did not help him to make a successful career in the party. He was resented as a Jew as well as someone who during the decade preceding the Bolshevik power seizure relentlessly criticized Lenin and his followers. His prickly personality also was of no help, contrasting with Stalin’s joviality during the years the two struggled for power.

The situation for Jews in pre-1917 Russia, which shaped Trotsky’s personal and political trajectory, was very difficult. Except for rich merchants and those with a university degree, they were confined to the so-called Pale of Settlement. They were excluded from government posts and altogether treated as second-rate subjects. On occasion, they were victims of vicious pogroms in the course of which they were beaten and killed and their homes looted. This caused many of them to emigrate and the rest to turn to left-wing ideologies. The prevalent opinion was that the Bolsheviks were heavily supported by Jews, but the results of the only free elections held under Bolshevik rule, those to the Constituent Assembly in November 1917, revealed that the Bolshevik vote came not from the Pale of Settlement but mainly from the armed forces and the cities of Great Russia, where hardly any Jews lived. The census of the Communist Party conducted in 1922 showed that only 959 Jews had joined it before 1917. If subsequently the proportion of Jews in the Communist Party exceeded their proportion in the country’s population, so too was that the case in Italy under Fascism. It simply attests to the fact that the Jews are a very articulate and politically engaged people.

Rubenstein, the author of a life of the Soviet writer and journalist Ilya Ehrenburg, has written a competent summary biography of his protagonist. The book adds little that is new to the existing literature, and it has some strange omissions. Trotsky’s role in the Civil War during which he commanded the Red Army—arguably his main contribution to the Bolshevik cause—is disposed of in a few cursory pages. I also found strange the author’s offhand assertion that under the Bolsheviks “the proletariat had succeeded in gaining control of the government.” Where and when? The workers had next to no influence on the policies of the Soviet government, which were managed by intellectuals.

In view of the murderous paranoia of Stalin, it is tempting to gloss over Trotsky’s own ruthlessness and to depict him as a humane counterpart to his rival. This is quite unwarranted. Without a question, Trotsky was better-educated than Stalin and was altogether a more cultivated human being. But his radicalism was not much different than Stalin’s. Rubenstein cites a statement by Trotsky as the motto of his book: “Nothing great has been accomplished in history without fanaticism.” Really? In art, in science, in economics? In fact, fanaticism, which is uncritical belief in something, has always obstructed true accomplishment.

Let us scrutinize briefly Trotsky’s views on such key issues as forced labor, terror, and concentration camps—the outstanding features of the Stalinist regime. On forced labor, Trotsky had this to say in 1921:
It is said that compulsory labor is unproductive. This means that the whole socialist economy is doomed to be scrapped, because there is no other way of attaining socialism except through the command allocation of the entire labor force by the economic center, the allocation of that force in accord with the needs of a nation-wide economic plan.
I imagine that if Stalin was present at the Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions, at which Trotsky made these remarks, he must have nodded in agreement. In view of Trotsky’s own sentiments, it is likely that if he had succeeded Lenin, we would have witnessed in the Soviet Union much the same oppression of labor as he did under Stalin. Trotsky had no qualms about introducing into Soviet Russia political terror. Barely two months after the Bolsheviks had seized power, he said:
There is nothing immoral in the proletariat finishing off the dying class. This is its right. You are indignant … at the petty terror which we direct at our class opponents. But be put on notice that in one month at most this terror will assume more frightful forms, on the model of the great revolutionaries of France. Our enemies will face not prison but the guillotine.
He defined the guillotine (plagiarizing the French revolutionary Jacques Hébert) as a device that “shortens a man by the length of a head.” This grisly remark, incidentally, is cited by Rubenstein.

Trotsky demonstrated that this was not empty rhetoric during the rebellion at the Kronshtadt naval base in February 1921. The sailors of Kronshtadt were early and prominent supporters of the Bolsheviks, helping them in October 1917 to seize power in Petrograd and later to defend that city from the Whites. But the sailors gradually became disenchanted with the new regime. In March 1921 they formed a Provisional Revolutionary Committee and refused to obey Moscow’s orders. Upon arriving in Petrograd, Trotsky demanded that the mutineers throw themselves on the mercy of the Soviet government and ordered that the families of the mutineers be taken hostage; one of the regime’s appeals to the rebels threatened that if they continued to resist they would “be shot like partridges.” Trotsky organized the military assault on the island where the base was located: When some of the Red Army soldiers defected to the rebels, he ordered the execution of every fifth soldier who disobeyed orders. The island eventually fell. Trotsky was not proud of his role in this event, as demonstrated by the fact that in his memoirs he hardly mentioned it.

Though the fact is little-known, it was Trotsky, not Stalin, who introduced into Soviet Russia the concentration camp, an institution that under Stalin developed into the monstrous Gulag empire. Trotsky did this in May 1918 in connection with a rebellion of Czech ex-prisoners of war who, en route to the Far East to sail to the western front, rebelled when an attempt was made to disarm them. In August of that year, to protect the railroad line running from Moscow to Kazan, Trotsky ordered a network of concentration camps to be constructed to isolate “sinister agitators, counterrevolutionary officers, saboteurs, parasites, and speculators” who were not executed or subjected to other penalties. Lenin fully agreed with these measures. By 1919, concentration camps were established in every provincial capital. In 1923, Russia had 315 concentration camps with 70,000 inmates.

These facts will not be found in Rubenstein’s book, which, without being an apologia, nevertheless tends to glide over the more savage features of Trotsky’s thought and behavior. My own judgment of Trotsky coincides with that of George Orwell, made in 1939 when Trotsky was still alive and cited in this book:
[Trotsky] is probably as much responsible for [the Russian dictatorship] as any man now living, and there is no certainty that as dictator he would be preferable to Stalin, though undoubtedly he has a much more interesting mind. The essential act is the rejection of democracy—that is of the underlying values of democracy; once you have decided upon that, Stalin—or any rate someone like Stalin—is already on the way.

Lavrentiy Beria

Image from
Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was certainly one of the most vicious and mysterious figures of Stalin's era. He was born on March 29 (March 17 according to the Julian calendar), 1899, to a poor Megrel (an ethnic group of Georgians) family in the village of Merkheuli, Abkhazia. Drafted into the Russian Imperial Army, he briefly saw action during World War I at the Romanian front before deserting in 1917 in order to take part in the Russian Revolution. Having joined the Bolshevik Party in 1917, Lavrentiy participated in revolutionary activities in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Meanwhile he managed to receive an architectural degree from a technical college in Baku (Azerbaijan) in 1919 and even worked for a time as a building inspector in Azerbaijan but later preferred to become a Bolshevik Party activist. Very soon he was drawn into the intelligence and counterintelligence operations of the ‘Cheka’ – the Bolshevik secret police – and in 1923 became the head of Georgia’s Cheka division.

In the 1920s and early 1930s Beria quickly climbed his way up through the ranks of the Cheka and its successors: the GPU, the OGPU and later the NKVD. He ruthlessly blackmailed officials in order to gain political backing and promotions. He would often set up his superiors with married women and then exposed the affairs, ruining them and then taking their posts when they resigned in disgrace. He wasn’t just vicious in his career ambitions either – wherever he went, people died or were reported missing. In 1931 Beria first met Joseph Stalin while the latter was on vacation in Georgia. One popular story claims that Beria saved Stalin from an assassination attempt, others suspect Beria staged the attempt so that he appeared to thwart it.

He became the party boss of the Transcaucasian republics (Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia) in 1932 and personally oversaw the political purges in those republics during Stalin’s Great Purge (1936–38). In 1938 Beria was brought to Moscow as a deputy to Nikolay Yezhov, head of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD). In 1938 Yezhov was arrested and executed on Stalin’s orders, and Stalin rewarded Beria's dog-like loyalty by making him head of the NKVD. It is rumoured that Beria personally strangled his predecessor. Stalin used Beria to stage his purges. Beria used this opportunity to murder as many old Bolsheviks as he could, thus eliminating as many of Stalin's old political rivals as possible and going so far as to order the mass execution of several thousand political prisoners he had already sent to detention camps. He supervised a purge of the secret service bureaucracy itself and administered the vast network of labour camps (also known as ‘Gulags’) set up throughout the country. Under Beria, over 500 NKVD agents and 30,000 Red Army officers were executed. In addition, the NKVD was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Soviet citizens which were convicted of high treason by false, sometimes even absurd, accusations. Soviet-era black humour typified the methods used by Beria and his people with the following joke:
Once, Stalin met a delegation of workers from the Urals. When the workers left, Stalin looked around for his pipe but did not see it. He called Beria and said, ‘Lavrentiy, my pipe disappeared after the visit of those workers.’ ‘Yes, Yosif Vissarionovich, I'll immediately take proper measures.’ Ten minutes later, Stalin pulled out a drawer in his desk and saw his pipe. He struck a match, puffed out a ring of smoke, and dialed Beria's number. ‘Lavrentiy, my pipe's been found.’ ‘What a pity," Beria said. "All of them have just confessed.’
In addition to massive internal investigations and purges, Beria oversaw the implementation of a highly effective global espionage system, aimed at gathering intelligence data from the West. He worked out useful regulations for the secret service: from the hiring to liquidation of unsuitable persons. It's supposed that he proposed and ordered the killing of over 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn. Later, he became one of the founders of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia and was supposed to have organized the assassination of J. Masaryk, whose death has not yet been fully explained.

In February 1941 he became a deputy prime minister of the USSR. During World War II, as a member of the State Defense Committee, he not only controlled the Soviet Union’s internal security system but also played a major role in strategic raw materials production using the slave labour in the Gulag camps. He was made Marshal of the USSR in 1945, although he never participated in any military operations. He was also a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party from 1934 and of the executive policy-making body, the Politburo, from March 1946. When the Politburo was reorganized as the Presidium of the Central Committee in 1952, Beria retained his seat.

Beria had the reputation of getting things done properly, no matter what the cost. Stalin placed him in charge of many important tasks, including the atomic bomb project. The Soviet nuclear weapons program was officially initiated in April 1942, when Stalin received a letter from nuclear physicist Georgy Flyorov about the lack of published physics journals in the U.S., UK, and Germany on nuclear fission as well as published papers on the subject since the discovery of nuclear fission in 1939. This lack of publications seemed suspicious to the Soviet leadership, and as a result the wide research of nuclear fission for military purposes began, despite the ongoing war. Lavrentiy Beria was appointed as the administrative leader of the project with physicist Igor Kurchatov in charge of scientific research. Shortly after the atomic bombings of Japan by the US in 1945, Stalin issued an ultimatum to Beria, ordering the A-bomb to be built within five years. A special department was set up at the NKVD, called “Department S” (also known as Bureau #2) to consolidate the research efforts and organize documents gathered about the U.S. A-bomb project through intelligence channels. As a result, the bomb was ready within four years.

This extraordinary success was achieved at a high price. Beria created a climate of total secrecy and immense fear within the project. Everyone involved was under constant surveillance at all times, even the top scientists. The head of one of the departments was sentenced to 8 years in prison for reportedly boasting to his family about the work being conducted. Another worker choosing to avoid punishment after misplacing several papers committed suicide. Nevertheless, Beria’s administrative talent showed itself at the highest capacity. Academician Yuly Khariton who played a major part in the nuclear research highly appreciated Beria’s organizational skills and capabilities. Many years later he wrote; “Beria quickly heartened all work on the project with necessary scope and dynamism. This man, who personified evil in the country's modern history, possessed at the same time tremendous vigor and efficiency... It was impossible not to admit his intellect, willpower, and purposefulness. He was a first class manager, able to bring every job to its conclusion”.

Beria was viewed by many including his party comrades as not just a distasteful monster, but as a vicious sexual predator. Beria reportedly kidnapped young girls on Moscow streets, raping and sodomizing them and threatening their families to keep quiet. He was also known for being a good balalaika player and had a fast hand with a revolver.

Soon after Stalin’s death in March 1953, Beria became one of four deputy prime ministers under Georgy M. Malenkov, as well as head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, an organization which at that time combined both the secret and regular police functions. Beria apparently attempted to use his position as chief of the secret police to succeed Stalin as sole dictator. By July 1953, however, he had been outmaneuvered and defeated by an anti-Beria coalition (led by Georgy M. Malenkov, Vyacheslav M. Molotov, and Nikita S. Khrushchev). He was arrested, deprived of his government and party posts, publicly accused of being an “imperialist (British) agent” and of conducting “criminal anti-party and anti-state activities.” Later he, along with six accomplices, had been tried and convicted of high treason and executed. In the official version the execution took place in December 1953, but it is said that he was shot dead during his arrest as early as in July. 

Lenin's Jewish roots put on display in Russian museum

Image result for Lenin  

Exhibition reveals letter written by Lenin's sister claiming maternal grandfather was Ukrainian Jew; Stalin told sister to keep letter quiet. Documents apparently confirming rumors that Vladimir Lenin had Jewish ancestors can now be seen at Russia's State History Museum, AP reported on Monday. Among the newly released documents on display at the museum is a letter written by Lenin's sister, Anna Ulyanova, claiming that their maternal grandfather was a Jew from the Ukraine who converted to Christianity to escape persecution in the Pale of Settlement and have access to higher education, the report said.

"He came from a poor Jewish family and was, according to his baptismal certificate, the son of Moses Blank, a native of (the western Ukrainian city of) Zhitomir," Ulyanova wrote in 1932 in a letter cited by AP. In the letter written to Josef Stalin, who replaced Lenin after his death in 1924, Ulyanova wrote "Vladimir Ilych had always thought of Jews highly. I am very sorry that the fact of our origin — which I had suspected before — was not known during his lifetime."

Lenin, who was born Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov in 1870, identified himself only as Russian under the czarist rule in the country, during which anti-Semitism was rampant. He adopted the name Lenin in 1901 while in exile in Siberia. According to the AP report, Lenin oversaw a brief period of promotion of Jewish culture which ended in the early 1930s when Stalin encouraged anti-Semitic purges and created a plan to relocate all Soviet Jews. Ulyanova requested that Stalin make Lenin's Jewish background known to combat the rise of anti-Semitism, AP reported. She wrote in her letter, "I hear that in recent years anti-Semitism has been growing stronger again, even among Communists. It would be wrong to hide the fact from the masses." Stalin ignored Ulyanova's request and told her to "keep absolute silence" about the letter, according to the exhibition's curator, Tatyana Koloskova.

The documents counter information presented in Lenin's official biography, written by his niece Olga Ulyanova, in which she claims that his family had only Russia, German and Swedish roots. Anna Ulyanova's letter was discovered by Russian historians in the early 1990s, but its authenticity was questioned. 


Book Review: 'The Jewish Century'
"The Jewish Century" by Yuri Slezkine is easily the most significant revisionist work ever to be produced by a Jewish scholar. Although the book purports to be a study of the Jewish impress upon the twentieth century, based on the three migrations ­ (1) Jews to America, (2) Jews to Palestine, and (3) Jews from the Soviet countryside to the Soviet cities ­ it is in reality a study of the Jewish success story in the Soviet Union of the 1920's and 1930's, when Jews were the ruling class of the pre-WW2 USSR.

Slezkine begins his study by comparing Jews to other groups in and Asia and Africa. Throughout he contrasts "Mercurians" and "Apollonians", the former creatures of the mind, the latter earth-bound, agrarian peoples. Jews, supposedly the ultimate Mercurians, are at odds with "the peoples of the earth" (a Talmudic phrase) among whom they live. This pattern, Slezkine finds, is essentially no different than the pattern of other groups similarly situated, such as the Chinese in Indo-China, for example. Of course, Slezkine does not discuss the peculiar ethics of the Babylonian Talmud as a possible aggravating factor unique to Jews, but otherwise his analysis is unobjectionable. Like Professor Kevin MacDonald, Slezkine finds that there is a rational basis for Jewish-non-Jewish tensions, tensions that are remarkably similar to those of other groups.

Sociology aside, the heart and guts of Slezkine's material appears in chapters three and four: "The Jews and the Russian Revolution" (and) The Jews and Three Promised Lands." These chapters contain material so shocking that it is a wonder that Slezkine dares reveal it all, particularly in a context of Jewish "success" (the "success" of total power and ruthless mass murder?). Essentially, Slezkine demonstrates that the first twenty years following the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917 allowed Jews, the former betes noirs of the hated Tsarist regime, to become the new ruling class of Russia in every respect, including the secret police, the Gulag camp administration, the foreign service and spy department, the press and various news agencies, the cultural and professional elites, intellectual leadership as the party's chief spokesmen, and a disproportionate share of the upper level positions in every commissariat.

It was only with the great purge of 1938-1939 that Jews began to lose some of their influence in the upper levels. But even then, as Slezkine demonstrates, Jews were not, contrary to popular misconception, singled out for persecution. Their share of the victims was lower, on a percentage basis, than that of the other groups targeted, such as Poles or Latvians. Unlike these groups, who were tainted by foreign loyalties, Jews were not perceived as being inherently disloyal to the Soviet regime. Only in the post-war purges of Zionists and cosmopolitans were Jews targeted as such. Of course, the creation of the state of Israel created a potential ­ and actual ­ dual loyalty problem. Stalin, who had personally witnessed the old pre-revolutionary struggle of the 1880's onward, was well aware of how many Jewish comrades in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party had preferred their communist state in Palestine rather than in Russia. With Israel's creation in 1948 many Jewish communists who had spent their lives loyally serving the Bolshevik state were filled with enthusiasm for communism ("Next year in Jerusalem"!). Slezkine notes that the anti-Jewish purges moderated, then ceased, following Stalin's death, but the amazing Jewish preponderance in the hierarchy of "scientific socialism" was never totally regained. Jews did, however, remain prominent in cultural and professional circles until the very end of the Soviet regime.

"The Jewish Century" does an excellent job of putting all this in proper historical context. As Slezkine notes, Russia's Jews did not originate the revolutionary movements within the empire of the tsars, but once they joined the revolution they became its most enthusiastic ­ and brutal ­ champions. Jews provided an extremely disproportionate number of the assassins and terrorists of the pre-1917 period. Whenever a tsarist minister or official was blown up, shot, knifed, or splashed with acid, the chances were one in four to one in two that the miscreant was a Jew. It was the Jewess, Hessia Helfman, who plotted the assassination of Tsar Alexander 2. Mordecai Bogrov, Gershuni and Vera Finger were other well-known Jewish assassins of the 1880-1917 period. Their murderous activities would be continued with a vengeance by the OGPU/NKVD under such worthies as Moishe Uritsky, Henrik Yagoda, and Lavrenti Beria.

As Yuri Slezkine notes, Jews did not just practice communism in Russia; they practiced it in the United States as well. Whenever the Kremlin looked for agents in the United States it first sought out children of Russian Jews. When Senator McCarthy's hearings were at their height the vast majority of the accused were very obviously Jewish ­ a fact which led to a quick attack of "synthetic patriotism" made to order for the occasion by the Jewish defense agencies, the American Jewish Committee in particular. However, political expediency, then and now, prevented any direct attack on the real problem. Jewish communism in Russia was waning about the same time that Jewish radicalism in the United States was about to accelerate. The 1960's saw an explosion of leftist radicalism in which the Jewish component was, as Slezkine admits, of almost the same ratio as the Jewish involvement in communism of the 1920's and the 1930's. Without the Jews, no 1960's. Several social scientists of the "decade which changed everything" determined that being Jewish was the single most important factor in predicting radical behavior.

One cannot read "The Jewish Century" without thinking of the image of Red Auerbach lighting up his cigar as coach of the Boston Celtics. Were the year 1950, 1960, or even arguably 1970, Yuri Slezkine could never have written "The Jewish Century" ­ and Princeton University Press would never have considered publishing it. In scholarly, matter of fact, ever so slightly boastful language, "The Jewish Century" is everything an erudite, closet anti-Semite could ask for. It documents the Jewish disproportion in ­ and arguably collective responsibility for ­ history's greatest crime in a fashion which none can dispute. It does not directly raise certain untidy questions, but it certainly implies them. One can only wonder if some day another Yuri Slezkine will write a book arguing in favor of the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or even propose an alternative history of World War 2 and related incidents.


Solzhenitsyn Breaks Taboo: The Role Of Jews In Soviet-era Repression

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career - the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges. In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims. Two Hundred Years Together - a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly increased the Russian Jewish population - contains three chapters discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia. But Jewish leaders and some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned Solzhenitsyn's motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and of fanning the flames of anti-semitism in Russia.

Solzhenitsyn argues that some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period "consciously or unconsciously descends on the Russians" as being behind the genocide. But he states that all the nation's ethnic groups must share the blame, and that people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience. In one remark which infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote: "If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw - their life was softer than that of others." Yet he added: "But it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect."

Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, spent much of his life in Soviet prison camps, enduring persecution when he wrote about his experiences. He is currently in frail health, but in an interview given last month he said that Russia must come to terms with the Stalinist and revolutionary genocides - and that its Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them. "My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews - their spiritual component," he said. "I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us."

But Solzhenitsyn's book has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was "not of any merit". "This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes," said Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress. "Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews. "This is not a book about how the Jews and Russians lived together for 200 years, but one about how they lived apart after finding themselves on the same territory. This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. As literature, it is not of any merit."

But DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn's biographers, said that he did not think the book was fuelled by anti-semitism. "I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people." Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was "absolutely right". Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army.

Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka. "Trotsky's idea was that the spread of anti-semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators. "It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn's book seems much more measured than that."

Yet others failed to see the need for Solzhenitsyn's pursuit of this particular subject at present. Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), said: "The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of social change. "If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now."


The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime

Recent research and investigation by Radzinsky and others also corroborates the account provided years earlier by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. His account, The Last Days of the Romanovs -- originally published in 1920, and recently reissued by the Institute for Historical Review -- is based in large part on the findings of a detailed investigation carried out in 1919 by Nikolai Sokolov under the authority of "White" (anti-Communist) leader Alexander Kolchak. Wilton's book remains one of the most accurate and complete accounts of the murder of Russia's imperial family.

A solid understanding of history has long been the best guide to comprehending the present and anticipating the future. Accordingly, people are most interested in historical questions during times of crisis, when the future seems most uncertain. With the collapse of Communist rule in the Soviet Union, 1989-1991, and as Russians struggle to build a new order on the ruins of the old, historical issues have become very topical. For example, many ask: How did the Bolsheviks, a small movement guided by the teachings of German-Jewish social philosopher Karl Marx, succeed in taking control of Russia and imposing a cruel and despotic regime on its people?

In recent years, Jews around the world have been voicing anxious concern over the specter of anti-Semitism in the lands of the former Soviet Union. In this new and uncertain era, we are told, suppressed feelings of hatred and rage against Jews are once again being expressed. According to one public opinion survey conducted in 1991, for example, most Russians wanted all Jews to leave the country.

But precisely why is anti-Jewish sentiment so widespread among the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Why do so many Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others blame "the Jews" for so much misfortune? 

A Taboo Subject

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied. With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs.

Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky. Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church. A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins." 

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical. Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik "October Revolution" of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party's Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews. To direct the takeover, a seven-man "Political Bureau" was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev).

Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet -- whose chairman was Trotsky -- established an 18-member "Military Revolutionary Committee" to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews. Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man "Revolutionary Military Center" as the Party's operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky). 

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution." The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things." "The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel." 

Historians' Views

Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:
Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins. Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka. And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators. The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.
"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator." In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.) In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order.

Igor Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician of world stature, has sharply criticized the Jewish role in bringing down the Romanov monarchy and establishing Communist rule in his country. Shafarevich was a leading dissident during the final decades of Soviet rule. A prominent human rights activist, he was a founding member of the Committee on the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR.

In Russophobia, a book written ten years before the collapse of Communist rule, he noted that Jews were "amazingly" numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Jewishness of the Bolshevik executioners, Shafarevich went on, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II:
This ritual action symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.
In his 1920 book, British veteran journalist Robert Wilton offered a similarly harsh assessment:
The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.
In the struggle for power that followed Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin emerged victorious over his rivals, eventually succeeding in putting to death nearly every one of the most prominent early Bolshevik leaders -- including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev. With the passage of time, and particularly after 1928, the Jewish role in the top leadership of the Soviet state and its Communist party diminished markedly.


Who Killed Pyotr Stolypin?

File:Pyotr Stolypin LOC 07327.jpg

On September 14 [O.S. September 1] 1911, while he was attending a performance at the Kiev Opera House in the presence of the Tsar and his two eldest daughters, the Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana, Pyotr Stolypin was shot twice, by Dmitri Bogrov (born Mordekhai Gershkovich), a Jewish leftist radical.

Another of those curious 911 moments that seem to reoccur in the story of Zionism was the murder of Count Stolypin by a Jewish assassin in September 1911. Stolypin was a central part of the attempted reforming of Czarist Russia, in concert with the Czar Nicholas himself, giving three million landless Russian peasants the land they worked on.

Improving conditions in Russia were not fertile ground for the Talmudic extremists undermining it, and from there the rest of the world, and so in September 1911 yet another Jewish assassin played a crucial part in swaying world history towards their cause by murdering a reformer, as they have murdered many over the decades in order to arrive at the astonishing power they currently wield over most of mankind, though eventually they will wield utter and total control over every last person on this planet, that being the long game.

Count Stolypin's daughter was summarily executed in 1917 by a Jewish commissar (so called Bolshevik commissar), when he discovered she was Stolypin's daughter, a savage act that heralded the vicious reign of these creatures, and the subsequent murder of over sixty million real Russians, though this atrocity itself may be overshadowed in the future if these terrorists have their way.


Who Financed Lenin and Trotsky?

The top Communist leaders have never been as hostile to their counterparts in the West, as the rhetoric suggests. They are quite friendly to the world's leading financiers and have worked closely with them, when it suits their purposes. As we shall see in the following section, the Bolshevik revolution actually was financed by wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution. Those hidden liaisons have continued to this day and occasionally pop to the surface, when we discover a David Rockefeller holding confidential meetings with a Mikhail Gorbachev in the absence of government sponsorship or diplomatic purpose.
Pages 263-267:  Chapter 13 - MASQUERADE IN MOSCOW

One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. As we shall see, however, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore we shall see, that the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.

This amazing story begins with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904. Jacob Schiff, who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had raised the capital for large war loans (200 million USD) to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to virtually decimate the Russian fleet. In 1905 the Mikado awarded Jacob Schiff a medal, the Second Order of the Treasure of Japan, in recognition of his important role in that campaign.

During the two years of hostilities thousands of Russian soldiers and sailors were taken as prisoners. Sources outside of Russia, which were hostile to the Tsarist regime, paid for the printing of Marxist propaganda and had it delivered to the prison camps. Russian-speaking revolutionaries were trained in New York and sent to distribute the pamphlets among the prisoners and to indoctrinate them into rebellion against their own government. When the war was ended, these officers and enlisted men returned home to become virtual seeds of treason against the Tsar. They were to play a major role a few years later in creating mutiny among the military during the Communist takeover of Russia. 


One of the best known Russian revolutionaries at that time was Leon Trotsky. In January of 1916 Trotsky was expelled from France and came to the United States. It has been claimed that his expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff. There is no documentation to substantiate that claim, but the circumstantial evidence does point to a wealthy donor in New York. He remained for several months, while writing for a Russian socialist paper, the Novy Mir (New World) and giving revolutionary speeches at mass meetings in New York City. According to Trotsky himself, on many occasions a chauffeured limousine was placed at his service by a wealthy friend, identified as Dr. M. In his book, My Life, Trotsky wrote:
The doctor's wife took my wife and the boys out driving and was very kind to them. But she was a mere mortal, whereas the chauffeur was a magician, a titan, a superman! With the wave of his hand he made the machine obey his slightest command. To sit beside him was the supreme delight. When they went into a tea room, the boys would anxiously demand of their mother, "Why doesn't the chauffeur come in?" (Leon Trotsky: My Life, New York publisher: Scribner's, 1930, p. 277)
It must have been a curious sight to see the family of the great socialist radical, defender of the working class, enemy of capitalism, enjoying the pleasures of tea rooms and chauffeurs, the very symbols of capitalist luxury.

On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia. Thousands of socialists, Marxists, nihilists nand anarchists attended to cheer the event. The following day there was published on page two of the New York Times a telegram from Jacob Schiff, which had been read to this audience. He expressed regrets, that he could not attend and then described the successful Russian revolution as "...what we had hoped and striven for these long years". (Mayor Calls Pacifists Traitors, The New York Times, March 24, 1917, p. 2)

In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal American Schiff's grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia. (To appraise Schiff's motives for supporting the Bolsheviks, we must remember, that he was a Jew and that Russian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime. Consequently the Jewish community in America was inclined to support any movement, which sought to topple the Russian government and the Bolsheviks were excellent candidates for the task. As we shall see further along, however, there were also strong financial incentives for Wall Street firms, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of which Schiff was a senior partner, to see the old regime fall into the hands of revolutionaries, who would agree to grant lucrative business concessions in the future in return for financial support today.)

When Trotsky returned to Petrograd in May of 1917 to organize the Bolshevik phase of the Russian Revolution, he carried $10,000 for travel expenses, a generously ample fund considering the value of the dollar at that time. Trotsky was arrested by Canadian and British naval personnel, when the ship, on which he was traveling, the S.S. Kristianiafjord, put in at Halifax. The money in his possession is now a matter of official record. The source of that money has been the focus of much speculation, but the evidence strongly suggests, that its origin was the German government. It was a sound investment.

Trotsky was not arrested on a whim. He was recognized as a threat to the best interests of England, Canada's mother country in the British Commonwealth. Russia was an ally of England in the First World War, which then was raging in Europe. Anything, that would weaken Russia - and that certainly included internal revolution - would be, in effect, to strengthen Germany and weaken England. In New York on the night before his departure Trotsky had given a speech, in which he said: "I am going back to Russia to overthrow the provisional government and stop the war with Germany." (A full report on this meeting had been submitted to the U.S. Military Intelligence. See Senate Document No. 62, 66th Congress, Report and Hearings of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 1919, Vol. II, p. 2680.) Trotsky therefore represented a real threat to England's war effort. He was arrested as a German agent and taken as a prisoner of war.

With this in mind we can appreciate the great strength of those mysterious forces both in England and the United States, that intervened on Trotsky's behalf. Immediately telegrams began to come into Halifax from such divergent sources, as an obscure attorney in New York City, from the Canadian Deputy Postmaster-General and even from a high-ranking British military officer, all inquiring into Trotsky's situation and urging his immediate release. The head of the British Secret Service in America at the time was Sir William Wiseman, who, as fate would have it, occupied the apartment directly above the apartment of Edward Mandell House and who had become fast friends with him. House advised Wiseman, that President Wilson wished to have Trotsky released. Wiseman advised his government and the British Admiralty issued orders on April 21st, that Trotsky was to be sent on his way. ("Why Did We Let Trotsky Go? How Canada Lost an Opportunity to Shorten the War", MacLeans magazine, Canada, June 1919. Also see Martin, pp. 163-164.) It was a fateful deecision, that would affect not only the outcome of the war, but the future of the entire world.

It would be a mistake to conclude, that Jacob Schiff and Germany were the only players in this drama. Trotsky could not have gone even as far as Halifax without having been granted an American passport and this was accomplished by the personal intervention of President Wilson. Professor Antony Sutton says:
President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother, who provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to "carry forward" the revolution... At the same time careful State Department bureaucrats, concerned about such revolutionaries entering Russia, were unilaterally attempting to tighten up passport procedures. (Antony C. Sutton, Ph. D.: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, published by Arlington House in New Rochelle, NY, 1974, p. 25)
And there were others, as well. In 1911 the St. Louis Dispatch published a cartoon by a Bolshevik named Robert Minor. Minor was later to be arrested in Tsarist Russia for revolutionary activities and in fact was himself bankrolled by famous Wall Street financiers. Since we may safely assume, that he knew his topic well, his cartoon is of great historical importance. It portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street. Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters in silk hats identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

What emerges from this sampling of events is a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the United States; from men, who supposedly were "capitalists" and who according to conventional wisdom should have been the mortal enemies of socialism and communism.

Nor was this phenomenon confined to the United States. Trotsky in his book My Life tells of a British financier, who in 1907 gave him a "large loan" to be repaid after the overthrow of the Tsar. Arsene de Goulevitch, who witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution firsthand, has identified both the name of the financier and the amount of the loan. "In private interviews", he said, "I have been told that over 21 million rubles were spent by Lord [Alfred] Milner in financing the Russian Revolution... The financier just mentioned was by no means alone among the British to support the Russian revolution with large financial donations." Another name specifically mentioned by de Goulevitch was that of Sir George Buchanan, the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See Arsene de Goulevitch: Czarism and Revolution, published by Omni Publications in Hawthorne, California, no date; rpt. from 1962 French edition, pp. 224, 230)

It was one thing for Americans to undermine Tsarist Russia and thus indirectly help Germany in the war, because American were not then into it, but for British citizens to do so was tantamount to treason. To understand, what higher loyalty compelled these men to betray their battlefield ally and to sacrifice the blood of their own countrymen, we must take a look at the unique organization, to which they belonged.


In Russia prior to and during the revolution there were many local observers, tourists and newsmen, who reported, that British and American agents were everywhere, particularly in Petrograd, providing money for insurrection. On report said, for example, that British agents were seen handing out 25-rouble notes to the men at the Pavlovski regiment just a few hours, before it mutinied against its officers and sided with the revolution. The subsequent publication of various memoirs and documents made it clear, that this funding was provided by Milner and channeled through Sir George Buchanan, who was the British Ambassador to Russia at the time. (See de Goulevitch, p. 230) It was a repeat of the ploy, that had worked so well for the cabal many times in the past. Round Table members were once again working both sides of the conflict to weaken and topple a target government. Tsar Nicholas had every reason to believe, that since the British were Russia's allies in the war against Germany, British officials would be the last persons on Earth to conspire against him. Yet the British Ambassador himself represented the hidden group, which was financing the regime's downfall.

The Round Table Agents from America did not have the advantage of using the diplomatic service as cover and therefore had to be considerably more ingenious. They came not as diplomats or even as interested businessmen, but disguised as Red Cross officials on a humanitarian mission. The group consisted almost entirely of financiers, lawyers and accountants from New York banks and investment houses. They simply had overpowered the American Red Cross organization with large contributions and in effect purchased a franchise to operate in its name. Professor Sutton tells us:
The 1910 [Red Cross] fund-raising campaign for $2 million, for example, was successful only, because it was supported by these wealthy residents of New York City. J.P. Morgan himself contributed $100,000... Henry P. Davison [a Morgan partner] was chairman of the 1910 New York Fund-Raising Committee and later became chairman of the War Council of the American Red Cross... The Red Cross was unable to cope with the demands of World War I. and in effect was taken over by these New York bankers. (Sutton: Revolution, p. 72)
For the duration of the war the Red Cross had been made nominally a part of the armed forces and subject to orders from the proper military authorities. It was not clear, who these authorities were and in fact there were never any orders, but the arrangement made it possible for the participants to receive military commissions and wear the uniform of American army officers. The entire expense of the Red Cross Mission in Russia, including the purchase of uniforms, was paid for by the man, who was appointed by President Wilson to become its head, "Colonel" William Boyce Thompson. Thompson was a classical specimen of the Round Table network. Having begun his career as a speculator in copper mines, he soon moved into the world of high finance. He -
  • refinanced the American Woolen Company and the Tobacco Products Company;
  • launched the Cuban Cane Sugar Company;
  • purchased controlling interest in the Pierce Arrow Motor Car Company;
  • organized the Submarine Boat Corporation and the Wright-Martin Aeroplane Company;
  • became a director of the Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway, the Magma Arizona Railroad and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company;
  • was one of the heaviest stockholders in the Chase National Bank;
  • was the agent for J.P. Morgan's British securities operation;
  • became the first full-time director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most important bank in the Federal Reserve System;
  • and of course contributed a quarter-million dollars to the Red Cross.
When Thompson arrived in Russia, he made it clear, that he was not your typical Red Cross representative. According to Hermann Hagedorn, Thompson's biographer:
He deliberately created the kind of setting, which would be expected of an American magnate: established himself in a suite in the Hotel de l'Europe, bought a French limousine, went dutifully to receptions and teas and evinced an interest in objects of art. Society and the diplomats, noting that here was a man of parts and power, began to flock about him. He was entertained at the embassies, at the houses of Kerensky's ministers. It was discovered, that he was a collector and those with antiques to sell fluttered around him offering him miniatures, Dresden china, tapestries, even a palace or two. (Hermann Hagedorn: The Magnate: William Boyce Thompson and His Time, published by Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, 1935, pp. 192-93)
When Thompson attended the opera, he was given the imperial box. People on the street called him the American Tsar. And it is not surprising, that according to George Kennan, "He was viewed by the Kerensky authorities as the 'real' ambassador of the United States." (George F. Kennan: Russia Leaves the War: Soviet-American Relations, 1917-1920 published by Princeton University Press in Princeton, NJ, 1956, p. 60)

It is now a matter of record, that Thompson syndicated the purchase on Wall Street of Russian bonds in the amount of ten million roubles. (Hagedorn, p. 192) In addition, he gave over two million roubles to Aleksandr Kerensky for propaganda purposes inside Russia and with J.P. Morgan gave the rouble equivalent of one million dollars to the Bolsheviks for the spreading of revolutionary propaganda outside of Russia, particularly in Germany and Austria. (Sutton: Revolution, pp. 83, 91.) It was the agitation made possible by this funding, that led to the abortive German Spartacus Revolt of 1918. (See article "W.B. Thompson, Red Cross Donor, Believes Party Misrepresented" in the Washington Post of Feb. 2, 1918) A photograph of the cablegram from Morgan to Thompson advising, that the money had been transferred to the National City Bank branch in Petrograd, is included in this book.
At first it may seem incongruous, that the Morgan group would provide funding for both Kerensky and Lenin. These men may have both been socialist revolutionaries, but they were miles apart in their plans for the future and in fact were bitter competitors for control of the new government. But the tactic of funding both sides in a political contest by then had been refined by members of the Round Table into a fine art. A stunning example of this occurred in South Africa during the outset of the Boer War in 1899.



William E. Dannemeyer, U.S. Congressman, 1979-1992

If you want to take over a country, one of the first things you do is to seize control of the money supply.  Jacob Schiff was the son of a Jewish rabbi, born in Frankfurt, Germany.  He was sent to America in the late nineteenth century by the European Rothschild financial dynasty.  One of his assigned tasks was to seize control of the money supply of the U.S. Government.  At that time it was under the control of the U.S. Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which states:
The Congress shall have Power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof.”
Baron MA Rothschild had stated this truism in the nineteenth century:
“Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes the laws.”
Jacob Schiff began his quest to take over the money supply of America by purchasing an interest in a banking concern in Indiana called Kuhn and Loeb.  He married the daughter of Loeb, bought out the interest of Kuhn and as sole owner of Kuhn and Loeb, moved the business to New York in the late 19th century. Jacob Schiff was not exactly welcomed with open arms by the financial potentates led by the House of Morgan then controlling the financial markets in New York.  Schiff, as the Rothschild’s agent in America, gradually was able to build a working relationship with the other banking houses in New York by sharing some Rothschild bonds and stock business with them.

Schiff was so successful in being accepted as a player in the N.Y. Banking scene that in 1908 he was among a handful of NY bankers who gathered at Jekyll Island, one of the House of Morgan’s homes located in Georgia.  These financial wizards plotted to take over the money supply of America.  They had no small task before them.

They needed to get America to pass their hatched plan called the Federal Reserve System which was nothing more than a private group of bankers.  It was not then nor has it ever been a part of the U.S. government.  Some of the stockholders included: Rothchilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

The congressional stooge present at the meeting in 1908 at Jekyll Island was Senator Nelson Aldrich of New York.  He was assigned the task of shepherding the outright theft of the U.S. money supply system called the Federal Reserve Act through Congress. On December 23, 1913, he delivered in spades.  Two days before Christmas is a good time to have Congress debate and vote on a major piece of legislation if your desire is to minimize the desire of members of Congress to really understand what they are voting on.  The reason is not hard to find.  Members of Congress have families and want to get home for Christmas like anyone else.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by a vote of 298 to 60 in the House of Representatives and in the Senate by a majority and was sent to the White House for the signature of President Woodrow Wilson. How President Wilson was elected in 1912 was all a part of the conspiracy organized by Jacob Schiff and his New York banking fraternity at the meeting at Jekyll Island in Georgia in 1908.

President Robert Taft, a well respected Republican, was running for re-election in the Presidential election scheduled for 1912.  He was on to the theft of our money supply organized by Jacob Schiff and his New York City banking friends.  If President Taft was re-elected in 1912, it was clear that he would veto any bill passed by Congress to create the privately owned Federal Reserve Act.

The conspirators led by Jacob Schiff enlisted the help of former President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican and convinced him to run on the third party Bull Moose ticket and split the Republican vote.  The scheme worked and Woodrow Wilson was elected President in the 1912 election and when the Federal Reserve Act came to his desk in 1913, he rewarded his bankers and signed the act into law.

In 1913, the principle means of communicating to the people of America what Congress was doing were newspapers.  The newspapers did not report this biggest theft in the 20th Century at all. Almost a century later, 2007, we Americans are still experiencing the consequences of this theft of our money supply in 1913 by transferring control of it to private elitist banking families residing mostly in Europe and some in America. It is not an exaggeration to say that these are the consequences of this historic event:

(1) The American people lost control of how and to what extent Congress spends our money: Example, Congressional deficits are financed by irresponsibly expanding the money supply by the privately owned Federal Reserve System which results over time in an inflationary spiral which will lead to a total collapse of the dollar and the destruction of the middle class.

(2) America disavowed the advice of George Washington to avoid entangling alliances with other countries and focus our energies on protecting the interests of the American people.

(3) The creation of Imperial America which seeks to control the world and results in perpetual war to achieve perpetual peace.  It goes by the name of the New World Order, led by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  The CFR has over 3,000 members, over 70% of whom are Zionist Jews.


Nations that were created as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia

The collapse of the Soviet Union was chaotic? You should have seen the start. After the Bolshevik party took power, the former Russian Empire descended into anarchy. Proper anarchy, with bells on. Only part of the vast land mass stretching from Polish border to the shores of the Pacific was under the effective control of the fledgling Communist regime (coloured darker pink on this map). What happened in the rest of the country is conveniently termed a civil war between ‘Reds’ and ‘Whites’, with the former eventually crushing the latter. The reality was a lot more complex, covering a panoply of secessions, rebellions, counter-revolutions and foreign invasions.

Those circumstances gave rise to dozens of ephemeral states, mostly at the former Empire’s fraying edges. Some lasted only weeks, other several years. All were eventually absorbed into the U.S.S.R. This map lists only 28. As map creator /u/pisseguri82 says: “I specifically omitted (states) that are still around – various Red, White, monarchist and others, or incarnations of them anyway (1). This is about the nations most people haven’t heard of”. Those circumstances gave rise to dozens of ephemeral states, mostly at the former Empire’s fraying edges. Some lasted only weeks, other several years. All were eventually absorbed into the U.S.S.R.

This map lists only 28. As map creator /u/pisseguri82 says: “I specifically omitted (states) that are still around – various Red, White, monarchist and others, or incarnations of them anyway (1). This is about the nations most people haven’t heard of”. And what a bunch of delightfully obscure ephemerals they are. The map, recently uploaded to Reddit, shows their (sometimes overlapping) geographies, flies their (equally short-lived) flags and provides a glimpse of their (often bizarre) backstories. “Some would say these are not all actual states, and that is kind of the point”, the mapmaker goes on. “The Kuban republic was internationally recognised and had ambassadors and a large army, Basmachi was a very loose organisation of guerrilla fighters, Naissaar was simply a band of corrupt soldiers with a freaky flag and Green Ukraine was never even properly declared independent”.

“Many other local governments lie somewhere on the sliding scale between a regional council that printed money and passed laws, and an actual independent government on the international scene. In the end, it's a 'what could have been' map of Russia if the civil war had ended differently”.

Let’s turn first to the northwestern corner of the former Empire, where the Republics of Uhtua and North Ingria were proclaimed by ethnic Finns hoping to join Finland, itself newly independent from Russia. By October 1920, both movements – each donned with a flag sporting the distinctive Nordic Cross – had been crushed. All North Ingrians were later deported to Central Asia. Finland itself, or parts of it at least, saw the short-lived Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic – a.k.a. Red Finland (1918). The mapmaker put several other short-lived Soviet republics on the map, but “since they all have the same all-red flag and pretty much the same story (Bolsheviks rose up, got overturned again), I focused on (ephemeral countries) with more colourful stories”.

In December 1917, the fortress on the Estonian island of Naissaar was commandeered by a few dozen Russian sailors, who proclaimed a ‘Soviet Republic of Soldiers and Fortress-Builders’, surely the only time the latter nomenclature was used for a socialist republic (typically said to be composed of ‘soldiers, workers and farmers’). The sailors set up a government and started collecting taxes from the locals. After two months, German forces chased them away. Stepan Petrichenko, the leader of the sailors, fled to Kronstadt, where in 1921 he would play a role in the unsuccessful Rebellion against the Bolsheviks.

Using the power vacuum towards the end of World War I, Baltic Germans proclaimed the independence of a Baltic Duchy and a Duchy of Courland. It was their ambition that both would be governed in personal union with the Kingdom of Prussia, thus effectively becoming protectorates of the German Empire. Courland was soon subsumed by the Baltic Duchy, which thus coincided with present-day Estonia and Latvia combined. The Duchy did not prove a viable option. When both Baltic countries declared their independence in the closing months of 1918, its window of opportunity had closed. Numbering less than 1,000 inhabitants, the Lithuanian town of Perloja nevertheless made history when it declared its independence in 1918. Perlojos respublikas had its own court, police, prison and currency, the litas, as well as an army 300 men strong. It lasted until 1923.

Originally part of Austria-Hungary, the Hutsul Republic declared independence with the intent of joining Ukraine. After WWI, it ended up in Czechoslovakia. It was independent for one day – March 15, 1939 – making it the shortest-lived state in European history. The Hungarians took over the next day. In 1946, it was annexed to (Soviet) Ukraine. Sometimes also referred to as Trans-Carpathian Ukraine or Carpatho-Ukraine, Hutsul is reputed to be the land that changed hands the most times during the 20th century (see also #57). The Lemkos have been identified as Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Slovakians, or as an ethnic group of their own. An East Lemko Republic was founded in November 1918 by those wishing to join an independent Ukraine. A month later, a Lemko Republic was founded by those favouring inclusion within Russia. Both territories were eventually annexed by Poland. The Crimean People’s Republic was established by the local Tatar population at the end of 1917. The Crimea was subsequently overrun by Bolsheviks, Ukrainians and Germans, the Red Army, their White opponents, and finally, in 1921, the Red Army again.

The Don Cossacks raised an army of 50,000 against the Reds, which became a major part of the White resistance in the south of Russia. The Kuban Cossacks established a military government that gained recognition from both Germany and Turkey. Neither Red nor White, the Kuban Republic was overrun by the Red Army in 1919. The Free Territory was an anarchist collection of local councils, under the protection of Nestor Makhno’s rogue army. After a period of tolerance for the state, the Reds turned against Makhno, who escaped to Paris, where he ended his days as a stagehand and Renault factory worker.

In the Caucasus, the situation was – as always – extremely complex. In November 1917, a local oil baron united Chechen, Ingush and Ossetian peoples in a Mountain Republic, allied with Germany. The Republic had the distinction of being defeated by both sides in the Russian civil war – first by the Reds, in March 1918, then by the Whites, in May 1919. The Transcaucasian Federation was formed in April 1918 to counter Turkey’s claims in the region. As Turkey advanced, the Federation fell apart within a month. Following a British proposal to cede the area to Armenia, a local Azeri officer in December 1918 proclaimed the Aras Republic, aligned with Turkey. The Armenians overran it in June 1919.

Ruled by an emir aligned with the Ottomans, but dependent on the Reds for military support, the North Caucasian Emirate turned into a Soviet republic upon the emir’s death. The Kars Republic was an Ottoman puppet state, invaded by the British in 1919. Their ceding control to the Armenians contributed to the start of the Turkish-Armenian War. The military dictatorship of Mughan was led by a White general and supported by an expeditionary force composed of British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand troops; while the Soviet republic of Gilan saw the revolutionary fervour catch fire in northern Iran, only for the Soviets to withdraw their support, leading to the state's swift collapse.

The Republic of Idel-Ural was founded as the homeland for some of the diverse non-Russian nationalities in the area, including Tatars, Bashkirs and Volga Germans. Despite the enormous territory claimed by the Republic, it in fact only ever controlled parts of Kazan, its prospective capital. The massive territory claimed by the Kazakh-led Alash Autonomy was mostly held by Red and White forces. The Basmachi movement, initially a revolt against conscription, claimed sovereignty for Central Asia’s Muslims. Going one step further, the Kokand movement sought to restore the eponymous Khanate – but was defeated by the Red Army after merely three months.

The Confederated Republic of Altai saw itself as the first step towards the re-establishment of Genghis Khan’s empire. It lasted little more than two years. ‘Green Ukraine’ was nowhere near actual Ukraine. Nevertheless, the Siberian Ukrainians who founded the state foresaw a union with independent Ukraine. Green Ukraine never really took off, and then was taken over by the Red Army in 1922. Encompassing the entire Pacific seaboard of the former Empire, the Far East Republic was set up by the Soviets themselves to serve as a buffer against Japanese expansionism in Siberia. The Japanese withdrawal, and the Red Army’s subsequent capture of Vladivostok in November 1922, marked the end of the civil war.

Not mentioned on this map are, among quite a few others, the provisional All-Russian Government set up by Admiral Alexander Kolchak; 'Mad Baron' Roman von Ungern-Sternberg's short rule over Mongolia as an independent warlord; or the Moldavian Democratic Republic, just to the east of present-day Moldova.


Book Review: Stalin: The Enduring Legacy

At the beginning of 1989, I thought that “Russia” (the USSR) was an evil empire, a totalitarian system built on repression and propaganda and bent on global domination. I also thought that the United States was the principal impediment to Soviet world domination, the bulwark of freedom. By the end of 1989, I was giddy, for America had stood firm long enough for the USSR to collapse of its internal contradictions before it could cast its net over the entire globe. Today, however, things seem very different. Like many White Nationalists, I see the United States as an evil empire, a soft totalitarian system built on lies and repression and pursuing global domination. Indeed, our system is built on the same lie as Communism: human equality. Furthermore, Russia is now the principal bulwark against American global domination. But this time, the stake is not “freedom” but something far more important, for if unchecked, American-style global liberalism and capitalism mean the death of the white race. Thus, if our race is to survive, Russia must stand firm against globalization until the American system succumbs to its own inner contradictions before it can drag the rest of the world down with it.

Kerry Bolton’s Stalin: The Enduring Legacy shows that the roots of the present world situation are far deeper than I had imagined.

Stalin is one of history’s greatest monsters, and Bolton’s book does not attempt to deny or minimize Stalin’s crimes, although I would find such a revisionist project interesting to read, given that our image of Stalin was manufactured by some of the same people who manufactured our image of Hitler, which is largely false. Bolton’s main concern is with Stalin’s “legacy,” namely his influence on present-day Realpolitik, the conflict between the forces of globalization and the forces of national self-determination. And it turns out that Stalin’s principal enemy is our own, namely the international Jewish community, although Stalin himself never saw it that way.

Bolton’s book is filled with surprising revelations.

Chapter 1, “Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism,” outlines the basis of Stalin’s conflict with Trotsky. Once in power, Stalin reversed a number of the policies established by Lenin and favored by Trotsky and his followers. In terms of economic policy, Lenin and Trotsky favored a rapprochement with international capitalism, particularly the international Jewish banks that had funded Bolshevism from the beginning. Stalin, however, was not Jewish. He was also an orthodox Communist. He funded the revolution by robbing banks, not borrowing from them. Thus Stalin turned the USSR toward economic autarky and full-scale collectivization of industry and agriculture, with catastrophic consequences for the peasantry and workers.

Stalin did, however, pursue much healthier policies in the social realm. He sought to restore the family and marriage, limit access to abortion, reestablish discipline and standards in education, and combat “rootless cosmopolitanism” and “formalism” in art and culture in the name of artistic styles rooted in folk culture and capable of appealing to and elevating the tastes of the masses. Stalin is widely condemned as a philistine, but in truth he had well-developed tastes in art and music. The positive effects that he had on Soviet culture can be illustrated most clearly by comparing Shostakovich’s fourth symphony, an avant-garde train-wreck which he withdrew under criticism, with his fifth symphony, one of the great symphonies of the 20th century, which Stalin wrung out of him using the muse of terror.

Bolton never really gives us a sense of why Stalin did any of this. What really made him tick? He was clearly highly intelligent, outfoxing some of the shrewdest statesmen and schemers in history. He was also demonstrably well-versed in Marxist theory and appeared to be a sincere Communist. He knew a great deal about history. And he had excellent taste in music. Yet he seemed entirely lacking in morality and human warmth. He was not a Russian, so he could not be accused of nationalistic sentiments. He was also an atheist, so religion played no role in his life. He had no sentimentality about the past and was a deep-dyed revolutionary. But in spite of all this, perhaps out of sheer pragmatism, Stalin gave the USSR a somewhat nationalistic, somewhat socially conservative form of socialism.

Chapter 2, “Stalin and the Art of Rootless Cosmopolitanism,” deals with the cozy relationship between Trotskyite exiles in the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Rockefeller foundation in promoting Abstract Expressionism and other forms of modern art as the all American answer to Stalinist philistinism. The fact that the US government ended up using the tax dollars of Idaho potato farmers and Texas ranchers to promote cultural Bolshevism in the art world as a purely symbolic element of the Trotskyite opposition to Stalin is, frankly, astonishing. Whenever whites permit a critical mass of Jews in our societies, it seems inevitable that we become pawns in Jewish machinations, even arcane “inner party” disputes that are utterly detached from reality.

Chapter 3, “The Moscow Trials in Historical Context,” is the most remarkable chapter in the book. Here Bolton lays out in great detail just how plausible Stalin’s case against the Trotskyite opposition was. The fact that so many of Stalin’s policy preferences ran counter to the ethnic interests and tastes of Bolshevism’s huge Jewish contingent meant that Stalin’s policies inevitably seemed anti-Semitic to the most ethnocentric Jewish communists, who became the core of the Trotskyite opposition. (Later, the the Zionist wing of the Trotskyite movement became the nucleus of neconservatism.)

But calling Stalin an anti-Semite is an undeserved compliment. Yes, he was an anti-Trotskyite. Yes, later he was an anti-Zionist. Yes, Stalin killed countless Jewish Bolsheviks. But one could not purge an overwhelmingly Jewish party without purging some Jews. Nevertheless, Stalin maintained the loyalty of many Jewish communists to the very end. Thus Stalin was an anti-Semite only in Joe Sobran’s sense of the term: Jews hated him. But Stalin didn’t hate Jews as such. He fought them only to the extent that they opposed his policies and his conception of Communism.

But nevertheless, Stalin did change the ethnic character of Soviet Communism from something recognizably Jewish and nihilistic to something recognizably Russian and socially conservative. And although Jews were a privileged people in the USSR up to the very end, they no longer felt that the regime was theirs. According to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, after Stalin’s death, the regime took active steps to curb Jewish overrepresentation in elite institutions. Jews were still massively overrepresented, but from the kvetching, you would think they were making bricks for the pharaoh. By the 1970s, an exodus to Israel and the United States was underway. This gives some hope for American whites. For even token efforts to limit Jewish overrepresentation in our society will be magnified immensely by Jewish hypersensitivity, perhaps enough to spark an exodus of our own.

Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the origins of the Cold War. Contrary to the old Right-wing American canard that the United Nations was a communist conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, the United Nations actually sought to establish a genuine world government under US control at the end of the Second World War, and it was Stalin who stopped it in its tracks. Furthermore, the United States wanted to “internationalize” atomic energy, which meant that the UN, under the control of the US, would take control of uranium mining and refinement to maintain the US monopoly on atomic weapons. When Stalin said nyet to both, one world government was halted and the Cold War was off and running. And, as it turns out, Trotskyites took part in every aspect of the Cold War’s implementation.

Chapters 6 and 7 deal with Stalin’s death (poison) and post-Soviet Russia. After the collapse of the USSR, the United States sought to establish a unipolar hegemony and to bring Russia into the global system. Many of the architects of this New World Order were neoconservative offshoots of the Trotskyite movement and their ethnic kin. Vladimir Putin, however, spiked their plans, which is one reason he is likened to Stalin today. And that is how we have arrived at the present correlation of forces: globalist, Judaized America vs. European, nationalist Russia.


Book Review: A magnificent account of Stalin’s opponents in the USSR

“It may well be that the historical period examined in our book has been subjected to the most biased assessments. In countless journal articles, Stalin’s ‘great breakthrough’ was declared to be either the natural continuation of the revolutionary strategy of Bolshevism, or interpreted as Stalin’s turn to ‘Trotskyism’… From a priori conceptions about the organic continuity between Bolshevism and Stalinism, also came the version of the absolutely arbitrary nature of Stalin’s repressions. This version was shared (although for different reasons in principle) by both Stalinists and anti-communists, who considered that the political regime created by the October Revolution had not undergone degeneration. The adherents of this version did not connect the Stalinist terror with the logic of the inner-party struggle, which compelled Stalin to answer the growing protest within the party against his policies with monstrous counterblows. In 1928–1933, this process was still far from complete.”—Vadim Rogovin (p.492)
The publication in English of Bolsheviks against Stalinism 1928–1933: Leon Trotsky and the Left Opposition by the Soviet Marxist historian and sociologist Vadim Rogovin (1937–1998) is a major political and intellectual event. The second book in Rogovin’s seven-volume series Was There an Alternative is a magnificent account of the political struggle waged by Stalin’s opponents in the USSR in the years following Leon Trotsky’s exile and up to Adolf Hitler’s conquest of power. It demonstrates that Stalin’s rise was neither foreordained nor a natural outgrowth of the October Revolution. Rather, the Great Russian chauvinist and bureaucrat secured power in ferocious conflict with the proletariat, peasantry and cadre of the revolutionary socialist movement.

Rogovin produced this volume and six others in the final years of his life as he simultaneously battled terminal cancer. For several decades Rogovin worked as a sociologist studying living conditions in the USSR. He was drawn to this subject because he wanted to investigate the scale, scope and origins of stratification in the Soviet Union. Having clandestinely found his way to the work of Trotsky and the Left Opposition (LO), Rogovin became convinced that social inequality was the key to understanding Stalinism.

In the early 1990s, Rogovin’s decades-long political isolation from the world Trotskyist movement finally came to an end when he made contact with the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). Bolsheviks Against Stalinism was Rogovin’s first work written in close political collaboration with the ICFI and marks a key moment in his development as a Marxist historian.

A short book review cannot convey the depth and complexity of this fascinating, 500-page volume. Bolsheviks Against Stalinism is high drama. It interweaves primary and secondary sources—published speeches and articles, personal correspondence, media reports, archival documents, personal memoirs, historical accounts and even novels—to take the reader through the twists and turns of a five-year period of Soviet history in a series of short and focused chapters that address the economic crises, political problems and social conditions that drove Stalin’s policies and led to the continual eruption of opposition. It is an exploration of the human material of the Bolshevik party, as it alternately confronted, was swept along by, participated in and challenged a massive nationalist, bureaucratic reaction to the Russian Revolution.

One of the book’s key findings is that arrests, expulsions and exile were not enough to shatter the influence of Trotsky and the Left Opposition. These forces continued to exert immense sway over the political life of the country and shaped the new, oppositional forces emerging in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Thus, Bolsheviks Against Stalinism illuminates the political logic driving Stalin’s turn to mass exterminations during the Great Purge; Trotsky and the Left Opposition represented an unrelenting threat to the bureaucracy that could only be contained with physical violence.

When the working class of Russia overthrew the combined forces of Tsarism and capitalism bringing the Bolsheviks to power in the fall of that year, the revolution immediately faced enormous difficulties. World War I had physically devastated Russia, which was mired in poverty and backwardness. The social democrats of Europe had betrayed the struggles of their own working classes and the young revolution found itself isolated. It simultaneously had to combat, across a vast landmass, the counter-revolutionary forces of imperialism, which sought to destroy the victory of Russia’s masses and prevent the revolution from extending across the globe.

The Russian revolution prevailed against all odds. But even as the Soviet Union formed itself, a bureaucracy began to emerge within the country that was dedicated not to the Marxist program of world revolution but to building “socialism in one country.” Joseph Stalin stood at its helm. Taking advantage of the exhaustion and isolation of the Soviet working class, this rising apparatus used its position as the administrator of the country’s economy and political institutions to secure for itself special privileges.

The incipient Stalinist bureaucracy was organically hostile to world revolution. It instinctively grasped that if the working masses came to power elsewhere, the working class within the Soviet Union would wage combat against a parasitic elite feeding off the conquests of the world’s first-ever workers’ state. Therefore, in pursuit of its policies, the bureaucracy betrayed revolutions abroad and crushed inner-party democracy within the Soviet Communist Party and the Communist International. In his last years Lenin anticipated the dangers posed by this bureaucratic tendency and fought against them. He was joined by Leon Trotsky, his co-leader of the Russian revolution. When Lenin was incapacitated by strokes in 1923 and finally died in 1924, Trotsky continued this struggle along with other members of the Bolshevik Party, forming the Left Opposition (LO) in 1923.

Rogovin places Trotsky’s writings and those published in the Left Opposition’s Bulletin of the Opposition at the center of this volume, making clear that they are the key to unlocking the period’s history. Articles, commentary and correspondence from Trotsky and the Bulletin, which were often written by oppositionists in the USSR working underground and then circulated in secret, contain remarkable insights into the character of Soviet society and outline a thoroughgoing critique of Stalinism. Of all the oppositional tendencies that emerged in the Soviet Union, it was only the “alternative of the Left Opposition”—as Rogovin characterizes it—that was capable of fundamentally challenging and defeating Stalinism.

When Bolsheviks Against Stalinism was first published in Russian in 1993, the material covered in it would have been new to the Soviet reader. Trotsky had been removed from official annals of Soviet history. Rogovin’s emphasis on the distinctiveness and importance of the Left Opposition was, and remains today, an open rebuke to the falsifiers of Soviet history of all political stripes. He was waging a battle against the powerful Communist Party bureaucracy and its supporters in the intelligentsia, who were—with the aid of historical falsification—restoring capitalism in the face of mounting social opposition.

In 1989, for instance, a letter sent to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by a rank-and-file party member set off alarm bells. The ideology division of the Communist Party said the sentiments expressed in the letter were known to be “widespread (representative) among the working class.” The letter writer described the Communist Party as made up of “opportunists,” “elites” and bourgeois “born-againers.” It called for the working class to “take matters into its own hands as the head of its own party” in order to lead a “class war.” The same year, massive miners’ strikes erupted in the country. Armed with the knowledge of their own history, Rogovin understood that the Soviet working class could be an unstoppable force.

Bolsheviks Against Stalinism begins with the economic crisis of 1927 and the proceedings of the 15th Congress of the Communist Party, held in December of that year. The failure of the Stalin leadership to make changes to the New Economic Policy (NEP) led precisely to the problems predicted by the Left Opposition—a grain crisis, whereby peasants refused to part with their harvest because the cities were unable to produce goods needed on the countryside. NEP allowed for state-regulated production for profit in manufacturing and agriculture. The result was the emergence of well-to-do layers in the cities (NEPmen) and countryside (kulaks, in other words, better-off sections of the peasantry). While the policy kickstarted the economy, it proved unable to resolve the problems in the country’s industrial sector, whose development lagged.

The book describes how the Communist Party, under the leadership of Stalin and Bukharin, responded to the economic crisis by stepping up attacks on the Left Opposition with arrests and exile and a relentless campaign of denunciations. Being active in the Left Opposition had become not just grounds for expulsion from the party, but was illegal according to Article 58 of the criminal code. While the concept of “forced pressure on the kulaks” was first formulated in the lead-up to the 15th Congress by Bukharin, Rogovin notes that coming out of the Congress this was not official policy, which continued to be committed to the preservation of NEP.

But when the grain crisis exploded in early 1928 and famine threatened the cities, the Politburo careened in the direction of “emergency measures” to force peasants to turn over their harvest. Rogovin argues that Stalin’s direct involvement was decisive in driving forward the repressions. He issued orders that contravened the decisions of the party congress and Soviet law. The result was rising discontent in the countryside and metastasizing economic problems, which Stalin sought to blame on the excesses of local officials and the alleged sabotage of “bourgeois elements.” Directives were issued in secret, as fear grew within the Stalin leadership that the Trotskyists, who had already been making a powerful critique of the emergency measures in the Bulletin of the Opposition and continued to have influence in party cells and workplaces, would gain from the regime’s failures.

This pattern of economic crises and wild improvisations, coupled with scapegoating of lower-level party officials and state administrators, gross violations of Soviet legality, the denunciation and repression of opponents, rule through secret decrees and violence aimed at key segments of the population, would repeat itself continually in the coming years, ultimately escalating into forced collectivization and mass purges.

As 1929 unfolded, the Stalinist bureaucracy continued its efforts to stamp out opposition, with special divisions of the secret services established to search out “rightists” (those who advocated that restrictions on the market economy be loosened) and Trotskyists in party bodies and at scientific research and educational institutions. This corresponded with the shift from “emergency measures” to full-scale forced collectivization. In December 1929, using a formulation that had not previously been accepted by the party, Stalin called for “dekulakization.”

Bolsheviks Against Stalinism highlights the powerful critique made of forced collectivization and its inevitable consequences by Trotsky and the Left Opposition, and traces out the different stages of the “civil war” against the peasantry, documenting in detail the methods used, the violent responses of the villages, the desperate efforts of local party bodies to carry out reckless and impossible measures, the extraordinary human suffering that resulted—including famines in Ukraine and elsewhere that took the lives of millions—and the efforts by Stalin to cover up the state’s crimes and blame the disaster on the peasants themselves, as well as underlings and political opponents. 

Stalin and Bukharin

The volume investigates the toll exacted from the working masses due to collectivization and Stalin’s frenzied drive for industrialization based on fantastical demands that the Soviet Union outstrip its own planned development targets. The spread of piecework, production speed-up, food rationing in the cities, growing wage inequality, punitive restrictions on labor turnover, all contributed to falling living conditions for masses of workers and a growing gap between them and the privileged bureaucrats allied to the Stalin regime. Addressing the social foundations of Stalinism, Rogovin rejects:
… the favorite thesis of contemporary “democrats” that Stalin expressed the interest of new layers of the uneducated and de-politicized working class formed in the years of the first Five-Year Plan, and that the “lumpen who yearned for egalitarianism” had become the social base of support for Stalin’s regime. In actuality, it was precisely on these new layers of the Soviet working class, making up its least skilled segment, that the burden of Stalin’s repressive labor legislation fell particularly heavily, as it relentlessly toughened the sanctions for “violations of labor discipline.” (p 283)
One of the most remarkable chapters in the book, “The Social and Class Meaning of the ‘Great Breakthrough,’” discusses the origins of Stalinism. Rogovin takes on the claims of those who argue that Stalinism emerged solely in the aftermath of NEP, when rapid industrialization and forced collectivization took hold. He insists that the NEP actually laid the groundwork for a massive growth in the bureaucracy, as a huge administrative apparatus charged with overseeing distribution and managing class relations was necessary in order to regulate the market economy that had been legalized in cities and on the countryside. Stalin and his allies cultivated this burgeoning bureaucracy by ensuring its access to privileges. This was accompanied by a political and ideological attack on the principle of equality. While initially accommodating and encouraging the growth of well-to-do peasants in the villages and petty bourgeois layers in the cities, the bureaucracy ultimately came into sharp conflict with them, as the full-scale restoration of capitalism would have undermined its own power and privileges.

The sharp twists and turns in official policy and their calamitous consequences, the extreme social tensions building in the country and the crushing of inner-party democracy called forth waves of discontent, criticism and opposition from within the Communist Party, even from those layers who had previously played a central role in purging the Left Opposition. At times, this took the form of organized efforts that raised the necessity of removing Stalin from power. Other times it manifested as hostile moods and views broadly pervasive in party bodies, workplaces and institutions.

Rogovin introduces readers to Stalin’s veteran opponents and those drawn into struggle during the five years covered in his book, excavating their political biographies. He characterizes in detail their political programs, assesses their strengths and weaknesses, considers their attitude to Trotskyism, and documents their political fates.

In the recounting the history of the oppositional forces in the USSR, Nikolai Bukharin figures prominently in the book. An old Bolshevik, close comrade of Lenin’s and “rightist” who had advocated the further extension of market relations, Bukharin had been Stalin’s close ally in the suppression of the Trotskyists. By mid-July 1928, however, he was probing the possibility of an alliance with former oppositionists Kamenev and Zinoviev, who had recently renounced their criticisms and been brought back to Moscow. Kamenev described Bukharin’s views as ones of “absolute hatred” and “absolute rupture” with Stalin, combined with hysteria. Rogovin notes, “[He] had no precise and consistent political program or clear idea about what methods to use in fighting against Stalin. He was in a panic and in the grip of conflicting moods that followed one after the other.” (p. 59)

Over the course of the subsequent five years, Bukharin would repeatedly raise stinging rebukes of Stalin’s policies, methods and distortions of socialist theory, but prove unable to mount any consistent and principled fight. He vacillated, acting at times as a slavish supporter of Stalin and toeing the party line. All the while he sought allies, engaged in political skullduggery and draped his criticisms of Stalin in the mantle of anti-Trotskyism. None of this worked to his advantage. The charge of “enemy of the people” was first directed against Bukharin and he was persecuted as a “right deviationist.” Rogovin’s analysis of the political history of the “right opposition,” why there was no “right-left” oppositional bloc and Bukharin’s unraveling is detailed and compelling.

The political blows Stalin delivered against his opponents did not, however, resolve any of the crises that gripped the Soviet Union. Opposition to his rule continued to emerge, from both old and new quarters, and even among those routed by Stalin, expelled from the party, demoted, arrested and exiled. The reader will learn about these oppositional tendencies, the figures involved, their demands, their documents, their efforts to establish contact with one another, their origins in different layers of society, their attitude toward the Left Opposition and how the Stalinist apparatus sought to handle them.

Riutin and his family

In September 1930, for instance, workers from Podolsk met with representatives from Moscow’s largest factories and sent a letter to three leading Bolsheviks in which they denounced “Stalin’s unrestrained, autocratic rule” and threatened an appeal to the masses. Around the same time, an oppositional group formed around Sergei Syrtsov, a leading party and state official, and drew in other top figures in a self-declared “right-ultraleft bloc,” which was in contact with political figures extremely close to Stalin. In 1932, the Union of Marxist-Leninists, organized by M.N. Riutin and V.N. Kaiurov, produced a lengthy document, “Stalin and the Crisis of Proletarian Dictatorship.” Rogovin uses the Riutin platform throughout the book and makes a careful analysis of the political character of the document, considering what it expressed about the outlook of the forces marshaling against Stalin and their attitudes towards the Left Opposition.

Bolsheviks against Stalinism makes clear that Stalinism was in constant political crisis, as the growth of the bureaucracy, the strangling of Soviet democracy, the intense exploitation of the working class and the war against the peasantry came into conflict with the Soviet Union’s revolutionary socialist traditions and cadre. Rogovin writes:
Stalin’s familiarity with the “Riutin platform”; with letters from the USSR published in the Bulletin of the Opposition; with investigative materials and agents’ reports from the GPU, recording the activity and moods of old and new opposition groups—all this showed that not only many former oppositionists were sharply against his policy, but even many communists who had not participated in the 1920s in any oppositions, and who had voted “unanimously” at official party meetings. (p. 424)
Not even the mass purges during this period, which saw 800,000 people driven out of the Communist Party, could stabilize the regime. The Left Opposition, working in exile, fought to establish contact with oppositional tendencies developing inside the USSR. The stage was set for the Great Terror, which Rogovin deals with in his subsequent volumes in the series. 

Trotsky and the Left Opposition and Zinoviev

The book also contains a fascinating discussion of the agenda that drove the post-Stalin rehabilitations of Stalin’s victims during Khrushchev’s reign and later. While certain truths were admitted, new falsifications were developed in order to deny that that there existed genuine opponents of Stalin and a fundamental alternative to his rule. One of the most interesting features of this volume is Rogovin’s ability to explain to the reader the contemporary political and historiographical debates surrounding Soviet history. For instance, Rogovin writes:
At the end of the 1980s, the majority of works devoted to a critique of Stalinism paid attention to its extremely cruel repressive side, but did not reveal its common, everyday appearance, expressed in striking social contrasts…The bearer of these tendencies wished that the result of “perestroika” would be a society with social differentiation that would be just as strong as it was under Stalin, but that would avoid Stalin’s repressive measures…The ideological and psychological heritage of Stalinism was deeply rooted in the consciousness of those who, in the years of stagnation and “perestroika,” were inclined to cultivate moods of elitism, clannishness, and a caste mentality that had been widespread in Stalin’s time. (p. 296)
The final chapters of Bolsheviks against Stalinism deal with Hitler’s coming to power in Germany, the responsibility of the Stalinist bureaucracy for this crime, and the response of the Left Opposition. Trotsky would call for the formation of a new communist international in 1933, which he achieved with the founding of the Fourth International in 1938. The internationalism of the LO was distinctive and what allowed the movement to be the most intransigent, unwavering opponent of Stalin. The monstrous domestic policies implemented under Stalin, the growth of a privileged bureaucracy, the attack on social equality, the suppression of inner-party democracy, all of these flowed, Trotsky insisted, from Stalin’s rejection of world revolution and promotion of Russian nationalism.

Apart from this crucial episode, international events are not the focus of Bolsheviks against Stalinism, which concentrates on the history of Stalinism and the oppositions within the Soviet Union’s borders. As Rogovin’s thinking evolved in the coming years due to his close political relationship with the International Committee of the Fourth International, he would devote ever-greater attention to Stalinism’s battle against world revolution in the subsequent five volumes of his series, Was There an Alternative?

Rogovin’s achievement with Bolsheviks against Stalinism is difficult to overstate. He combines innovative research with a penetrating and a dramatic retelling of history. He restores Trotsky and the Left Opposition to their rightful place in the Soviet history. Readers who come into contact with this work will be deeply moved—in all senses of the word, politically, psychologically, intellectually—to seek out the full truth of the struggle against the Stalinist counter-revolution.


Religious Leaders in Russia Condemn Russia's 1917 Revolution as Western Plot

Religious leaders have denounced Russia's 1917 communist revolution as a “Western plot” to destroy the country. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), an autonomous branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, claimed that Russian elites brain-washed by “Westernism” plunged Russia into political turmoil. “[Western-educated elites] pushed Russia into the abyss with suicidal persistence,” the ROCOR bishops' synod said in a statement. “They persuaded the Russian people to renounce their faith, their king and their homeland." The church also called for the body of Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin to be removed from Moscow's Red Square as “a symbol of reconciliation” to mark 100 years since the revolution. It said Moscow should be “liberated” from the body of “the greatest persecutor and tormentor of the twentieth century.” The church isn't alone in suspecting the 1917 revolutions were part of a western plot. In an online poll conducted by Russia's Komsomolkaya Pravda newspaper, 32.7 percent of respondents said they believed that Western agents were the main cause of the 1917 February revolution, which triggered the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. A further 27. 7 percent said that “ordinary people had grown tired of autocrats,” while 15.7 percent blamed the country's intelligentsia.



  1. amazing!

  2. CHURCHILL, WINSTON. 20th century British politician. In 1920, he wrote a long newspaper article of the recent Bolshevik seizure of Russia. After praising what he called the "national Jews" of Russia, he said:

    "In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of the enormous empire.

    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders... In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

    ("Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People." ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)

    "If there was a legal case between a Jew and a Gentile (non-Jew), then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we [i.e., a Jew] will win under their laws, we judge them according to their laws and say to them: this is your law! If it is better that we judge according to our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law! And do not find it difficult, and don't be surprised by it, just as one is not surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done no harm, for one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a man, and his end purpose is only for 'man' [that is to say, the entire raison d'etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man --
    comment by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his edition of Maimonides's Commentary on the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book."

    Foreword -- Daat Emet

    For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha's real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva -- so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article "Jews Are Called 'Men'" by R' David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.

    In this article R' Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards "Gentiles" in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

    "The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as 'man,' and a Gentile."

    That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R' Bar-Chayim's work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R' Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

    For the English readers' convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R' Bar-Chayim's article:

    Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).

    A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.

    A Jew's exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile's property. But if a Gentile's property causes damage to a Jew's property, the Gentile is liable.

    The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah's law or only by a Rabbinic decree.

    PART 2

    A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one's sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.

    The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
    One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
    A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.

    One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.

    A Gentile -- or even a convert to Judaism -- may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).

    One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.

    The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
    One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment "love your neighbour" applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
    One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: "Your mother shall be greatly ashamed..."

    Gentiles are likened to animals.

    If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.

    The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure -- he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.

    One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.

    An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile's ritual slaughter -- but this is not the place to delve into the subject).

    Their members are like those of asses" -- Gentiles are likened to animals.

    Between the Jews and the Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

    R' Bar-Chayim's arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R' Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the "Conclusion" of his article:

    "It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d's word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce 'compromises' or 'renovations' into it."

    On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet -- as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d -- are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.

    In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R' Bar-Chayim's article,

    "Between Jews and Gentiles -- In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought," because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written:

    "And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like -- most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah" (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.


    Tzfi'a 3
    The Editorial Board
    President of the Editorial Board and Founder: Rabbi Moshe Segal OBM
    Rabbi Yisrael Ariel
    Moshe Asher
    Joel Rakovsky
    Amishar Segal
    Articles are the authors' responsibility
    Rabbi David Bar Chaim
    Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav
    Over the past few years, there has been a recognizable trend amongst different circles in the religious community -- a humanistic/universal inclination. There are many who have written in praise of love, "for all men who were created in the image of G-d." We have even been "graced" with a pamphlet of this name, Chaviv Adam Sh'nivra B'tzelem, composed and edited by Mr. Yochanan Ben Ya'acov, the Director General of the Bnei Akiva Youth Movement. The explicit goal of those who share this outlook is to prove that all men are equal, that it is forbidden to discriminate against any man on the basis of his race, and that anyone who claims the opposite is nothing but a racist, distorting the words of the Torah in order to fit them to his "dreadful" opinions.
    Here are two examples:

    1. A statement by Ms. R. Huberman:

    "...I never imagined that the Torah discriminates between one man and the next on the basis of faith, nationality, or race...on the contrary, it is our Torah which teaches that the blood of man is holy simply because he is man: 'Whoever sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of G-d made He man' (Genesis 9) the Ten Commandments it is written: 'You shall not murder'! There is no hint of a restriction, no hint that the prohibition applies to a Jew and not to a Gentile..."
    ("Between Blood and Blood," Amudim, a monthly magazine of the Religious Kibbutz Movement, Tamuz 5745, pg.352).


    The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was "Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices" by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.', Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the "Foreword" for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.

    The world's leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic "The History of the Talmud," Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:

    "THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence...IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH..."

    SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: "What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? - Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."

    This "divine truth" which "a whole people venerate" of which "not a single letter of it is missing" and today "is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history" is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:

    SANHEDRIN, 55b: "A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea)."

    (footnotes) "(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse."

    PART 2

    SANHEDRIN, 69b "Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit...All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood' ".
    (footnotes) "(5). Lit., `says'. (6) Lit., `here', that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years."

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. "Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes her (as though she were ) injured by a piece of wood (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."
    (footnotes) "(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."

    ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. "R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it...From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.

    SOTAH, 26b. "R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) - the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?"

    Of the "sacred" Talmudic teachings of the "Sages," preserved since 500 A.D. and taught more widely today than ever before in Talmud-Torah schools in the U.S.A., perhaps nothing better illustrates "fools" with "reprobate minds" than the teaching in the Talmud book of Yebamoth that spittle on the top of the bed curtain proves that a wife has been guilty of adultery, as only lying down face upwards could she have spit up on it. Spitting several feet straight up! The Talmud states: "When a peddler leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar [breech-cloth] … . If spittle is found on the upper part of the curtained bed she must, said Rabbi, go." Footnote: "Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place." Further footnote: "Only the woman lying face upwards could have spat on the spot. Intercourse may, there fore, be suspected."
    The Jerusalem Post, May 19, 2000 (14 Iyar 5760)



  9. And the jews stranglhold on them is as strong as ever

  10. People are finally starting to wake.

    Greetings from Norway:)

  11. I can see you have awesome stuff here. There are many to say about the Russian Revolution

  12. The same who were the KILLERS in Russia are the same that were the murderers in Germany of SUPPOSEDLY JEWS ! The same start wars to make money. The same create the language for who is a bigot, antisemitic, homophobic and so on. I fell for all the lies my whole life too! The same masquerade as Jesuits! But are anything but Christian. For anyone who does not know whats going on watch this. This will spell it all out .

  13. По этому я прошу вас быть максимально трезвым когда Враги Армян и Русских пытаются этот исторический период искажённом форме приписать Братскоу Русскому Народу!!!!
    Хочу добавить что Блогадаря Товарища Сталина и Товарища Держинског эти сатанисты заговорщики прикрывающими под именем коммунистическим революционерами, были разоблачениы 1921- 24 годах и мы все тогда были спасение от сатанинской рабства!
    Борьба отчистки страны от сатанинских заговорщиков продолжалось до 1938 года! Года Большой чистки!!!
    И блогодаря этой Большой чистки наши Деды смогли выстоять втарую попытку рабства, Втарую Мировую!
    Настоящее время идёт третая попытка нас порабатит!
    Одним и тем же "семьёй" одними и тем же сатанистамы!!!

    Кристиан Раковский (Хаим Рейковер), бывший кровавый диктатор «Советской Украины», личный друг Троцкого, один из основателей коммунистического интернационала, член ложи иллюминатов и бывший советский посол в Париже, на допросе в 1938 г. сделал шокирующие заявления относительно «русской революции» ипланов Ротшильдов.Материалы допроса Раковского были впоследствии опубликованы в книге «Красная симфония».Он подтвердил, что иллюминаты-Ротшильды планировали использовать коммунизм для установления мировой диктатуры сверхбогачей.Раковский свидетельствует, что те же самые силы, которые возвысили и привели к власти Троцкого, дали и «Гитлеру возможность торжества».«Они, в конце концов, увидели, что Сталин не может быть низвергнут путём государственного переворота, и их исторический опыт продиктовал им решение «bis» (повторение): проделать со Сталиным то, что было сделано с царем, - отмечает Раковский.– Но имелось тут одно затруднение, казавшееся нам непреодолимым.Во всей Европе не было государства-агрессора.Ни одно из них не было расположено удобно в географическом отношении и не обладало армией, достаточной для того, чтобы атаковать Россию.Если такой страны не было, то «они» должны были создать её.Только одна Германия располагала соответствующим населением и позициями, удобными для нападения на СССР, и была способна нанести Сталину поражение;вы можете понять, что Веймарская республика не была задумана как агрессор ни с политической, ни с экономической стороны;наоборот, она была удобна для вторжения.На горизонте голодной Германии заблистала скоротечная звезда Гитлера.Пара проницательных глаз остановила на ней своё внимание.Мир явился свидетелем его молниеносного возвышения».

  14. В 1940 г. Ханс-Юрген Кёлер в книге «В недрах гестапо» (Hans-Jurgen Koehler, «Inside The Gestapo») пишет следующее о бабушке Гитлера Марии Анне Шикльгрубер: «Девушка приехала в Вену работать служанкой и стала прислугой в особняке Ротшильдов,и неизвестного дедушку Гитлера следует, скорее всего, искать в этом шикарном особняке».Эта информация подтверждается Вальтером Лангером (Walter Langer, «The Mind Of Hitler»), который утверждает: «Отец Адольфа, Алоис Гитлер был незаконным сыном Анны Марии Шикльгрубер… Анна Мария Шикльгрубер жила в Вене в то время, когда она забеременела.Тогда она работала служанкой в доме барона Ротшильда.Как только факт её беременности стал известным хозяевам, её отправили обратно домой, где родился Алоис».Раковский утверждает, что когда в 1929 г. национал-социалистическая партия переживала кризис роста и у неё не хватало финансовых ресурсов, «они» послали туда своего посла.Раковский называет его имя - один из Варбургов.В прямых переговорах с Гитлером договорились о финансировании национал-социалистической партии, и Гитлер за два года получил миллионы долларов, пересланных ему с Уолл-Стрита, и миллионы марок от немецких финансистов через Яльмара Шахта.Содержание СА и СС, а также финансирование происходивших выборов, давших Гитлеру власть в руки, делается на доллары и марки, присланные «Ими».Парадокс заключался в том, что они боролись за коммунизм в форме глобального государства…
    По убеждению Раковского, «Сталин не способен был воплотить в жизнь ни одной марксистской теории».Сталин только назывался коммунистом, но не был таковым по идеологии и по делам.Объективно он занимал имперские позиции, и потому он был сопоставим для них с царём.Гитлер же боролся «с самодержавным царём «Кобой I», и поэтому объективно Гитлер был революционером-коммунистом, которого они и привели к власти для борьбы против СССР-России.После войны, в 1948 г. президент США Гари Трумэн под давлением Ротшильдов признаёт государство Израиль.За это они выделили ему на избирательную компанию $2 млн. Они заявили, что Израиль является первым еврейским государством в Палестине, а в течение получаса после этого президент Трумэн объявил, что США – это первое иностранное государство, которое это признаёт.Был представлен флаг Израиля.Эмблемой на флаге стал символ Ротшильдов - шестиконечная звезда («звезда Давида»).Этот символ привел в негодование многих евреев, которые полагали, что символом должен был стать древнейший еврейский символ Менора.Утверждалось также, что так называемая «звезда Давида» не является даже еврейским символом.


Dear reader,

New blog commentaries will henceforth be posted on an irregular basis. The comment board however will continue to be moderated on a regular basis. You are therefore welcome to post your comments and ideas.

I have come to see the Russian nation as the last front on earth against the scourges of Westernization, Americanization, Globalism, Zionism, Islamic extremism and pan-Turkism. I have also come to see Russia as the last hope humanity has for the preservation of classical western/European civilization, ethnic cultures, Apostolic Christianity and the concept of traditional nation-state. Needless to say, an alliance with Russia is Armenia's only hope for survival in a dangerous place like the south Caucasus. These sobering realizations compelled me to create this blog in 2010. This blog quickly became one of the very few voices in the vastness of Cyberia that dared to preach about the dangers of Globalism and the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance, and the only voice emphasizing the crucial importance of Armenia's close ties to the Russian nation. Today, no man and no political party is capable of driving a wedge between Armenia and Russia. Anglo-American-Jewish and Turkish agenda in Armenia will not succeed. I feel satisfied knowing that at least on a subatomic level I have had a hand in this outcome.

To limit clutter in the comments section, I kindly ask all participants of this blog to please keep comments coherent and strictly relevant to the featured topic of discussion. Moreover, please realize that when there are several "anonymous" visitors posting comments simultaneously, it becomes very confusing (not to mention annoying) trying to figure out who is who and who said what. Therefore, if you are here to engage in conversation, make an observation, express an idea or simply insult me, I ask you to at least use a moniker to identify yourself. Moreover, please appreciate the fact that I have put an enormous amount of information into this blog. In my opinion, most of my blog commentaries and articles, some going back ten-plus years, are in varying degrees relevant to this day and will remain so for a long time to come. Commentaries and articles found in this blog can therefore be revisited by longtime readers and new comers alike. I therefore ask the reader to treat this blog as a historical record and a depository of important information relating to Eurasian geopolitics, Russian-Armenian relations and humanity's historic fight against the evils of Globalism and Westernization.

Thank you as always for reading.