Print this post Print this post

Alexiey Shiropayev’s Prison of the Nation:
An Ethnonationalist History of Russia, Part 3

Roses_for_Stalin_by_Vladimirskij2,072 words

Part 3 of 4

The Red Terror: Lenin and the October Revolution

Prison of the Nation presents an original view of the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917. First of all, Shiropayev sees this as a change of the ruling elite of the Eurasian Project. The Byzantine Christians were simply replaced by Bolshevik Jews. Thus he does not see many reasons to support the ancien régime, which had already been realizing the multi-racial, anti-European utopia, only under a different banner. Secondly, he considers the greatest sin of the revolutionaries to be the destruction of the two most positive forces in tsarist Russia, which could have saved the country, namely the liberal populist reformers and the Germanophile circle of Rasputin and Empress Alexandra. Thirdly, the Revolution should not be considered solely in economic, geopolitical, or religious terms. The most important aspect of the Revolution was racial: it was a throwback to the bloodiest phases of the Project, analogous to Christianization of Rus’, the Mongol invasion, and the Muscovite struggle for autocracy. But this time it was the Jews (lead by a Jew-Mongol-white hybrid, Lenin) that were exterminating the white population of Rus’.

Shiropayev recounts the atrocities committed by the Bolsheviks against the Slavs: the bloody extermination of whole families and villages, the torture of the victims, etc. It is often said that these atrocities are unimaginable and incomprehensible. They are from a “color-blind” economic or political perspective. But if we consider the Revolution an act of racial warfare — the extermination of a racially distinct population by a fanatical and bloodthirsty ethnic minority aiming at total domination — then everything becomes imaginable and comprehensible. Shiropayev quotes from leading Communists, who (using racial slurs) present their plans to create legions of “white slaves” serving the ethnic minority ruling this new dystopia.

The greatest crimes committed by the Commissars were, of course, the extermination through starvation of Ukrainian peasants (the Holodomor) and the system of extermination camps throughout the whole Soviet empire (the gulag). However, it must be stressed that there were numerous other uses of starvation as a weapon in USSR: for example, the suppression of the Tambov Rebellion and other peasant uprisings, as well as the suppression of Cossacks and other nations of the empire, who rose up to regain their lost freedom.

Soviet, Russian, and Western historiography tend to present the USSR as a cruel but nevertheless well-functioning totalitarian state, where, after a few bloody years, dissent has been suppressed and society remained rather peaceful. This picture is false. From the very beginning to the very end, the USSR was a bloody mess, in which various nations and groups rose against the government; dissenters were put in concentration camps, prisons, and psychiatric wards; organized and unorganized crime were rampant; and various party cliques conspired to take over the system. There were numerous assassinations and attempted assassinations of leading political figures, including Stalin himself.

Shiropayev sees an occult dimension to Soviet Communism, especially in its symbolism. For instance, the Red Star might have been chosen as a symbol of the Red Army as a reference to the Jewish rebels fighting the Romans. There have been reports of occult symbols found in places where the white nations of the empire were exterminated, including the site of the slaughter of the tsar and his family. The torture of victims can be likened to Jewish ritual murder. And the extermination of the Slavic population may be considered a bloody sacrifice to the Eurasian Project. Especially interesting is the cult of the mummified Lenin’s corpse, analogous to the cult of the incorruptible bodies of dead Orthodox saints. At the start of the war with Third Reich, Stalin has publicly made a vow to Lenin to wage a victorious war against Germany. Shiropayev presents this as a public incantation and the promise to sacrifice the “biomass” of Russian and German soldiers to the “ever living” mummy.

Shiropayev criticizes the “White movement.” He considers them tsarist sentimentalists, clinging to the previous phase of the anti-Rus’ Eurasian Project. Nevertheless, he gives them credit for facing the Bolsheviks in battle. On the other hand, had the Whites not been so fixed on keeping the old empire, with its unjust and outdated social structure, maybe they would have gained more popular support and eventually won. Interestingly, Shiropayev compares the emigre Russian Fascist Party, which has clung to the imperial understanding of Russia and Russians, to civic nationalism and Byzantine Christianity. For him the true opposition were the rising peasants and especially the Cossacks fighting for independence.

Rus’ Reawakens: Operation Barbarossa

Shiropayev sees Germany’s invasion of the USSR, Operation Barbarossa, as the last great chance to save Rus’ from the Eurasian Project. He maintains that Hitler’s strategy was the only right thing to do: to strike the beast before it attacked Germany and enslaved Europe. Prison of the Nation emphasizes the highly symbolic nature of these events: the invocation of the great emperor Barbarossa, the Sig runes of the SS, the attack on the day of the summer solstice, and soldiers marching under the banner of swastika. To him, this was a moment when the “banner of Wotan” flew over Rus’ again, just as in the times of the Varangians.

Hitler is often criticized, even by sympathetic historians and essayists, for his harsh treatment of the USSR. Shiropayev sees this issue in a completely different light. Germany was facing the most aggressive and bloody tyranny of all time and had the moral obligation to organize a preemptive attack. And this attack needed to be utterly fierce and ruthless to ensure victory.

Shiropayev does not see the USSR as a well-functioning totalitarian machine, but as a bloody, chaotic tyranny, which was always on the brink of collapse and civil war. And once the Reich’s armies attacked, this collapse actually happened. The Soviet armies suffered a great defeat, and the state was falling apart. The high officials started organizing a retreat into Siberia, including emptying all the archives in Moscow, which they believed would soon fall to the Germans.

War on the Eastern Front was cruel, but the Reich did not set those conditions. It was USSR that first massacred the native population of Russia and created an enormous state system of extermination. The Reich has only played on the terms set by the Soviets. It must be emphasized that right after German troops crossed the border with the USSR, a new wave of cruelty swept the land: Bolsheviks began to exterminate all political prisoners and persons suspected of political dissent, so they would not be able to collaborate with the Reich’s army or administration. Thus shooting commissars upon capture, killing party members, destroying all local administrations, etc. were justified means of countering communist violence and an act of rightful revenge on the exterminators of the white peoples of the USSR. The blood of the people had to be avenged with the blood of their oppressors.

For Shiropayev, the Second World War was a time when new heroes of Rus’ arose. Of course Soviet propaganda has branded them all as “traitors”: Ukrainians, Balts, Russians, Cossacks, etc., who decided to rise against the Soviets; all anti-communist local militias, soldiers who willingly surrendered to the Germans, and peasants who helped German soldiers. These were people who chose freedom over slavery. They betrayed Russia to save Rus’.

Interestingly, Shiropayev does not have a high opinion of Andrey Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Army. He believes that Vlasov was infected by the Project and that all the doubts regarding him voiced by Hitler — namely, that the Russians would betray the Reich and try to create their own state — were true, as in the hour of trial Vlasov did actually switch sides and tried to cooperate with the Western Allies. However, he honors all the people of Russia who have risen in any way against Soviet tyranny.

The greatest heroes of this time are Bronislav Kaminski and the Russian National Liberation Army. Once his native Lokot was under German control, he actively cooperated with the new administration and created the Lokot Autonomous Republic. Shiropayev considers this political organism the last state of Rus’, which could have been the nucleus for rebuilding Rus’ on the ruins of the Project. Kaminski was an actual national socialist, unspoiled by the Project’s ideology, neither the Byzantine nor the Communist strain. He understood that after many centuries of the Project’s tyranny, Rus’ could only be rebuilt under the auspices of the great European visionaries ruling the Third Reich. The Republic had its own militia, which later became the Russian National Liberation Army and after that became the S.S. Sturmbrigade R.O.N.A. Other great heroes are the Cossacks who fought under Marshall von Panwitz.

Ultimately, the Project won the Second World War. Shiropayev gives all credit to Stalin and his clique. First of all, Stalin fooled the Russians into thinking that he represented their interests. He invoked the previous phases of the Project, playing on so-called “patriotic instincts” to make Russians obey his orders and die by the millions to protect their own concentration camp. Secondly, Stalin outmatched Hitler in terms of cruelty and ruthlessness. Had Hitler been even fiercer, even more determined, and killed even more commissars and party members — he would have won.

Shiropayev recalls the cruelty with which Soviet army treated Germans after invading the Reich’s territories: the murder, rape, and torture of soldiers and civilians alike. He considers this to be an act of racial extermination of whites by Asians and the hatred of Asiatic despotism and backwardness toward the freedom and civilization of Europe. The Soviets meted out the same treatment to their own rebellious subjects. Russians, Cossacks, Ukrainians, and Balts who were caught by the Soviets (or perfidiously handed to them by the Allies) were imprisoned and exterminated along with their families. It was the fulfillment of Genghis Khan’s dream: Asiatic hordes plundering Europe and murdering white people, having established the largest state in the history of the world.

Stagnation and Neo-Stalinism

The post-Stalin era was one of stagnation. The USSR was slowly decomposing and declining: economically, culturally, and socially. However, this does not mean that the Project stopped its struggle against Rus’. All political and social institutions were aimed at creating the Homo sovieticus: a racially mixed slave who was obedient to his masters and willing to defend his prison. Hatred of freedom, dignity, and the “rotten West” — this all remained intact from the times of the Mongol yoke until the era of Brezhnev. And it still exists in Russia today under Putin. Stagnation also did not mean an end to repression. Gulags still operated, and people were still imprisoned and murdered for their dissent views.

Soviet civic nationalism was just the latest version of the Eurasian Project. Just as anyone who was baptized in the Orthodox Church and accepted the rule of tsars could become a subject of the Russian Empire, anyone who believed in Marxism-Leninism and accepted the rule of the Kremlin could become a subject of the Soviet Empire. Like their monarchist predecessors, the Bolsheviks supported race-mixing and used the native white population of Russia as slaves to build the Red Empire, into which more and more territories and peoples were incorporated. As in Russia, the Soviet elite was an amalgam of nations and races. To some extent, the Soviets forced Russification on all subjects of their Empire, but tsarist Russification was already a universalist, globalist, statist, and mongrelizing project. All the Communists did was replace crosses with stars.

It is a paradox that the country that won the Second World War suffered the most severe losses and was unable to recover from them, while post-war Germany created an “economic miracle.” There was no comparison in the pace of development in the Western and the Eastern blocs. On the one hand the Soviets were building schools, roads, airports, etc. On the other hand, its exploited population was being devoured by alcoholism, corruption, and crime.

Finally the state collapsed. However, as Shiropayev points out, Russia was in such a bad condition in the 1990s, that there was no real alternative. Although the Project was weak and could easily have been overthrown, Rus’ did not awaken and assert itself. The only important forces were hard-line Communists who wanted to save USSR at any cost and post-Communists who wanted to change the Empire into a KGB/FSB-controlled oligarchy. The handfuls of pro-tsarist sentimentalists and pro-Western idealists were of no importance in the course of events.



  1. dolph9
    Posted February 3, 2016 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    Hard to say, don’t try to interpret the politics too much. Politics always obscures the fundamental issues. Which are of course, race, demography, territory and resources, history, the turn of events, the rise and fall of systems whether deserved or not.

    Hitler wanted living space for the Germans and the Russians and their winter said thanks but no thanks. And that’s all she wrote.

    It’s not enough to be right or powerful. You have to be right, powerful, and lucky. Only one modern nation has that, the United States. But we all know how this story will end.

  2. Zephyr
    Posted February 3, 2016 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    The ROA and various Cossack corps were not set Eastward against Moscow, yet rather put against fellow Slavs: Warsaw, Prague, and Yugoslavia. Neither were they possessing of independent command, but under the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS instead, and relegated to mere “Hilfswillige” status- nowhere near the august Russian sense of добровольцы. The West surrendered these twofold traitors (betraying both Soviets and Germans) unto the maw of destruction of their own doing. Look at theb present commitment of козацтво in the Donbass to the Project.

  3. Leon
    Posted February 4, 2016 at 4:04 am | Permalink

    Any sympathy I might have had towards Shiropaev and his theories has melted away after reading this section. It seems that both he and the vile Eurasianist marxists and universalists that he so criticizes have one thing in common: they both place abstract ideals and politics above the lives and wellbeing of actual Russians. Only in his case the abstract ideal is named ‘Rus’ and ‘Nordic’ rather than ‘Rossiya’ and ‘Soviet man’. How else could he conclude that a German nationalist regime with a proven Slavophobic record occupying Russia and murdering its citizens to provide living space could mean the salvation of the Rus? Or that collaborating against your folk with an invading regime that has absolutely nothing but contempt for you and your kind constitutes heroism while trying to maintain any amount of autonomy makes you part of an anti-White “Project”? Shiropaev speaks as if the majority of Russians murdered were Party functionaries. This is a blatant lie. The Germans murdered most any Russian that fell into their hands, even common soldiers that had surrendered were starved to death. The Fuhrer was himself responsible for wiping out the Rus race as much as anyone.

    Then as to even further prove my point, Shiropaev complains that Hitler should have been more ruthless. Disgusting. I suppose he should have wiped out the entire Russian populace to make room for German colonists? That surely would have saved the Rus! Up to now his narrative seemed flawed but promising, opening the possibility for a nationalist way forward for ethnic Russians. Now it is clear that Shiropaev is more concerned with his own personal interpretations of history and hating the Russian state, than with forming any positive solution.

    • Jaroslaw
      Posted February 4, 2016 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      Remember that Shiropayev is now an “I stand with Israel” liberal. But yes — as I say in the conclusion — his most famous book whitewashes Hitler to a surprising degree.

      The issue of Operation Barbarossa and Reich’s eastern policy has been discussed here a thousand times.

      But let us add some new facts: first of all many non-Communist Russian historians and writers, including such pro-Western liberals and anti-fascists as Boris Sokolov or Viktor Suvorov state that collaboration with the Reich was fully comprehensible and justified in the case of all nations of USSR. Lenin’s and Stalin’s policies killed far more people in Russia than those of Hitler.

      Suvorov for instance claims that the only hope for Russians was in people like Vlasov who were the last possible civilized leaders for Russia.

      The starvation of prisoners by Germans was terrible, but it was USSR that refused to recognize the Geneva convention first, the rest was a consequence. And German P.O.W.s didn’t enjoy their time in the Gulags either.

      There was a huge difference in how the army (both Wehrmacht and Waffen SS) treated the local population and how the new administration did it. As is attested by Steiner, Degrelle, Manstein, or even Stauffenberg, those who actually fought in the East understood the need to create local army units and give freedom to the local population. They called for it numerous times. However these initiatives were countered by the highest administration, including Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels, who only changed their minds when it was too late.

      I truly support what has been often said on this website: had Third Reich become an actual liberator of the peoples of the USSR, Stalin would have been crushed.

      The biggest tragedy was that Russians, Ukrainians, Balts etc. were caught in the middle of the struggle of two totalitarian regimes, both of which aimed to destroy them.

      • Proofreader
        Posted February 8, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink

        “The issue of Operation Barbarossa and [the Third] Reich’s eastern policy has been discussed here a thousand times.” Perhaps, but it seems that these things are typically discussed in a superficial and partisan manner. One rarely goes beyond such things as citations of Hitler’s Table Talk on the one hand and questions about its authenticity on the other hand. I think we have a responsibility to do better than this. For my part, I think I should inform myself, but I don’t know where to begin. I’m considering reading Alexander Dallin’s German Rule in Russia, 1941-1945: A Study in Occupation Politics. It’s the only book I know of that appears to comprehensively address National Socialist policy towards Eastern Europe. However, the Wikipedia entry of Dallin notes that he was a Jew, which is hardly a good sign, and I lack the background knowledge to properly judge such a work. If anyone reading this can provide an informed judgment of Dallin’s work, I should very much like to hear it.

  4. George Kerby
    Posted February 4, 2016 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Just read Degrelle.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace