Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Red Terror’ Category

Photobucket
Leon Trotsky, Barack Obama And The Black “Vanguard Of The Revolution”
By Raymond V. Raehn

Last summer, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, introduced Barack Obama at a San Francisco fundraiser as “a leader that God has blessed us with at this time.” (‘Blessed’ Barack Obama sounds a note of caution as the cash rolls in, by Tom Baldwin, London Times, August 19, 2008)

And just few days ago, the musician Sting echoed her: “In many ways, he’s sent from God, because the world’s a mess.” (Sting: Obama ‘Sent From God’ To Fix World’s Mess, WCCO, Oct. 30, 2009).

It took a lot of time and effort to establish the type of moral hegemony that permits such absurd claims about a black left-wing politician not merely to be made, but apparently to be entertained by a credulous, or at any rate cowed, public.

I believe it goes back to strategic decisions made by revolutionary intellectuals decades ago—adapting Marx’s original vision of a proletarian revolution to the apparently unfavorable political realities of the early twentieth century.

A key figure was Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein). His Leon Trotsky on Black Nationalism & Self-Determination, was posthumously published in 1967. Trotsky’s views on the American “Negro Question” were recorded in two discussions with American Marxists, the first held in Prinkipo, Turkey in 1933, the second in Coyoacan, Mexico in 1939.

In the second edition, published in 1977, editor George Breitman reported that it “had four printings and greater sales in the United States than any other Trotsky compilation in the last decade”. Breitman supplied some significant background—such as the fact that Malcolm X had read the book in 1963, before he spoke on “The Black Revolution” in 1964.

Breitman noted that after the Bolshevik Revolution on 1917, the Leninist doctrine of affirmative support for “oppressed peoples”—with special emphasis on the Negroes—began to be transmitted to the American Communist Movement. The Russians in the Communist International demanded that American Communists shake off their unspoken prejudices, pay attention to the special problems and grievances of the American Negroes, go to work among them, and champion their cause in the white community.

According to Breitman, Trotsky was a particularly strong advocate of this:

“To show his American comrades how he thought revolutionists should react to the oppression of the Negroes, he denounced the prejudiced white workers in more scathing, more bitter terms than any American Marxist, black or white, had ever done; even in his Black Muslim days Malcolm X never used harsher language. It is unrealistic, he said, to expect the Negro to reach ‘a class point of view’ ahead of the white worker; that can happen ‘only when the white worker is educated’ (class-conscious and anticapitalist), and understands his duty to his black brother. Despite that, the oppression of the Negroes is such that they can become revolutionary ahead of the white workers, furnish the vanguard of the revolution, and fight better for a new society than the white. But, he added, for that to happen, the revolutionary party must carry on ‘an uncompromising, merciless struggle not against the supposed national prepossessions [Black Nationalism] of the Negroes but against the colossal prejudices of the white workers and makes no concession to them whatever.’”

Trotsky’s attitude was reflected in a resolution adopted by the Socialist Workers Party Convention, an arm of the Trotskyite Fourth International, in New York City in July, 1939. It began:

“The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by whose historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” [The SWP and Negro Work]

What Leon Trotsky was apparently proposing for America was that, if white workers were stripped of “prejudices,” then they could be made to tolerate Negro leadership in a real social revolution. Such a social revolution would consist of a reversal of the former social status of the two races, i.e., the Negroes would end on top and the white workers on the bottom.

Did Trotsky and his followers really mean something like that? Appendix B of Leon Trotsky on Black Nationalism & Self Determination, a selection of Trotsky’s writings, indicates that he was, in fact, viscerally hostile to the white race—using emotive terms like “white chauvinism”; “white oppressors”; “domination by the whites is terminated”; “mutual struggle against the domination of the white exploiters”; and “closer to the proletarians of the colored races”—by which he meant he preferred the proletarians of the colored races.

Trotsky also wrote:

“It is impossible not to arrive at the conclusion that white missionaries, preachers of eternal morals, participated in the corruption of the Kaffirs… No, we prefer the Kaffirs to all missionaries… The worst crime on the part of the revolutionaries would be to give the smallest concessions to the privileges and prejudices of the whites… The movement of the colored races against their imperialist oppressors is one of the most important and powerful movements against the existing order and therefore calls for the complete, unconditional, and unlimited support on the part of the proletariat of the white race.” [Their Morals and Ours]

In talking with leaders of the Socialist Workers Party in June 1940, Trotsky stated:

“The white slaveholders accustom the Negroes not to speak first… We must approach them everywhere by advocating that for every lynching they should lynch ten or twenty lynchers.” [If “an eye for an eye leaves the world blind” — where does this logic lead?]

The Fourth International was Leon Trotsky’s attempt to duplicate the First International Workingmen’s Association, founded by Karl Marx in London in 1864, and envisioned as a global industrial army under his command. By founding the Fourth International, Trotsky aspired to command a global proletarian army of his own. His vicious attacks on the “prejudices” of white workers were his way of attempting to mobilize all of the world’s colored races under his banner—undoubtedly because the colored races outnumber the white race by far. Trotsky’s international Marxism had, as its effective goal, the elimination of the white race’s former domination of the world, so that its opposite, domination by the majority colored races, could be brought about. This required the submission of the white race through the elimination of “prejudices.”

Trotsky’s was a natural reaction for a fanatical Marxist who absorbed the dogma that the white Christian capitalist West was [rather singularly] guilty of imperialist oppression. But there is more to it. Trotsky was also a Leninist, who grasped Lenin’s strategy of destroying the colonial empires of the white West and then mobilizing those former colonies to enable the Third World to cut off energy and mineral resources vital for the white West’s industrial factories. In Lenin’s view, this would bring the white West to its knees. (This, of course, could still be accomplished by a combination of radical Muslims, the Red Chinese, and a Marxist South Africa, with or without the cooperation of post-Soviet Russia.)

Leon Trotsky and the Fourth International had much more influence on events in the U.S. than is commonly recognized. One example: the notorious Studies in Prejudice, supported by the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labor Committee, in 1943. The ostensible purpose of Studies in Prejudice was to address anti-Semitism in America. The basis for Studies in Prejudice, according to Martin Jay in his book The Dialectical Imagination, was a 1939 essay by Max Horkheimer, the former director of the Marxist Institute of Social Research, entitled “The Jews and Europe”. This institute was founded in 1923 at Frankfurt University, Germany and came to be known as the Frankfurt School. Its original purpose was to bring Marxism to Germany, but with the advent of Hitler its members emigrated to America.

The most influential product of Studies in Prejudice was The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950. This book was edited by Max Horkheimer and authored by Theodor Andorno, an original member of the Frankfurt School, together with other American Jewish social psychologists who referred to themselves as the Berkeley Public Opinion Study Group.

This work on prejudice against Jews, coupled with Trotsky’s hatred of white prejudice against blacks, can be seen as forming the ideological basis for what would become a massive national campaign against prejudice, bigotry and discrimination, eventually encompassing Betty Friedan’s feminist revolution, directed against white males, who would be charged with racism, sexism and anti-Semitism if they did not submit. This national campaign was greatly aided by the efforts of the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was buttressed by something known as “Critical Theory”— in Horkheimer’s rendition, social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. This destructive criticism was specifically [and quite openly] aimed and Christianity, capitalism, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, culture, sexual restraint, loyalties, patriotism, masculinity, heredity and ethnocentrism as well as conservatism.

Both these theories had revolutionary practice as their real objective. The campaign against prejudice, bigotry and discrimination directed against white males eventually led to what might be called the “Feminization of America,” whereby traditional gender roles would be totally obliterated in all sectors of American life so that women could be placed in every position that was formerly reserved for men. This is the visible face of the social revolution. In effect, women, along with blacks, were to be the vanguard of social revolution in America.

The key figure in the U.S. was Herbert Marcuse, another alumnus of the Frankfurt School. He adopted Trotsky’s ideas on the revolutionary potential of blacks as well as the matriarchal [more accurately described as anti-patriarchal] theory of the Frankfurt School. This became apparent when he became the most fashionable philosopher on American campuses in the 1960s.

In his book Soviet Marxism, Marcuse had argued that the USSR was no longer true to Marxism, and that since the proletariat had become integrated into bourgeois society and was no longer capable of revolution, other revolutionaries —such as university students, ghetto blacks, and the Third World—would take their place. (Klaus Mehnert reported in Moscow and the New Left a high level of Soviet interest in Herbert Marcuse, where writers accused Marcuse of making youth and the intelligentsia receptive to Trotskyism and Maoism.)

In a paper written for Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in California in 1947, Marcuse “argued the case for a Soviet Republic and welcomed anarchy, disintegration and catastrophe as the only means through which, in an act of revolutionary freedom, change would be achieved in the class structure of the productive apparatus and in human needs.” [The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, p 391]

Marcuse wrote:

“One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment; including the morality of existing society…there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution has ended. These ideas are old fashioned…what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”[The Carnivorous Society, Sociedad Carnívora (Buenos Aires: Editorial Eco Contemporáneo, 1970).]

What Marcuse meant by “a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system” became apparent when he preached what he called the “Great Refusal”—a process whereby, through sexual liberation and black and feminist revolutions among the college students, they would be induced to hate their own white Western heritage. Marcuse sought, by reorienting the tender sensibilities of gullible students toward sympathy for the poor, oppressed colored peoples of the world, to incline them to support Trotsky’s permanent revolution without realizing what the game was really about.

For all practical purposes, the social revolution promoted by Leon Trotsky and Herbert Marcuse has been successfully executed in America. There is no sphere of American life that has been left untouched.

But whether the revolution is Karl Marx’s scheme for the overthrow of the bourgeois middle class by criminalizing it in the eyes of the proletarian lower class—or Trotsky’s scheme for a revolution of the colored races on a global scale—or Marcuse’s scheme for revolution among American women and racial minorities to destroy the white male power structure—the same thing must occur first: the moral and mental submission of those in power to the will of the social revolutionaries.

This amounts to a psychological submission to the demands of the lower orders, enabling them to replace the higher orders. It is a true revolution, but [allegedly] by non-violent means.

The Marxist social revolutionaries in modern America who strive to promote the disintegration of the white male power structure not only know all of this, but write about it and put it into practice as part of their grand scheme. They have a tremendous advantage: a body of literature dealing with social revolution that has accumulated over the past one hundred and fifty years. This literature includes the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci, George Lukacs, Ernst Bloch, and that of the Frankfurt School revolutionaries such as Horkheimer, Adorno, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Leo Lowenthal, Frederick Pollock, Franz Neumann as well as Marcuse [Jews, each and all]. The Frankfurt School group added a new dimension to revolutionary theory with the addition of psychology. Transformation of the subconscious mind became their main focus. They aimed to create a “New American Man”, emasculated and rendered passive in the face of the provocations of the social revolutionaries.

In the name of combating Fascism and Nazism in America, this body of destructive criticism was employed by the Marxist social revolutionaries to bring about the disintegration of the prevailing American system of beliefs, attitudes and values. Millions of Americans would come to believe and value the opposite of what they formerly believed and valued. It was a revolution in thinking. It applied to the moral order itself.

The first law of nature is survival—survival of the group—the racial group. The second law of nature is procreation—procreation of the species—the species group—the racial group. But revolutionaries convinced millions that these laws of nature no longer had force or effect. They propagated an opposite first law—that of equality. Differentiation was to be outlawed by depicting racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism as moral evils. Equality became the only moral good—and was to be enforced by law.

The disintegration of the moral order brought about by the social revolutionaries was accompanied by the disintegration of the psychological order. This consisted of deprecating the worth of the white race in general, and white males in particular, while simultaneously increasing the worth of everyone else, especially in school textbooks and in the media. The social revolutionaries were diabolically clever in declaring that white males were guilty of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia as well as oppression of the lower orders. They evoked emotions of compassion, sympathy and pity for the “victims” in the lower orders that placed white males in a psychological iron cage. This caused most white males to adopt passive neutrality, while others sought psychological refuge by identifying with the oppressed victims. [Not to mention, it has legitimized hostility toward the alleged oppressor.]

The net effect has been a gradual shift away from the cultural customs and traditions devised and enforced by authoritative white males that heretofore governed higher order thinking and behavior, toward the virtual adoption of lower order thinking and behavior by untold millions of both youthful and adult Americans. No end to this disintegration is in sight.

Concurrent with the disintegration of the moral and psychological order at the hands of the social revolutionaries is their intentional destruction of the biological order. Employing appeals such as liberation, freedom and choice, the social revolutionaries advocated and encouraged abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, career women, drug use, racial intermarriage and unlimited immigration of the colored races together with the destruction of “patriarchal family.” This reflects the second law of the social revolutionaries: white procreation is evil; that which retards white procreation is good. This is, of course, the opposite of the second law of nature.

Most Americans will probably have great difficulty accepting that a small band of foreign social revolutionaries purposely set out decades ago to change a whole nation’s system of beliefs to set in motion a process that leads to social disintegration. Nevertheless, this is what was done.

Americans will have great difficulty curing their domestic ills unless this reality is commonly recognized.

Raymond V. Raehn is a former Navy fighter pilot and real estate developer who now ranches in south Texas. He was the founder of the United States Global Strategy Council, (See A Global Strategy Council? By Gregory D. Foster, Parameters, the quarterly journal of the U.S. Army War College, Spring 1986), which led to the Goldwater- Nicholls Act requiring the United States government to prepare and issue a formal National Security Strategy.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
Solzhenitsyn: Death of a Titan
By international syndicated columnist & broadcaster Eric Margolis
11 August 2008
Source http://www.bigeye.com

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died this week aged 89, will rank with literary immortals Tolstoy and Dostoevsky as a great chronicler of Russia’s soul and its profound suffering.

Solzhenitsyn’s epic works ‘Ivan Desinovich’ and ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ are literary monuments for all mankind. After years as a political prisoner in the Soviet gulag, Solzhenitsyn declared, “a writer’s goal is to fight the lie” – meaning propaganda, historical distortion, and perversion of facts.

Thanks in good part to Solzhenitsyn and fellow dissident writers, the world finally learned the Soviet Communists had murdered over 30 million people and imprisoned millions more.

At the 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin boasted to Winston Churchill that Commissar Lazar Kaganovitch, who had supervised the murder of at least seven million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps, “is my Adolf Eichmann,” referring to the Nazi official [allegedly] responsible for killing millions of Jews.

In 1945, the Soviet Union – the close wartime ally of Britain, Canada and the United States – had 5.5 million prisoners in its prison system, the gulag, of whom 25% died annually from cold, hunger, exhaustion and disease.

Though Stalin’s worst crimes were committed before World War II, the full horror of his system of industrialized murder and slave labor were barely known outside Russia until the 1980’s. To this day, the world is constantly reminded of Germany’s crimes during the National Socialist era. But Stalin’s victims, who surpassed those of Hitler by a factor of [more than] three times, are almost forgotten. Why?

History is the propaganda of the victors. Few photographs of the gulag have survived, evidence was destroyed, and witnesses have died. Churchill and Roosevelt could not admit they were allied to the greatest mass killer since Genghis Khan, and were complicit in his crimes. Or reveal that Communist agents of influence had shaped White House policy. The feeble-minded Roosevelt even hailed Stalin as ‘Uncle Joe.’

The world’s Communist and Socialist parties managed to suppress the full scope of Stalin’s crimes even after Nikita Khrushchev denounced him in 1956. Solzhenitsyn warned that socialism, and big sister communism, inevitably led to totalitarian states.

Many Western liberal intellectuals were infatuated with Stalin’s brute power but didn’t want to know about their idol’s crimes. The French leftist thinker Jean-Paul Sartre even refused to admit the gulag existed.

Revealing the truth about the Allies’ role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II that has become the state religion for the political right in North America, Britain and Australia. [If only the list ended there…]

Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalin’s genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own people’s suffering.

The Soviet Union punished Solzhenitsyn by making him into a ‘non-person.’ He was exiled to the United States, where he was at first hailed as a hero. But the uncompromising Solzhenitsyn, ever the prophet, fulminated against the ‘soulless capitalist system’ and ‘mindless western consumerism.’

Then he published a book (200 Years Together: The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916) about a hitherto taboo subject, the prominent role of Russian Jews in the Communist party and secret police. The book provoked a storm of criticism in North America. Solzhenitsyn was branded anti-Semitic and quickly became a ‘non-person’ for the second time.

Solzhenitsyn returned to the new Russia after the fall of Communism and became the leading exponent of the revived cult of reactionary 19th-century pan-Slav nationalism. He championed Russia’s Orthodox Church as guardian of the nation’s soul, proclaimed Russia’s manifest destiny, and advocated a form of modern czarism that looks remarkably like today’s Kremlin run by Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev.

Being a prophet in the wilderness is a hard, thankless profession. But Solzhenitsyn’s dauntless courage and tenacity shone the light into some of the darkest cellars of Russia’s tortured history. He influenced a generation of writers, including this humble one, whose goal, like his, has always been to ‘fight the lie.’

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

The first version I found of the John F. Kennedy speech below was from the documentary film Zeitgeist. I was going to post this version of the speech earlier this afternoon, but I wanted to check the source first. After searching for the official transcript of the speech, however, I found that the original differed in certain respects from the Zeitgeist version. I considered the possibility that Kennedy might have given different versions of the same speech as sometimes occurs on a speaking tour, but I have yet to find a single alternate version of the official transcript. The Zeitgeist version is abbreviated, thus highlighting the segments they wished to emphasize (which is normal for documentaries), but a number of sentences are also broken here and there and pieced back together in ways which contrast with the original. Although I don’t imagine the producers of Zeitgeist sought to intentionally distort the ultimate meaning of the speech, I think it is only right to post the original transcript here alongside the revised version in order to preserve context. Both versions of the speech are worthy of review, I believe, and although the changes made in Zeitgeist were subtle and relatively harmless (debatable), we should remember that historical speeches such as this can also be abbreviated and re-arranged to strategically betray the public. If that were one’s purpose, it would be a simple affair. It happens all the time — ask Ahmadinejad. Whereas the original version was delivered with regard to the Soviet conspiracy and the responsibility of exercising discretion in the media in the early years of the Cold War, the Zeitgeist version appears to focus more specifically on “secret societies.” Vague term. The problem with alternate versions of such a speech (and there are a number of variations out there) is that context is largely lost, and interpretations of who and what even constitutes a “secret society” is left open to the viewer’s (often uninformed) interpretation. Since the vast majority of those posting on “secret societies” via Youtube and Google tend to have little understanding of who and what Kennedy was even referring to, they often (either through ignorance or conscious intent) divert attention from the true conspirators through clumsy allusions to, say, the Freemasons, the Skull and Bones fraternity, the Illuminati, etc. If they halted there, it would be one thing, but these self-styled experts like to link these shadowy societies with historical movements which had nothing to do with them — namely, the National Socialist movement — which was, in actuality, locked in existential conflict with the very conspirators which Kennedy was ultimately referring to, and who apparently took his young life only two years after this speech. It is no coincidence that the Zionist Power Configuration has gained the most from Kennedy’s assassination. Anyone chasing oil barons or digging up Prescott’s business receipts with I.G. Farben after all these years has a weak understanding of the cut-throat business ethics, past or present, of the real conspirators. Dig deeper than Prison Planet and the seemingly endless sea of packaged dissent across the transitory “Left”/”Right” spectrum and you just might begin to better understand the world around you. Truth empowers. To dare is to know. -W.
—————————————————–
The President and the Press: (Zeitgeist’s revision) Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Ladies and gentlemen […]

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings […] For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.

[…] It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned […] no secret is revealed. […] That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

[…] I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people […] confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
——————————————————
Never mind the title here.

——————————————————
The President and the Press: (official transcript) Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
Source: www.jfklibrary.org

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Read Full Post »

For sixteen years now, we have heard next to nothing in the mainstream media — particularly here in the United States — concerning the plight of South Africa’s white population. This is a conscious, deliberate, and dare I say strategic suppression of the truth. It is apparently more important to serve political correctness than to inform and thus protect whites. The message becomes increasingly clear. What whites in South Africa are experiencing ought to serve as a warning for the rest of the world. Wake or perish. -W.
—————————————————–

—————————————————–

Black Racists Vow to “Rape and Kill” White World Cup Fans

7th April 2010
Source: express.co.uk

A VILE Facebook campaign to incite race hate ahead of the World Cup in South Africa in June is being investigated by police.

The official probe was launched into a group set up by alleged supporters of firebrand politician Julius Malema.

One entry, emailed to football fans around the world, calls for the “rape and slaughter” of whites and the murder of President Jacob Zuma.

In a chilling message a Malema “fan” called Thato Mbateti Mbateti warns: “Every trespasser, namely white whores, we will rape them and kill them… White kids will be burned.”

The campaign comes amid growing tensions in South Africa after the murder of white separatist Eugene Terreblanche.

Yesterday angry crowds clashed outside a court in Ventersdorp, near Johannesburg, as two black farm workers, aged 15 and 21, appeared accused of killing the 69-year-old who had campaigned for separatist within South Africa.

Bitter memories of the apartheid era were evoked when 2,000 people gathered and police used razor wire to separate the factions. The case was adjourned until next week.

South African leaders, including President Zuma, have called for calm after the killing of Terreblanche. But right-wing supporters have vowed vengeance.

Malema, who leads the youth wing of Zuma’s African National Congress party, was reportedly under police guard after alleged death threats against him. The Facebook page, which attracted more than 15,000 followers, has been shut down. Malema and the ANCYL insisted it was not an official supporters’ page.

Lawrence Schlemmer, vice president of the South African Institute of Race Relations, said: “There is no reason why these things, as tragic as they are, should affect the safety of fans or players at the World Cup. The World Cup and sport, as it is supposed to, channels passions and reconciles conflict.”
——————————————————
White slaughter in South Africa? Plans made to conduct campaign of genocide after Mandela’s death
Source: World Net Daily

While former South African President Nelson Mandela, [93], scoffs at rumors of ill health, plans are being made by the nation’s Communist Party to slaughter all whites in the country upon his death, G2B sources say.

One of the operations planned entails 70,000 armed black men “being transported to the Johannesburg city center within an hour” in taxicabs to attack whites.

The plans are variously dubbed “Operation Vula,” “Night of the Long Knives,” “Operation White Clean-up,” “Operation Iron Eagle” and “Red October campaign.”

Operation “Our Rainy Day” was to be carried out after the death of Nelson Mandela and would have entailed blacks being transported to the largest cities in taxis.

The assailants were expected to “take over” fuel points and massacre whites. The attacks would lead to a coup.

Sources say most blacks in the country are aware of the plans. When racial disputes occur, blacks often tell whites, “Wait until Mandela dies.”

“White people in South Africa can deny it to the end of the earth, but we are in real danger,” one resident said. “This is no joke and any person with half a brain can see that this rumor has spiraled out of control.”

Many whites are now convinced a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing will follow Mandela’s death whenever it comes. Some are making preparations for retreats.

“I have prepared myself and we have a gathering place where we can fortify for four weeks after Mandela’s death,” said one white South African. “If nothing happens, it will be a miracle.”

The Red October campaign is allegedly a Communist plot to oust President Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki would be replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa.

“I was starting to think I was going nuts!” said another white South Africa resident. “‘Operation Uhuru’ or ‘Operation White Clean-up’ is definitely no rumor. I spoke to someone who told me that some blacks in Zimbabwe have also confirmed that this ‘event’ will take place. My cousin stays on a farm in Mpumalanga, not too far from Johannesburg. A black police officer in that district told his white colleague that they are going to kill us like flies, and there is nothing we can do about it. And that they also don’t care if we know.”

Meanwhile, Mandela, obviously aware of the growing rumors, last week assured the public he is well.

“My health is all right,” he told reporters in Cape Town. “I’m doing very well. Others have gone further and said I am on the eve of going to my grave. If that day comes, I will go and knock at the door of heaven. … They will look at the list and say: ‘Your name is not here … can you try next door?'”

Concern about Mandela’s health surfaced last month when he canceled a scheduled meeting with visiting German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The former president was at the time relaxing on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius.

Mandela joked that when his time comes, “I will look for a branch of the ANC (the ruling African National Congress) in that world (and) I’ll join it.”
——————————————————
What they mean by “equality.”

——————————————————
South African farm attacks
From Wikipedia

The South African farming community has suffered from attacks for many years.[1] The majority of the victims have been Afrikaner farmers, with claims of death tolls of up to 3,000 cited in the national and international media[2][3] The independent South African Human Rights Commission, set up by former President Mandela’s government, quantifies the number at about 2,500[4], while farmers’ organisations state the figure to be closer to 3,000.[4] The Commission’s report found that the rate of murders had increased by 25% since 2005[4].The victims’ ages have ranged from infant to 87 years old.

According to the South African Human Rights Commission there have been 9,400 farm attacks.

In 2010, the issue garnered greater international attention in light of the murder of the far-right political figure Eugene Terre’Blanche on his farm.[5]

Contents

* 1 Terminology and definition
* 2 Committee of Inquiry
* 3 Criticism
* 4 References

Terminology and definition

South African statutory law does not define a “farm attack” as a specific crime. Rather, the term is used to refer to a number of different crimes committed against persons specifically on commercial farms or smallholdings.

According to the South African Police Service National Operational Coordinating Committee:

“Attacks on farms and smallholdings refer to acts aimed at the person of residents, workers and visitors to farms and smallholdings, whether with the intent to murder, rape, rob or inflict bodily harm. In addition, all actions aimed at disrupting farming activities as a commercial concern, whether for motives related to ideology, labour disputes, land issues, revenge, grievances, racist concerns or intimidation, should be included.”[1]

This definition excludes “social fabric crimes”, that is those crimes committed by members of the farming community on one another, such as domestic or workplace violence, and focuses on outsiders entering the farms to commit specific criminal acts. The safety and security MEC for Mpumalanga, Dina Pule, has disagreed with this definition and has stated that a farm attack is “when the sole motive is to take the life of the person who resides on the farm and nothing else.”[6] Human Rights Watch has criticised the use of the term “farm attacks”, as they suggest this is “reinforcing, through the use of the word ‘attack’, the idea that there is a military or terrorist basis for the crimes, rather than a criminal one.”[7]

Committee of Inquiry

A Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks was appointed in 2001 by the National Commissioner of Police. The purpose of the committee was to “inquire into the ongoing spate of attacks on farms, which include violent criminal acts such as murder, robbery, rape, torture, etc, to determine the motives and factors behind these attacks and to make recommendations on their findings.”[1] The Committee used the definition for farm attacks as that supplied by the SAPS. The findings were published on 31 July 2003, and the main conclusions of the report were that:

* Perpetrators tended to be young, unemployed black men overwhelmingly from dysfunctional family backgrounds
* Only a small proportion of attacks involved murder [Of the officially reported 9,400 attacks, over 3,000 were murdered. Is that really such a “small proportion”?]
* Theft was committed in almost all cases [simply not true] – in cases where no theft appeared to take place, it was usually because the attackers had been disturbed
* White people were not targeted exclusively; in 2001 61% of farm attack victims were white

The Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), however, questioned a number of the report’s findings, claiming that theft and desire for land did not adequately explain some of the attacks.[8]

Criticism

The South African government has been criticised both for not doing more to prevent farm attacks, and for giving the issue a disproportionate amount of attention:

* Gideon Meiring, chairperson of the TAU’s safety and security committee, criticised the South African Police Service for failing to prevent farm attacks, stating that the police “are not part of the solution but part of the bloody problem“.[9] Meiring has assisted farming communities in setting up private armed patrols in their area.

* Kallie Kriel of AfriForum accused politicians, including Agriculture Minister Lulu Xingwana and her deputy Dirk du Toit, of inciting hatred against farmers [i.e. whites], saying “Those who inflame hate and aggression towards farmers have to be regarded as accomplices to the murders of farmers.” In particular, Kriel condemned claims that violence against farm workers by farmers was endemic. Kriel also highlighted a court case in which ANC MP Patrick Chauke publicly blamed the white community for murders and at which ANC demonstrators displayed slogans such as “One settler, one bullet!”, “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer!” and “Maak dood die wit man” (Kill the white man). Simple theft could not be used to explain the full motive of the attacks as it was not necessary to torture or murder victims in order to rob them.[10]

* Human Rights Watch criticised the government for placing too much emphasis on protecting farmers, at the expense of protecting farm workers from abuse by farm owners. They suggest that “farm attacks” are given a disproportionately high media and political focus. “Murders on farms are given an individual attention that many other killings are not.”[7] [How’s that for “human rights”?]

* In 2004, former South African journalist Jani Allan appeared on the Jeff Rense radio show to 7 million listeners. She denounced the attacks and accused the South African government of a genocidal campaign. She encouraged Americans to sponsor the emigration of poor Afrikaner families. Ronnie Mamoepa, the spokesperson for the South African foreign affairs department, said the department would not respond to Allan’s claims, as this would give her “undue attention she does not deserve”. Afrikaner intellectual Hermann Giliomee has also slammed Allan. He said Allan should not be taken seriously. While there had been large numbers of farm murders, there was no evidence to prove that the killings were an orchestrated political campaign, he said.[11]

References

1. ^ a b c Criminal Justice Monitor (2003-07-31). Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. http://www.issafrica.org/CJM/farmrep/index.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
2. ^ White farmers ‘being wiped out’ Sunday Times. 28 March 2010
3. ^ Adriana Stuijt (2009-02-17). “Two more S.African farmers killed: death toll now at 3,037”. Digital Journal. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267463. Retrieved 2009-04-124.
4. ^ a b c South Africa World Cup 2010… and the shooting’s already started Daily Mail. 14 June 2009
5. ^ White supremacist Eugene Terre’Blanche is hacked to death after row with farmworkers The Guardian. 4 April 2010
6. ^ Nkosana ka Makaula (2006-09-28). “Farm attack is ‘only if fatal'”. News24. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2005223,00.html. Retrieved 2006-10-09.
7. ^ a b Bronwen Manby (August 2001). Unequal Protection – The State Response to Violent Crime on South African Farms. Human Rights Watch. ISBN 1-56432-263-7. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/safrica2/. Retrieved 2006-10-28.
8. ^ “TAU welcomes farm report, but…”. News24. 2003-09-25. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1421369,00.html. Retrieved 2005-12-31.
9. ^ Sheena Adams (2006-09-23). “Farmer armies in the killing fields”. Saturday Star. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20060923084851300C598779. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
10. ^ Gcina Ntsaluba (2008-04-29). “Anti-farmer hate speech slated”. news24.com. http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,9909,2-7-1442_2314200,00.html. Retrieved 2008-06-04.
11. ^ “Whites are facing genocide, says Jani Allan”. IOL. 2004-06-20. http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20040620111324523C719376.
—————————————————–
The Price Of Free Speech In South Africa
By Jani Allan
7-12-4
www.rense.com

Jan Lamprecht’s website (http://www.AfricanCrisis.org) has the greatest cyber library of Southern African horror on the internet. His site features ugly photographic and video evidence of the brutal farm murders that are happening in South Africa with increasing sadism and regularity.

This week, after a campaign of intimidation by the ANC government Jan Lamprecht announced his decision to take his site down.

The closing of the http://www.AfricanCrisis.org website this week, is a sinister signal of what lies ahead for South Africa under ANC rule.

For four years Jan Lamprecht, a white ex-Zimbabwean, has been running one of the most hard-hitting hard-news sites out of Africa. Lamprecht’s news items included not only what was happening in South Africa, but also the crucial and terrible events in Zimbabwe and Namibia. Apart from CensorBugBear.com (which covers mainly SA) http://www.AfricanCrisis.org was of major significance.

As a prominent British journalist puts it:

“AfricanCrisis.org is an historic document, a work – or disaster – in progress. Reading African Crisis is like watching a nation going off its head, en masse.”

The site is uncompromising. The stories of rape, torture, corruption, political abuse and murder made the site compelling reading.

Agony is always rivetting viewing.

Lamprecht’s site became internationally recognized as the site of choice for those wanting information, not the Disneyland version – the real information – about what is happening in South Africa. As evidenced by his postings, he was drawing forumites of the highest calibre from Canada to Belgium.

Jan Lamprecht, who lives in South Africa, ran AfricanCrisis unpaid and as a sideline. Journalist and webmaster, his sole purpose has been wanting to get the truth out to the world about what is happening in South Africa.

In addition to running the site Jan Lamprecht fearlessly authored a book called ‘Government by Deception’ (Tiger Maple Press.) The book provides a damning insight into the psychopolitics employed by the Marxist-Communist ANC and its brothers to the North.

Lamprecht, known for his blunt, editorial comments, developed an extensive following internationally. His contacts and range of influence embrace people of great influence and all walks of life. One supporter and close friend is Jeff Rense, the legendary American Talk Show host whose show boasts 17 million listeners. Jan was a regular guest on Rense who is known to be sympathetic to the plight of white South Africans and virulently opposed to Mugabe’s Marxist regime.

Six weeks ago Jan Lamprecht set up a web page forum for this writer.

“Since I gave Jani, a household name in South Africa, a voice on my site the problems started,” says Lamprecht.

“Her forum was immediately inundated with people expressing tremendous HATRED of her, trying in every way possible to hurt her. When Jani Allan was interviewed by Jeff Rense in the USA with his huge, huge listenship – that was the turning point.

The ANC went so far as getting someone from the Sunday Times (the paper on which she was the leading columnist for a decade) to discredit Jani and what she had said on Rense. Meanwhile, the audio tape of the interview found its way on to hundreds of websites all over the world, including, ironically, Pravda.

A friend of Lamprecht who holds a senior position in TAU (Transvaal Agricultural Union), wrote to him saying “By giving Jani a platform you have angered the movers and shakers… WATCH YOUR BACK!”

For the past two weeks, Jan has been subjected to personal Intimidation and threats to close his website.

Lamprecht and his close colleagues have proof that an ANC/Govt propagandist/s were assigned to his website to cause trouble and make suggestions that could result in the website being labelled as a “terrorist” site.

Ten days ago, Jan warned that he would not tolerate his site being abused by people engaging in ‘war talk’ or spewing racial hatred.

‘My site is the only site in the world which allows people from opposing sides of the political spectrum to exchange views and hopefully learn from each other.’

However on the 8th July Jan Lamprecht informed his closest colleagues and associates in an encrypted message that he had decided to freeze the website. ANC spies have been monitoring the http://www.AfricanCrisis.org website, his private e-mails and telephone calls.

“They are letting me know, via the posts, that they know where I live, who is close to me…they even have my cell-phone number. I have been receiving threatening phone calls,” he said.

Jan Lamprecht is still wondering “Is it Jani Allan that they want gone from my site?”

“All this heat that has come my way, from all these angles, have occurred one after the other in only the last few weeks since I gave Jani Allan a forum on my site and since she was interviewed by Jeff Rense. The things that came from that interview have unquestionably angered powerful people.’ Obviously I’ve done something to truly piss them off in a big way – methinks its getting Jani on my site, and that interview that finally ticked them off enough.”

A former Special Forces contact outside South Africa said that he feared the worst for Jan Lamprecht. ‘He could be taken out any day.’

The South African Constitution claims to ensure Freedom of Speech, but clearly there is nothing free about speech in Southern Africa.

In a country where the media are craven ANC lap-dogs. Jan Lamprecht’s was the only site courageous and responsible enough to give the world the information that the ANC is so intent on concealing.

Yesterday, Larry Pratt, an influential voice in American politics for the past 30 years and founder and director of Gun Owners of America had this to say.

“It seems to me that Zimbabwe II is but a short time away. The duplication of the firearms laws is too similar. The farm attacks are already escalating. Business is tanking, but all of this is of no concern to socialists who want control. They will be wealthy even while 99.9% of the rest of the population are totally impoverished.”

Please post your messages of support to Jan Lamprecht on the http://www.AfricanCrisis.org website on the Jani Allan Forum Page.

Jani Allan writes:

I know the hell that Jan Lamprecht must be going through.

I have had personal experience of the SA government’s methods of dealing with the voices of dissent i.e. those who are intent on telling the truth. My flat was bombed. After doing some radio shows with Jan Lamprecht in which we discussed Mugabe’s reign of terror and the Zimbabwe land grabs, I was held up at gun-point with a Magnum .44 and fired from the radio station because ‘there is no place for the likes of Jani Allan in the New South Africa.” Finally I was forced to flee South Africa.

It is my fervent hope that the death of AfricanCrisis will make the world sit up and notice. I implore all readers of this story to e-mail it to your friends, post messages of support on my page for this fearless warrior of the spirit whose crime was to tell the truth about South Africa.

ALUTA CONTINUA IN THE DIASPORA JAN LAMPRECHT!
——————————————————
White Afrikaners Face Genocide
Jan Lamprecht, AfricanCrisis.Org, Rense.com, Jun. 18

“Afrikaners must be welcomed as political refugees to America.”—Jani Allan, Journalist

A top American radio commentator and a South African journalist are calling on Americans to start sponsoring the emigration of white Afrikaner families as political refugees—to save them from the ethnic cleansing campaign they are being engulfed in under South African president Mbeki’s ANC government.

See: http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm

This call was made during the Jeff Rense radio program in the US—which has millions of listeners coast-to-coast—on Thursday, June 17. (Note—You can hear this important broadcast by going to the Archives at Rense.com)

The comments were made during Mr. Rense’s hour-long interview with South African journalist Jani Allan—who recently fled from the violence there and is now attempting to obtain her green card in the US.

Ms Allan warned that the 4.5 million Afrikaners are being ’ethnically-cleansed’ by the Mbeki regime and that their plight was growing increasingly desperate each week.

“More than 1,500 white South Africans have already been slaughtered just since the start of the current American war in Iraq,” she pointed out. “That’s more than twice as many as the number of Iraqi civilians officially said to have been killed in the war so far.”

She warned that SA President Mbeki has “a total obsession with race,” that he hates Afrikaner people and that he’s obsessed with what he terms “colonial oppression.”

Ms Allan pointed out, however, that the Afrikaners aren’t colonials—they are indigenous to South Africa, having been there some 350 years—three and a half CENTURIES—and that they are “totally trapped on the continent of Africa, and have no means of escaping” without the help of America.

Jeff Rense: “America must open its borders to the Afrikaner people. Imagine living in a place over 300 years and then be told that you have no right to live there because of your skin colour. The slaughter of thousands has already commenced and these people must be given political refugee status by the United States.”

Miss Allan said the Afrikaners who do manage to flee from the continent with their families find it extremely painful, as they leave behind the only country they have ever known and loved, and in many cases, extended family and other loved ones.

“It is very difficult for an entire family to have to uproot itself and move to a country of which they have no knowledge,” she said.

Rense called on his American listeners to contact the US Immigration Service to find out how they could sponsor an Afrikaner family and help legally bring them to the US. He said because of their work ethic and dedication to freedom, Afrikaners would be self-sufficient in no time—unlike most of the 20 plus million illegals who have been permitted and encouraged to invade America by the last two US administration.

“Afrikaners are hard-working people and would not be a liability to their sponsors or the United States,” said Rense.

“These people are true political refugees who are being slaughtered because of their ethnic origin,” he pointed out.

Miss Allan said there are Americans who have noted the plight of the Afrikaner people and have launched letter-writing campaigns to try and help them, such as Don Pengelly of Texas.

She said she was very moved by a letter he had written her in which he described having attended the funeral of a murdered Afrikaner farm woman and seeing the looks on the faces of her Afrikaner relatives.

“They looked like cattle being taken into a slaughterhouse, with the same stricken looks on their faces. They know they will be next.”

Said Allan: “Communism is alive and well and living in Africa, and as a result, Afrikaners are being ethnically-cleansed. They aren’t even granted the right to their own small piece of land. The ANC refuses to talk with Afrikaner leaders about creating a homeland for them, not even a tiny piece of desert.”

“My heart goes out to the plight of the Afrikaner people. America should open its doors to them, as their suffering is incredible.”

Miss Allan also explained that under the ANC’s ’Black Economic Empowerment’ (BEE) laws, Afrikaners can’t even keep their own businesses any more, because owners are being forced to open even family-owned businesses to “black shareholders.”

“A business woman wrote me this week that she is now being forced to take black strangers off the street and turn them into co-owners of her family business just to satisfy the demands of BEE.”

“I don’t see any future for the Afrikaner people—especially due to this ’black economic empowerment’ policy of the ANC government.”

She also said that crime had gone completely out of control in South Africa, and that there were no safe havens left.

Shortly before she left South Africa for the United States, Allan had been held up at gun-point in Cape town in one of the most upscale, most protected shopping centres in the country. She said her black assailants had put a .44 to her forehead during the robbery.

“Nobody is safe anywhere from the devastating crime wave. People have a defeatist attitude and even wear t-shirts with these horrendous crime statistics printed on the front, but with slogan on the back, “South Africa, I love it . . .”

Meanwhile, honest journalists in South Africa have no platforms to report the truth, she noted.

She said she was hounded out of her job as a major radio journalist because she asked too many questions. “For instance, I questioned why Mandela has this saint-like status, and I questioned what was happening to the millions of dollars being donated to the Mandela Funds.”

“South Africa—just like all of Africa—has now also fallen prey to the one-party state, where no criticism is tolerated against the ruling party at all.”

She pointed out that Mbeki wholeheartedly supports the outrageously racist Mugabe doctrine which has announced that all the “whites” must be out of Zimbabwe by 2005.

“That same ethnic cleansing template is also being applied to South Africa. In Zimbabwe, there are now only about 30,000 whites left and most of them can flee to other countries.

“But in South Africa, the 4.5 million Afrikaners are indigenous to the country and are physically trapped on the African continent.” And they are being tortured and slaughtered by blacks at a horrible rate.

“My heart goes out to the Afrikaner people who are trapped on the African continent. There must be a way in which Americans can give political asylum to these people.”

“There is a silent genocide going on in South Africa.” said Ms. Allan.

“There are a few lone voices speaking up against this in other countries. There is, for instance, a woman in Holland who tried to show the video documentary about the black murders of white farm families called ’A Bloody Harvest.’

“She was attacked and demonised by a violent group of left-wing activists and called a right-wing racist.”

Jeff Rense has long been the only high-profile US journalist to consistently cover the tragic, racist downward spiral of Zimbabwe and now South Africa. He has offered to do all he can with his program and highly-respected worldwde internet news site to assist in establishing and helping guide a program to rescue as many Afrikaners as possible by seeing that they are permitted to be sponsored by Americans to emigrate to the US.

“These people are truly political refugees who are being murdered and persecuted at an ever-increasing rate. It’s time to act. This kind of compassion is what made America the great nation it once was . . . and still might be again.”

“If anyone doubts what is happening over there, go to http://www.AfricanCrisis.org and look at the horrific black racist slaughter of white farm famiilies—men, women, children and little babies—for themselves.”

He called for immediate legislation to formally declare white Afrikaners political refugees facing certain genocide and establishing a system to immediately allow Americans to personally sponsor their emigration to the US.

He added, “If these were Blacks being slaughtered by Whites, you would see the entire world outraged . . . but that’s not happening because the victims are white.”
——————————————————

——————————————————
South Africa’s Coming Race Wars
From Jan Lamprecht
2-10-1
www.rense.com

This is a MUST-READ for South Africans. Take the time, and read it to the end – the kicker is right at the end. If any of you get the chance to talk to any blacks, you must please try and question them about this – and please let me know what you hear. I would like to encourage you ALL to do some digging. I want to try to establish how widespread this is and how long it has been going on.

I was stunned today when my mother told me of a discussion she had with the gardener who works for us. He’s a nice old black guy. We never talk politics with him.

However, Mum told me that she was talking to him the other day when he mentioned that on the African radio stations they have been hearing them saying this:

“A time is coming when the blacks will take the white’s furniture, their houses and their cars.”

The gardener told Mum that the blacks were talking among themselves about this, and they were saying they don’t know how this is going to happen, but they believe that the Government knows better and they will wait to see what the Government does…

That sent chills down my spine. That’s just like what that old prophet Van Rensburg spoke of.

In fact, what I’m now going to do is try to see if I can get more information out of blacks everywhere regarding this. There have long been suspicions that the news the blacks hear, in their native language, is different to what we hear. They are told other things.

There have been rumours of this for a long time, but, it looks like this really is going to happen to us. This is chilling stuff… please let me know what you find out.

South Africa’s Coming Race Wars
By Jan Lamprecht pbs@iafrica.com 2-10-1

Many people are fooled by words. It is ironic that words, which are normally used to communicate with, can also be used to deceive and fool people or to convey subtle messages. Most people are completely surprised by this because most people are, for the most part, straight-forward and honest. Lawyers, for example, are a group of people who are very skilled at this misuse of language. Many lawyers then go on to become politicians where they excel at this abuse!

But, words can be used as weapons. The military use of propaganda is both an art and a science of the highest order. A great deal of work has gone into this. Words can be used to excite one group of people to foment hatred and anger while cowing another group of people down and lulling them into a false sense of security. This is the art of Psychological Warfare and Propaganda.

Here in Southern Africa, all the “Liberation Movements” which were sponsored by the Russians and Chinese have gone on to become the Governments of the day. These Liberation Movements have all been schooled in the art of propaganda and psychological warfare. They know how to say things and also how not to say things.

In fact, even the word “Liberation” is an example of propaganda. These people are portrayed as “Freedom Fighters” and “Liberators” when in fact their aims are to feed everyone, black and white alike, a good dose of socialism and centralised control. Overtly they claim to be in favour of freedom but, covertly, the opposite is true.

These people are skilled at portraying themselves to the world as reasonable men, when in fact, they have much blood on their hands and won’t hesitate to murder their own or their enemies at the drop of a hat. It may seem ironic, but these “Liberators” killed more black people than the whites ever did.

Bit by bit people outside Africa are starting to realise that this new generation of Black Liberators are not sincere people. Slowly, people in Western countries are realising that something is amiss. One day they will realise that they’ve been lied to.

The Black Leaders talk of creating a prosperous multiracial society when in fact they have no interest in such a thing. On the quiet they tell their supporters to murder the whites, make things hot for them and encourage them to flee the country. At a Governmental level, the Government turns a blind eye to crime and in fact makes rules which will cause crime to increase. These Marxists would never DARE say so in public, but they are sick of the whites and want them to leave the country.

When leaders such as Thabo Mbeki speak of the “transformation” of society – what does he really mean?

Let me quote from the book: “PROPAGANDA & PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE”, written by T. H. Qualter of the University of Waterloo. On page 106 we read this: “In its actual operation Russian propaganda has been characterised by a distinctive use of language described with fair accuracy as ‘semantic warfare’. The language of Communism… is not so much a means of explaining to the unbeliever what Communism means, BUT AN ARMOURY OF WEAPONS AND TOOLS INTENDED TO PRODUCE SUPPORT OR DISSOLVE OPPOSITION TO COMMUNIST POLICIES ON THE PART OF PEOPLE EITHER HOSTILE OR INDIFFERENT TO THEM. THE MEANING OF A COMMUNIST WORD IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS, BUT WHAT EFFECT IT IS INTENDED TO PRODUCE.” (My emphasis)

Qualter continues:- “In addition to their characteristic ‘special’ vocabulary… Communists also use familiar words and phrases, but they use them in a particular way, often distorting their reference to confuse both home and foreign opinion. ‘Peaceful Coexistence’, for example, carries to western minds the connotation of toleration and mutual respect, an attitude of ‘live and let live’. IN MARXIST TERMINOLOGY HOWEVER, PEACE DEMANDS THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CAUSE OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE, SO THAT ‘PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE’ IMPLIES A WORLDWIDE ‘CLASSLESS’ COMMUNIST SOCIETY. When eighty one Communist parties met in Moscow in December 1960, they publicly announced that ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ meant “THE INTENSIFICATION OF THE STRUGGLE OF THE WORKING CLASS FOR THE TRIUMPH OF SOCIALIST IDEAS”, rather than “the conciliation of bourgeois ideologies’.” (My Emphasis).

The above simple example should show that the Marxist definition of “peace”, for example, is not peace in the terms in which we think. “Peace”, in their view, can only occur when they defeat us. It is in this manner that one must take a closer look at Marxist pupils, such as Mugabe, and Mbeki (who used to be a card carrying member of the South African Communist Party). These people are highly skilled at “Communist speak”. They use words in a very deliberate, and yet misleading way. Only their true followers understand exactly what they are getting at. These are not sincere people.

A word that is over-used in South Africa, Africa and indeed the world is “democracy.” Everyone believes that “democracy” is good and must be striven for. All countries, it is felt, should aspire to “democracy.” Only “democracy” is good. Everything else is bad. “Democracy” is the buzz-word of today, and yet, Qualter had this to write about the propagandistic use of the word “democracy” by Marxists:-

“Again, ‘democracy’ is a prestige word; so the Soviet satellites become ‘democracies’, but ‘People’s Democracies’ to distinguish them from the ‘decadent bourgeois democracies’ of the West.”

He continues:- “When the Soviet Union advocates democracy, it is advocating a proletarian democracy UNCONTAMINATED BY REMNANTS OF THE CAPITALIST CLASS. ‘COLONIALISM’ IS IPSO FACTO A PRODUCT OF CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM AND IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A SOVIET-INSPIRED NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT.”

From the above, it should be obvious that “democracy” in the terms of our “National Liberators”, like Mugabe, and Mbeki, EXCLUDES US WHITES WHO HAVE CAPITALIST VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS. “Democracy”, in the Marxist view, is more than just voting. It is a whole new society. Note, in the above, the mention of Colonialism and how it too is capitalist – and therefore there is no place for it.

Just because the ANC has never murdered us in our beds does not mean it will never happen. Until last year, whites in Zimbabwe had not been driven off their land by masses of black thugs – and yet, it happened out of the blue. As far as Mugabe is concerned, its not over yet. He wants to drive all the whites off the farms even if it means national starvation and suicide. Remember, South Africa’s history has a number of parallels and similarities to that of Zimbabwe. The two countries have a lot of things in common. Things that have happened in Zimbabwe have yet to happen in South Africa. People used to say South Africa would never be ruled by blacks, and yet it is now ruled by Marxist blacks. One should never say the blacks will not attack us. The only reason they probably have not is because too many of us are armed and they aren’t strong enough – but give them time. They keep on changing the gun laws and are working overtime to disarm us. The key issue is to discern whether the leadership of this country is hell-bent on engaging in attempted white genocide at some point in the future. Are they hostile enough towards us to try that?

When the ANC uses soft words like the “transformation of society” then we should beware – these words sound soft, but they mean something else completely different. These words really mean: “We must continue moving towards a black-dominated Marxist/Socialist system.”

It has long been the view in South Africa, across the spectrum of black and white public opinion, that Nelson Mandela is more trustworthy than Thabo Mbeki. Indeed, when Mbeki was still the Vice President, there were many rumours that he was something of a dark horse, and that in fact he was a dangerous man with a hidden hostility to whites.

A biography of him written some time ago stated that even within the ANC he was ruthless and that he had climbed to his present position by knifing others in the back.

My personal opinion of Mbeki was formed many years ago when the ANC was first unbanned. I watched with great fascination when he first appeared in an SABC TV interview. I was very impressed with Mbeki’s smoothness. The honey was dripping from his lips as he described a wonderful future for blacks and whites under ANC rule. His descriptions were so flowery and beautiful that I felt he was describing heaven on Earth for all of us. In fact, the ANC has continued with this view by campaigning under the slogan: “A better life for ALL.” They always keep telling us that the better life is not just for the blacks, but in fact also for the whites too!!

However, underneath this facade of friendliness, lies something else. Mbeki is a man who says one thing, but does another. If one looks closely at him, there is indeed a hidden hostility to the whites which I personally find very frightening.

Take for example Robert Mugabe’s campaign against the white farmers in Zimbabwe in 2000. While the world was condemning Mugabe, Mbeki’s ANC was strangely quiet. In fact, he even went to Zimbabwe to open a Trade Fair there during that time. He never criticised Mugabe and was in fact seen being very friendly to Mugabe. Not only that, but Mbeki praised him saying that the most important thing he learnt from Mugabe was how crucial BLACK UNITY was. In this one cannot fault either of the two. Both Mugabe and Mbeki have worked hard over the years to unite the blacks under them, by hook or by crook. They have used both the carrot and the stick. At times they have used force, murder and terror, but at other times they have also given the blacks who oppose them important positions in government.

For example, Dr Buthelezi, the leader of the Zulus, used to be aligned with the whites. Buthelezi was pro-Western, and supported the whites, as well as having many whites in the ranks of his political party. Buthelezi used to be a critic of the ANC. However, as a conciliatory gesture, he was sworn in as the Acting State President one time when the President was not in the country. He was also given a token position inside the Government. These gestures have softened Buthelezi. Nowadays he tows the line quite happily. I have also noticed that a number of ANC “defectors” have entered Buthelezi’s politcal party where they have made themselves at home and are slowly transforming his political party into something more acceptable to the ANC.

Similarly, a black man from the small, radical, AZAPO party was given a ministerial position recently, even though this is actually illegal. This should be seen for what it is: the ANC making a magnanimous gesture towards other blacks.

What nobody in South Africa has noticed is how the ANC is moving to bring ALL the blacks under their wing while excluding the whites. Here we see sheer racism in action.

The ANC’s biggest political opposition is the Democratic Alliance which is white-dominated. The DA does not get the same magnanimous treatment which the black parties get, even though, constitutionally and legally it is entitled to such. In fact, the DA should be the first in line for such actions since it is the official opposition.

Mugabe did a similar thing in Zimbabwe. He tried to crush his black political opposition. When murdering entire villages and throwing people down wells did not work, he gave them a carrot. He made their leader, Joshua Nkomo, the vice president. In this way Mugabe finally achieved the black unity he sought.

Mbeki and Mugabe are out to form a front against a “common enemy” – the white man.

Let it be said that the average black person in the street, in both Zimbabwe and in South Africa, does not truly comprehend the evil intentions of the Marxists they have chosen as their leaders. The average blacks are, for the most part, not filled with intense hatred or bitterness. However, their leaders spend much time sowing the seeds of race hatred among them. These common people do not realise the crimes to which they are being led by the leaders they have chosen and trust.

In a WorldNetDaily article some months ago, I recorded how Mbeki tried to use the AIDS situation in South Africa as a means of trying to foment new race hatred. Mbeki came out and supported Professor Duesberg’s controversial theories and then immediately used this as a pretext to say that the reason AIDS was so prevalent in South Africa was because of the terrible treatment the blacks had received at the hands of the whites! Mbeki’s embarrassing foray into the world of AIDS and the science behind it had nothing to do with a desire to find the truth. Behind the facade science lurked a desire to promote race hatred and to find ever more reasons to blame the whites for all the ills of the blacks.

Mugabe has been on a similar kick for the last 20+ years. Even after handing over power to him, and in spite of experiencing heinous taxes, the whites nevertheless keep the country afloat. The whites manage, against great odds, to keep the country going even though Mugabe is a Marxist who is trying to destroy them at every opportunity. It therefore came as a great embarrassment to him when the whites began winning credibility among the black populace. Most blacks in Zimbabwe state openly that Mugabe must not blame the whites for the ills of the country because it is a lie.

Here in South Africa, one never hears the end of the word “Apartheid” even though it disappeared more than 10 years ago. These people never miss an opportunity to blame the whites for something. They keep referring to 400 years of development as 400 years of “destruction.” This is nonsense as any casual glance at a history book will show.

Prince Charles, in England, once referred to “Political Correctness” as “Intellectual Communism” – which is what it really is. In the PC world, it is completely frowned upon to call a black man “racist”. And yet, if one looks at Mugabe, he must indeed be the most racist black man on the planet. Mbeki, very grudgingly, says a few things to placate the whites, but one can see that he does it only out of sheer necessity and nothing else.

In his opening of parliament speech the other day, Mbeki said that the whites still have too many jobs and the blacks too few. The whites owned too much and the blacks too little. This “imbalance” would have to be “corrected”. Clearly, Marxism and socialism lies at the heart of his economic policies.

That Mbeki has no real interest in the economic progress of South Africa is evidenced by his remarks at an economic congress at Davos in Switzerland recently. This was Mbeki’s big chance to produce a “blue print” for saving Africa. Yet, when he got there he had nothing concrete to propose. He merely stated that peace and “democracy” (a code word for Marxism) first had to be brought to Africa. Only then, once the political system had been stabilised, could there be economic development. These were strange words for a major leader in a continent which is a virtual cesspool of crime, corruption, poverty, etc. Mbeki, and the leaders of other Marxist states, like Tanzania, had no real interest in the economic welfare of their own people. All they are really concerned about is that their Marxist buddies, like Kabila and Mugabe, are firmly entrenched in power.

One would have expected these leaders to be falling over themselves begging for investment from the West and making new rules so that investment in Africa could occur more easily. And yet, the leaders of this continental cess-pool only paid lip-service to this.

Why don’t these leaders care? What’s going on?

Its class warfare pure and simple. Take a look at Mugabe. Mugabe prefers to murder the successful white farmers and to force them off their farms. He encourages and whips up hatred against them and encourages vandals to destroy their property, rape their wives and murder them. When Mugabe addresses black crowds in their native African languages he PRAISES these criminals and ENCOURAGES them. But, when TV cameras are focussed on him and the world waits to hear what he has to say, he speaks in English and CONDEMNS these people. As a native of Africa, I have OFTEN heard that these black Marxist leaders say one thing to the international community and to journalists, but, when they address their own people in their own language, they say something completely different. To the world at large, they pretend to be reasonable, peaceful people, but, to their own followers they say something else. Obviously, they are lying to someone – but to whom?

Mbeki and the ANC officials do exactly the same here in South Africa. ANC officials have long told the black people that white South Africans invented AIDS so as to murder them! Many, if not most blacks actually believe this. The ANC constantly puts out a stream of anti-white propaganda. ANC officials have said some dreadful things but these things NEVER reach the international media. It was once mentioned, by the journalist, Jani Allen, that an ANC official told blacks to kill the whites. Not long ago, the ANC Secretary General, gave a speech wherein he told the blacks to prepare for the struggle against CAPITALISM!

For decades now, I have heard that the blacks have been instructed to IGNORE what their leaders say in English, but to follow whatever they tell them in their own language…

Just as Mugabe was holding news conferences condemning the violence and murder of white farmers, the Zimbabwe Army was loading truck-loads full of thugs and transporting them to farms to start more violence! Such is the hypocrisy!

Mbeki is a close friend of Mugabe, and I believe he supports him 100% in what he did against the white farmers. When the Europeans sent election monitors to monitor the Zimbabwean elections they found extensive intimidation and many irregularities. The Europeans believed the election was stolen. But then Mbeki sent a South African team and they came back and declared (after some wrangling) that the Zimbabwean elections were free and fair! Thus we can see how Mbeki props up and helps Mugabe where he can. There was another instance, in 2000 where Mbeki “gave” Mugabe money. It was done in a strange way. South Africa “ordered” a great deal of produce from Zimbabwe. South Africa paid over tens of millions. Then, suddenly, the order was “cancelled” but Zimbabwe kept the money – and nothing further was said about it.

An ANC official then declared that there would not be the same problems with farmers here in South Africa because all the white farmers would be DEAD by then!

There is an ongoing and clandestine war against farmers in South Africa on a scale that is unbelievable. I have never obtained the exact statistics but thousands of farmers and their wives have been murdered – often in horrific ways. The international media say nothing about it – but its been going on ever since the ANC came into power and it keeps on getting worse.

It is common knowledge that South Africa’s crime rate is the highest in the world. But then a year ago, the ANC suddenly put a moratorium on the public release of all crime statistics. Mbeki falsely claimed recently that crime had gone down. It turns out that only the murder rate has dropped slightly. All other crimes have exploded by anything from 20% upwards. To date, no new statistics have been released. It was announced that soon, new statistics would indeed be made available. However, the ANC stated that the manner in which these statistics were compiled was “wrong” and that now they would be counting them “correctly!” So it would seem that we are about to have newer, Government fudged figures… Smells like a rat doesn’t it?

Well, there are lots of such things going on these days in the ANC dominated Government. Ministers tell outright lies, and this includes Mbeki himself. When Judge Heath obtained information that high-level government officials were involved in massive corruption in South Africa’s huge arms purchase, Mbeki went on TV and told the nation that he had fired Heath. Apparently, his action was illegal because Judge Heath had been appointed for a certain period of time. Furthermore, it turns out that a diagram, used by Mbeki, which he claimed originated from Heath, had actually been drawn by a journalist. The journalist owned up to this afterwards. The ANC has been engaging in a massive coverup of corruption over this questionable arms deal totalling R43 billion – the biggest arms purchase in South African history. No one knows why the ANC has spent this tremendous amount of money on arms we have no need for. What does the ANC know that we do not?

These Marxists, Mugabe & Mbeki, are making long-term preparations for a race war which they intend winning.

I do not believe that either of them were ever truly interested in a multiracial society unless the whites just kept their mouths shut. I believe that both Mbeki and Mugabe are irked by the ongoing white criticism of their (incompetant and corrupt) rule. The whites, being capitalist and westernised by nature, are constantly resisting black moves towards socialism and communism. This is irritating to these leaders. They are tiring of the whites.

I believe that the whites have also proven to be tougher than they ever believed. I believe these Marxists HOPED that the whites would flee the continent en masse when the blacks took over. But the whites did not. Many whites remain in spite of tremendous taxes and the most intrusive laws in the world. For example, all banks, stock brokers, employers, etc MUST report all payments of salaries, dividends, etc directly to the Revenue Service. If you have a bank account and earn interest on it, and do not declare it, then the Revenue Service will know about it and take legal steps against you. The Revenue Service has also begun monitoring EVERYTHING we own. If we buy a car or a house, they know about it. They are coming after us to strip us of what little we have.

I believe that the Government has deliberately created lax laws to encourage crime and to make it “hot” for the whites so that they would flee. They have succeeded to a great extent because whites have been fleeing from Africa since the 1960’s and these black leaders seem to have little interest in reversing the trend. I believe it is because they actually want the whites to leave. They would never dare admit this publicly, but I believe they quietly rejoice at this.

It has come to light that now South Africa is one of the foremost stop-overs for drug-trafficking in the world. Billions of rands worth of drugs pass through South Africa to North America and other destinations.

It has been said that white South Africans have the FASTEST FALLING STANDARD OF LIVING IN THE WORLD. This is because these Marxists are coming after us to strip us of all that we own.

Clearly, these Marxists, Mugabe and Mbeki have no idea how to actually fix the economy or to encourage investment so that black and white may live and prosper together. (This is also true of Sam Nujoma in Namibia). Their failed ideologies therefore leave them with only one option – to play the role of the Red Robin Hood. Since they are incapable of producing anything new they must therefore steal from the “rich” to give to the poor.

Land has been redistributed to blacks on big scale in both South Africa and Zimbabwe, and land claims are processed regularly. Whites have been fired from their jobs and racial quotas instituted. Companies pay huge fines if they do not have the right racial quota. Experienced people are sacked to make way for the inexperienced or even the downright incompetant merely because of racial quotas.

Nowadays in South Africa one finds whites sitting on street corners begging. Such is the lot we are heading for. Our hard times are coming.

This week I heard something else that really struck home to me. My Mother and I were chatting and she remarked that she heard something interesting from the old black man who helps in the garden from time to time. My Mother never discusses politics with him. However, last week he remarked that blacks have been hearing on the radio that the time is coming when the blacks will be able to take all the whites’ furniture, their houses and their cars! He remarked that the blacks have been talking among themselves and wondering how this is going to be achieved. He says that they are not exactly sure how it is going to happen, but they have faith that the Government knows what its doing.

Having heard of this, I will continue digging into it to try to find out how long the blacks have been told this. This is clearly happening on the black radio stations which are in their native languages. It seems as if Mbeki is sowing the seeds and preparing them for the big “Redistribution of White Wealth” – when, as before, the Red Robin Hood comes to steal from us to “give to the poor.”

As a final, and chilling thought, some months ago I wrote an article for WorldNetDaily describing the prophecies of the old Boer prophet, Van Rensburg. Van Rensburg died in 1926, but he predicted that the day would come when the blacks would rule South Africa. He predicted that all the whites would be driven out of Zimbabwe and they would flee to South Africa. He also predicted that the blacks in South Africa would eventually take EVERYTHING from us and try to kill us all. But, Van Rensburg predicted that they would not succeed and that we, the whites, would eventually take complete control of South Africa. According to him all these events will happen in an election year. The next election year in South Africa is: 2004.

Its all food for thought…
——————————————————


——————————————————
www.africancrisis.co.za
www.dienuwesuidafrika.blogspot.com
www.censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
The End of the Legends: a Review of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book “200 Years Together: The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916″

[Editor’s Note: Solzhenitsyn’s book has not been published in English and will likely remain hidden from the west unless someone in Russia translates it and publishes it there and makes it available to western readers. This extensive review with excerpts based upon the German translation is of inestimable value in understanding the real history of the Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution. Please forward the url for this article to all you can.]
—————————————————–
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s new book “200 Years Together: The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916″ is unlikely to be translated into English …

http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Strauss342-351.html

The End of the Legends
By Wolfgang Strauss

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “200 Jahre zusammen.” Die russisch-jüdische Geschichte 1795-1916 (200 Years Together. The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916), Herbig, Munich 2002, 560 pp., €34.90; “Zweihundert Jahre zusammen,” Die Juden in der Sowjetunion (200 Years Together. The Jews in the Soviet Union), ibidem, 2003, 608 pp., €39.90.

It may be said without hesitation that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “200 Years Together: The Jews in the Soviet Union” is one of the most important books on the Russian Revolution and the early Bolshevik period ever to appear. After publication of this work with its many revelations about the role of the Jews during the Leninist period, the history of the Bolshevik October putsch will have to be rewritten, if not completely, then with substantial additions.

The book title might have been even more appropriately called “The End of the Legends.” For example, the legend that there ever existed an independent “Russian” Social Democracy Party is questioned. Founded in Minsk in 1898, the “Russian” Social Democratic Workers Party (RSDWP) derived, with respect to personnel and organization, from the Allgemeine Jüdische Arbeiterbund in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia. It might be said that the Jewish Arbeiterbund midwife service officiated at the birth of the Russian Social Democracy Party. Legends without number are examined.

Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, “Many more Jewish voices than Russian are heard in this book”. Jewish voices, not Russian, speak of Jewish dominance in the anti-monarchial movements in the period before the war. In an article entitled “The Jewish Revolution” in the 10 December 1919 issue of the Neue Jüdischen Monatsheften, published in Berlin, was the sentence:

“Regardless of how extremely the anti-Semites exaggerate it, and how so nervously the Jewish bourgeoisie deny it, the large Jewish contingent in today’s revolutionary movement stands fast.”

The writer, whom the publicist Sonia Margolina calls a “patriarch” in the tradition of Dostoyevsky, the last Russian prophet, rejects decisively, almost passionately, all theses of collective guilt. The chronicler of the Gulag holds that neither the Russians nor the Jews can be held separately responsible for the emergence of the reign of terror. He characterizes the relationship between Russian and Jews as a “burning wedge.” In his book he tries to see the wedge from both sides. In so doing, legends dissolve.

Perhaps the most persistent legend, now dissolved, used to go like this: Long before the last Tsar left the throne, the old Russian Empire was in decline, the revolution was coming, the apocalypses of February and October 1917 could not have been prevented. They were determined as if by a world court. Only a legend, Solzhenitsyn says, and this chapter in his book, a noir-thriller, illuminates 18 September 1911 – a day that heralded the approach of the Great Terror in that it dimmed the last opportunity to prevent it.

They had tried to assassinate Petr Stolypin eight times. Various terrorist groups had attempted to murder Stolypin and his family, but they had never succeeded in killing the man who had set governmental direction in the decade before the war nor in tarnishing his reputation and charisma. The “Russian Bismarck,” as he was called, had, as an unassuming Christian and self-confident first servant of the Russian Empire, led his country into the modern age by introducing agrarian reforms and representative self-government that made individual enterprising farmers out of the backward villagers. The eighth attempt, however, on 18 September 1911 in the Kiev Opera, succeeded in ending the life of the great reformer who had served his country as minister president and minister of the internal affairs. Ninety years later Solzhenitsyn was to write:

“The first Russian premier minister, who had honorably set the task of establishing equal rights for Jews and had even opposed the Tsar in attempting to realize it, was killed at the hands of a Jew. Was it an irony of history?” (p. 431)

The assassin was Mordko Hershovich Bogrov, a Jewish university student, grandson of a liquor concessionaire and son of a millionaire. When he fired his Browning at Stolypin, Bogrov was 23 years old. Those shots brought the process of Russian reformation, including Stolypin’s measures to lift anti-Jewish restrictions, to a fateful end by their own hands. Among the grave consequences of 18 September was a radical change in world politics. Stolypin had opposed Russian foreign policy that had been hostile to Germany and friendly with France and Britain. Solzhenitsyn asserts that under Stolypin Russia would have never entered World War I. The ultimate beneficial consequence for the Russian people would have been that they would have been spared the February revolution, which was triggered by the defeats in the First World War. Whether Bogrov acted alone or as a member of the Bolshevik, Menshevik, or anarchist underground remains unknown. Solzhenitsyn provides no answer. But the Nobel Laureate does not doubt that Mordo Hershevich was an agent of the Okhrana, a spy in the pay of the Tsarist secret police. In August 1914, the first volume of The Red Wheel cycle, 233 pages are given over to the ‘Jewish Question’ by a partially documentary and partially literary presentation of Stolypin’s person and his reforms. There, too, is a characterization of the assassin and a psychogram of Bogrov’s motive:

“Stolypin had done nothing directly against the Jews, he had even made their lives easier in some ways, but it did not come from the heart. To decide whether or not a man is an enemy of the Jews, you must look beneath the surface. Stolypin boosted Russian national interests too blatantly and too insistently, even provocatively about Russian international interests. […] the Russianness of the Duma as a representative body, the Russianness of the State. He was not trying to build a country in which all were free, but a nationalist monarchy, so that the future of the Jews was not affected by his goodwill toward them. The development of the country along Stolypin’s lines promised no golden age for the Jews. Bogrov might or might not take part in revolutionary activity, might associate with the Maximalists, Anarcho-Communists, or with no one, might change his Party allegiance and change his character a hundred times over, but one thing was beyond all doubt: his exceptionally talented people must gain the fullest opportunity to develop unimpeded in Russia.” (p. 592 in August-Fourteen)

Because of this passage, fifteen printed lines in all, Solzhenitsyn has been accused of anti-Semitism – not by the Russians but in the American press. Bogrov’s “exceptionally talented people” referred to in the passage are the Jewish people.

After the deadly shots of Kiev, the shots fired in Sarajevo three years later destroyed the peace of Europe. Kiev and Sarajevo belong together as turning points in the history of mankind. The depiction of Stolypin’s assassin belongs among the highpoints in Solzhenitsyn’s career, who to this point had evoked no positive echo in the (West) German media – which regrettably was to be expected. In any case, the Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin reviews have become like a hotbed of hedonism that is the most inappropriate reception imaginable for ethical and aesthetic ascetics like Solzhenitsyn.

Gerd Koenen of the Welt newspaper (12 October 2002), who calls this great Russian a “moral overlord,” believes it would be “an unreasonable intellectual demand” to be forced to read his work. Nonetheless, Koenen attributes a “patriarchal sternness” to the Russian in a tone that is not accusatory or virulent, but rather “deliberately conciliatory.” That Sonia Margolina of all people, the nostalgic Red daughter of a Jewish Trotskyite, of whom she remains proud today, can accuse Solzhenitsyn’s enlightened spirit of “always looking backwards” should be laughed at as a joke in a feuilleton world. Every truth lives within a nucleus of time. The truth about the October Revolution in which the Bogrovs, Bronsteins, Mandelstams, Auerbachs, Rosenfelds, Brilliants, and Apfelbaums played an essential role, is rising to the surface ten years after the end of the failed experiment of Communism.

The Dirty Revolution I

If it is true that it was neither the planned economy nor the absence of democracy that landed Bolshevism in the dustbin of history, then the question of just when the downfall set in and what caused it must be answered. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, deemed the greatest conservative writer of our times by many, cites 1918 as the date Red Terror was born.

A terrorist named Apfelbaum proclaimed the mass death sentence:

“The bourgeoisie can kill some individuals, but we can murder whole classes of people.”

In that year the non-communist intelligentsia saw Medusa’s head. Apfelbaum, who entered the history books as Zinovev, wanted to send ten million Russians (ten out of each one hundred) to the smoldering ovens of the class war. German historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte states that this pronouncement of 17 September 1918 sounds almost unbelievable in its monstrosity; Apfelbaum formulated this holocaust sentence:

“From the population of a hundred million in Soviet Russia, we must win over ninety million to our side. We have nothing to say to the others. They have to be exterminated.”

In this, his latest book, Solzhenitsyn writes of the “dushiteli Rossii” (stranglers of Russia,) the “palachi grasnoy revolyutsii” (hangmen of the dirty revolution.) Who does he mean exactly? On page 89 he writes, “Bol’sheviki yevrey” the “Jew Bolsheviks.” In another place he uses the term “Bol’shevististkiye Juden” (Bolshevistic Jews). Superordinate to these is the key expression – “Yevreyskiy vopros” (the Jewish Question). After 1918 the Communist censors in no way forbade this expression. Even with regard to Jew Bolsheviks the Jewish question was not a taboo. On the contrary, the Jewish question became the central theme of the Party ideology, which had become a secular religion. Lenin himself set the example in 1924 with his famous instructive paper “On the Jewish Question in Russia,” published in the Moscow Proletariat Publishing House (cited by Solzhenitsyn on page 79).

Given the factual revelations in this book, the history of the 20th Century ought to be revised, especially that of the Soviet Union with particular reference to the collapse of the great ideological fronts in the pre-revisionist period. What is new in this work is Solzhenitsyn’s graphic depiction of a phenomenon about which the (West) German historians’ establishment has kept absolutely mute about, namely, that the historically unprecedented cruelty exercised in the seizure of power, the Russian Civil War, and wartime (WWII) had a clearly defined ideological and anthropological source. As mentioned above, the codeword Solzhenitsyn uses is “Jew Bolsheviks.”

“Before the October Revolution, Bolshevism was not the numerically strongest movement among the Jews.” (p. 73)

Solzhenitsyn recalls that immediately before the Revolution, the Bolshevistic Jews Trotsky and Kamenev concluded a military alliance with three Jewish social revolutionaries – Natanson, Steinberg, and Kamkov. What Solzhenitsyn is saying is that Lenin’s military putsch, from the purely military point of view, relied on a Jewish network. The collaboration between Trotsky and his coreligionists in the Left Social Revolutionary parties assured Lenin’s success in the Palace revolt of October 1917. As crown witness, Solzhenitsyn cites the Israeli historian Aron Abramovitch who in 1982 in Tel Aviv wrote:

“In October 1917 the Jewish contingent of soldiers played a decisive role in the preparation and execution of the armed Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd and other cities as well as in the following battles in the course of suppressing rebellions against the new Soviet power.”

The famed Latvian Rifle Regiment of the 12th Army, Lenin’s praetorian guard, had a Jewish commissar, Nachimson, in charge.

There are crimes that the descendents of the victims cannot bear. Those are crimes that break through the last protective wall, crimes like the psychocide of a civilized people. Most educated Russians sensed in October the emergence of a destructive reordering principle. ‘October’ became synonymous with a deadly threat to their existence. In 1924 the Jewish historian, Pasmanik, wrote:

“The emergence of Bolshevism was the result of special aspects of Russian history. However, Soviet Russia can thank the work of the Jewish commissars for the organization of Bolshevism.”

Solzhenitsyn cites this key passage on page 80 in which the word “organization” is in quotes in the book text.

