1,423 words
Spanish translation here
Kerry Bolton
Stalin: The Enduring Legacy
London: Black House Publishing, 2012
At the beginning of 1989, I thought that “Russia” (the USSR) was an evil empire, a totalitarian system built on repression and propaganda and bent on global domination. I also thought that the United States was the principal impediment to Soviet world domination, the bulwark of freedom. By the end of 1989, I was giddy, for America had stood firm long enough for the USSR to collapse of its internal contradictions before it could cast its net over the entire globe.
Today, however, things seem very different. Like many White Nationalists, I see the United States as an evil empire, a soft totalitarian system built on lies and repression and pursuing global domination. Indeed, our system is built on the same lie as Communism: human equality. Furthermore, Russia is now the principal bulwark against American global domination.
But this time, the stake is not “freedom” but something far more important, for if unchecked, American-style global liberalism and capitalism mean the death of the white race. Thus, if our race is to survive, Russia must stand firm against globalization until the American system succumbs to its own inner contradictions before it can drag the rest of the world down with it.
Kerry Bolton’s Stalin: The Enduring Legacy shows that the roots of the present world situation are far deeper than I had imagined.
Stalin is one of history’s greatest monsters, and Bolton’s book does not attempt to deny or minimize Stalin’s crimes, although I would find such a revisionist project interesting to read, given that our image of Stalin was manufactured by some of the same people who manufactured our image of Hitler, which is largely false.
Bolton’s main concern is with Stalin’s “legacy,” namely his influence on present-day Realpolitik, the conflict between the forces of globalization and the forces of national self-determination. And it turns out that Stalin’s principal enemy is our own, namely the international Jewish community, although Stalin himself never saw it that way.
Bolton’s book is filled with surprising revelations.
Chapter 1, “Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism,” outlines the basis of Stalin’s conflict with Trotsky. Once in power, Stalin reversed a number of the policies established by Lenin and favored by Trotsky and his followers.
In terms of economic policy, Lenin and Trotsky favored a rapprochement with international capitalism, particularly the international Jewish banks that had funded Bolshevism from the beginning. Stalin, however, was not Jewish. He was also an orthodox Communist. He funded the revolution by robbing banks, not borrowing from them. Thus Stalin turned the USSR toward economic autarky and full-scale collectivization of industry and agriculture, with catastrophic consequences for the peasantry and workers.
Stalin did, however, pursue much healthier policies in the social realm. He sought to restore the family and marriage, limit access to abortion, reestablish discipline and standards in education, and combat “rootless cosmopolitanism” and “formalism” in art and culture in the name of artistic styles rooted in folk culture and capable of appealing to and elevating the tastes of the masses.
Stalin is widely condemned as a philistine, but in truth he had well-developed tastes in art and music. The positive effects that he had on Soviet culture can be illustrated most clearly by comparing Shostakovich’s fourth symphony, an avant-garde train-wreck which he withdrew under criticism, with his fifth symphony, one of the great symphonies of the 20th century, which Stalin wrung out of him using the muse of terror.
Bolton never really gives us a sense of why Stalin did any of this. What really made him tick? He was clearly highly intelligent, outfoxing some of the shrewdest statesmen and schemers in history. He was also demonstrably well-versed in Marxist theory and appeared to be a sincere Communist. He knew a great deal about history. And he had excellent taste in music.
Yet he seemed entirely lacking in morality and human warmth. He was not a Russian, so he could not be accused of nationalistic sentiments. He was also an atheist, so religion played no role in his life. He had no sentimentality about the past and was a deep-dyed revolutionary. But in spite of all this, perhaps out of sheer pragmatism, Stalin gave the USSR a somewhat nationalistic, somewhat socially conservative form of socialism.
Chapter 2, “Stalin and the Art of Rootless Cosmopolitanism,” deals with the cozy relationship between Trotskyite exiles in the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Rockefeller foundation in promoting Abstract Expressionism and other forms of modern art as the all American answer to Stalinist philistinism.
The fact that the US government ended up using the tax dollars of Idaho potato farmers and Texas ranchers to promote cultural Bolshevism in the art world as a purely symbolic element of the Trotskyite opposition to Stalin is, frankly, astonishing. Whenever whites permit a critical mass of Jews in our societies, it seems inevitable that we become pawns in Jewish machinations, even arcane “inner party” disputes that are utterly detached from reality.
Chapter 3, “The Moscow Trials in Historical Context,” is the most remarkable chapter in the book. Here Bolton lays out in great detail just how plausible Stalin’s case against the Trotskyite opposition was.
The fact that so many of Stalin’s policy preferences ran counter to the ethnic interests and tastes of Bolshevism’s huge Jewish contingent meant that Stalin’s policies inevitably seemed anti-Semitic to the most ethnocentric Jewish communists, who became the core of the Trotskyite opposition. (Later, the the Zionist wing of the Trotskyite movement became the nucleus of neconservatism.)
But calling Stalin an anti-Semite is an undeserved compliment. Yes, he was an anti-Trotskyite. Yes, later he was an anti-Zionist. Yes, Stalin killed countless Jewish Bolsheviks. But one could not purge an overwhelmingly Jewish party without purging some Jews. Nevertheless, Stalin maintained the loyalty of many Jewish communists to the very end. Thus Stalin was an anti-Semite only in Joe Sobran’s sense of the term: Jews hated him. But Stalin didn’t hate Jews as such. He fought them only to the extent that they opposed his policies and his conception of Communism.
But nevertheless, Stalin did change the ethnic character of Soviet Communism from something recognizably Jewish and nihilistic to something recognizably Russian and socially conservative. And although Jews were a privileged people in the USSR up to the very end, they no longer felt that the regime was theirs. According to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, after Stalin’s death, the regime took active steps to curb Jewish overrepresentation in elite institutions. Jews were still massively overrepresented, but from the kvetching, you would think they were making bricks for the pharaoh. By the 1970s, an exodus to Israel and the United States was underway. This gives some hope for American whites. For even token efforts to limit Jewish overrepresentation in our society will be magnified immensely by Jewish hypersensitivity, perhaps enough to spark an exodus of our own.
Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the origins of the Cold War. Contrary to the old Right-wing American canard that the United Nations was a communist conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, the United Nations actually sought to establish a genuine world government under US control at the end of the Second World War, and it was Stalin who stopped it in its tracks. Furthermore, the United States wanted to “internationalize” atomic energy, which meant that the UN, under the control of the US, would take control of uranium mining and refinement to maintain the US monopoly on atomic weapons. When Stalin said nyet to both, one world government was halted and the Cold War was off and running. And, as it turns out, Trotskyites took part in every aspect of the Cold War’s implementation.
Chapters 6 and 7 deal with Stalin’s death (poison) and post-Soviet Russia. After the collapse of the USSR, the United States sought to establish a unipolar hegemony and to bring Russia into the global system. Many of the architects of this New World Order were neoconservative offshoots of the Trotskyite movement and their ethnic kin. Vladimir Putin, however, spiked their plans, which is one reason he is likened to Stalin today. And that is how we have arrived at the present correlation of forces: globalist, Judaized America vs. European, nationalist Russia.
I highly recommend Stalin: The Enduring Legacy. It is a slender volume of 160 pages that you can breeze through in an afternoon. My only complaint is that the book was evidently rushed into print and is swarming with typos and formatting problems that will inevitably detract somewhat from its impact.
22 comments
In terms of economic policy, Lenin and Trotsky favored a rapprochement with international capitalism, particularly the international Jewish banks that had funded Bolshevism from the beginning
Only recently that I discovered the truth about Bolshevism and who financied, it’s shocking to know that most people don’t know this and never will because of the jewish control.
“Stalin, however, was not Jewish. He was also an orthodox Communist. He funded the revolution by robbing banks, not borrowing from them.” I suppose this was a form of what Marxists call “the primitive accumulation of capital.”
Well, if the bankers give you the money, then who pays the piper call the tune!
By robbing them, you don’t have to play their tune!
I like the idea of employing the “muse of terror.” A lot of today’s “art” would be vastly improved if its creators knew the penalty for one false move.
But of course, artists do operate under a ‘muse of terror’, but under our “soft totalitarianism’ it’s never noticed or complained about. I mean, of course, the whole system of Judaic artists, critics, curator, gallery owners, academics, etc. that promote this and punish that. The movie Pollack has a nice sequence where Jackson falls out of favor with critic Greenberg and starts throwing furniture around.
BTW, ever notice how artists who continued to mind their own business under Hitler are ‘tarred with the brush of evil’ whilst those who lived under Stalin are ‘suffering victims of Stalin”? Could that be because Trotskyites are running our culture?
” (Later, the the Zionist wing of the Trotskyite movement became the nucleus of neconservatism.)”
Hi, could someone provide some links expanding on this point please. Thanks.
Kevin MacDonald covers this in his articles on neoconservatism. Just do a Google search for those terms.
Good article about it at David Duke’s site: http://www.davidduke.com/?p=1845
Any chance to get this book on Kindle?
Thanks,
Margel.
Yes, it is on Kindle.
Greg. I agree with you that Russia is the primary force in the world today that is opposing the Jewish American New World Order. Putin is definitely more aware of the dangers of Jewish Globalization than any leader in the West, but he seems too wavering and indecisive. If Russia is to lead the White Race to victory over the Jewish Money Power, Russia MUST have a leader who is not afraid to name the Jew and who will establish a new economic and social system that be based on blood and soil, strength and hierarchy.
‘Stalin is one of history’s greatest monsters, and Bolton’s book does not attempt to deny or minimize Stalin’s crimes, although I would find such a revisionist project interesting to read, given that our image of Stalin was manufactured by some of the same people who manufactured our image of Hitler, which is largely false.’
Offline, there’s Ludo Marten’s book ‘Another View of Stalin’, which refutes many of the charges made against the Soviet leader. Though written from a Marxist perspective (Mr. Martens is a Belgian Stalinist), it is nonetheless worth reading.
Online, there’s Mario Sousa’s ‘Lies Concerning the Soviet Union’:
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm
If one combines Soviet and Nazi revisionism, one ends up wondering whether the official occidental history of the 20th century is nothing more than an alibi to slander, discredit – and above all, cover up the tragic fate of two heroic struggles against the power of money.
I seriously doubt any of these studies will exonerate Uncle Joe from the crimes he has been so severally recorded of committing. Mr. Bolton’s work does appear very thought-provoking, and turns an eye to a little seen side of Stalin, but I will continue to wager that Solzhenitsyn was not making up the outrages he records in his Gulag Archipelago.
Just a note on the reference to a “European, nationalist Russia”: most Russians do not actually identify themselves as “European” (although they will often identify themselves in general racial terms such as White or even Indo-European when relating to others), which causes confusion for many other Europeans. The reason why Russians think of themselves as “non-European” is because their understanding of the term equates it with “Western” or “Occidental,” and Russians are obviously not “Western” in any case despite being obviously related to other Europeans. In contrast to the typical Russian definition, many other Europeans define the term “European” in a broader sense, based either on race or an even wider cultural grouping (or both), and thus including Russians within it. (Of course, there are still many Western Europeans who also equate “Europe” with the “West” and thus exclude almost all Eastern Europeans as “non-European”) People should remember this in order to avoid the often ridiculous confusions and arguing over terminology that I have often seen in the past when Russian and European nationalists interact.
Yes, that is true. This difference goes back to the division of the Roman Empire in a Western, Latin speaking part with Rome as its capital and an Eastern, Greek speaking part with Constantinople as its capital. Religiously the Western part became associated with Roman Catholicism and the Eastern part with Orthodoxy. It is from this Eastern, Greek speaking, Orthodox part (later called the Byzantine Empire) that the Eastern Slavic peoples, including the Russians, have derived their religion and culture. Thus the Russians don’t identify with “Europe”, neither do the Serbians and Greeks, for the same reasons.
The Russians have additional historical reasons to mistrust “Europe” : wars with Sweden, Napoleon, Hitler and the Cold War. The behavior of modern Nato doesn’t inspire much confidence either.
Yes, those are the historical roots of this terminological issue (although I might note that there are many Eastern Europeans who do in fact identify themselves as “European” but not as “Western”). What I was implying earlier is that we should reassert the broader definition (in which being European goes beyond just being “Western”), because that is the definition which has validity and relevance to us. In order to do this, however, we need to at least briefly explain the matter whenever we refer to Russians as European.
“After the collapse of the USSR, the United States sought to establish a unipolar hegemony and to bring Russia into the global system. Many of the architects of this New World Order were neoconservative offshoots of the Trotskyite movement and their ethnic kin. Vladimir Putin, however, spiked their plans, which is one reason he is likened to Stalin today. And that is how we have arrived at the present correlation of forces: globalist, Judaized America vs. European, nationalist Russia.”
There seems to be an Hegelian dialectic at work on some level here. What is sorely missing is an internationalist, racialized Europe capable and ready to meet the challenges of a post Anglo-Jewish world.
Yesterday I reread O’meara’s essay(s) BOREAS RISING. One thing that struck me in reviewing it was the enormity of the geopolitical vacuum created by Europe’s subjugation and servility to hostile anti-European forces. It has led to an increasingly warped and twisted state of affairs.
“A strong centralized state, however, is key to Europe’s future. Since the Second World War, power is necessarily continental: Only a Grossraum (large space), a geopolitically unified realm animated by a “distinct political idea,” has a role to play in today’s world.”
Sounds good to me. Let’s hope Boreas rises soon.
Yeah, Hitler and Stalin had socialist realism in common. Hitler just didn’t like modern art, and Stalin could control modern art. Picasso, Derain, Braque, Matisse, etc. were all far from being Jewish…
People can say whatever they like, and I’m sure I’ll catch a lot of hell from the Russia as the savior of the white race crowd. However, I believe Europe would have been much better off if the Third Reich defeated the Soviet Union in World War II. I don’t believe that Russia is going to save us, and I wouldn’t want them to anyway.
“Stalin is widely condemned as a philistine, but in truth he had well-developed tastes in art and music. The positive effects that he had on Soviet culture can be illustrated most clearly by comparing Shostakovich’s fourth symphony, an avant-garde train-wreck which he withdrew under criticism, with his fifth symphony, one of the great symphonies of the 20th century, which Stalin wrung out of him using the muse of terror.”
Wow… I couldn’t disagree more.
S’s 4th was among his best work. His 5th sounds like a complete satire on Russian nationalism at times.
Some things are so wrong on so many levels that it is sickening.
Yet, I’ll give it a try.
Pretending to forget what the “Russian” empire behavior was, is not meant to build trust either.
When the Empire invades your country (Romania) like this: 1739, 1768, 1787, 1806, 1811, 1821, 1828, 1848, 1853, 1877, 1940, 1944, and the most recent one and the only “undercover one” in 1989 any talk about the salvation through the “Russian” Empire sounds like shilling.
This story dates back to Alexandr Nevsky times when he forged an alliance with the Golden Horde against the “West”. No one can remove this from history. Nor the miscegenation between the Russian and Tatar nobility from the very beginning. This is the very core of the “Russian” Imperialism, even it might be masqueraded as Russian nationalism.
The “Russian” Empire invaded and swallowed its neighbors for one thousand years, Germans, Slavs, Balts, Latins (as the Romanians) and so on. To pretend this is not a pattern and it didn’t led to a one thousand years war in this parts of Europe is to accept the conditions for a new war in Europe.
How can anyone undo almost one thousand years of history? Or mere the “sanctity” of Nevsky?
Also, to accuse all those little peoples from Finland in the North to Moldova in the South it is to show the same fair play as Taras Stepanenko showed against Vitalie Bordian in a recent football match. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2JVJBqUmB4
Enough about the slavic look and savage behavior.
For some tactical interests (none of them being WN, but petty nationalistic) some may be tempted to submit to the “Russian” Empire, trying to score against their neighbors and trying to manipulate the warring empire. I know many cases. Some recent ones. Everybody should be aware of this.
Also, ditching the “American” Empire is not necessarily implying that you’ll get rid of the jews. Because they will switch the sides as always, and they have a long history serving a “Russian” Emperor – including Stalin here. Don’t confuse Stalin’s struggle for power with
any desire to revive or save Europe. Trotskism and Stalinism are like the sadduceanism and phariseanism if I may.
Anyway, because Stalin executed some jews it doesn’t mean anything compared with the millions killed by the jews, and Stalin himself.
While extracting some lessons from Stalin’s struggle for power, I consider as extremely dangerous to feed the Eastern imperial beast thinking that the western one is more evil.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.