The large number of eyewitness reports from the early period of Soviet rule is astounding. In the Council of People’s Commissars, the writer Nashivin simply notes: “Jews, Jews, Jews.” Nashivin avers that he was never an anti-Semite, but “the mass of Jews in the Kremlin literally knocks your eyes out.” In 1919 the famous writer Vladimir Korolenko, who was close to the Social Democrats and who had protested against the pogroms in Tsarist Russia, made the following entry in his diary:

“There are many Jews and Jewesses among the Bolsheviks. Their main characteristics – self-righteousness, aggressive tactlessness and presumptive arrogance – are painfully evident. Bolshevism is found contemptible in the Ukraine. The preponderance of Jewish physiognomies, especially in the Cheka, evokes an extremely virulent hatred of Jews among the people.”

Chapter 15 of Solzhenitsyn’s book opens with the words:

“Jews among the Bolsheviks is nothing new. Much has already been written about it.”

This, for Solzhenitsyn, is further support for his cardinal thesis, namely, that Bolshevik Jews were the indispensable power brokers in the victory of Bolshevism, in the Russian Civil War, and in the early Soviet Regime.

Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn:

“Whoever holds the opinion that the revolution was not a Russian, but an alien-led revolution points to the Yiddish family names or pseudonyms to exonerate the Russian people for the revolution. On the other hand, those who try to minimize the over-proportional representation of Jews in the Bolshevik seizure of power may sometimes claim that they were not religious Jews, but rather, apostates, renegades, and atheists.”

According to rabbinical law, whoever was born of a Jewish mother is a Jew. Orthodox Judaism requires more, i.e., recognition of the Hebraic Halacha scriptural laws and the observance of the religious laws of the Mishna, which form the basis of the Talmud. Solzhenitsyn then asks:

“How strong were the influence, power, fascination, and adherence of secular Jews among the religious Jews and how many atheists were active among the Bolsheviks? Can a people really just renounce its renegades? Does such a renunciation make any sense?”

Solzhenitsyns’s attempt to answer these questions on the basis of historical facts concentrates on several factors, namely, the behavior of Orthodox Jews after October, the relative numbers of Bolshevik Jews before and after October, the ascendence of Bolshevistic Jews in the cadres of the Red Army and the Cheka, Lenin’s Jewish strategy, and finally, Lenin’s own heritage.

The Bolsheviks appealed to the Jews immediately after the seizure of power. And they came; they came in masses. Some served in the executive branch, others in the various governmental organs. They came primarily from among secular young Jews who in no way could be classified as atheists or even as enemies of God. This phenomenon bore a mass character.” (p. 79)

By the end of 1917 Lenin had not yet left Smolny, when a Jewish Commissariat for Nationality Questions was already at work in Petrograd. In March 1919 the VIII Party Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) undertook to establish a “Jewish Soviet Russian Communist Bund.”

In this matter Solzhenitsyn again relies on Jewish historians. Leonard Schapiro, living in London in 1961, wrote:

“Thousands of Jews streamed to the Bolsheviks whom they saw as the protectors of the international revolution.”

M. Chaifetz also commented on the Jewish support of Bolshevism:

“For a Jew, who came neither from among the aristocrats nor the clergy, Bolshevism represented a successful and promising new prospect to belong to a new clan.”

The Chaifetz article appeared in 1980 in an Israeli journal for the Jewish intelligentsia arriving from the USSR.

The influx of Jewish youths into the Bolshevik Party at first was a consequence of the pogroms in the territory held by the White Army in 1919, argues a certain Schub. Solzhenitsyn rejects Schub’s argument as a myth:

“Schub’s argument is not valid because the massive entry of Jews into the Soviet apparatus occurred as early as 1917 and throughout all of 1918. Unquestionably, the Civil War situation in 1919 did hasten the amalgamation of Jewish cadres with the Bolsheviks.” (p. 80)

Solzhenitsyn traces the rise in Judeophobia, among other things, back to the brutal Bolshevistic suppression of peasant and citizen uprisings, the slaughter of priests and bishops, especially the village clergy, and finally, the extermination of the nobility, culminating in the murder of the Tsar and his family.

During the decisive years of the Civil War (1918-1920) the secret police (Cheka) was controlled by Bolshevistic Jews. The commandants of the various prisons were usually from Poland or Latvia.

Exclusively Jews occupied the Party, Army, and Cheka command positions in Odessa. Jews constituted the majority in the Presidium of the Petrograd City Soviet. Lazar Kaganovich directed the Civil War terror in Nizhny Novgorod, while Rosalia Salkind-Semlyachka commanded the mass executions by firing squads in the Kremlin. In 1920 the farming areas of West Siberia were turned into a Vendée when grain-commissar Indenbaum through his confiscation campaigns caused mass starvation. During the winter in the steppes, rebellious farmers were forced to dig their own graves. The Chekists doused the naked bodies with water; those that tried to flee were machine-gunned. The peasant uprising in Tyumen entered the history books as the “Iskhimski Rebellion”.

By virtue of the sheer numbers liquidated and the radicalism and motivation of the perpetrators, the mass executions of Russian Orthodox priests assumed a genocidal character. The intellectual elite of Eastern Christendom in Russia was literally slaughtered. Lenin provided the impetus. On 27 July 1918, shortly after the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Soviet government ordered the liquidation of all pogromists; every priest was by law considered to be a pogromist. As Lunacharsky recalls, Lenin composed the text of the law by his own hand, and Lenin ordered that the clergy could be executed (vne zakona) outside the law and the courts. That meant, Solzhenitsyn comments, they could simply be shot out of hand.

It was Lenin, not Stalin, who on 17 July 1918 let loose the demons (p. 15). It was the Party, Army, and Cheka apparatus under Lenin’s command during the early Bolshevik period that characterized the ideology of crimes against humanity. (Ernst Nolte writes about ‘an ideological extermination postulate.’) “The key to the decision was in Lenin’s hands,” Solzhenitsyn asserts in his chapter on Bartholomew’s Night in Yekaterinburg. Lenin exhibited neither doubt nor compromise in this matter. “He had no reservations about exterminations.” To destroy and exterminate was his intent.

For this destruction and extermination, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinski, and Trotsky were his most powerful allies. None of them was Russian. Lenin’s executioners in Yekaterinburg and the Ural governments were not Russians. The bloody careers of Goloshekin and Beloborodov, the Party terrorists and Ural mafia killers, are described on pp. 90-91. Yankel Yurovsky, who boasted “it was my revolver that knocked off Nicholas on the spot,” certainly was not a Russian. In 1936 Stalin’s Chekists executed Beloborodov in Lubyanka, whether as a Jew, a cosmopolitan, or as an enemy of Stalin’s Russification policies. Goloshekin met death in the Fall of 1941 as German tanks approached Moscow.

Is Russia a land of criminal perpetrators? Solzhenitsyn denies it as strongly as he rejects the concept of collective guilt in general, and the rejection pertains to both the Large People (the Russians) as well as the Small People (the Jews). And who were the victims? The overwhelming majority were Russians. Those shot in cellars, those burnt to death in the cloisters, those drowned in river boats, those hanged in the forest; officers, peasants, aristocrats, proletariats, the anti-anti-Semitic bourgeois intellectuals – Russians mostly, but others as well. The “hangmen of the Revolution,” the crimes they try to justify with internationalism, transformed their “dirty revolution” into what Solzhenitsyn calls an “anti-Slav” revolution. No, the Nobel Laureate Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, the Cheka-Lubyanka-Gulag holocaustic perpetrators could not possibly be a Slavic people (p. 93)

On page 233 of Nolte’s “Der Kausale Nexus” is an early confirmation of Solzhenitsyn’s theses. The German historian is convinced that the term “Jewish Bolshevism” is not simply an invention made for crude political purposes, but that it is historically well-founded and not to be expunged from history “regardless of how terrible the National Socialist consequences were”. Nolte draws a parallel to the other contrary, ideological postulate:

“Only when it has not been excluded and made a taboo beforehand can ‘Auschwitz’ escape the danger that now threatens it — namely, that by being isolated from ‘Gulag’ and the conflict between the two ideologically driven States (Germany and the Soviet Union) it becomes not a lie, but a myth that contradicts history.”

Is Solzhenitsyn the first historian to examine the dark year of 1918 scientifically? About a decade ago, the Russian Jewess Sonya Margolina, daughter of a Bolshevik of the Lenin-Stalin era, wrote about the crimes committed by the Bolsheviks and the part the Jews played in them. The horrors of the Revolution and the Civil War are “closely bound to the image of the Jewish commissar,” she writes in Das Ende der Lügen (The End of the Lies), published in 1992 by Siedler Publishers in Berlin. Her book bore the shocking subtitle, “The Russian Jews – Perpetrators and Victims at the Same Time.” Sentences appear in the chapter “Jews and Soviet Power” whose validity Solzhenitsyn now confirms. “In the first years after the revolution the Bolsheviks and the Jews at their side ruled Russia with the cold sweat of fear on their brows,” Margolina writes. One thing remained very clear in the minds of the actors: if the Red hangman’s rope around the neck of the people were ever to be loosened, “the Jewish Bolsheviks would be the first candidates for the scaffold.”

Where was God in Lubyanka? In Kolyma? On the White Sea Canal project? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in the sense of one of Dostoyevsky’s God-seekers, does not even ask that question. He wants to know, as does Margolina, why Russia’s Jews were both the perpetrators and victims alike during the Bolshevik century? At the onset of the second millennium, this 84-year old – the public conscience of Russian culture – understands the first precept of historical revisionism in a Russia unsullied with political correctness, namely, he who breaks through the fire wall surrounding the ‘Jewish question” is sovereign.

The Dirty Revolution II

“Everyone was listening intently to determine if the Germans were already on the way.”

In June and July of 1941 those living in the regions of eastern Poland occupied by the Red Army – Polish farmers, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, ex-soldiers, and intellectuals – all awaited the invasion of German troops. This quote is from the Polish Jewish historian J. Gross, author of the book Neighbors: The Murder of the Jews of Jedwabne. Solzhenitsyn explains why Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Belorussians, Bukowina, and Moldava-Romanians could hardly wait for the Germans to invade.

Pursuant to his central thesis, Solzhenitsyn writes that without the high Jewish presence among the leaders and executioners of the Bolshevik dictatorship, Lenin’s newly born Soviet state would have been at an end, at the latest, by the time of the Kronstadt Sailors Rebellion in 1921. Solzhenitsyn examines specific decisive questions, as for example: Why, in the period 1939-41, did such a large percentage of Jewry in eastern Poland, Galicia, and in the Baltic States collaborate with the Red Army, Stalin’s secret police, and Bolshevism in general? And why did the pogroms in these regions take place under the slogan “Revenge for the Soviet Occupation”? Solzhenitsyn states:

“In eastern Poland, which had been incorporated in the Soviet Union in September 1939, the Jews, especially the younger generation, welcomed the invading Red Army with frenetic jubilation. Whether in Poland, Bessarabia, Lithuania, or Bukowina, the Jews were the main support of Soviet power. The newspapers report that the Jews are enthusiastically supporting the establishment of Communist rule.” (p. 329)

In that fateful year a Polish Jew who had emigrated to France prophesized that the non-Jews who had been subjugated to Bolshevism would one day exact a fearful war of vengeance. In 1939 Stanislav Ivanowich, a Left Socialist sympathetic to the Soviet Union, warned:

“Should the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks end one day, the collapse will be accompanied by the atavistic, barbaric passions of Jew hate and violence. The collapse of Soviet power would be a terrible catastrophe for Jewry; today, however, Soviet rule equates to Judeophilia.” (p. 310)

Shoot Anti-Semites on the Spot

And as for the next aspect examined, why was it that in 1918 the victorious Russian worker class supported, not just an underground, but also an openly aggressive – even Party-based – broad anti-Semitism taking the form of Jew-hatred?

Although on 27 July 1918 Lenin had issued an ukase ordering that any active anti-Semite could be shot without going through any court procedures, a new, extremely militant form of anti-Semitism, which had even gained influence in governmental layers of the monopoly Party, was rife in the mid-twenties.

“This wave of the ‘new anti-Semitism’ included the cultural cadres and educational inspectors of the Russian worker class and reached into the Komsomol and the Party”. (p. 200f.)

To explain the reasons for this, Solzhenitsyn cites extensively and without commentary from the newspapers of the day. According to the newspapers, the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ had captured and occupied the Soviet State; they were in the top ranks of the Red Army. Soviet power had been converted into Jewish power, and the Jews pursued Jewish, not Russian goals. (p. 201)

In 1922 exiled Social Revolutionaries E. Kuskova and S. Maslov, both Jews, reported:

“Judeophobia has spread throughout present-day Russia. It has even spread to areas in which previously no Jews had even lived and where there was never a Jewish Question. […] Bolshevism today is – without any doubt – identified with Jewish rule.”

Or colloquially expressed:

“Aron Moiseyevich Tankelwich today walks in the place of Ivan Ivanov.”

Kuskova and Maslov reported further:

“New slogans have appeared on the walls of the high schools – ‘Smash the Jews, Save the Soviets’; ‘Beat the Jews Up, Save the Councils’”.

In other words, the revolutionary jargon of that day wanted to keep the Soviets and the Soviet rule, but without the Jews.

“‘Smash the Jews’ was not the slogan of the Black Hundreds from the pogroms of Tsarist times, but the battle cry of young Russian communards five years after the Great October.” (p. 229)

On the eve of the XII Party Day 1923, the Politburo consisted of three Jews and three non-Jews. The ratio in the Komsomol Presidium was three to four. In the XI Party Day, ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ constituted 26% of the Central Committee membership. Because of foreign invasion and anti-Slavic trends, prominent Russian Leninists decided upon an “anti-Jewish rebellion.”

May 1924

Shortly before the opening of the XIII Party Day, veteran Russian revolutionaries Frunze, Nogin, and Troyanovsky called for the expulsion of the ‘Jewish leaders’ from the Politburo. The opponents of the purge reacted quickly. In no time, Nogin died after an operation on his esophagus, after which Frunze went under the knife. (p. 207)

In Solzhenitsyn’s opinion, the main reason for this outbreak of new anti-Semitism is to be found in the hostility towards Russians inherent in the extreme Jewish internationalism. Unlike the Jewish intelligentsia who greeted the revolution of 1918 with great passion, the Russian proletariat was not fascinated by the idea of a Russian-led internationalism. After 1918 the Jews spoke consistently of “their country.” (p. 218)

To support his thesis Solzhenitsyn cites Party ideologue Nikolai Bukharin, who was executed after the last Moscow show trial. At the Leningrad Party Conference in early 1927 Bukharin had criticized the ‘capitalistic’ nature of the Jewish mid-level bourgeoisie who had come to power and had taken the place of the Russian bourgeoisie in the main cities of the USSR (p. 209), and “whom we, comrades, must sharply condemn.” Former chief Bolshevik theorist Bukharin concluded by saying that the Jews themselves were responsible for the new anti-Semitism.

It was part of Stalin’s tactical game not just to tolerate Jews in his own entourage, but also deliberately to place them in leading positions so that later he would have plausible grounds for turning them over to the executioner on grievous charges. Such was the case in the murderous collectivization program in 1928-1933 to which the names of prominent ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ were attached. Stalin was well aware of the hatred city Jews had for everything related to the Russian and Ukrainian peasantry. They spread terror, killing the peasants and destroying the villages, eventually causing the famine that took the lives of at least six million Ukrainians. The Jewish commissars in charge of the anti-kulak program, which was tantamount to genocide, were literally the masters over life and death.

In 1936, after the slaughter of the peasantry at the hands of the Bolshevik Jews, the death bell began to toll for those who had been responsible for the carnage. For the first time in a Russian historical work, Solzhenitsyn lists their names: Ya. Yakovlev-Epstein, M. Kolmanovich, G. Roschal, V. Feygin. (p. 285) The books covering the crimes in the first twenty years after Lenin seized power fill many meters of shelf space. With this one Solzhenitsyn volume, the subsequent reckoning with the Slavic peasant holocaust has only begun.

Bread and Knowledge, Stomach and Brain

There were also reasons for the outburst of proletariat anti-Semitism in two other sensitive areas. The Russian working class young people were getting nowhere in their quest for advancement on the educational front. In 1926, 26% of university students were Jews who had enjoyed a bourgeois background. (p. 202). Mostly Jews, between 30 and 50%, occupied the main positions in the domestic and foreign trade commissariats. Their empire included rural and urban store chains, restaurants, business canteens, prison and barracks galleys, cooperatives, and consumer goods production. Management of the Gosplan (State Plan) and the five-year plans was exercised by Rosenholz, Rukhimovich, Epstein, Frumkin, and Selemki; they controlled the nation’s food supply. In 1936 they themselves became fodder for the execution chambers in Lubyanka.

Despite the enormous bloodletting in 1936-37, millions of Jews still served the Stalinist regime with cadaver-like loyalty; they remained enthusiastic, unshakable, almost blind defenders of the cause of Socialism. Solzhenitsyn writes:

“Cadaver-like obedience in the GPU, the Red Army, the diplomatic service, and on the ideological front. The passionate participation of young Jews in these branches was in no way dampened by the bloody events of 1936-38.” (p. 281)

The world spirit, Hegel says, assists the lowest creatures to realize its impenetrable intentions. In the realization of the Socialist experiment the world spirit did not just serve the lower creatures. Nikolai Ostrovsky, crippled and blind, wrote his autobiographical novel “How the Steel Was Hardened” as an idealist. Others belonged among the lowest creatures, and Solzhenitsyn enumerates them in the chapters concerning the secret police. (In the book reviews published in the German newsmagazine, Der Spiegel, and the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, these bloody chapters were ignored.)

Gassing Trucks and Poison Chairs

From the very beginning the secret police was under the control of the ‘Bolshevik Jews.’ Solzhenitsyn revealed their names in the most interesting chapter of his book called “The Nineteen Twenties.” They are the biographies of the mass murderers at their desks in the Cheka, the OGPU, and the GPU. But they were not just sitting at their desks. Uritzki, Unschlicht, Katznelson, Bermann, Agranov, Spiegelglas, Schwarz, Asbel, Chaifetz, Pauker, Maier, Yagoda, personally participated in the tortures, hangings, crucifixions, and incinerations. Dzerzhinski, the founder of the Cheka, had three deputies from this guard of iron Bolsheviks – Gerson, Luszki, and Yagoda — an elite of Bolshevik Jews! Years later, when the Gulag Archipelago was being expanded, they were again to be found in the front line of executioners. Israel Pliner was the slave master of the Moscow-Volga-Canal; Lazar Kogan, Zinovey Katznelson, and Boris Bermann directed the forced labor genocide at the White Sea Canal project. The Great Purge became their graveyard.

Solzhenitsyn comments: (p. 293)

“One cannot deny that history elected very many Jews to be the executors of Russia’s fate.”

Commissioned by the NKVD, the Jewish designer of execution systems, Grigori Mayranovsky, invented the gas chair. When, in 1951, Mayranovsky, as the former head of the NKVD Laboratory Institute, was himself incarcerated, he wrote to Beria:

“Please do not forget that by my hand hundreds of enemy-pigs of the Soviet State found their deserved end.”

The mobile gassing truck was invented and tested by Isay Davidovich Berg, head of the NKVD Economics Division in the Moscow region. In 1937, a second highpoint in the Great Purge, prisoners were sentenced to death in conveyor-belt fashion, packed into trucks, taken to the places of execution, shot in the back of the neck, and buried. In the economic sense, Isay Davidovich Berg found this method of liquidation inefficient, time-consuming and cost-intensive. He, therefore, in 1937 designed the mobile asphyxiation chamber, the gassing truck (Russian: dushegubka, p. 297). The doomed were loaded into a tightly sealed, completely airtight Russian Ford; during the drive the deadly exhaust from a gasoline engine was directed into the section containing those sentenced to death. Upon reaching the mass gravesite, the truck dumped the corpses into the burial ditch. [Are you paying attention, reader?]

The Dirty Revolution III

History sheds blood. The history of Bolshevism shed the blood of at least sixty-six million, according to the calculations of statistician Prof. I. A. Kurganov, cited by Solzhenitsyn in his Novy Mir essay “The Russian Question at the End of the Century,” Moscow 1994. The crimes against humanity of the Bolshevik genocide up to 1937, i.e., in the first twenty years of the permanent terror, amounted to twenty million victims. In his scientific probing, Solzhenitsyn does not ignore the morally imperfect; he does not fail to connect the uniqueness of the Bolshevik holocaust with the exorcistic destructive hatred of a particular ethnic-religious group in old Russia. This may well be the reason why this second volume of Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together” has been given the silent treatment or has been distorted, not in Putin’s Russia, but rather in Germany’s establishment media. (An honest translation of this work by Solzhenitsyn would constitute a major contribution to historiography.)

Schirrmacher and Holm: Refuted

The motives and obsessions of the left-oriented intellectual class recall the Cambridge Spy case (Philby, Maclean, Blunt, Burgess). Specifically, in the BBC sentimentalized story, in which one of the decadents proclaims:

“To fight Fascism, you have to be a Communist.”

German reviews concerning the crimes of the Soviet secret police state sympathetically that in the final analysis at least the Jews in the GPU, NKVD, and KGB were fighting against Hitler. “Russians and Jews fought together against Hitler,” Ms. Holm writes in the Schirrmacher review. (Many reviews read like news reports from the Soviet Union!) In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 29 January 2003, she writes:

“After the October Revolution, the author explains, the high Jewish presence in the young Soviet state was found acting with great innovative agitation and drive in fields of State service, among the people’s commissars, and in the top ranks of the Army.”

That, however, is not Solzhenitsyn’s interpretation! On the basis of document analysis, Solzhenitsyn states that Lenin had three reasons for elevating young secular, revolutionary-minded Jews to the State’s elite, in effect replacing the Tsarist bureaucracy. First, because of the deadly hatred the young Jews had for Russian traditions, religious rites, historical models, and for everything Russian and Russia itself. Second, their willingness to cross the last taboo borders in morality. And third, their readiness to physically liquidate the enemy.

“Mixed Blood Mestizo”

Lenin, the internationalist, was no friend of Jews who were Zionists. In 1903 he expressed the opinion that there was no such thing as a Jewish nationality; the concept was a monstrous invention of a moribund capitalism. Stalin, along the same lines, considered Jewry a “paper nation” that would over time “disappear in an inevitable assimilation.”

For Solzhenitsyn, Lenin himself was “a mixed blood mestizo.” (p. 76) A grandfather on his father’s side was an Asian Kalmuck; the other grandfather, Israel Blank, was a Jew from Volhynia, who after converting to the Russian Orthodox Church took the first name of Alexander. His grandmother on his father’s side, Anna Johanna, had German and Swedish blood; her maiden name was Grossschopf. Solzhenitsyn states:

“Initially Russians did not consider Lenin to be an enemy of the Russian people, although at certain times his behavior became anti-Russian. Many Russians considered him a product of another race. Despite that, we as Russians cannot completely renounce Lenin.” (p. 76)

A Bestseller in Russia

In a Russia free of literature-policing Solzhenitsyn’s book of historical revelations has achieved the status of bestseller. The first hundred thousand edition of the second volume was sold out shortly after it appeared. Solzhenitsyn’s expression “a century of crimes” has become widely used among writers. “Never before had Russia stood so close to the historical abyss, separating her from the void,” the poetess Natalia Ayrapetrova writes in Literaturnaya gazeta (22 January 2002). Solzhenitsyn has set an avalanche loose. A new book, “The Enemy Within: Genealogy of Evil” (576 pp., Feri Publishers, Moscow), by the historian Nikolai Ostrovski, has just appeared. Ostrovski became famous for his “Holy Slaves and Temple of the Chimeras”, discourses critical of Judaism that do not permit the author to be banished to the dead end of conspiracy theories.

In contrast to the general Russian acceptance of Solzhenitsyn’s second volume, the German-language edition has been met with silence and misrepresentation, and in most cases with a touch of Russophobia. Der Spiegel (7/2003) provided an interpretation that contradicted the facts. For example, Der Spiegel’s reviewer wrote that under Stalin many Jews were alienated from Soviet power and that there was a reduction in the number of Jewish ‘collaborators’ in the Party and the secret police.

An interpretation of a critical chapter in Solzhenitsyn’s book vacillates between trivialization and obfuscation. Der Spiegel uses the word ‘collaborators’ instead of accomplices in the various phases of Stalin’s ascent. In the mid 1920’s until the mid 1930’s the Jewish component in the leadership functions of the Party and State apparatus in the Ukraine amounted to 22.6% (in the capital Kharkov it was 30%), in Belorussia it was 30.6% (in the capital Minsk it was almost 40%) and in Moscow city it was about 12%. Six and a half times more Jews occupied cadre positions in the Soviet ruling class than existed in the total Jewish population, which was 1.82% in 1926.

“The greatest influx of Jews to Soviet government offices took place in the cities and metropolitan areas of the Soviet Republics,”

Solzhenitsyn observes (p. 199), and it is characteristic of Der Spiegel’s and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’s lack of objectivity and philosemitism that they deny their German readers the most important data and numerical comparisons given in Chapter 18.

Even in the purge year of 1936 one still sees a disproportionately high representation in the “People’s Commissariat of Jews:” Litvinov-Finkelstein, Yagoda, Rosenholz, Weizer, Kalmanovich, Kaganovich. In the same government Sozhenitsyn observes whole groups of people’s commissars (ministers) with the names Solz, Gamarnik, Gurevich, and Ginzburg. These are only a few of the hundreds. A predominance of ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ is noted in the cultural fields, the brainwashing section, and the news-speak department. In the 1920’s the Jewish internationalists purged the history books. Radical ideological reeducation by race haters like Goykhbarg, Larin, Radek, and Rotstein began by deleting and forbidding such concepts as ‘Russian history’ and ‘Great Russian,’ putting them on the black list of counter-revolutionary terminology. In the Moscow Party press Jewish writers advocated blowing-up the Minin-Posharsky Monument on Red Square (p. 275).

But to come back to the Left-oriented German media: The spirited derussification program conducted by the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ during the 1920’s is not mentioned at all, neither by Uwe Klussmann nor by Kerstin Holm. Nor do the terms Cheka and GPU appear in the German reviews.

The Cheka – the bulldozer locomotive of State terror, the bulldozer for sixty-six million corpses, and the gas turbine for the Bolshevik holocaust – does not exist in Schirrmacher’s daily newspaper and Augstein’s successor Holm, chief editor of Der Spiegel, as a shorthand symbol for death. Is it simply the rejection of the truth, or shame, or fear of exposure because many liberal humanists have so long stood beside Stalinist humanism? In any case, ethical and physical degenerates do use the word when it is buried in history as a unique chapter on the Cheka/GPU under the laurels of the anti-Hitler war.

Name Lists Betray Everything

Solzhenitsyn lists the names of about fifty mass murderers, desk criminals, and murderers of prisoners. (p. 300f.) Their first names betray the ethnic origin of these monsters. Moise Framing, Mordichai Chorus, Josef Khodorovsky, Isaak Solz, Naum Zorkin, Moise Kalmanovich, Samuel Agurski, Lazar Aronstam, Israel Weizer, Aron Weinstein, Isaak Grindberg, Sholom Dvoylazki, Max Daitsh, Yesif Dreiser, Samuel Saks, Jona Jakir, Moise Kharitonov, Frid Markus, Solomon Kruglikov, Israel Razgon, Benjamin Sverdlov, Leo Kritzman…

“Here and now we are making an end to synagogues forever,” the new foreign minister Molotov is reported to have said in the Spring of 1939 as he undertook to purge his own ministry. (Litvinov-Finkelstein took revenge in 1943 when he gave Roosevelt a personal secret list of Stalin’s pogroms.) In comparison with the foreign ministry, the official pogrom in the ministry of internal affairs was much more dramatic. Between 1 January 1935 and 1 January 1938, Jewish dominance in the ministry of internal affairs fell from about 50% of ministry members to about 6%. Solzhenitsyn writes:

“The rulers over the fate of the Russian people believed that they were irreplaceable and invulnerable. All the more terrible for them when the blow fell. They had to face the collapse of their world and their view of the world.”

Also in this section Solzhenitsyn reveals the names of the butchers who once bossed the secret police. They once headed the Lubyanka, now they themselves ended in the corridors of Lubyanka: pistol-flaunting Matvey Berman, Josef Blatt, Abraham Belenki, Isaak Shapiro, Serge Shpigelglas, Israel Leblevski, Pinkus Simanovski, Abraham Slutski, Benjamin Gerson, Zinovi Katsnelson, Natan Margolin – an almost endless list of ‘Jew Bolsheviks.’ These names are not mentioned in Germany, the “land of the perpetrators.” Salpeter, Seligmann, Kagan, Rappoport, Fridland, Rayski-Lakhman, Yoselevich, Faylovich… prominent names in Stalin’s list for execution after 1936. The Jewish Menshevik, S. Shvarts, who emigrated to the United States, noted in 1966 in a documentation of the American Jewish Worker Committee:

“The purges resulted in the physical disappearance of almost all Jewish Communists who had played an important role in the USSR.”. (p. 327)

Hebrew or Yiddish

The early Stalin believed in the eventual assimilation of the Jews under the dogmas of the “proletarian revolution.” Innately opposed to this, most of the Jewish Bolsheviks fiercely rejected assimilation, i.e., their disappearance as a special ethnic group in Socialism (by assimilation they understood a mortally feared Russification). From the beginning these Jews fought in the Jewish Commissariat (Yevkom) and the Jewish Section within the Russian Communist Party (Yevsek) for the “preservation of the Jewish people” in the Socialist state, and even for the creation of a “Jewish Soviet Nation in the USSR.” The historical recreation of these events is a service of Solzhenitsyn. Naturally it found no mention in the German book reviews.

The promotion of Yiddish as a State language was a way of establishing the Jewish Soviet Nation; it was recognized by law for the first time in Belorus in 1920. That recognition meant not only a ‘no’ to Zionism, but also to the expansion of New Hebrew (Ivrit). In the early 1920s Ivrit was officially forbidden, while Yiddish was recognized as a “Language of Soviet Proletariat Culture.” (p. 255). Marc Chagall and Ed Lisizki were considered in the vanguard of a Yiddish-Communist culture – the New Man from Vitebsk.

A political setback came at the end of the 1920’s when Yevkom and Yevsek were abolished. The younger generation of Soviet Jews accepted this without protest, Solzhenitsyn reports. Without protest, without rebellion, and without a “Kronstadt.” The abandonment of Yiddish occurred with the triumph of an international atheism, and internationalism without nationalities, without national identities, but with one single exception: “The Soviet People!” An artificial construct, sacrificed to the hecatombs of proletariat blood, the blood of Slavs, Balts, Moslems, and Caucasians; the Soviet people, a drawing-board product, a Frankenstein monster, was created in Gulagism, whose existence without the enforcers from the ranks of the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ would not be conceivable. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn documents this on almost 600 pages of text. When near the end of the war Stalin ordered the liquidation of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and proceeded to murder their intellectual leaders, as well as programming the end of Yiddish as a separate culture, the Bolshevik solution of the old Russian ‘Jewish Question’ came to a bizarre conclusion, i.e., on the ramps to the Gulag.

Final Comments

“Our history is one of tragedies and catastrophes,” writes Svetlana Alekseyevicha thirteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” appeared in the West thirty years ago. The Main Directorate of Camps (Glawnoje Uprawlenije Lagerei = GULag), which lasted for half a century, was one of the saddest catastrophes in the two thousand year history of Russia. Looking back today, one can say with good reason that Solzhenitsyn’s reportage on the bloodiest crimes against humanity in modern times belongs among the spiritual turning points that represented the beginning of the end of the Red Imperium.

Solzhenitsyn’s chronicle from hell prompts the question of why today the historical reality of the Gulag is much less widely and passionately remembered than is the persecution of the Jews under National Socialism. There can be no rational answer to this. The reproach is that a work like the “Gulag Archipelago” exceeds the powers of imagination and that – based on the laws of classical aesthetics – it ought not to be produced at all because it inundates the reader with unrelieved pictures of disgust and revulsion. But then, by the same logic, a play like Macbeth might also be considered too off-putting. In his third volume Solzhenitsyn depicts the slaughter of five thousand women and children in the Kingir slave labor camp in June 1954 (only thirteen years after Babi Yar).

The opinion that the Gulag, unlike the killing of the Jews, has yet to find a Hollywood director of the caliber of Steven Spielberg to film it, is negated by the fact that Russia, herself, has highly talented, even brilliant film producers, dramaturges, and screenplay writers whose work can easily stand comparison with that in the West. The showing of the play “I Will Repay” by Serge Kuznetsov in the Maly Theater in Moscow, for example, always plays to a full house – standing room only for months on end! The play recreates the last tragic moments of the Tsar’s family. For Russia’s Orthodox, but also for Russian revisionist historians, 16 July 1918 was the ultimate outpour of Gulag thinking. The role of the Bolshevik Jews is handled directly in this stage play as when Botkin, the Tsar’s physician, says to one of his guards:

“The time will come when everyone will [know] that the Jews were responsible for this and you will be the victims of the revenge.”

For the lyricist Stanislav Kunyayev, chief editor of the literary magazine Nash Sovremennik, the murder of the Romanovs was the product of “depraved intellects and a Satanic will.” Kunyayev is one of a group of seventy leading Russian intellectuals who have signed their names to a letter, in which they hold Communist Jews responsible for the murder of the Tsar, the Bolshevik putsch, and the mass murders that followed it. In the case of Kunyayev it is clear why the filming of the Gulag era would be unthinkable in a Western country for the time being. Or, to put it differently: Why the Jew Steven Spielberg shies away like Belshazzar from the writing on the wall. It is not just the sheer magnitude of the crimes that block Spielberg’s undertaking a film of the Gulag, it is much more the taboo question of the unspoken complicity of secularized Jews in a unique breach of civilized behavior that resulted in the execution chambers in Lefortovo, the stone quarries of the White Sea Canal project, and the gold mines of Kolyma.

In Germany, the land of the Adornos and Friedmans, the dreadful accusation of anti-Semitism is held in the ready for anyone who wants to use it at anytime; it is omnipresent and inexpensive, and packs a deadly explosive force socially and professionally. The left-liberal review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 26 June 2003 published an allegedly lost story of the Bolshevik writer, Isaak Babel, who was shot in January 1941 in a Bolshevik forced labor camp. The previously unknown story, “Esfir’s Ring”, aesthetically and morally without any reference to Russian literature, eulogizes the death of the Jewish secret policeman, Esfir Rubenblum, “Commissar of the Special Department of the Kiev Cheka,” who died “a hero’s death in the struggle against enemies of the revolution.” Original quotations of Isaak Babel were written a few years before the “hero’s death” of the Civil War Chekist Babel.

This world-famous Bolshevik (the evaluation of Frank Schirrmacher, chief editor of the Frankfurter) confirms in one of his last contributions the Jewish leadership in the execution squads of the secret police in the Lenin period. Dr. Schirrmacher found no reason to go into Babel’s Chekist past. In Germany the deadly threat of the anti-Semitism shibboleth prevents an objective discussion of the anthropological roots of the theme Solzhenitsyn has illuminated.

On the occasion of his receiving the left-wing German Ludwig-Börne-Prize for outstanding performances in literature, the American-Jewish scholar George Steiner said in his thank-you speech:

“In my opinion, there can be no higher honor, no higher nobility, than to belong to a people who has never engaged in persecution. Since my childhood, I have been proud not to have that arrogance. I belong to the highest race because it does not persecute others. We are the only ones; we never had the power to do so. Alleluia!” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 May 2003)

Never persecuted others? Never held power?

“The Jewish commissar with the leather jacket and Mauser pistol, often speaking broken Russian, is the typical image of revolutionary power.”

This statement comes from Sonya Margolina, who is proud to be “the daughter of a Jewish Bolshevik.” Margolina today lives in Berlin. Her book “Das Ende der Lügen: Rußland und die Juden im 20. Jahrhundert” (Siedler, Berlin 1992), from which the above passage is cited, follows it with these words:

“The tragedy of Jewry is that there was no political option to escape the vengeance for the historical sin of the Jews, namely, their enthusiastic cooperation with the Communist regime. The victory of the Soviet regime saved them for a while, but vengeance still lurked ahead.”

© Oct. 31/Nov. 7, 2002 / Jan. 30./31 2003/Sept. 17./30, 2003
——————————————————
First published in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 7(3&4) (2003), pp. 451-460. Translated by Dan Michaels.
——————————————————
Source: The Revisionist 2(3) (2004), pp. 342-351.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Source: Institute for Historical Review

Dr. Sunic provides an overview of the brutal “ethnic cleansing” of Germans in the aftermath of World War Two, in which some twelve million people, mostly women, children and elderly, were forcibly expelled from centuries-old homelands in eastern and central Europe. Of these, some two million were killed or otherwise perished. In this address at an IHR meeting, March 6, 2010, the European-American scholar contrasts the way in which this massive genocide is all but ignored in the US media, whereas Jewish “victimology” has become a central feature of our society’s “civic religion.”

Please listen to the informative audio file HERE.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Topic of German Expulsion Still Taboo
Source: http://news.therecord.com/news/article/687051
By Brent Davis

WATERLOO — It’s a dark chapter in world history that many know nothing about, that others refuse to acknowledge.

It concerns the expulsion of millions of Germans living in Eastern Europe after the Second World War, from such places as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and eastern areas of Germany.

It’s estimated that as many as 15 million people may have been forced from their homes, a move in part condoned by the Allied leaders in the Potsdam Agreement, which authorized the return of Germans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary back to Germany.

Those transfers were to be conducted in “an orderly and humane manner,” according to the agreement signed by British, American and Soviet leaders. It would prove to be anything but.

While casualty estimates vary, many historians — including Alfred de Zayas, whose books Nemesis at Potsdam and A Terrible Revenge were among the first English works to chronicle the tragedy — believe that two million Germans died as a result.

De Zayas, a lawyer and human rights expert who spent 25 years with the United Nations, says it deserves to be recognized alongside such failures of humanity as the Armenian genocide and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia.

“We would be ashamed of ourselves if we realized the magnitude of the crimes,” said de Zayas, who will speak tonight at the University of Waterloo.

“The subject matter belongs in the schools,” he said in an interview. “It should be taught in genocide courses, courses that deal with crimes against humanity.”

And although the Cuban-born de Zayas — now a professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy & International Relations — said he “broke the taboo” by writing about the expulsion, it’s a topic that still remains off-limits to many.

They’ve got a problem with the concept of Germans as victims,” [clearly, it doesn’t mesh too well with the established narrative — that is, Allied/Zionist hate propaganda — of the last sixty-odd years] he said. “I don’t have a problem … I came to it because I thought it was an important subject.”

He says he’s been asked whether he’s anti-Semitic or a Holocaust denier, and he quickly dismisses those assertions. [Consider the clear insinuation behind this line of questioning for a moment, please: if you sympathize with the Germans who were forcefully expelled from their homes — many of whom were civilian women and children, and millions of whom were, in fact, brutalized, raped, and murdered — you must either be an “anti-Semite” or a “Holocaust denier.” Never mind the fact that anyone (Semitic or otherwise) who speaks out against Zionist aggression or territorial expansion (in blatant violation of international law) is denounced today an “anti-Semite.” Keep in mind that the Zionists have called people like Rachel Corrie, Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, and former president Jimmy Carter “anti-Semitic,” and that even Jewish dissident professors like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky have not been spared. Never mind the fact that many of Israel’s harshest critics are rather Semitic Palestinians, while many Israelis on the receiving end of that deserved criticism are not even technically Semites themselves. Never mind the fact that even serious mainstream Holocaust scholars have steadily revised their figures downward from the farcical “six million” and dismantled some of the more reckless and indefensible claims (human soap, lampshades made of flesh, and shrunken heads, to name just a few) which resulted in the execution of many who were, in all truth, innocent, though deemed guilty, at the Nuremberg show-trial. And never mind the fact that even the most influential so-called “Holocaust deniers” are far from denying what others refer to as “The Holocaust”; they do, however, contest the established narrative of the victors — f. ex., the inflated numbers involved, whether there was ever an official order for the liquidation of Europe’s Jewish population, as well as the questionable method of execution via delousing agent Zyklon B in non-existent gas-chambers. Clearly, the suffering of Jews, real or imaged, is supposed to trump the suffering of all others, and debate-derailing words like “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust denier” are supposed to keep free-thinkers around the world in check.]

“If I only deal with one category of victims, and deliberately ignore the experience of other victims, I am essentially taking away the human dignity of the other,” he said. “I would essentially be saying ‘my corpses are prettier than your corpses.’”

De Zayas will speak tonight at 7:30 p.m. at UW’s Arts Lecture Hall. Tickets are $12, and $10 for students and seniors.

bdavis@therecord.com

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Numbers You Have Not Been Taught To Memorize

For those who cannot count higher than “6 million,” I am here to teach you other numbers…

Here are some numbers which you have not been taught to memorize. That is– here is information which you have been systematically denied. Strange, isn’t it? What does that say about your “education”? What does that say about those you’ve come to trust? Why are some chapters of history given such endless focus, while others remain virtually ignored? Are some lives deemed more worthy of remembrance? Why are Jewish losses so often discussed, for example, while Ukrainian, or Polish, or especially German losses given no recognition? Why are Palestinian deaths, or Iraqi deaths, or Lebanese deaths, for example, ignored by mainstream news media? Why don’t you know about mothers and children bulldozed in Palestine, while you are so well informed of Israeli casualties? The questions answer themselves — for any critical thinker understands what is going on, and takes a stand against it. The information blackout is no accident. The skewed angle to all that you think you know is no accident. Stop being deceived. Stop being used. There is much which you are not being told, and it is up to you to inform and empower yourselves. No more excuses. -W.
——————————————————-
The Black Book Of Communism

An 800-page compendium of the crimes of Communist regimes worldwide, recorded and analyzed in ghastly detail by a team of scholars.

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book that describes the history of repressions, both political and civilian by Communist states, including extrajudicial executions, deportations, and man-made famines that the book argues resulted from communist policies. The book was originally published in 1997 in France under the title, Le Livre noir du communisme : Crimes, terreur, répression. In the United States it is published by Harvard University Press.

The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, states that that “…Communist regimes…turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government”. Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the “excess deaths” (decrease of the population due to lower than the expected birth rate).

The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:

20 million in the Soviet Union
65 million in the People’s Republic of China
1 million in Vietnam
2 million in North Korea
2 million in Cambodia
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
150,000 in Latin America
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
10,000 deaths “resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power.”

It explicitly states that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor. It does not include “excess deaths” due to higher mortality or lower birth rates than expected of the population.

In other areas we can also see echoes of Communist-style mega-state power. U.S. officials today:

Encourage children to inform on their parents; encourage teachers, neighbors and friends to inform on others based on barest suspicions of wrongdoing.

Promulgate laws criminalizing everyday activities, and even discussion of certain outlawed activities.

Decree ever-harsher punishments for non-violent crimes (and harsher punishments yet when those laws fail to end the problem).

Allow secret trials in some cases (involving non-citizens suspected of political crimes).

Encourage widespread dependence on the state, with concomitant disconnection from family and community.

Belong to a professional political class rather than a citizen government.

Extend control over the basics of life (such as education, the food supply and health care).

Increase their control over industry (in our case, via regulation and subsidy, rather than outright ownership).

Promote constant “crises” as an excuse for seizing more power.

Foster a belief (now almost universally held) that no problem can be solved without federal intervention.

Read Full Post »

Of Einstein, I will say this… I admire his loyalty to his tribe, and I agree with his anti-assimilationist stance. However, this is as far as I go (“in neutral”). I wholeheartedly detest the fraud for his intellectual dishonesty, his artificial and overrated status as an original thinker, a “rare genius,” or one of the premier minds of the 20th century, and his two-faced, treacherous, backstabbing nature when it came to his scientific contemporaries and, more specifically, toward his German host. He even admits, in no uncertain terms, that his hatred for all that is German predated the National Socialist rise to power. But, as is often the case, those who so fervently denounce intolerance often manage, as thoroughly illustrated below, to simultaneously thrive and prosper from it. This was acknowledged by prominent Zionists of the early 20th century; “anti-Semitism” was for them, a useful tool for a variety of reasons. And when the tides turn and this tribe acquires sufficient power, they prove again and again to be more ruthless, by far, than the powers they formerly so convincingly condemned. “Chandala revenge,” par excellence. -W.

Photobucket

Deconstructing Einstein
Source, Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Ed: W.

Albert Einstein was a racist Zionist. He believed that anti-Semitism was good for the Jewish “race” because it promoted segregation and separated Jews from the, to use his word, “Goyim” (a derogatory term for Gentiles, meaning cattle or property).

Einstein stated,

“I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even though I don’t regard them as the Chosen People. Why don’t we just let the Goy keep his anti-Semitism, while we preserve our love for the likes of us?” -Albert Einstein, quoted in A. Foelsing, English translation by E. Osers, Albert Einstein, a Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 494; which cites speech to the Central-Verein Deutscher Staatsbuerger Juedischen Glaubens, in Berlin on 5 April 1920, in D. Reichenstein, Albert Einstein. Sein Lebensbild und seine Weltanschauung, Berlin, (1932). This letter from Einstein to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith of 5 April 1920 is reproduced in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 368, Princeton University Press, (2004).

Einstein also stated,

“The way I see it, the fact of the Jews’ racial peculiarity will necessarily influence their social relations with non-Jews. The conclusions which—in my opinion—the Jews should draw is to become more aware of their peculiarity in their social way of life and to recognize their own cultural contributions. First of all, they would have to show a certain noble reservedness and not be so eager to mix socially—of which others want little or nothing. On the other hand, anti-Semitism in Germany also has consequences that, from a Jewish point of view, should be welcomed. I believe German Jewry owes its continued existence to anti-Semitism.” -Albert Einstein, A. Engel translator, “How I became a Zionist”, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 57, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 234-235, at 235.

Einstein stated,

“Anti-Semitism will be a psychological phenomenon as long as Jews come in contact with non-Jews—what harm can there be in that? Perhaps it is due to anti-Semitism that we survive as a race: at least that is what I believe.”—Albert Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 37, Princeton University Press, (2002), p. 159.

Einstein was not an original thinker. In fact, Einstein was an habitual and psychopathic plagiarist. His views on “race” and segregation were first iterated by such prominent Jews as Spinoza and Theodor Herzl. They were cliches among racist Zionists.

In 1896, racist Zionist Theodor Herzl wrote his widely read book The Jewish State,

“Great exertions will not be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus. They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a love of emigration where it did not previously exist, and strengthen it where it existed before. I imagine that Governments will, either voluntarily or under pressure from the Anti-Semites, pay certain attention to this scheme; and they may perhaps actually receive it here and there with a sympathy which they will also show to the Society of Jews.”— T. Herzl, A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, The Maccabaean Publishing Co., New York, (1904), pp. 68, 93.

Einstein stated in 1938,

“Just what is a Jew?

The formation of groups has an invigorating effect in all spheres of human striving, perhaps mostly due to the struggle between the convictions and aims represented by the different groups. The Jews, too, form such a group with a definite character of its own, and anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jews by the Jewish group. This is a normal social reaction. But for the political abuse resulting from it, it might never have been designated by a special name.

What are the characteristics of the Jewish group? What, in the first place, is a Jew? There are no quick answers to this question. The most obvious answer would be the following: A Jew is a person professing the Jewish faith. The superficial character of this answer is easily recognized by means of a simple parallel. Let us ask the question: What is a snail? An answer similar in kind to the one given above might be: A snail is an animal inhabiting a snail shell. This answer is not altogether incorrect; nor, to be sure, is it exhaustive; for the snail shell happens to be but one of the material products of the snail. Similarly, the Jewish faith is but one of the characteristic products of the Jewish community. It is, furthermore, known that a snail can shed its shell without thereby ceasing to be a snail. The Jew who abandons his faith (in the formal sense of the word) is in a similar position. He remains a Jew.

OPPRESSION IS A STIMULUS

Perhaps even more than on its own tradition, the Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world. Here undoubtedly lies one of the main reasons for its continued existence through so many thousands of years.” -A. Einstein, “Why do They Hate the Jews?”, Collier’s, Volume 102, (26 November 1938); reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), pp. 191-198, at 194, 196. Einstein expressed himself in a similar way to Peter A. Bucky, P. A. Bucky, Einstein, and A. G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, (1992), p. 87.

Albert Einstein was parroting racist political Zionist leader Theodor Herzl, who wrote in his book The Jewish State,

“Oppression and persecution cannot exterminate us. No nation on earth has survived such struggles and sufferings as we have gone through. Jew-baiting has merely stripped off our weaklings; the strong among us were invariably true to their race when persecution broke out against them. This attitude was most clearly apparent in the period immediately following the emancipation of the Jews. Later on, those who rose to a higher degree of intelligence and to a better worldly position lost their communal feeling to a very great extent. Wherever our political well-being has lasted for any length of time, we have assimilated with our surroundings. I think this is not discreditable. Hence, the statesman who would wish to see a Jewish strain in his nation would have to provide for the duration of our political well-being; and even Bismarck could not do that. The Governments of all countries scourged by Anti-Semitism will serve their own interests in assisting us to obtain the sovereignty we want. Great exertions will not be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus. They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a love of emigration where it did not previously exist, and strengthen it where it existed before. I imagine that Governments will, either voluntarily or under pressure from the Anti-Semites, pay certain attention to this scheme; and they may perhaps actually receive it here and there with a sympathy which they will also show to the Society of Jews.” -T. Herzl, A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, The Maccabaean Publishing Co., New York, (1904), pp. 5-6, 25, 68, 93.

In 1938, Einstein stated in his essay “Our Debt to Zionism”,

“Rarely since the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus has the Jewish community experienced a period of greater oppression than prevails at the present time. Yet we shall survive this period too, no matter how much sorrow, no matter how heavy a loss in life it may bring. A community like ours, which is a community purely by reason of tradition, can only be strengthened by pressure from without.” -A. Einstein, “Our Debt to Zionism”, Out of My Later Years, Carol Publishing Group, New York, (1995), pp. 262-264, at 262.

Theodor Herzl wrote,

“What would you say, for example, if I did not deny there are good aspects of anti-Semitism? I say that anti-Semitism will educate the Jews. In fifty years, if we still have the same social order, it will have brought forth a fine and presentable generation of Jews, endowed with a delicate, extremely sensitive feeling for honor and the like.” -Theodor Herzl, as quoted by Amos Elon, Herzl, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, (1975), pp. 114-115.

Herzl also stated,

“In the beginning we shall be supported by anti-Semites through a recrudescence* of persecution (for I am convinced that they do not expect success and will want to exploit their ‘conquest.’)”—T. Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 56.

Herzl believed,

“The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”—T. Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 84.

Herzl declared the virtue and justice, in his racist mind, of anti-Semitism,

“[W]e want to let respectable anti-Semites participate in our project. Present-day anti-Semitism can only in a very few places be taken for the old religious intolerance. For the most part it is a movement among civilized nations whereby they try to exorcise a ghost from out of their own past. The anti-Semites will have carried the day. Let them have this satisfaction, for we too shall be happy. They will have turned out to be right because they are right. They could not have let themselves be subjugated by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce, as thanks for generously having let us out of the ghetto. Let us never forget this magnanimous deed of the civilized nations. Thus, anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the divine Will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.”— T. Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), pp. 143, 171, 182, 231.

In 1897, Herzl told the First Zionist Congress,

“The feeling of communion, of which we have been so bitterly accused, had commenced to weaken when anti-Semitism attacked us. Anti-Semitism has restored it. We have, so to speak, gone home. Zionism is the return home of Judaism even before the return to the land of the Jews.”—”The Zionist Congress: Full Report of the Proceedings”, The Jewish Chronicle, (3 September 1897), pp. 10-15, at 11.

Racist Zionist Max Nordau wrote in 1905,

“Anti-Semitism has also taught many educated Jews the way back to their people.”—M. Nordau and G. Gottheil, Zionism and Anti-Semitism, Fox, Duffield & Company, (1905), p. 19.

Like Herzl, Einstein stated that Jews exercised undue influence in Germany. Einstein wrote in the Juedische Rundschau, on 21 June 1921, on pages 351-352,

“This phenomenon [i. e. anti-Semitism] in Germany is due to several causes. Partly it originates in the fact that the Jews there exercise an influence over the intellectual life of the German people altogether out of proportion to their number. While, in my opinion, the economic position of the German Jews is very much overrated, the influence of Jews on the Press, in literature, and in science in Germany is very marked, as must be apparent to even the most superficial observer. This accounts for the fact that there are many anti-Semites there who are not really anti-Semitic in the sense of being Jew-haters, and who are honest in their arguments. They regard Jews as of a nationality different from the German, and therefore are alarmed at the increasing Jewish influence on their national entity. But in Germany the judgment of my theory depended on the party politics of the Press.”—A. Einstein, “Jewish Nationalism and Anti-Semitism”, The Jewish Chronicle, (17 June 1921), p. 16.

Einstein’s Jewish racism made him disloyal to Germany and treacherous. On 8 July 1901, Einstein wrote,

“There is no exaggeration in what you said about the German professors. I have got to know another sad specimen of this kind — one of the foremost physicists of Germany.”—A. Einstein to J. Winteler, English translation by A. Beck, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 115, Princeton University Press, (1987), pp. 176-177, at 177.

Einstein wrote sometime after 1 January 1914,

“A free, unprejudiced look is not at all characteristic of the (adult) Germans (blinders!).”—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Beck, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 5, Document 499, Princeton University Press, (1995), pp. 373-374, at 374.

After the First World War, Einstein and some of his friends alluded to much earlier conversations with Einstein, where he had correctly predicted the eventual outcome of the war. In his diaries, Romain Rolland recorded his conversations with Einstein in Switzerland at their meeting of 16 September 1915,

“What I hear from [Einstein] is not exactly encouraging, for it shows the impossibility of arriving at a lasting peace with Germany without first totally crushing it. Einstein says the situation looks to him far less favorable than a few months back. The victories over Russia have reawakened German arrogance and appetite. The word ‘greedy’ seems to Einstein best to characterize Germany. Einstein does not expect any renewal of Germany out of itself; it lacks the energy for it, and the boldness for initiative. He hopes for a victory of the Allies, which would smash the power of Prussia and the dynasty. . . . Einstein and Zangger dream of a divided Germany—on the one side Southern Germany and Austria, on the other side Prussia. We speak of the deliberate blindness and the lack of psychology in the Germans.”—R. Romain, La Conscience de l’Europe, Volume 1, pp. 696ff. English translation from A. Foelsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), pp. 365-367. See also: Letter from A. Einstein to R. Romain of 15 September 1915, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 118, Princeton University Press, (1998); and Letter from A. Einstein to R. Romain of 22 August 1917, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 374, Princeton University Press, (1998).

Jews often sought to Balkanize nations so as to weaken the power of any faction within a nation and to create perpetual agitation between the nations which could be exploited for profit and other Jewish gains. For example, the Rothschilds created the American Civil War and profited from the debts it generated. They hoped to divide America into two nations and to pit these against one another. They were successful. Jews had long been pitting North German Protestants against South German and Austrian Catholics. Jews were the motivating force behind the Kulturkampf. After creating these divisions and promoting perpetual agitations amongst neighbors, Jewry could then fund one side against the other to destroy it whenever Jewry decided to wreck a given nation.

Einstein’s dreams during the First World War remind one of the “Carthaginian Peace” of the Henry Morgenthau, Jr. plan for the destruction of Germany following the Second World War. Morgenthau worked with Lord Cherwell (Frederick Alexander Lindemann), Churchill’s friend and advisor, who planned to bomb German civilian populations into submission. Lindemann studied under Einstein’s friend, Walther Nernst, who worked with Fritz Haber, a Jewish developer of poisonous gas. James Bacque argues that the Allies, under the direction of General Eisenhower, starved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of German prisoners of war to death. [J. Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II, Stoddart,Toronto, (1989).]

Einstein often spoke in genocidal and racist terms against Germany, and for the Jews and England, and he betrayed Germany before, during and after the war. Einstein’s Jewish treachery and that of other such Jewish traitors as Georg Bernhard, Theodor Wolff and Maximilian Harden, who “stabbed Germany in the back” during and after World War I, [briefly] contributed funding to Hitler’s political ascent.

Einstein wrote to Paul Ehrenfest on 22 March 1919,

“[The Allied Powers] whose victory during the war I had felt would be by far the lesser evil are now proving to be only slightly the lesser evil. I get most joy from the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine. It does seem to me that our kinfolk really are more sympathetic (at least less brutal) than these horrid Europeans. Perhaps things can only improve if only the Chinese are left, who refer to all Europeans with the collective noun ‘bandits.'”—Letter from A. Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest of 22 March 1919, English translation by A. Hentschel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 10, Princeton Univsersity Press, (2004), pp. 9-10, at 10.

While responsible people were trying to preserve some sanity in the turbulent period following World War I, racist Zionists including Albert Einstein sought to validate and encourage anti-Semitism. The Dreyfus Affair taught them that anti-Semitism had a powerful effect to unite Jews around the world.

Why, exactly? The Zionists were afraid that the “Jewish race” was disappearing through assimilation. They wanted to use anti-Semitism to force the segregation of Jews from Gentiles and to unite Jews, and thereby preserve the Jewish race. They hoped that if they could fund a strong leader’s ascent to power—as Zionists had done in the past, they could use him to herd up the Jews of Europe and force these Jews into Palestine against their will. This would also help the Zionists to inspire distrust of, and contempt for, Gentile government, while giving the Zionists the moral high-ground in international affairs, despite the fact that the Zionists were secretly behind the atrocities.

Albert Einstein wrote to Max Born on 9 November 1919. In this letter, Einstein encouraged anti-Semitism and advocated segregation (one must wonder what role Albert’s increasing racism played in his divorce from Mileva Maric, who was a Gentile Serb whom Einstein’s mother hated),

“Antisemitism must be seen as a real thing, based on true hereditary qualities, even if for us Jews it is often unpleasant. I could well imagine that I myself would choose a Jew as my companion, given the choice. On the other hand I would consider it reasonable for the Jews themselves to collect the money to support Jewish research workers outside the universities and to provide them with teaching opportunities.”—M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 16.

In 1933, the Zionists publicly declared their [temporal strategic] alliance with the Nazis. They wrote in the Juedische Rundshau on 13 June 1933,

“Zionism recognizes the existence of the Jewish question and wants to solve it in a generous and constructive manner. For this purpose, it wants to enlist the aid of all peoples; those who are friendly to the Jews as well as those who are hostile to them, since according to its conception, this is not a question of sentimentality, but one dealing with a real problem in whose solution all peoples are interested.”—English translation in: K. Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number 3/4, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 59.

On 21 June 1933, the Zionists issued a [short-lived] declaration of their position with respect to the Nazi regime, in which they expressed a belief in the legitimacy of the Nazis’ racist belief system and condemned anti-Fascist forces. [See: L. S. Dawidowicz, “The Zionist Federation of Germany Addresses the New German State”, A Holocaust Reader, Behrman House, Inc., West Orange, New Jersey, (1976), pp. 150-155. See also: H. Tramer, Editor, S. Moses, In zwei Welten: Siegfried Moses zum fuenfundsiebzigsten Geburtstag, Verlag Bitaon, Tel-Aviv, (1962), pp. 118.ff; cited in K. Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number 3/4, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 59.]

Einstein’s close friend and collaborator Michele Besso wrote that it might have been Albert Einstein’s racism and bigotry which caused him to separate from his first wife Mileva Maric in 1914. Besso wrote to Einstein on 17 January 1928,

“[. . .]perhaps it is due in part to me, with my defense of Judaism and the Jewish family, that your family life took the turn that it did, and that I had to bring Mileva from Berlin to Zurich[.]”—English translation quoted from J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, Basel, Berlin, (2002), pp. 57-83, at 78. Stachel cites M. Besso, A. Einstein, Correspondance, 1903-1955, Hermann, Paris, (1972), p. 238.

The hypocrisy of racist Zionists often manifested itself. Einstein was but one of many racist Zionist Jews who was married, at least for a time, to a Gentile of European descent. As another example, consider the fact that racist Zionist Moses Hess was married to a Christian Gentile prostitute named Sybille Pritsch.

Einstein may have been affected by his mother’s early racist opposition to his relationship with Maric. Another factor in the Einsteins’ divorce was, of course, Albert’s incestuous relationship with his cousin Else Einstein, and his desire to bed her daughters, as well as Albert’s general promiscuity—some believe he was a syphilitic whore monger.

Albert Einstein opposed his sister Maja’s marriage to the Gentile Paul Winteler on racist grounds and thought that they should divorce. Albert Einstein wrote to Michele Besso on 12 December 1919 and stated that,

“No mixed marriages are any good (Anna says: oh!)”—Letter from A. Einstein to M. Besso of 12 December 1919, English translation by A. Hentschel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 207, Princeton University Press, (2004), pp. 178-179, at 179.

Besso was married to a Gentile, Anna Besso-Winteler. Denis Brian wrote,

“When asked what he thought of Jews marrying non-Jews, which, of course, had been the case with him and Mileva, [Albert Einstein] replied with a laugh, ‘It’s dangerous, but then all marriages are dangerous.'”—D. Brian, The Unexpected Einstein: The Real Man Behind the Icon, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, (2005), p. 42.

On 3 April 1920, Einstein wrote, criticizing assimilationist Jews,

And this is precisely what he does not want to reveal in his confession. He talks about religious faith instead of tribal affiliation, of ‘Mosaic’ instead of ‘Jewish,’ because the latter term, which is much more familiar to him, would emphasize affiliation to his tribe.“—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 34, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 153-155, at 153.

After declaring that Jewish children segregate due to natural forces and that they are “different from other children”, Einstein continued his 3 April 1920 statement,

“With adults it is quite similar as with children. Due to race and temperament as well as traditions (which are only to a small extent of religious origin) they form a community more or less separate from non-Jews. It is this basic community of race and tradition that I have in mind when I speak of ‘Jewish nationality.’ In my opinion, aversion to Jews is simply based upon the fact that Jews and non-Jews are different. Where feelings are sufficiently vivid there is no shortage of reasons; and the feeling of aversion toward people of a foreign race with whom one has, more or less, to share daily life will emerge by necessity.”—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 34, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 153-155, at 153-154.

Einstein made similar comments in a document dated sometime “after 3 April 1920”. Einstein was in agreement with Philipp Lenard that a “Jewish heritage” (read for “heritage”, “racial instinct”) could be seen in intellectual works published by Jews. Einstein stated,

“The psychological root of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that the Jews are a group of people unto themselves. Their Jewishness is visible in their physical appearance, and one notices their Jewish heritage in their intellectual works, and one can sense that there are among them deep connections in their disposition and numerous possibilities of communicating that are based on the same way of thinking and of feeling. The Jewish child is already aware of these differences as soon as it starts school. Jewish children feel the resentment that grows out of an instinctive suspicion of their strangeness that naturally is often met with a closing of the ranks. [Jews] are the target of instinctive resentment because they are of a different tribe than the majority of the population.”—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 35, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 156-157.

Albert Einstein often referred to Jews as “tribesmen” and Jewry as the “tribe”. Fellow German Jew Fritz Haber was outraged at Albert Einstein’s racist treachery and disloyalty. Einstein confirmed that he was disloyal and a racist, and was obligated,

“[. . .] to step in for my persecuted and morally depressed fellow tribesmen, as far as this lies within my power[.]”—A. Einstein quoted in: H. Gutfreund, “Albert Einstein and the Hebrew University”, J. Renn, Editor, Albert Einstein Chief Engineer of the Universe: One Hundred Authors for Einstein, Wiley-VCH, Berlin, (2005), pp. 314-318, at 316.

Einstein bore no such loyalty to Germans, who had fed him and made him famous. In fact, Einstein wanted to exterminate Gentile Germans.

In a draft letter of 3 April 1920, Einstein wrote that children are conscious of “racial characteristics” and that this alleged “racial” gulf between children results in conflicts, which instill a sense of foreigness in the persecuted child (original text directly below):

“Unter den Kindern war besonders in der Volksschule der Antisemitismus lebendig. Er gruendete ich auf die den Kindern merkwuerdig bewussten Rassenmerkmale und auf Eindruecke im Religionsunterricht. Thaetliche Angriffe und Beschimpfungen auf dem Schulwege waren haeufig, aber meist nicht gar zu boesartig. Sie genuegten immerhin, um ein lebhaftes Gefuehl des Fremdseins schon im Kinde zu befestigen.”—Letter from A. Einstein to P. Nathan of 3 April 1920, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 366, Princeton University Press, (2004), p. 492. Also: The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. lx, note 44.

Like Adolf Stoecker before him, [See: P. W. Massing, Rehearsal for Destruction: A Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany, Howard Fertig, New York, (1967), pp. 278-294.] Albert Einstein advocated the segregation of Jewish students. Peter A. Bucky quoted Albert Einstein,

“I think that Jewish students should have their own student societies. One way that it won’t be solved is for Jewish people to take on Christian fashions and manners. In this way, it is entirely possible to be a civilized person, a good citizen, and at the same time be a faithful Jew who loves his race and honors his fathers.”—P. A. Bucky, Einstein, and A. G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, (1992), p. 88.

Einstein also (reasonably) stated,

“We must be conscious of our alien race and draw the logical conclusions from it. We must have our own students’ societies and adopt an attitude of courteous but consistent reserve to the Gentiles. [***] It is possible to be a faithful Jew who loves his race and honours his fathers.”—A. Einstein, The World As I See It, Citadel, New York, (1993), pp. 107-108.

Einstein had a reputation as a rabid anti-assimilationist. He was an ardent Jewish segregationist. Here again Einstein merely parroted the racist anti-assmilationism of his Zionist predecessors, like Solomon Schechter, who dreaded assimilation more than pogroms—and one notes that Zionists encouraged pogroms in order to discourage assimilation.

Others repeated Theodor Herzl’s theme, that Jews could not assimilate, because the presence of Jews in a host nation ultimately led to anti-Semitism due to Jewish parasitism—according to Herzl. Hilaire Belloc was a strong advocate of the view that Jews should not integrate. Belloc published a book on the subject entitled The Jews in 1922, and expressed similar convictions in G. K.’s Weekly in the 1930’s. Belloc wrote biographies of men who had fallen under the influence of Zionists, like Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon. Belloc, however, was strongly opposed to Nazism. Douglas Reed took a similar Zionist stance on the alleged unassimilability of Jews in the late 1930’s, though he later opposed Zionism. [See: D. Reed, Disgrace Abounding, Jonathan Cape, London, (1939).]

Racist Zionist Solomon Schecter stated, in harmony with numerous political Zionists, though in opposition to the vast majority of Jews,

“It is this kind of assimilation [the death of a “race” through integration], with the terrible consequences indicated, that I dread most; even more than pogroms.”—S. Schechter, Zionism: A Statement, Federation of American Zionists, New York, (1906); reprinted in the relevant part in A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), p. 507.

On 15 March 1921, Kurt Blumenfeld wrote to Chaim Weizmann,

“Einstein is interested in our cause most strongly because of his revulsion from assimilatory Jewry.”—J. Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 79, note 41.

Einstein stated in 1921,

“To deny the Jew’s nationality in the Diaspora is, indeed, deplorable. If one adopts the point of view of confining Jewish ethnical nationalism to Palestine, then one, to all intents and purposes, denies the existence of a Jewish people. In that case one should have the courage to carry through, in the quickest and most complete manner, entire assimilation. We live in a time of intense and perhaps exaggerated nationalism. But my Zionism does not exclude in me cosmopolitan views. I believe in the actuality of Jewish nationality, and I believe that every Jew has duties towards his coreligionists. [T]he principal point is that Zionism must tend to strengthen the dignity and self-respect of the Jews in the Diaspora. I have always been annoyed by the undignified assimilationist cravings and strivings which I have observed in so many of my friends.”—A. Einstein, “Jewish Nationalism and Anti-Semitism”, The Jewish Chronicle, (17 June 1921), p. 16.

In 1921, Einstein declared, referring to Eastern European Jews,

“These men and women retain a healthy national feeling; it has not yet been destroyed by the process of atomisation and dispersion.”—J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 65. Stachel cites, About Zionism: Speeches and Letters, Macmillan, New York, (1931), pp. 48-49. For Zionist Ha-Am’s use of the image of atomisation and dispersion, see: A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), p. 276.

On 1 July 1921, Einstein was quoted in the Juedische Rundshau on page 371,

“Let us take brief look at the development of German Jews over the last hundred years. With few exceptions, one hundred years ago our forefathers still lived in the Ghetto. They were poor and separated from the Gentiles by a wall of religious tradition, secular lifestyles and statutory confinement and were confined in their spiritual development to their own literature, only relatively weakly influenced by the forceful progress which intellectual life in Europe had undergone in the Renaissance. However, these little noticed, modestly living people had one thing over us: Every one of them belonged with all his heart to a community, into which he was incorporated, in which he felt a worthwhile member, in which nothing was asked of him which conflicted with his normal processes of thought. Our forefathers of that era were pretty pathetic both bodily and spiritually, but—in social relations—in an enviable state of mental equilibrium. Then came emancipation. It offered undreamt of opportunities for advancement. The isolated individual quickly found their way into the upper financial and social circles of society. They eagerly absorbed the great achievements of art and science which the Occidentals had created. They contributed to the development with passionate affection, and themselves made contributions of lasting value. They thereby took on the lifestyle of the Gentile world, turning away from their religious and social traditions in growing masses—took on Gentile customs, manners and mentality. It appeared as if they were being completely dissolved into the numerically superior, politically and culturally better organized host peoples, such that no trace of them would be left after a few generations. The complete eradication of the Jewish nationality in Middle and Western Europe appeared to be inevitable. However, it didn’t turn out that way. It appears that racially distinct nations have instincts which work against interbreeding. The adaptation of the Jews to the European peoples among whom they have lived in language, customs and indeed even partially in religious practices was unable to eliminate all feelings of foreignness which exist between Jews and their European host peoples. In short, this spontaneous feeling of foreignness is ultimately due to a loss of energy. For this reason, not even well-meant arguments can eradicate it. Nationalities do not want to be mixed together, rather they want to go their own separate ways. A state of peace can only be achieved by mutual tolerance and respect.”

Einstein stated that Jews should not participate in the German Government,

“I regretted the fact that [Rathenau] became a Minister. In view of the attitude which large numbers of the educated classes in Germany assume towards the Jews, I have always thought that their natural conduct in public should be one of proud reserve.”—R. W. Clarck, Einstein, the Life and Times, World Publishing Company, USA, (1971), p. 292. Clarck refers to: Neue Rundschau, Volume 33, Part 2, pp. 815-816.

Einstein merely parroted the Zionist Party line. Werner E. Mosse wrote,

“While the leaders of the CV saw it as their special duty to represent the interests of the German Jews in the active political struggle, Zionism stood for. . . systematic Jewish non-participation in German public life. It rejected as a matter of principle any participation in the struggle led by the CV.”—W. E. Mosse, “Die Niedergang der deutschen Republik und die Juden”, The Crucial Year 1932, p. 38; English translation in: K. Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number 3/4, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 56-57.

In 1925, Einstein wrote in the official Zionist organ Juedische Rundschau,

“By study of their past, by a better understanding of the spirit [Geist] that accords with their race, they must learn to know anew the mission that they are capable of fulfilling. What one must be thankful to Zionism for is the fact that it is the only movement that has given many Jews a justified pride, that it has once again given a despairing race the necessary faith, if I may so express myself, given new flesh to an exhausted people.”—English translation by John Stachel in J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 67. Stachel cites, “Botschaft”, Juedische Rundschau, Volume 30, (1925), p. 129; French translation, La Revue Juive, Volume 1, (1925), pp. 14-16.

On 12 October 1929, Albert Einstein wrote to the Manchester Guardian,

“In the re-establishment of the Jewish nation in the ancient home of the race, where Jewish spiritual values could again be developed in a Jewish atmosphere, the most enlightened representatives of Jewish individuality see the essential preliminary to the regeneration of the race and the setting free of its spiritual creativeness.”—J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 65. Stachel cites, About Zionism: Speeches and Letters, Macmillan, New York, (1931), pp. 78-79.

Einstein’s overt racism eventually waned, but he continued to express his segregationist philosophy in the same terms as the anti-Semites, as well as his belief that Jews “thrived on” and owed their “continued existence” to anti-Semitism. Einstein stated in December of 1930 to an American audience,

“There is something indefinable which holds the Jews together. Race does not make much for solidarity. Here in America you have many races, and yet you have the solidarity. Race is not the cause of the Jews’ solidarity, nor is their religion. It is something else—which is indefinable.”—A. Einstein quoted in “Einstein on Arrival Braves Limelight for Only 15 Minutes”, The New York Times, (12 December 1930), pp. 1, 16, at 16.

Einstein’s confusing (i.e., conflicting) public statement perhaps resulted from his desire to promote multi-culturalism in America, which had the benefit of freeing up Jewish immigration to the United States. [See: E. A. Ross, The Old World in the New: The Significance of past and Present Immigration to the American People, Century Company, New York, (1914), p. 144.] Einstein was also likely parroting, or trying to parrot, a fellow anti-assimilationist political Zionist whose pamphlet was well known in America, Solomon Schechter and his Zionism: A Statement, Federation of American Zionists, New York, (1906), in which Schechter states, among other things,

“Zionism is an ideal, and as such is indefinable.”—Reprinted in the relevant part in A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), p. 505.

Einstein avowed, circa 3 April 1920, that,

“If what anti-Semites claim were true, then indeed there would be nothing weaker, more wretched, and unfit for life, than the German people”—A. Einstein [and indeed, he promoted their destruction], English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 35, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 156-157.

Einstein often avowed that the anti-Semites’ beliefs were true, and, hence, Einstein wished the Germans dead. When discussing the meaning of life, Einstein spoke to Peter A. Bucky about persons and creatures who “[do] not deserve to be in our world” and are “hardly fit for life.” [P. A. Bucky, Einstein, and A. G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, (1992), p. 111.]

Einstein’s language reflects that of his enemy’s “Euthanasia-Programme”. After disloyally siding with Germany’s enemies in the First World War (while residing in Germany himself), after intentionally provoking Germans into increased anti-Semitism, which he thought was good for Jews, and after defaming German Nobel Prize laureates in the international press to the point where they felt obliged to join Hitler’s cause in Europe, Einstein sponsored the production of terrible weapons to mass murder Germans, whom he had hated all of his life, in the famous letter to President Roosevelt that Einstein signed urging Roosevelt to begin the development of atomic bombs. [Cf. A. Unsoeld, “Albert Einstein — Ein Jahr danach”, Physikalische Blaetter, Volume 36, (1980), pp.337-339; and Volume 37, Number 7, (1981), p. 229.]

Einstein callously asserted that the use of atomic bombs on civilian populations was “morally justified”.

I quote Einstein,

“It should not be forgotten that the atomic bomb was made in this country as a preventive measure; it was to head off its use by the Germans, if they discovered it. The bombing of civilian centers was initiated by the Germans [edit: false] and adopted by the Japanese. To it the Allies responded in kind—as it turned out, with greater effectiveness—and they were morally justified in doing so.”—A. Einstein, “Atomic War or Peace”, Atlantic Monthly, (November, 1945, and November 1947); as reprinted in: A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), p. 125.

Einstein advocated genocidal collective punishment,

“The Germans as an entire people are responsible for these mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely.”—A. Einstein, “To the Heroes of the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto”, Bulletin of the Society of Polish Jews, New York, (1944), reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), pp. 212-213.

Einstein also stated,

“It is possible either to destroy the German people or keep them suppressed; it is not possible to educate them to think and act along democratic lines in the foreseeable future.”—A. Einstein, quoted in O. Nathan and H. Norton, Einstein on Peace, Avenel Books, New York, (1981), p. 331.

Albrecht Foelsing has assembled a compilation of post-WW II quotations from Einstein, which evince Einstein’s lifelong habit of stereotyping people based on their ethnicity. Einstein expressed his hatred to Max Born,

“With the Germans having murdered my Jewish brethren in Europe, I do not wish to have anything more to do with Germans, not even with a relatively harmless Academy. The crimes of the Germans are really the most hideous that the history of the so-called civilized nations has to show. [It was] evident that a proud Jew no longer wishes to be connected with any kind of German official event or institution. After the mass murder committed by the Germans against my Jewish brethren I do not wish any publications of mine to appear in Germany.”—A. Einstein quoted in A. Foelsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), pp. 727-728.

Einstein wrote to Born on 15 September 1950 that his views towards Germans predated the Nazi period,

“I have not changed my attitude to the Germans, which, by the way, dates not just from the Nazi period. All human beings are more or less the same from birth. The Germans, however, have a far more dangerous tradition than any of the other so-called civilized nations. The present behavior of these other nations towards the Germans merely proves to me how little human beings learn even from their most painful experiences.”—A. Einstein quoted in M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 189.

On learning that Born would return to Germany, Einstein wrote on 12 October 1953,

“If anyone can be held responsible for the fact that you are migrating back to the land of the mass-murderers of our kinsmen, it is certainly your adopted fatherland — universally notorious for its parsimony.”—A. Einstein quoted in M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 199.

Einstein’s statements and those of other like-minded racist Zionists threw fuel on the fire, which was initially kindled and maintained by crypto-Jews. The Einsteinian Zionist promotion of anti-Semitism (and his condemnation of anti-Semitism once it has, in part, helped to fulfill the agenda of his people) is reflective of the spirit and tone enunciated in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Number 9, which states,

“Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us, it is only pro forma at our discretion, and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us, for the management of our lesser brethren.”—L. Fry, Waters Flowing Eastward: The War Against the Kingship of Christ, TBR Books, Washington, D. C., (2000), p. 137.

More on Einstein’s racism can be found in the book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein which is available for free online at: http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm
——————————————————
Albert Einstein: was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?

ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as “a rare genius,” who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as ‘The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,’ he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.

THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary — he stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a ‘hero.’

When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only ‘brilliance’ was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein’s education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein’s early education that he “showed little scholastic ability.” It also says that at the age of 15, “with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma.” Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his “lack of imagination and practical ability.” In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.

This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school!

Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant that he was not competent to hold a higher qualified position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.

He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the myth.

Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.

Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education. THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.

Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by Einstein’s worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which would change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the following four ideas, respectively:

1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4. The special theory of relativity.

Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come in 1915).

This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based upon two premises:

1. In the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same for all observers; and
2. Since the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source, then the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur at different places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in the same place.

This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one’s velocity approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time would pass faster.

This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being originally Einstein’s. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS A CONSTANT AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT EINSTEIN’S AT ALL, BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL in 1878.

Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.

James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.

This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not understand relativity.

They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light. In response to this problem, in 1880, the Irish physicist George Fitzgerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the Michelson Morley experiment could be explained if, “. . . the length of material bodies change, according as they are moving through the either or across it by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light.”

THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 13 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN’S PAPER!

FURTHER . . . IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890’s, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein’s Special Theory detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.

In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein’s paper. By 1904, “Lorentz transformations,” the series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904, everything in “Einstein’s paper” regarding the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.

The Frenchman Poincaré‚ had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein’s paper: “. . . we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible.”

Professor Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian, of the University of Perugia claims that Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903. Einstein allegedly used De Pretto’s insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto’s Royal Science Institute, but the equation’s significance was not understood.

According to Professor Bartocci, a Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto’s contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century’s most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.

“De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it’s impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto’s research,” said Professor Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject. ( The Guardian Unlimited).

Anyone who has read Einstein’s 1905 paper will immediately recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.

Thus, we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term ‘Special Theory of Relativity.’ EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the next few years, Poincaré‚ became one of the most important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein.

Thus while Poincaré‚ was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein’s work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a fraud.

This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein’s 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.

The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein’s 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.

The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc2. Einstein’s biographers categorize this as “his most famous and most spectacular conclusion.” Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein’s earlier relativity paper, it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.

That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J. J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré‚ had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein’s plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era.

Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.

Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell’s work, they just did not believe it.

THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL’S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments.

In this same plagiarized article of Einstein’s, he suggested to the scientific community, “Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium).”

This remark demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic scientific principles, and that he was writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment “lies beyond the realm of possible experience.”

The last subject dealt with in Einstein’s 1905 papers was the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.

But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein’s paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon.

Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough.

Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien’s work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein’s work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy — light energy. But the principles and equations governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck’s work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein’s was original.

After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position at a school.

Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety. With Einstein’s academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a position where he could begin to use other people’s work as his own more openly.

He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least take partial credit.

In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.

BUT THE MATHEMATICAL WORK WAS NOT DONE BY EINSTEIN — HE WAS INCAPABLE OF IT. Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe relativity.

The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect.

It appears that Grossmann was not intelligent enough to figure it out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its publication that he, “completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein.” He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area of calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of Relativity for Einstein.

Einstein’s statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert’s and Klein’s opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their thinking.

However, the exact opposite is true. EINSTEIN STOLE THE MAJORITY OF HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY WORK FROM THESE TWO MEN, THE REST BEING TAKEN FROM GROSSMANN. HILBERT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION, A WEEK BEFORE EINSTEIN COMPLETED HIS WORK, A PAPER WHICH CONTAINED THE CORRECT FIELD EQUATIONS, OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.

What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an opportunity to know of Hilbert’s work all along, because there were friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen Hilbert’s paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a lecture.

Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.

Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE PUNCH. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get him to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein this draft copy, but he still managed to deliver his work first.

Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher quality than Einstein’s. It is known today that there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein’s General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert’s paper is the forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.

That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along. In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that “before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory of relativity.” However the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but promoted, instead, the work of the Jew Albert Einstein.

As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the Jew-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.

On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of which proclaimed, “Revolution in science — New theory of the Universe — Newtonian ideas overthrown.” This was the beginning of the force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein’s earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, EINSTEIN RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR THE WORK HE HAD STOLEN IN 1905 REGARDING THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.

The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be today.

As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism. The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.

This is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather’s two middle names were ‘Fürchtegott Leberecht’ or ‘Fear God, Live Right.’ In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in the German newspapers. So, the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved.

The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved, either. This German’s grandfather and great-grandfather had been important German theologians, and during World War II he would stay in Germany throughout the war, supporting his fatherland the best he could.

The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian’s work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who apparently could not understand it.

The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare genius, even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and contribute to it greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding energies that are essential to modern chemistry.

NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED AS A GENIUS BECAUSE HE WOULD GO ON TO HEAD GERMAN ATOMIC RESEARCH AND SERVE PRISON TIME AFTER THE WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH.

No, the Jews did not want to give credit to a number of deserving Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work.

Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein gave an “emphatic denial” regarding the idea of practical applications for the “energy of the atom.” The article says, “But the ‘energy of the atom’ is something else again. If you believe that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energy-to drive a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for instance – then, according to Einstein, you are wrong”

Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.

But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began his real purpose – evangelizing for the cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish other articles after this time, all of them were co-authored by at least one other person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.

In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States on a fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to promote Zionism. In April of 1922, Einstein used his status to gain membership in a Commission of the League of Nations. In February of 1923, Einstein visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he became a founding member of the Association of Friends of the New Russia. In 1926, Einstein took a break from his Communist and Zionist activities to again embarrass himself scientifically by criticizing the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Following a brief illness, he resumed his Zionist agenda, wanting an independent Israel and at the same time a World Government.

In the 1930s he actively campaigns against all forms of war, although he would reverse this position during World War II when he advocated war against Germany and for the creation of the atomic bomb, which he earlier thought was impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the request of other Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt urging an American program to develop an atomic bomb to be used on Germany – not Japan. Einstein would have no part in the actual construction of the bomb, theoretical or practical, because he lacked the skills for either.

In December of 1946, Einstein rekindled his efforts for a World Government, with Israel apparently being the only autonomous nation. This push continued through the rest of the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein, who had been instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, both politically and economically, was offered the presidency of Israel. He declined. In 1953, he spent his time attacking the McCarthy Committee, and he supported Communist Jews such as Robert Oppenheimer. He encouraged civil disobedience in response to the McCarthy trials. Finally, on April 18, 1955, this Jewish demagogue died.

Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making unintelligent statements. His death was just the beginning of his usage and exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-controlled media continued to promote the myth of this super-Jew long after his death, and as more and more of the men who knew better died off, the Jews were more and more able to aggrandize his myth and lie more boldly. This brazen lying has culminated in the Jew-controlled Time Magazine naming Einstein “Person of the Century”.

Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the “Person of the Century,” Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named “Man of the Year” while he was still living by Time Magazine, and according to a December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen over Adolf Hitler because of the perceived “nasty public relations fallout” that would accompany that choice; yet in internet polling by Time, Hitler finished third and was the top serious candidate. Still the issue of Time Magazine dedicated to Einstein, which has articles by men with names like Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt, is interesting to read. For one, they found it necessary to include an article rationalizing why they did not pick the obvious choice, Adolf Hitler. But more interesting is the article by Stephen Hawking which purports to be a history of the theory of relativity. In it, Hawking admits many things in this article, such as the fact that Hilbert published the General Theory of Relativity before Einstein and that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of relativity long before Einstein. Hawking also writes:

“Einstein was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich, who developed a new picture of reality called quantum mechanics. Einstein was horrified by this. Most scientists, however, accepted the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed excellent agreement with observations. They are the basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular biology and electronics and the foundation of the technology that has transformed the world in the past half-century”.

This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits Einstein with all of the modern developments that Hawking technically attributed to others, even through Einstein was so foolish as to be vehemently against the most important idea of modern science, just as he opposed Schrödinger’s work in unified field theory which was far ahead of its time. The same magazine admits that “success eluded” Einstein in the field of explaining the contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics. Today, these contradictions are explained by the unified field theory, but Einstein, who proved himself to be one of the least intelligent of 20th century scientists, refused to believe in either quantum theory or the unified field theory.

To name Einstein as “The Person of the Century” is one of the most ludicrous and absurd lies of all time, yet it has been successfully pulled off by Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and the Jewish owners of Time Magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give the title to an inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or Heisenberg. If they wanted to give it to the scientist who most fundamentally changed the lands 20th century science, then the obvious choice would be William Shockley. This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the transistor, which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs and watches, to the amazing computers which have allowed incomprehensible advances in all fields of science. Without the transistor, all forms of science today would be basically in the same place that they were in the late 1940s.

However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to William Shockley because he spent the majority of his scientific career demonstrating the genetic and mental inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the Jews to financially destroy Shockley who founded Shockley Semiconductor the first company in Silicon Valley, his hometown, to develop computer chips. The Jews hired away his entire staff and used them to start Fairchild semiconductor in 1957 (co-founded by the “Traitorous Eight”: Julius Blank, Victor Grinich, Jean Hoerni, Gene Kleiner, Jay Last, Gordon Moore, Robert Noyce and Sheldon Roberts. Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore left Fairchild in 1968 to found Intelco. Many other Fairchild employees later the company – later called Intel.

No, the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses of our time be recognized, not Henry Ford, not the great German scientists who helped the National Socialists in Germany, not Charles Lindbergh, who was sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and certainly not William Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists and geneticists of our time. Instead, the Jews propped up the Zionist, Communist Albert Einstein, who detested everything European-derived.

After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the White Race and of the Germans in particular in the following statements. He was asked what he thought about Germany and about re-educating the Germans after the war and said:

“The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since 1870. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. The Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting”.

Einstein here is advocating the murder of Germans, because he feels that this is the only way that they can be reformed. He is right about one thing, the Germans did knowingly support the cause of National Socialism, but what Einstein is attacking is Christianity, because it was Christianity that led the German people to overwhelmingly support National Socialism in its rise to power. It was the German Christian Faith Movement and the Christian Social Party of men like Karl Lueger that led the German people to their understanding of Jews. The Jew Daniel Goldhagen has recently shown the Christian basis of early National Socialism in his book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, and the book Why The Jews? by Prager and Telushkin similarly proves the Christian origins of what the Jews call ‘anti-Semitism.’ Einstein understood this and Einstein, like all Jews, detested Christianity. So what Einstein was really advocating was the killing and constraining of all true Christians, not just Germans Christians. This is the true purpose and intent of Zionism and the demagogue Einstein was merely a tool of World Zionism and Jewry towards this end.

Zionistic Jews understand that true, primitive Christianity is the mortal enemy of mongrel Judaism. This is why the Jews, like Einstein, hated Nazi Germany so much, for National Socialist Germany advocated primitive, positive Christianity in the 24th point of its Party Platform.

Lewis L. Strauss, the Zionist Chairman of the US Atomic Commission, must have had in mind storing the world stock of A and H bombs in the once-neutral State of Israel (also chosen for the United Nations’ permanent headquarters) for safekeeping to ‘satisfy Russian demands,’ when, as reported in the London Jewish Chronicle of 11th December, 1953, he ‘assisted’ President Eisenhower in writing the speech in which Eisenhower told the UN General Assembly that the USA would be prepared to ease international tension by handing over her Atom and Hydrogen weapons to UNO. Eisenhower does not hesitate to accept the advice of Strauss, although this Zionist financier is senior partner in the New York International Banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. which in 1917, under the direction of Jacob Schiff, then the acknowledged leader of world Jewry, financed the Bolshevist revolutionary Trotsky to the extent of 20 million dollars.

Albert Einstein, the Zionist scientist, (described by Pravda as one of the ten best friends of the Soviet Union in the United States) was also thinking along the same lines when he persuaded Roosevelt (Redfield) to authorize research into nuclear fission, and recommended the employment of other Zionist scientists, who were later to pass the result of their research to the Soviet Union.

Robert Oppenheimer, the chief Einstein appointee, now in disgrace for Communist sympathies, and holding up production of the hydrogen bombs until Russia came into possession of its secrets: Pontecorvo, the entire host of Zionist scientists and agents working for Communism in the notorious spy rings of America, Canada, Australia and Great Britain: all have obviously been striving to bring about the present situation.

It is this overriding ambition which drives Zionists, even the most wealthy, to support Communism, either openly or secretly, only to bring the world to a point where it would seem it must accept their long envisaged ‘peace plan.’ “One of the major reasons for my visit to the United States,” said the mayor of Jerusalem, according to the South African Jewish Times of 14th March, 1952, “is to interest Americans in the beautification of Jerusalem, the Capital of the World, no less than the Capital of Israel.”

It has been decided as described above. Why has so little been heard about it? For the simple reason that IT HAS BEEN DECIDED. The matter will not be thrown open for Gentile discussion in the popular press UNTIL the Nations are browbeaten to the point that they are ready to acknowledge the Zionists’ “International Super-Government” in a state of total subservience.

(Note: On November 21, 1954, Czecho-Slovakia called upon the Western Powers to delay signing the Paris Agreement regarding the re-armament of West Germany, until they had discussed with the Russian bloc an agreement which might eventually result in a United States of Europe. A ‘United States of Europe’ was the aim of Trotsky stated in Bolshevism and World Peace, published in 1918. “The task of the proletariat is to create a still more powerful fatherland with a far greater power of resistance – the Republican United States of Europe, as the foundation of the United States of the World”).

Jews have been heavily overrepresented among the ranks of theoretical physicists. This conclusion remains true even though Einstein, the leading figure among Jewish physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist (Fölsing 1997, 494505), opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of mimicry (p. 490), preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his tribal companions (p. 489), embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia typical of so many Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s (pp. 6445), and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I, when Jewish interests were not at stake, to advocating the construction of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler. From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians. He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age 73, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: ‘My relationship with Jewry had become my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations’ (in Fölsing 1997, 488). According to Fölsing, Einstein had begun developing this clarity from an early age, but did not openly acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge [his Jewish identity] (in Fölsing 1997, 488).

Fire from the Sky
By One Who Knows
(www.subversiveelement.com/firefromsky29.html)

Albert Einstein is a good example of another deception and hoax involved with the atomic bomb program. When many people think of the atomic bomb they think of Einstein. He was presented as the world’s greatest scientist, and a hero of the atomic bomb program. Upon closer inspection, you will find that his major contributions were his use of his influence to obtain President Roosevelt’s support for the bomb and he was the one personally responsible for bringing the major Communist atomic spy Klaus Fuchs into the Program. The Russians know nothing about the atomic bomb until Fuchs brought it to their attention in 1942. (*Heisenberg’s War,* p. 524).

Thanks to Fuchs, (and to a massive amount of Secret material illegally shipped through Lend-Lease) they were able to explode their own bomb in 1949. Einstein was a communist cell member with Fuchs. Fuchs was the top scientist on the Manhattan Project and he gave the atomic secrets to the Soviets. (Jordan, George Recey, *From Major Jordan’s Diaries,* Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1952.)

We are taught that Einstein is the author of the Theory of Relativity, yet evidence has come for the proving that the real author was Mileva Maric, Einstein’s first wife.

Einstein had a reputation at the Swiss Polytechnic Institute in Zurich of being a man with poor work habits and was often reprimanded for laziness during all his school years, including the University. He developed a romance with classmate Mileva who helped him with his math. His autobiography says “In my work participated a Serbian student Mileva Maric who I married later.” She had an illegitimate daughter in 1902, which they gave up for adoption. They got married in 1903, separated in 1912 and divorced in 1919. This is when Einstein married his cousin Elsa. The original manuscript of the *The Theory of Relativity* submitted for publication had Maric’s name on it as co-author.

For more proof, see the article “Theory of Relativity – Who is its Real Author?” by Dr. Rastko Maglic and J. W. McGinnis, President, International Tesla Society, in the Jul/Aug 1994 issue of *Extraordinary Science* magazine, which contains references for further documentation.

Einstein was a hoax and fraud saddled on the scientific community to prevent them from learning too much and to promote Jews as being superior, sort of Nazism in reverse.

Einstein’s famous equation “E=MC squared” is WRONG, or at best only partially correct. His definition of energy is WRONG, his definition of mass is WRONG, C is defined as the top speed possible for anything, then it is squared, which would be even faster and thus contradicts the definition. Light is described as a constant, which is WRONG as defined. In a higher understanding, light does not move, our perception of the speed of light is WRONG.

Those who REALLY understand, and who can prove it by creating matter out of “nothing” for instance, say that the original WHITE LIGHT is invisible and still. Read books by Walter Russell for more information.

Einstein was a Zionist with membership in at least 16 Communist front organizations such as Friends of the Soviet. Einstein was head of the Jewish Black Book Committee, which was listed as a Communist front in the 1947 House Un-American Activities Committee Report.

The correct science being discovered and revealed by such as Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell, Tom Bearden, Andrija Puharich, etc., was suppressed to prevent humanity from achieving energy independence (and thus political and military independence) from the Rockefeller/Rothschild oil/nuclear energy barons. This same technology leads to understanding of good health, and thus independence from the drug/medical crowd, who happen to be the same oil crowd crooks.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Nationalism and Genocide: The Origin of the Orchestrated Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine
Valentyn Moroz

An indicative feature of the mass media’s portrayal of modern history is the striking contrast between the heavy volume of “Holocaust” material and the silent treatment given to the appalling record of Soviet mass slaughter, even though the number of Stalin’s victims alone vastly exceeds even the most exaggerated figures of alleged “Holocaust” victims. While names like Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Dachau have been unforgettably engraved into our collective consciousness, few Americans recognize Vorkuta, Kolyma, or any of the many other Soviet camps where at least twenty million people are conservatively estimated to have perished. And whereas Americans have been taught to instantly recognize the name of Heinrich Himmler, hardly anyone has heard of Soviet secret police chiefs Nikolai Yezhov or Genrikh Yagoda, each of whom murdered many more people, and in less time, than Himmler is reputed to have killed.

The gruesome record is well documented. Nobel prize-winning author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has detailed the horrors of the Soviet concentration camp system, which held up to fifteen million prisoners at a time. In The Great Terror, British historian Robert Conquest cautiously estimated the number of Stalin’s political victims at 20 to 30 million. (Stalin once privately admitted to Churchill that some ten million kulaks had been killed for resisting the confiscation of their farms.) In Stallin’s Secret War, Nikolai Tolstoy exposes as a fraud the official Soviet claim, widely parroted by the Western media, that 20 million Soviet citizens were killed by the Axis during the Second World War. Tolstoy demonstrates that most of those 20 million were actually victims of the Soviet regime. Russian historian Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko estimates in A Time of Stalin that the Soviet rulers have killed more than eighty million of their own people to keep themselves in power.

Stalin’s single most horrific campaign was perhaps the organized mass starvation of 1932-1933, which he used as a weapon to totally crush peasant resistance to the forced collectivization of agriculture. Soviet military units confiscated all available food in vast areas, condemning the inhabitants to death by hunger. As Conquest points out, this is perhaps the only case in history of a purely man-made famine. He estimates that the campaign claimed five to six million lives, including more than three million Ukrainians. Other historians have put the number of Ukrainian famine victims at six or even seven million. An important new work on this subject is Miron Dolot’s moving memoir, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust, which includes a valuable introduction by Adam Ulam.

In the following essay, Ukrainian historian Valentyn Moroz dissects the origins of the imposed famine of 1932-1933. He takes exception to the generally accepted view that the campaign was carried out for purely socio-economic reasons, and holds instead that the decisive motivation was Moscow’s need to maintain the multi-national Soviet Russian empire. Stalin destroyed the independent Ukrainian peasantry, Moroz writes, because it was the foundation and lifespring of Ukrainian nationalism.
— Mark Weber

In 1921, at the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, it was resolved that the country’s non-Russian nations (nationalities) required assistance. / 1

a) to develop and strengthen locally Soviet statehood in such forms as are applicable to the national and social conditions of these nations;

b) to develop and strengthen locally, in their native languages, the legal system, administrative and economic organs, and government organs, consisting of local people who are acquainted with the living conditions and mentality of the local population;

c) to develop locally the press, schools, the theater, social clubs, and all cultural and educational institutions in their native languages;

d) to create and develop a wide spectrum of courses and education institutions in both the humanities and the technical and professional fields in their native languages …

Thus began the policy known as “korenizatsiia” or “return to the roots,” which is an instructive and very interesting phenomenon in the history of the modern Russian empire. In Ukraine this policy became known as “ukrainizatsiia” or “Ukrainianization.” In fact, this term was widely used in official documents during the 1920s. The Edict of 1923 described Ukrainianization with these words. / 2

… The people’s government acknowledges the necessity … of concentrating the attention of the state in the near future on broadening the knowledge of the Ukrainian language. The formal equality of the two most widely used languages — Ukrainian and Russian — has so far been insufficient. The processes of life, as experience has indicated, in reality favor the predominance of Russian. To remove this inequality the government will implement a series of practical measures which, while guaranteeing the equality of every language used on Ukrainian territory, must safeguard a position for Ukrainian corresponding to the size and strength of the Ukrainian nation on the territory of the Ukrainian nation on the territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

These days there is a tendency to regard this policy of Ukrainianization as a tactical ploy by Moscow to expose and destroy all patriotic Ukrainians. This is an extreme view. Obviously, Moscow had tactical considerations in introducing this policy. But it should be understood that Moscow was forced to adopt this policy. The impulse behind Ukrainianization came from far beyond the walls of the Kremlin and emerged from quite different sources.

The Revolution of 1917 stimulated a powerful renaissance among the non-Russian nations of the Russian empire, and this process continued even after these peoples were militarily subdued by the Soviet Russian forces. National development found means of self-expression even under the conditions of Soviet rule. While the facts and figures of the expansion of Ukrainainization are of interest for their own sake, even more interesting is the story of how the people involved found the means of carrying out this process of national development under the conditions of totalitarian one-party rule. This was possible because a kind of second political party, which was never proclaimed and formalized as such, existed during the 1920s. This alternate party was private enterprise.

The Tenth Congress of the Communist Party symbolically announced the introduction of the “new economic policy” or NEP in 1921 and shortly thereafter was also forced to proclaim the “korenizatsiia” policy of a return to native roots. New opportunities for private enterprise in economic life automatically also brought about a national renaissance among the non-Russian peoples. The “new economic policy” (NEP) not only meant a total change in economic life but in social and cultural life as a whole. Private entrepreneurs began demolishing totalitarianism in countless different ways. A shop owner operating his own business or a doctor with his own practice quickly became independent of the commissar with the red cloth on his table. They were soon also regarded as socially higher. And although these entrepreneurs had to recite the Communist slogans and jargon whenever required, the free market and not the Party came to govern their lives. Like the legendary genie suddenly released from his bottle, free enterprise spread swiftly.

This meant that, in practice, life became pluralistic, despite the protests of orthodox Communists concerned about the purity of party doctrine. And all this gave subconscious moral strength to the national movements. One felt able to “breathe” and express oneself at last. In Ukraine many associations of artists and writers were formed. An innovative and experimental theatrical life began to develop. In such conditions it was natural that legally sanctioned competition between the Ukrainian and Russian national influences would eventually develop. Among those who recognized this was Dmytro Lebed, who coined the theory of the “struggle between two cultures” in which the state should not intervene.

From the outset the Russians regarded Ukrainianization as a temporary political phenomenon, and accordingly sought to make it a purely formal letter, not to be taken seriously. For example, during a certain party conference an economic administrator from an outlying district, after listening to resolutions on the necessity of having administrators use Ukrainian in their official work, began speaking to his district director in Ukrainian. To this the official replied in Russian: “Speak like a human being!” But despite such resistance, a virtual army of patriotic Ukrainian academics and other culturally and politically active individuals greatly furthered the process of Ukrainianization. Supporters of this process of national renaissance came into high and sometimes even key positions. Because of Russian chauvinist resistance, Ukrainianization didn’t really begun to develop until 1925. A 1927 letter from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine to the Communist International (Comintern) dealt with numerous “distortions” regarding the Ukrainianization process. / 3

These distortions lie in the ignoring of and failure to value adequately the national question in Ukraine (which is frequently masked by internationalist phrases), particularly:

1) in the belittling of Ukraine’s significance as a part of the USSR, in the attempt to interpret the creation of the USSR as the actual liquidation of the national republics;

2) in the instruction that the party remain neutral toward the development of Ukrainian culture, in the interpretation of it as backward and “rural” compared to Russian “proletarian” culture;

3) in the attempt to maintain at all costs the dominance of the Russian language in the governmental, social, and cultural life of Ukraine;

4) in the formalistic attitude towards the development of Ukrainianization, which is often accepted only theoretically;

5) in the uncritical repetition of chauvinistic and imperialistic views about the so-called artificiality of Ukrainianization, the unintelligibility of the “Galician” language for the nation, and so forth, and in cultivation of these views within the party;

6) in the attempt to hinder the implementation of the policies of Ukrainianization in the towns and among the proletariat, confining it only to the villages;

7) in the frequent tendency to exaggerate isolated cases of distortion in the implementation of Ukrainianization, and in the attempt to portray these as an entire political system which violates the rights of national minorities (Russians, Jews, etc.).

It was characteristic of the time that the Communist Party of Ukraine could bypass the Central Committee in Russia and appeal directly to the Communist International, even though it was still a part of the all-encompassing “Soviet” Communist party. This is another indication of the pluralism and national self-expression which de facto manifested itself under conditions of Soviet rule, despite and in opposition to totalitarian doctrine.

The record shows that Ukrainianization was an important and very real development. Its impact may be compared to a torpedo exploding a dangerously threatening hole in the hull of the imperial ship of state. Millions of Ukrainian children were now being taught in Ukrainian. This was something for which several generations of Ukrainians had fought. In 1930 an astonishing 89 percent of the books published in Ukraine were printed in the Ukrainian language. That same year, the Eleventh Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine reported. / 4

… A turbulent increase in Ukrainianization is apparent among the proletariat, particularly among its chief groups. Along with this there is an indisputable and systematic increase in the number of Ukrainians in the proletariat …. During the past three years the number of people who can read, write, and speak in Ukrainian has greatly increased …. The professional associations of Ukraine should take it upon themselves, as leaders of the masses, to ensure the availability of cultural services in Ukrainian for the working masses and also to make certain that the movement inspires the workers towards cultural and national development ….

These three elements — the schools, the press, and the Ukrainianization of the proletariat — are a strong base which will guarantee a rapid and unprecedented development of a Ukrainian culture which is national in form and proletarian in content.

All this created unease in Moscow, where it was understood that the continuation of this process would eventually mean the end of Russian hegemony in Ukraine. Two tendencies became apparent during the years of Ukrainianization that raised ominous questions about the future of the Russian empire.

Firstly, the major role of the village in the process of Ukrainianization became obvious. The village had long been recognized as the conserving bastion of national traditions. But now it was also clearly a powerful impetus for Ukrainianization in the towns and cities as well. The most talented Ukrainian national authors and cultural leaders of the 1920s were from the villages, which provided a solid base of some forty million people for the development of Ukrainianization. Ukrainian blood from the villages flowed into the veins of new Ukrainian social and cultural institutions developing in the cities. As these structures grew visibly stronger it became increasingly evident that this powerful and turbulent stream would eventually sweep aside all Russian influence. Joseph Stalin, the most important Bolshevik theoretician on the national question, clearly understood the crucial importance of the village in this process. In a speech to the Tenth Soviet Communist Party Congress in 1921 he pointed out. / 5

It is obvious that although the Russian element is still predominant in Ukrainian cities, within a short period of time these cities will doubtlessly be Ukrainianized. Forty years ago Riga was a German city, but because the village population moves to the cities and determines their character, Riga is now a Latvian city. Fifty years ago every city in Hungary had a German character, but now each is Hungarian. The same can be said for the cities of Ukraine because the village population will move to the cities. The village is the representative of the Ukrainian language and this language will penetrate every Ukrainian city and there become the dominant language.

Secondly, a clear distinction developed between archaic and modern nationalism. The first could express itself only in traditional and limited forms. It was thus able to co-exist for many years within a colonial structure, within the framework of an alien empire, and dominated by a foreign dynasty. In contrast, the modern form of nationalism was aggressive and dynamic, intolerant of colonial structures and inclined to demolish them. It was characterized by an alliance of the village and a national intelligentsia which emerged from native ethnic roots. (This modern form of nationalism brought down the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa during the 1940s and 1950s, and was accompanied by major conflicts and social upheaval.)

The process of Ukrainianization during the 1920s gave birth to a concept that had the potential of becoming an umbrella or screen behind which meaningful Ukrainian nationalism could develop under the new conditions of Soviet rule. This concept was best formulated by the writer Mykola Khvyloviy, who coined the slogans “Away from Russia!” and “We can do without a Russian conductor.” Even the titles of his essays (such as “Russian Slops”) convey the new atmosphere and direction that emerged from Ukrainianization. With this concept, Ukrainian cultural, social and even political development could be furthered using acceptable “proletarian” jargon. In his polemical dispute with Russian newspapers, Khvyloviy wrote. / 6

Today, as Ukrainian poetry follows its own direction, Moscow is no longer able to tempt it with baubles …. And this is not because this or that Ukrainian participant in the dispute is more talented than this or that Russian (God forbid!) but because the Ukrainian reality is more complex than the Russian, because we have before us different tasks, because we are the young class of a young nation, because our literature is young ….

Because our literature has at last found its own path of development, the question now lies before us: Which of the world’s literatures should we follow? In any case, not Russian literature. That is absolutely crucial. We must not confuse our political union with literature. Ukrainian poetry must move away from Russian literature and its influence as soon as possible. The Poles would never have given us Mickiewicz if their orientation towards Russian art had not ceased. The fact is that Russian literature has been weighing us down for centuries, like a master who has trained our mentality into slave-like imitation. So, to feed our young art with Russian literature is to restrain its development. We are aware of proletarian ideas without the help of Russian art. To the contrary, we, as representatives of a young nation, will more easily sense these ideas and will more quickly recreate them in suitable works of art. We will orient ourselves towards western European art, toward its style and methods.

We have philosophized enough. Let us at last use our guide. We do so not with the intention of harnassing our art to yet another foreign wagon, but in order to free it from the suffocating atmosphere of backwardness. We will go to Europe to learn, but in a few years we will return burning with a new light. Do you hear what we want, Moscow-lovers with your Russian slops? So, death to the Dostoyevskys! Let us begin a cultural renaissance!

It is also characteristic of the time that Khvyloviy came from a Russified milieu. This itself was his inspiration. Khvyloviy, who had been named Fitilov, knew from personal experience the swamp-like world of Russified Ukrainians. He thus knew best how to fight against it. The most effective preacher is a Saul converted into a Paul.

As Moscow watched, new institutions were developing that were both Communist and Ukrainian. Along with others, Khvyloviy exclaimed: “We are aware of proletarian ideas without the help of Russian art.” The next and inevitable stage in the realization of the slogan “Away from Russia!” would have been the political separation of Ukraine from Russia. And that would have meant the collapse of the Russian empire. As everyone realized, Russia without Ukraine would automatically be reduced to the small realm (khanate) of Moscovy it had once been in the 16th century before Tsar Peter I.

The successful development of Ukrainianization (and of parallel national developments in other Soviet republics) was not limited to literary life. The non-Russian nations of the USSR chalked up other important achievements that threatened Russian hegemony. One was the establishment of “native” (territorial) armies. Out of a total of 17 army divisions based in Ukraine in the late 1920s, eight were “native” divisions consisting almost entirely of Ukrainians. These divisions also used Ukrainian as the language of communication and military command. Ukrainian was also the language of instruction in some military schools. Other non-Russian peoples had similar military formations. There were two Byelorussian divisions, two Georgian, and one Armenian, as well as one Tatar regiment, one Tadzhik regiment, and so forth. National non-Russian educational systems also developed. Under the direction of the Ukrainian minister of education, Hryhory Hrynko, an educational system developed in Ukraine that differed in every way from the Russian form. In economic life Volobuyev introduced the concept by which Ukraine would develop a national economy separate from Russia. And so it went in every sphere of Ukrainian life.

Moscow understood that if this process was allowed to continue for another decade the Soviet Russian empire would break up along national lines, much as the Austro-Hungarian empire had at the end of the First World War. The Kremlin rulers realized another essential reality: the empire could only be held together with totalitarianism. And that meant totalitarianism in every sphere of life. Only absolute state power could guarantee a unified empire. Although Russian chauvinistic opposition to the Ukrainian renaissance never completely disappeared, it was ineffective during the 1920s for two reasons. Firstly, private enterprise automatically brought with it pluralism in other spheres of life. It was comparable to fresh rain falling on the young shoots of the national movement. Secondly, the national awakening unleashed by the revolution of 1917 burgeoned during the decade of the 1920s.

The historical pendulum began to swing in a different direction at the close of the 1920s. The energy of the national renaissance was depleted, indicating the beginning of a decline. The regrouped imperial forces sensed that the time had come to strike back. Their revenge took three forms: 1. The elimination of private property in the villages and the imposition of totalitarian agriculture in the form of the collective farm (“kolhosp” or, in Russian, “kolkhoz”); 2. The uprooting of private enterprise in industry and trade; 3. The annihilation of pluralism in the arts. All cultural associations were replaced by unitary cultural unions, one each for writers, artists, journalists, and so forth.

The crucial essence of this program was the annihilation of the traditional village structure, which had always been the nation’s foundation. Stalin recognized the key role of the village in the movement for national liberation. “The village is the major army in a national movement,” he wrote. “Without the village the movement becomes impossible. This is what we mean when we say that the national question is, in effect, the village question. / 7

In planning the artificial famine of 1933, Moscow sought to strike a fatal blow at the village structure, not because it was socially troublesome or economically disadvantageous, but because it was the lifespring and resource foundation of the vital national spirit. Postishev, who was sent to Ukraine in 1933 as Moscow’s plenipotentiary, stated this clearly: “The mistakes and oversight of the Communist Party of Ukraine in the realization of the nationalities policy of the party was one of the major reasons for the collapse of agriculture in l931-1932.” / 8

This one sentence is enough to show that the national question triggered the catastrophe of 1933. The Plenum in 1933 and the Twelfth Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine in January 1934 both declared that “the greatest danger in Ukraine is local Ukrainian nationalism. / 9 This marked a turning point in the Kremlin’s nationalities policy. Until then the greatest danger in the nationalities question was officially “Russian imperialistic chauvinism.” At the Twelfth Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine, Postishev declared that “1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution.” / 10 Moscow thus regarded the catastrophe of 1933 as an aspect of the struggle against Ukrainian national renaissance. The village and national aspects of this catastrophe were closely interconnected.

In the spring of 1933, when millions of Ukrainian villagers were starving to death, Soviet forces carried out mass executions across Ukraine. Two population groups were targeted for extermination: the intelligentsia and Ukrainain Communists who had once belonged to other parties. The census figures of 1926 and 1939 indicate that the Ukrainian population decreased by ten percent during this period, while the number of Russians increased by 27 percent. / 11 The reason for this startling contrast was explained by a witness of the 1933 famine: “There were two villages on the border between the Ukrainain Soviet Socialist Revublic and the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. On the Ukrainian side everything was taken away, on the Russian side there were normal corn [grain] taxes and everything went according to plan. The Ukrainians climbed onto the roofs of passing trains and traveled to Russia to buy bread.” / 12
Historians have concluded that Ukraine lost 80 percent of its creative intelligentsia during the decade of the 1930s. / 13 Thus, Ukrainian culture suffered even more acutely than Ukrainian village life. While 80 percent of the books published in Ukraine in 1930 were printed in Ukrainian, in 1934 this figure had fallen to only 59 percent. / 14 At the Eleventh Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine in 1930 there was talk of “the turbulent rise of Ukrainialization” and of the necessity for its continuation. In 1934, at the Twelfth Congress quite a different tone prevailed. /15

Before the November Plenum alone, 248 counter-revolutionaries, nationalists, spies and class enemies — among them 48 enemies who were party members — were exposed and expelled from Ukrainian research institutes and the Ministry of Education. Since then, many more of these people have been unmasked. For example, not long ago, in December, we were compelled to close down the Bahaliy Research Institute of History and Culture because we discovered that this institute, like numerous other academic organizations (such as the Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopaedia and the Shevchenko Institute where Pylypenko was administrator), was a nest of counter-revolution.

A key question in this entire issue is this: To what extent were the repressions of the 1930s carried out for socio-economic reasons? Certainly the social and economic motivations behind this policy of repression cannot be ignored or overlooked. But these motivations must be understood within historical context. Although these repressions were social in application, they were carried out primarily to preserve Russian imperial power.

The central thesis of this essay is that socio-economic considerations played only an instrumental and auxiliary role in the policy of repression of the 1930s. The drastic socio-economic changes of this period were motivated primarily by the desire to maintain Russian imperial hegemony, and only secondarily by economic considerations. In the struggle between orthodox dogmatists and pragmatists within the Communist party in the early 1930s, the defenders of doctrine were victorious. At the same time, however, the momentum of their attack against the pragmatists gave them their imperialistic and chauvinistic impulse.

The history of the Soviet system until the Second World War is normally divided into three phases: 1. Military Communism, 1917-1921; 2. Temporary tactical retreat in the form of the New Economic Policy, 1921-1929; 3. Further development of Communism according to Marxist doctrine, from 1929. However, few historians have considered that the characteristics of the third phase are hardly pragmatic.
I would describe these three phases somewhat differently. The first phase may be called a naive Communist experiment. During this period of “military Communism” the principle of private enterprise was totally extinguished. The new Soviet state confiscated as much of the villagers’ production as it desired. (In practice this was usually as much as it could find.) A black market operated, and without it life could not have continued, even though officially it was illegal even to sell one’s own shoes. The economy quickly fell into chaos. Suffice it to mention that only one blast furnace was functioning in Ukraine in 1921.

It was obvious that this “pure Communism” would soon result in the total collapse of the new system unless the new Soviet rulers recovered quickly from their “orthodox” intoxication. The abrupt turn to pragmatism in 1921 proved effective. This NEP phase permitted extensive private enterprise in agriculture and other aspects of economic life. It ended in 1929 with a sharp return to the collectivized system. This change has been generally regarded as a return to Marxist orthodoxy after a temporary retreat. However, this view is erroneous. The socio-economic policy of the 1930s was not a return to “pure” Communist orthodoxy. It was rather a synthesis of the principle of collectivization and pragmatism dictated by exclusively imperial interests.

The Communism described in Marx’s Das Kapital is not realistic. As with any ideology, Communism in practice must take into consideration concrete national interests. The first Soviet phase of “military Communism” was only an experiment. The new Soviet rulers believed that the mythical “world revolution” and the utopian ideal of Communism would quickly usher in a worldwide proletarian paradise. These fantasies utterly ignored national considerations. The second NEP phase was a concession forced by individualistic and national factors. Only in the third phase was Communism integrated with Russian national interests. Marxist doctrine was adapted to the needs of the “Third Rome” (Moscow). (A similar process occured in China. After a series of uprooting experiments, a variant form of Communism was finally developed that might successfully serve Chinese imperial interests.)

A careful study of the Soviet collective farm system makes clear that it is not consistent with pure Communist doctrine. While the land and all agricultural implements are group property, houses, gardens, chickens, pigs, cows and many other items remained the property of individual villagers. In urban areas individuals continue to own such basic items as homes, holiday houses, and automobiles.

Beginning with the Stalin era, the Soviet system has been characterized by an ongoing combination of the collectivization principle and pragmatism. However, the nature of this pragmatism is not at all economic. If economic considerations were paramount, Moscow would long ago have disbanded the collective farms and reintroduced private enterprise in economic life. The collective farm system has brought Soviet agriculture to its knees, and the Soviet economy has still not recovered from the chronic depression caused by Stalin’s drastic experiments during the 1930s. Soviet pragmatism is thus dictated by imperial and not economic interests. The relationship between the principle of collectivization and pragmatism is adjusted according to the interests of the empire. The collective farm worker category is not a socio-economic category as much as it an imperial category, similar to the “colon” class of the late Roman era. If villagers live according to the principles of individual self-reliance and private enterprise, they maintain a vital national awareness. This consciousness makes the collapse of any empire inevitable. Imperial self-interest necessitates the destruction of the villagers’ traditional way of life. The villager is transformed into a “proletarian” who is neither tied to his land nor to his national heritage. Such rootless people easily lose touch with their native localities and migrate to the endless wastes of Siberia or Kazakhstan — from one end of the empire to the other — in search of higher wages. Moscow’s intention has been to assimilate the non-Russian half of the Soviet empire. It is also interesting to note that even during the worst economic periods of Soviet rule, there has always been sufficient liquor available in the stores. This is one Soviet product that has never been in short supply. In destroying national consciousness, liquor has been as important as official Soviet propaganda. It’s not difficult to persuade a drunk “proletarian” that as far as his national heritage is concerned “What’s the difference?”.

The collective farms are essential to the Soviet system, not because of Marxist economic doctrine (Yugoslavia gets along without them), but to maintain the empire. It is the Soviet Russian empire and not Communist orthodoxy that bans private enterprise. This is a key fact in understanding the nature of the Soviet system.

Thus, economic principles are ignored in favor of imperial interests. Not even the catastrophic economic consequences of this policy induce Moscow to change. Accordingly, the orthodox “purity” of Marxism has been abandoned. Of course, Soviet textbooks and newspapers repetitiously insist that everything is advancing “according to Marxist principles.” But whoever has the patience to read past the third page of Marx’s Das Kapital (almost no one in the Soviet Union has done so) realizes that the Kremlin ignores numerous Marxist principles. One example is the notion of “the total collapse of capitalism,” which has not occured as Marx “scientifically” predicted. Another is the Leninist thesis that the Soviet Union would not require a standing army (only a limited “people’s militia”), nor secret diplomacy, and so forth. These things are never mentioned in the USSR. While using Communist slogans for its own ends, the Soviet Russian empire has simply discarded everything about Communism that might prove advantageous to the non-Russian peoples.

The introduction of the collectivization and industrialization programs at the end of the 1920s meant that the empire once again held the reins of power tightly in its hands. During the chaos of the revolution these reins were temporarily torn from its control. State policy shifted in different directions during the 1920s in response to various forces. But when Moscow recovered and fully realized the situation, it once again adapted to the needs of the empire.

Although the impetus for the repressions of the 1930s is widely considered to have been socio-economic, often even by those who made policy, the real motivation behind the repression was a subconscious and unexpressed need to preserve the imperial system. The imperial instinct prompted the concrete social forms of the repression as well as the kind of totalitarianism that could be effective during the 1930s. If there had been no pressing imperial interests or Russian chauvinism, the repressions of the 1930s would have been only a tenth as severe. This is shown by comparing the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the Armenian massacre of 1915. Foreigners who were in Petrograd in late 1917 were astonished at how little blood was shed in the Bolshevik seizure of power. When one class fights another, many shots are fired but few people are killed. In contrast, an estimated two million Armenians were slaughtered in 1915 in an effort by the Turkish (Ottoman) empire to put an end to the Armenian national question. It is estimated that one half of the Armenian nation was murdered.

These elementary analogies are enough to show that the murder of seven million Ukrainians in 1933 could not have been motivated by socio-economic or “class” reasons alone. Conflicts claim millions of victims only in struggles between nations, as in wars, colonial struggles, and so forth, when the national question is paramount. Moscow needed a holocaust. The imposed famine of 1933 and the whole range of repressive mass killings during the 1930s were an expression of the empire’s struggle for self-preservation. It was this instinct, and not the economic doctrine of collectivization, that impelled the Kremlin to carry out the horrors of the 1930s. No one can say how “real” socialist economics are supposed to work in practice. For example, Sweden calls itself a socialist society, and some regard it as a model of socialism. But Sweden has never abolished private enterprise. And although Poland has been under complete Soviet domination since 1945, collectivized agriculture has never been introduced there.
An article entitled “The Ethnocide of the Ukrainians in the USSR,” signed by pseudonym Maksym Sahaydak, appeared in 1974 in the underground journal Ukrainian News. After quoting from Stalin’s speech to the both Soviet Communist Party Congress of 1921, predicting that the cities of the Ukraine will inevitably become Ukrainianized, the author concludes: “The invaders dreaded this as they would an inferno, and they still dread it today. Bolshevik Moscow, headed by ‘the father of all nations’ (Stalin), did everything it could to stop the Ukrainian city from becoming Ukrainianized. This was the central reason for the famine in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933.” / 16

From a historical perspective the year 1933 in the history of the Russian empire is analogous to 1848 in the Austrian empire, when the rulers in Vienna preserved the realm from dissolution by taking effective measures to repress the centrifugal national movements. This was the last great convulsion and the last effective effort for self-preservation before the final earthquake in 1918 brought about the collapse of the Habsburg empire.

Notes
. KPSS v resoliutsiiach i postanovleniia sezdov, konferentsii i plenumov TC (Moscow: 1954), Vol. 1, p. 559.
. Entsycopediia Ukrainoznavstva (1949), Vol. 1(2), pp. 547-548.
. Dva roky roboty. Zvit Tsentralnoho Komitetu KP (b) U. (Kharkiv [Kharkov]: 1927), pp. 57-58.
. XI zyizd KP (b)U. Stenohrafichnyj zvit (Kharkiv: 1930), pp. 737-738.
. X zyezd RKP(b). Stenohraficheskyj otchet (Moscow: 1963), p. 213.
. Visti BUCVK (dodatok “Kultura i pobut”), (1926).
. I. Stalin, Marksysm i natsionalno-kolonialnyj vopros (Moscow: 1935), p. 152.
. Ukrainskyj zbirnyk (Munich: 1957), Vol. 9, p. 71
. V.I. Hryshko, Ukrainskyj Ho1okost 1933 (1978), p. 77.
. Chrevonyj Shlach (Kharkiv: 1934), 2-3, p. 165.
. The Black Deeds of the Kremlin: A White Book (New York and Toronto: Dobrus, 1955), Vol. 2, p. 129.
. I. M-ko (I. Maystrenko), Do 25 richiia holodu 1933-ho roku. (Munich: Vpered, 1958), 7(92), p. 1.
. Entsyclopediia Ukrainoznavstva (Paris and New York: 1959), Vol. 3, p. 1050.
. U. Lavrynenko, Rostriliane Vidrodzheniia (Paris: 1959), p. 965.
. XII zyizd KP (b)U. Stenohrafichnyi zvit (Kharkiv: 1934), p. 380.
. Ukrainskyj Visnyk (Paris: Smoloskyp, 1975, reprint), 7-8, pp. 50-51.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1986 (Vol. 6, No. 2), pages 207 – 220. This paper was first presented by the author at the Sixth IHR conference in February 1985, in Anaheim, California.

About the Author
Valentyn Moroz, historian, educator and author, has been a leading figure in the Ukrainian national movement. During the Soviet era he was a prominent anti-Communist dissident, a stalwart fighter for human rights and national freedom, and a political prisoner for 13 years in Soviet prisons and camps.
He was born in April 1936 in a village in the Volyn region of western Ukraine. After studies at the University of Lviv (Lvov), he worked as a secondary school teacher in his native region, and he taught modern history at teachers colleges. He was arrested in September 1965 on charges of “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda,” declared guilty, and sentenced to four years in a labor camp with a strict regimen. While in solitary confinement in a labor camp prison, he completed a lengthy essay entitled Report from the Beria Reserve, which was smuggled out and later published in the abroad. He was transferred to the central KGB prison in Kyiv (Kiev) and then to the notorious Vladimir prison.

In 1969 Moroz was released, but nine months later he was arrested again on a new charge of “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” He was sentenced in November 1970 to six years of prison in strict isolation, to be followed by three years in a prison camp with a strict regimen, and then five years of internal exile. During this new term of imprisonment Moroz was treated harshly, and he went on several hunger strikes in protest.

The severity of his treatment prompted widespread protests, both within Soviet Ukraine and abroad. He and his case received considerable international publicity, and protest demonstrations on his behalf were held in front of Soviet embassies and consulates in the US and Canada. It was largely in response to the international protest campaign that Soviet authorities decided to release him. In April 1979 he was exiled to the United States. He was released at JFK airport in New York, along with four other dissidents, in exchange for two Soviet KGB agents.

Moroz then worked for a year as a Senior Research Fellow at Harvard University’s Department of History. He completed his Ph.D. in 1982 at the Ukrainian Free University in Munich. He and his wife then made their home in Toronto, where he edited a Ukrainian journal and worked as a radio journalist. He was also prolific contributor to numerous Ukrainian periodicals in Canada and the US, and he lectured widely. In 1997 he moved back to Ukraine, and since then has made his home in Lviv, where he has been a university lecturer.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »