Counter-Currents
3,284 words
Tuesday, November 7th, marked the one hundredth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution (called the “October Revolution,” since in the Julian calendar it took place on October 25th). But you would never know it.
Vladimir Putin declared last year that discussion of the Revolution should be left to professional historians—and this year, despite the momentous hundred-year landmark, he said and did nothing. Asked about whether there would be any events commemorating the anniversary, spokesmen for the government simply said that they didn’t see any point in that. Yes, there was a parade on November 7th. But it was a re-creation of a 1941 military parade Stalin insisted on holding as an act of defiance against German forces, who were approaching Moscow at the time.
Yes, there was a demonstration in Moscow on Tuesday of Communist stalwarts, waving red flags and carrying portraits of Lenin and Stalin. But according to the U.S. media it attracted only “a few thousand” (which—who knows?—might actually mean a thousand or fewer). And this is no surprise. In a poll conducted just last month, only 6% of Russians said that they thought the Revolution was something to be proud of. The Russians saw firsthand the devastation wrought by communism, and they are still recovering from it.
Let us contrast the sensibleness of this long-suffering folk to the wooly-headed ignorance of our American “millennials.” In a poll published just three days before the anniversary of the Revolution 58% of American millennials (that is, the generation born between the early eighties and mid-nineties) said that they would prefer to live in a socialist, communist, or fascist society. Communism and fascism each got 7%, whereas socialism got 44%. But one wonders how these young folk (who are often astonishingly ignorant) understand the distinction between (Left-wing) socialism and communism. One also wonders if the distinction matters at all. Such a poll result must be deeply puzzling to Russians and others who have actually lived through the horror show that was socialism/communism (hereafter referred to just as “communism”).
The mainstream press in the U.S. has also said little about the anniversary. This ought to be surprising (though I will cover in a moment why it is not). After all, is this not a tremendous historical landmark? It was one hundred years ago that the most revolutionary political philosophy in history was put into practice, taking control of the largest nation on earth. And isn’t it genuinely remarkable that this was all the result of the turgid prose of a poverty-stricken German-Jewish philosopher, scribbling away in a cubicle in the British Museum? Marxism then took hold of other countries, radically changing the lives of everyone touched by it—overturning the old order and ending thousands of years of tradition. The states inspired by old Karl then became locked in a decades-long “cold war” with the West, on which billions of dollars and many, many lives were expended. The Russian Revolution, in short, changed the world in incalculable ways. And it continues, directly or indirectly, to shape the world we live in. It continues to affect—again, directly or indirectly—the lives of all of us, no matter where we live.
So, you would sort of think—wouldn’t you?—that there would be a whole hell of a lot of attention devoted to the fact that we’ve now been living with communism for a solid century. You would think there would be countless news stories, commemorations, and academic conferences galore, devoted to considering the legacy of communism.
Yes, you would think that—but it’s not happened, and is not going to happen. And the reason is simple and obvious: the Left knows that if we paused at this significant juncture in history and took honest stock of what communism has wrought, the result would be devastating for them. Let us defy them and take stock, if only briefly, of why communism is the worst disaster ever to befall the human race since the Black Death:
- 65 million murdered in the People’s Republic of China
- 20 million murdered in the Soviet Union
- 2 million murdered in Cambodia
- 2 million murdered in North Korea
- 7 million murdered in Ethiopia
- 5 million murdered in Afghanistan
- 1 million murdered in the Eastern Bloc
- 1 million murdered in Vietnam
- 150,000 murdered in Latin America
- 10,000 deaths resulting from “actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power.” (See The Black Book of Communism)
And consider this grab bag of Communist infamy (in no particular order):
- The Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people.
- The Decossackization, a policy of systematic repression against the Don Cossacks from 1917 to 1933
- The murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps from 1918-1930.
- The execution of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners.
- The suppression of religion and persecution of believers and clergy: thousands of clergymen killed in the Soviet Union alone.
- The devout Grand Duchess Elizabeth and other Orthodox Christians buried alive by the Soviets (Elizabeth was later made a saint by the Orthodox Church).
- The murder of the Tsar, his wife, and all his children (all of whom were later canonized by the Orthodox Church).
- Thousands in the Soviet Union and elsewhere committed to mental institutions and “treated” for the “mental illness” of questioning Marxism-Leninism.
- Pol Pot of Cambodia murdering thousands simply because they wore glasses, because they were suspected of being intellectuals.
- The murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922
- The Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people.
- Some 50,000 or more professors and other intellectuals murdered in Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.”
- The Katyn Forest Massacre of 1940, in which the Soviets murdered around 20,000 Poles, then pinned the deed on the Germans.
- The deportation of 2 million “kulaks” from 1930 to 1932.
- The death of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932–1933.
- The deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldovans and people from the Baltic states from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945.
- The deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941.
- The rape of as many as 2 million German women by Soviet soldiers in the aftermath of the Second World War.
St. Grand Duchess Elizabeth, buried alive by the Bolsheviks
Did I miss anything? Yes, indeed. There’s a whole lot more that could be mentioned. Including the complete suppression of freedom of expression in communist countries, and the complete control of all aspects of public life—and much of private life. The drab dullness of life under communism. The long lines for bread. The shortages. The alcoholism. Children encouraged to rat on their parents. Artists and writers systematically broken in prisons, with the intentional aim of destroying their creative spirit. Houses and apartments bugged. Attempts by secret police (notably in East Germany) to “gaslight” dissidents. Science corrupted by ideology (notably, biologists in the Soviet Union were under pressure not to support hereditarianism). And still there is more.
When one sums it all up, it is difficult for even the most hard-bitten cynic and misanthrope not to feel intense moral outrage, and to see communism as a human disaster really without parallel in history. And yet, strangely, much of what I have cited above would be news to most Americans. Try the following experiment: ask normies who the greatest mass murderer in history was. They will almost invariably say “Hitler.” Treat them to the fact that it was Mao, who killed ten times as many and you will receive looks of shocked incredulity (and an occasional “Who’s Mao?”). I have actually done this, and to their credit a lot of the incredulity has to do with folks wondering why they’ve never heard this before—why it was, in effect, concealed from them. And it has been concealed, by omission. The Left does not want the facts about communism to be generally known: it does not want people to realize that it is in fact the Left—not the fascists or the Nazis—who are the greatest mass murderers and tyrants in history. Don’t expect to see any major movies accurately depicting the horrors of communism. Instead, it’s going to be Hitler, Hitler, Hitler from now till doomsday. But in terms of sheer quantity of murder and terror, Hitler and the Nazis were rank amateurs compared to the communists.
However, as many of you have already discovered, the Left has a ready answer when The Black Book of Communism gets opened: “that wasn’t real socialism” (they will seldom say “that wasn’t real communism,” for even they recognize how tainted that term is). “Real socialism has never been tried,” they will say. This response is quite simply obscene, and for two reasons. First, it implicitly diminishes the suffering and death caused by communism, by refusing to explore whether there is any relation between that suffering and death, and repeated attempts to create “real socialism.” Second, it is obscene because it is intellectual dishonesty of an extreme and unforgiveable variety.
Consider the following analogy, which I have actually used on Leftists. Suppose there was a game that people played—a competitive sport, call it Obstacle Golf—which was so dangerous that every time a match was held, every member of both teams would be killed. Suppose that people had been playing Obstacle Golf for, say, one hundred years. Suppose matches had been held all over the world, by different peoples in different countries. And the result is always the same. Suppose that those organizing the matches recognized that this was a little bit of a problem and so tried to learn from the mistakes of the past and to tweak the rules, as well as other aspects of the game. But that doesn’t do the trick: the result of playing the game is still disaster.
Now suppose, further, that you confronted an ardent fan of Obstacle Golf—one of those male sports fans who’s got every fact and statistic in his head. Suppose you suggested that given the carnage it might be time to give up on Obstacle Golf. And suppose he looks at you and says “Well, they just haven’t been playing the game properly. So, we need to keep trying.” Needless to say, no reasonable person would come out with such an answer, and no reasonable person would accept it. But this is precisely the sort of position taken by Leftists.
Of course, one has to make distinctions in dealing with Leftists and to realize that their position has changed in certain significant ways. But what is also important, and striking, are the ways their position has not changed. Very few Leftists in the West today are devoted to championing the plight of the proletariat—the working class, of whatever ethnicity. No, it’s sort of obvious to everyone that that didn’t work: the proletariat didn’t want to be liberated. They wanted bigger, nicer cars in which they could safely drive the wife and kids to the mall. So, the Left searched around for a different group to liberate, and it became non-whites. With the oppressed other now identified by racial category, the identity of the oppressor had to change: no longer bourgeois, but white. They have continued to discover—with undisguised glee—other groups to liberate: women, gays, “transgenders,” and now all signs indicate the next oppressed other will be pedophiles. But non-whites remain the gold standard in oppressed otherness, and the main focus of today’s Leftists.
The pattern is the same. In all cases, the Left seems moved by self-hatred: the self-hatred of bourgeois Leftists (most Bolsheviks came from middle-class backgrounds), or the self-hatred of white Leftists. They set upon an “other” to be liberated—whose liberation would scandalize and even imperil their own family’s group, whether bourgeoise or whites. This “other” is romanticized and invested with unlimited fantasy potential. When liberated, they will hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, without ever becoming hunters, fishermen, herdsmen or critics (to quote dear old Karl—God, if only he had been Groucho!). Hell, that’s thinking small: they’ll all be composing symphonies and building rocket ships to Mars. Once liberated, the other will then liberate the Leftist liberators: the earthy proles/non-whites, brimming with authenticity, will teach the cold, uptight Leftist bourgeois/whites how to feel, how to dance, how to screw, and (most of all) how to plumb the depths of their souls in a merciless quest to eradicate the last vestiges of their bourgeoisness/whiteness. And the cherry on the cake is that mom and dad are really going to be pissed.
Certain other things also remain exactly the same. One is the Leftist intolerance of dissent. So that we now see calls by Leftists to limit freedom of speech—something they have already succeeded in doing in Canada, the U.K., and Europe. “Racists” and “sexists” are counter-revolutionaries who must be destroyed: they must be imprisoned (if possible), and their lives and careers destroyed. Even their families and others who associate with them must be ruined. And if legal means fail, violence against the counter-revolutionaries is acceptable: something which, as you are doubtless aware, the Left is again openly advocating in the West. Another constant is the tendency of the Left to eat itself. The war against the bourgeoisness/whiteness in their souls can never end: deeper and deeper layers are discovered, and more and more must apologize for their privilege, for the very fact of their existence. Just being born bourgeois/white is original sin enough for condemnation—and all must rush to self-condemn or be branded counter-revolutionary.
Another constant is opposition to the aforementioned “hereditarianism”: the idea that heredity plays a significant role in making us who we are. This is actually MUCH more fervently opposed by today’s Leftists than it was by the Soviets. With the focus switched from class to race, but the clarion call still “Equality! Equality!” facts about genetic differences between the races must be ruthlessly suppressed, for the simple reason that science doesn’t support the myth of natural equality. This ban on biological fact applies also to the case of the sexes: in the name of “equality” Leftists now demand that we pretend we do not know that the sexes are biologically different, and that male and female prototypicality is determined by such things as different brain structure, and differing hormone levels. The whole idea of “social construction” would really have been too much even for Stalin, who no doubt would have thought it absurd. Yet there is a case to be made (too complex to fully make here) that the absurdities of today’s Left are a logical development or extension of the principles with which Bolshevism began one hundred years ago. Once we set up equality as our god, we must deny larger and larger swaths of reality: for nothing and nobody in life and in reality is equal.
Much more could be said about the constants of Leftism, put the point I have just now made leads me naturally to one final, perennial element of Leftism: hate. As I have said before many times, the central thing about Leftism is that it is a philosophy in revolt against life and reality. This revolt has many sources, but certainly one of the major ones was identified long ago by Nietzsche: ressentiment. Envy. Hatred of the good for being the good. Hatred of the successful, the noble, the physically and spiritually strong. As those in our set have often observed, the physiognomy of our enemies says it all: the fat, the ugly, the physically weak, the sexually stunted and perverted are out in force whenever and wherever Leftists rally. Feminism too is ressentiment: hatred by a minority of high-testosterone, frustrated, crypto-lesbian females against the men who built a world in which they enjoy unparalleled safety and luxury. And the feminist rebellion against “oppressive standards of beauty” is almost always led by women who would never be mistaken for beautiful, no matter what standard was employed.
In a recent article for American Renaissance, Ilana Mercer writes:
[Black journalist Keith] Richburg believes that on the Dark Continent, tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. He cites the fate of the Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—among the Hutu who are a Bantu people. The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing, attractive Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th century. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.”
As terrible as is the envy of black groups against each other (think of the resentment directed at lighter-skinned blacks) their envy of us is positively ferocious. We see it now unleashed in South Africa, and elsewhere on the Dark Continent, against white farmers, who are being hacked to death on a daily basis. It is this fury of the darker races against the white that white Leftists now want to unleash in the West, all out of hatred of their own. Hatred of their own group, because they can never measure up to the best our race has to offer. Hatred of those who are taller, thinner, healthier, richer, smarter, blonder, handsomer, more talented, more socially functional, more normal in the sex and sexuality department.
Of course, most of what I have said so far applies exclusively to gentile Leftists. While it’s true that Jewish Leftists are motivated by ressentiment, they also champion communism as a vehicle for their ethnic interests. I should mention that I don’t buy the claim that communism is nothing more than a Jewish plot foisted upon the naive goyim. That so many of our people have been receptive to it makes this a far more complex and nuanced issue (more complex and nuanced than I can do justice to here). And, of course, the treatment of communism as a Jewish conspiracy completely fails to explain how communism got such a strong foothold in the Far East.
Let’s not quibble about terminology: at its core, Leftism or liberalism is communism. This philosophy has been proven to be—time and again—deadly. It means hatred and intolerance and famine and war and the destruction of everything that is upright and noble and beautiful. This is a philosophy, again, in revolt against life. It has a will towards death and destruction. And the miserable, twisted fuckers who advocate it just will not go away.
Give them no quarter: remind them, ceaselessly, of the evils wrought by their ideas. And don’t just speak to them, for there usually is no converting these people. The way to deal with them is to defeat them, not convince them. So, speak to others. Tell them about how Mao outclasses Hitler so far as killing goes. Tell them the story of Katyn. Tell them about how Marxists have suppressed science. Tell them how, everywhere they have ruled, Leftists have suppressed speech and punished and even killed people for asking the wrong questions. Those who have open minds must be made to see, over and over again, that it is the Left that is the party of intolerance, hatred, violence, and oppression.
We must never forget—or allow anyone else to forget—the horrific legacy of communism. The Leftists have tried to intimidate all those who would advocate for whites and for the West with the specter of Right-Wing crimes. Let’s take a page from their playbook and do the same thing to the them.
Let’s make sure that in another hundred years, communism will long have been extinct.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
27 comments
‘Let’s not quibble about terminology; at its core, Leftism or liberalism is communism.’
An interesting interpretation to say the least.
In 1979, Maragaret Thatcher (pin-up girl of the Cold War ’right’) met with Soviet Chairman Leonid Brezhnev. Thatcher said to Brezhnev that she saw no reason why the UK and USSR should not have better relations. Brezhnev agreed and added, ‘Madame, there is only one important question facing us – and that is whether the white race will survive.’
Thatcher was so shocked she broke off the conversation and left the room.
A few years later, Thatcher’s fellow ideologue and cold-warrior Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants. Later still, Australia’s John Howard – another stalwart of free-enterprise and commie-bater – raised ‘legal’ immigration levels to all time historic highs, ironically costing him his own seat in Parliament as a result of demographic change (Asianisation) of his electorate.
We are indeed fortunate that communism was crushed by globalist capitalism of the type championed by Western cold-warriors. A walk through London today illustrates the wisdom of Baroness Thatcher’s ‘no such thing as society’ individualism.
This is exactly why I refer to myself as a nationalist, but never as one of ‘the right’.
.
What is the source for that Brezhnev quote?
Instauration (1984) volume 10, p.21.
Also referenced elsewhere on the web and in ‘The Scientist as Rebel’ by Freeman Dyson. Dyson claims that the discussion took place with former British PM James Callaghan, but this seems to be a mistake given the date.
There is some evidence that Krushchev made a similar remark in 1960 to Charles DeGaul.
I find it hard to believe that Brezhnev said any such thing. Where is there any evidence that eastern Europeans thought in terms of “white race” during that era (or indeed now)? They still probably think in terms of ethnicity or maybe Russian Empire.
The most compelling evidence is to look at the current ethnic homogeneity of former communist countries – and compare this to Western nations that have had 50 years of free market capitalist rule.
Despite the rhetoric of most communist bloc leaders, their actions did not – as a rule – imperil the racial integrity of their nations. This is apparent in the whiteness of these places today. By contrast, the leaders of the Cold War ‘free world’ were full of windy rhetoric about freedom and values and constitutional rights etc, but they were among the worst offenders when it came to importing third world immigrants to keep labour prices low. Need proof? Look around you in those places today. Is Moscow whiter than London, or Washington DC, or Sydney?
.
That’s not the point. We know all that.
Communism did not prevent third world immigration to protect the white race, they couldn’t feed their own mouths.
But where is any internet-accessible, somewhat credible, evidence of communists defending the white race?
The Brezhnev quote is referenced in multiple places on the web.
The Wikiquote entry for Brezhnev lists it, citing the Dyson book (page 100). See: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev
John Harrison Sims, writing for American Renaissance (I don’t know whether you consider him reliable) cites the same quote here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2014/06/the-george-kennan-diaries
The relevant part of the Instauraration article can be found in Google Books here: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=92819&page=https://books.google.nl/books?id=yVEfAQAAMAAJ&q=Mr+Prime+Minister,+there+is+only+one+important+question+facing+us,+and+that+is+the+question+of+whether+the+white+race+will+survive.&dq=Mr+Prime+Minister,+there+is+only+one+important+question+facing+us,+and+that+is+the+question+of+whether+the+white+race+will+survive.&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ6NGK9sfSAhWKfhoKHcP_CF0Q6AEIJDAB
CL Sulzbergers’ book, ‘The World and Richard Nixon’ relates an account of Nixon’s meeting with Brezhnev at Camp David where Brezhnev expressed a (prescient) concern about rising Chinese power, suggesting to Nixon that ‘we the whites’ need to control them. I can’t find a concise, web linked reference to that but others have mentioned it in conversations eg here: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=92819&page=5
Dan Michaels, writing approvingly about Sergei Semanov for the Occidental Observer, notes that ‘nationalist political parties and the (nationalist) Russian Club…peaked in popularity under..Leonid Brezhnev.’ Here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/09/18/sergei-semanov-and-the-russianists/
In any case, my point is not to try to establish that communism was always nationalistic or pro-white. It wasn’t, I get that.
My point was to show that many of those who proclaim their right-wing, anti-communist credentials most loudly have done far more damage to white nations than the communist bloc leaders of the Cold War period.
Just as there is a nationalist Right and a globalist Right, there is a globalist Left and an admittedly tiny nationalist Left. Historically, that nationalist left was bigger than it is today, but (in my opinion) it was far less reprehensible than the globalists of Left or Right are today.
Superficial attacks on historical communism give credence to the idea that right wing views – even those expressed by people like Reagan and Thatcher – were fundamentally correct. To my mind this is counter productive.
.
Apologies. The Instauration link above is incorrect. Bad copy + paste.
Try
https://books.google.nl/books?id=yVEfAQAAMAAJ&q=Mr+Prime+Minister,+there+is+only+one+important+question+facing+us,+and+that+is+the+question+of+whether+the+white+race+will+survive.&dq=Mr+Prime+Minister,+there+is+only+one+important+question+facing+us,+and+that+is+the+question+of+whether+the+white+race+will+survive.&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ6NGK9sfSAhWKfhoKHcP_CF0Q6AEIJDAB
Mr. nineofclubs, you have made a very strong, balanced, insightful and persuasive point on this pertinent question. I completely agree. By the way, I’ve always liked your comments which scintillate with wisdom and great discernment. Cheers!
Harrison Salisbury had some interesting things to say about Russian racism in The Coming War between Russia and China (London: Secker and Warburg, 1969).
Thank you for the reference. I haven’t read that one, but think I may have seen it quoted.
Will look it up..
Here are some choice excerpts from Harrison Salisbury’s book, interspersed with some comments of my own:
“Marxist ideology and Communist morality insist upon the absolute equality of races, the obliteration of chauvinism, the suppression of hatred based on race or colour. But Russians render only lip service where Asians are concerned. Russian terror and Russian hatred of the peoples of yellow hue and slant eyes are too deep to be hidden. Europeans used to say: ‘Scratch a Russian, find a tartar.’ It is true that Russians possess a tartar heritage, but a more accurate aphorism would be: ‘Scratch a Russian, find a Russian.’ No Russian mother would think of permitting her daughter to marry a Mongol, a Chinese, or any non-Aryan Asian. She would have deep reservations about an Armenian or a Georgian. Not to mention a Jew.”
“The Mongols invaded Russia more than 700 years ago. Listening to Russians talk you might think the Mongol and other Asian incursion had happened only yesterday. Only when one is aware of the immediacy these events still possess in Russian minds does it become possible to understand the fervour for racial chauvinism displayed toward the East and its peoples.
“If the question — What has this to do with Communist China? — is asked, the answer is simple. The Russian makes no distinction between the peoples of the East. They may be Uzbek, they may be Mongol, or they may be the Han people of China. To the Russian they are all the same. He does not distinguish between the Mongols who ravaged his land 600 years ago and the masses of China whom he believes are standing just beyond the low hills of Asia ready to attack again, silently, secretly, without warning.
“This hereditary, racial ‘set’ of Russians provides the environment into which must be fitted the present-day antagonisms and hostilities. It is to these historic, atavistic attitudes that contemporary events are related. When a Russian speaks of China, when a Russian says with an angry sneer that ‘it is time we taught these people a lesson,’ when he exhorts a visitor that ‘we Russians are Europeans, Westerners like you,’ he is speaking out of an emotion which sees Asia as a continent of savage warriors ready to race across the open steppe, burn his house, sack his city, and rape his women.”
We should heed Friedrich Nietzsche’s observation, “The future belongs to those with the longest memories.”
“A Westerner leaving Peking in the spring of 1969 was entertained to dinner by a Russian colleague. The Russian was deep in gloom. He hated Peking, hated having to stay behind. ‘Don’t forget,’ the Russian warned, ‘we Russians are Europeans and we Europeans must stand together against the yellow hordes of Asia.’ He could not have realized how closely his sentiments echoed those of the late William Randolph Hearst, the great American chauvinist who for two generations sought to awaken America to the ‘yellow peril.’”
I think David Duke related having a similar encounter with a Russian in My Awakening.
“Americans, particularly in recent years, have acquired great sensitivity and awareness where racial problems are concerned. We have conducted a kind of national soul-seeking and soul-baring on the subject. We work in a thousand ways (if still far from effectively) to eradicate and minimize racial prejudice.
“Nothing of the kind has been done in the Soviet Union. Party leaders simply deny that racial prejudice exists. If Russian students beat up African students because they resent seeing black Africans going out with blonde Russian girls, the government denies that the incidents occurred or blames them on Western propaganda. Russian racial prejudices, be they anti-Semitic, anti-black, or anti-yellow, are freely expressed and assumed to be ‘normal.’”
Thanks again, proofreader. You’ve clearly gone to a lot of effort to pull these quotes together. Some very clear points here about the difference between words and deed in Soviet Russia. In judging the leaders of the Soviet bloc, I think that difference is highly relevant.
Also referenced elsewhere on the web and in ‘The Scientist as Rebel’ by Freeman Dyson. Dyson claims that the discussion took place with former British PM James Callaghan, but this seems to be a mistake given the date.
OK, so maybe it was Thatcher instead of Callaghan who had the meeting with Brezhnev where she suppposedly broke off the conversation with Brezhnev and stomped out.
Sounds like someone made this up. She meets with Brezhnev, cap in hand, to try and make peace with Russia and ends up acting like a petulant child?
This is not prime ministerial behavior, certainly not from a woman who fancied herself something of an aristocrat and whose style of speaking resembled that of the Queen.
Well OK. There’s a possibility the account is inaccurate; so let’s assume that it is.
Maybe Brezhnev never said any such thing. That’s possible. But why would anyone make it up? And how is it that multiple sources over 30 years or more refer to it? Who gains? The modern globalist left gains nothing by attributing racist statements to an old Communist. They’d find it embarrassing. They DO find it embarrassing, when they’re not trying to airbrush it out of history. The patriotard right might have made it up to show how ‘regressive’ socialism is, I suppose. But if that’s true, it kind of illustrates my point.
Or maybe Brezhnev did make the comment, but Maggie managed it with her customary stiff upper lip; nodding sagely in agreement or scolding Brezhnev for his Slavic barbarism. What difference would it make? She still went on to rob the British National Front of electoral success by wringing her hands on TV and saying she was ‘concerned about immigration’ (and then doing nothing about it). She still presided over an unprecedented coloured immigration program. In terms of damage done to the English people, she was unquestionably far worse than the socialists she railed against, like Arthur Scargill, whose greatest offence was pushing up the price of British steel through higher wages and better conditions for miners.
In light of Brezhnev’s other statements and actions, I tend to think it probable that he did make the comment. Readers may choose to disagree and that’s fine.
History is rarely black and white.
.
i>”…And, of course, the treatment of communism as a Jewish conspiracy completely fails to explain how communism got such a strong foothold in the Far East…”
Communism was brought to China by Russian communists, most of whom were Jews, and Mao had Jewish advisors (see : Jewish Journal, Nov. 20, 2015 : Mao’s Jews. jewishjournal.com/news/world/179731 ).
But of course millions of Goyim who caught the communist virus from the Jews are themselves responsible for their own crimes committed in the name of that ideology.
The present form of Marxism is what I call “racial Marxism” in which the “oppressed proletariat” of traditional Marxism has been replaced with people-of-color and the “oppressing bourgeoisie” with the white race. Racial Utopia will come when “whiteness has been abolished” (as per Noel Ignatiev), which is an euphemism for white genocide. The absurdity of it all is that so many Whites themselves endorse this crazy ideology.
Thanks for that Jewish Journal piece on “Mao’s Jews”. Like the significant role Jews played in administering the Russian Communist Revolution of 1917, this type of story is instantly memory-holed.
One named that ought to be mentioned is the name of one particular Soviet Jew without whose help the Chinese Communist Party could not have been formed: Grigori Naumovich Voitinsky. He is essentially the creator of the Chinese Communist Party before it started living its own life and started killing people. Grigori is Frankstein who created the Monster.
Just once I’d like to see an examination of communism without death numbers being a main focus, its a decadent symptom of modernity to be so obsessed with quantity, you shouldn’t need to resort to it to expose flaws of communism.
Why not? The number dead reveals a MAJOR flaw. Every single time communism is attempted, it results in astronomical numbers of deaths for the very group of people who embrace it! How can you leave this detail out?
The death tolls are way off for the USSR. The deliberate skewing of census numbers for total population in Russia after consolidation in 1923 is well documented. We will never know for certain about the population stats for various regions, particularly in rural areas, but Solzhinitsyn’s figures are far more accurate than the mainstream textbook numbers you have given. The Povolzhye famine in 1921 (orchestrated by rerouting food out of certain areas that were unsympathetic to the Bolsheviks) murdered about 5 to 6 million souls alone. The Holodomor (1932) and the “public works” during the 1920s killed 7 million and 10 million respectively. I haven’t even mentioned the Red Terror and the Kulaks yet… 50 million Russian and Slavic Gentiles were murdered from 1919 to 1959, most likely more. I appreciate your article however; but simply cannot agree with such a low estimation of those murdered in the USSR…
“We must never forget—or allow anyone else to forget—the horrific legacy of communism.”
I agree. Thank-you.
“And don’t just speak to them, for there usually is no converting these people.”
With the operative word being “usually,” I think at least some outreach is warranted. Mike Enoch used to be a lefty. I hold out hope for many leftists. Especially the young ones. Especially the ones more concerned with economic matters than social issues.
“Hatred of those who are taller, thinner, healthier, richer, smarter, blonder, handsomer, more talented, more socially functional, more normal in the sex and sexuality department.”
These are not necessarily correlated. Jews are not tall, healthy, blonde, or handsome but are very rich, talented, and smart.
Justin Trudeau is tall, thin, healthy, rich, smart, blondish, handsome, talented, socially functional, and normal in the sex and sexuality department–and a total leftist. I think the problem goes deeper than envy.
It was Lothrop Stoddard who once observed that he took the Bolsheviks at face value when they claimed that the Russian (Red October 1917) Revolution was an uprising of the oppressed lowest classes. The “proletarians” were not tricked by communist propaganda into overthrowing the Provisional Government. They really intended to wipe out the Russian overclass, and that they did in the ensuing civil war and dictatorship of the proletariat.
Stoddard’s point was that the “under-men” (his term for, essentially, the low-IQ underlass) could not sustain or even integrate themselves into a civilization. Eventually, they would rebel (led by the usual hostile elites) and if not checked, destroy that civilization. Well, Stoddard, Madison Grant. H.P. Lovecraft and quite a few others of a century past have supposedly been repudiated. Yet we see their prognostications play out today from Detroit to Zimbabwe and Malmo.
With the focus switched from class to race…
A good Leninist would put it this way: the selection of the oppressed class is a tactic of the revolutionary vanguard. When workers were alienated in large numbers by the industrial revolution, communists agitated for workers’ revolution. Where “minorities” can not integrate themselves into post-industrial (White) civilizations, communists push for the “coalition of the ascendant.” The objective is for the revolutionary vanguard to mobilize these masses as shock troops, whether in Petrograd or Ferguson. Of course, once power has been seized, the revolutionary masses are put back in their box while the revolutionary vanguard settles into the Winter Palace, Forbidden City and corporate HR department.
This has an implication because if non-Whites turn against the communists in the future, who will the revolutionary vanguard declare as the next real and true revolutionary class?
…but the clarion call still “Equality! Equality!” facts about genetic differences between the races must be ruthlessly suppressed, for the simple reason that science doesn’t support the myth of natural equality.
Even if 99% of a country’s people believed in “equality” they would still be wrong. Why? Because humans are not equal. This is one reason, I think, that in its current incarnation, liberalism has become increasingly shrill in its suppression of racial science and opposition to nationalist activism. An honest debate on race would cause the egalitarian house of cards to collapse in a hurricane of reality.
If people were actually “equal” (in the current liberal sense) then the Detroit of 2017 would look like the Detroit of 1927; Haiti and Liberia would be humming along like Singapore; and ancient European cities would not be “enriched” by No Go Zones, terror attacks and third world sex slavery rings. Well, it’s the function of ideology to reinterpret reality to match political orthodoxy, and liberalism has no lack of rationalizations for its failure, whether about “institutional racism” or the “lasting effects of colonialism.” Anything but admit the reality of race.
But either the reality of race will reassert itself, or the Western world will end up like the new and improved rainbow nation of South Africa with its endemic power outages, farm attacks and terroristic level crime rates. You have to wonder how long blue haired, pink capped cat ladies and their beta male orbiters would last in that world, so karmic justice might be served. Alas, such a future would drag down the rest of us with them!
But then again, communism did collapse in the Soviet Union, and we now see nationalism becoming all the rage in Eastern Europe. One thing I was told by people who lived under communism was that they got fed up with the lies upon lies which were required to sustain the system. Once enough people stood up and told the truth, the system started unraveling. With the internet there’s the opportunity for more truth telling, and the Alt Right is even now moving into the realworld, such as it is.
It’s all another reason to continue that metapolitical struggle.
So glad you mentioned the motivation underpinning communism, envy. I wish you would have mentioned envy’s other face, envy avoidance. Successful white leftist feel guilty about the envy that they cause the non-Whites and purge their guilt by self-denuding themselves and their own race.
It’s their belief in their own supremacy and the supremacy of the White race which makes them so self-destructive.
A most comprehensive, meaningful, and conclusively convincing article on the pertinent topic, and is worth widely spreading and being read by all the true nationalists of different nationalities or ethnic backgrounds around the world. Congratulations and many thanks to the author. And if not objected, I plan to translate this article to Japanese and try floating it around on the webspace of the Japanese nationalist sites. Chinese Maiden, please do the same and translate the article to Chinese and spread it in the enlightened Chinese nationalist and anti-communist circles with which you are familiar.
Thank you for your kind comments. I would be very happy if you translated my essay into Japanese.
Excelent article.
The number of deaths seems to be much smaller than the reality. 1 mil of deaths for eastern Europe is too low.
Guess only for Romania is more than half million.
The number of deaths is not equal with the number of victims. Hunger, illness, horrible work conditions and fear affected everyone in Eastern Europe. The horrible mutilation of the national soul still affects everyone.
Regarding Breshnev beeing worried about the fate of the white race.
I think it more than anything a certain style of soviet propaganda able to say anything for every group of interes.
The Universities of Eastern Europe were full of “students” from all over the world. That these “students” got sometimes a beating from some burly workers or even Securitate is true.
I say “students” because they were really dumb, really older compared with the rest of the rest of the students, they were full of money. Many had military training. Many were selling drugs and various import items. They were bribing university staff, literarily destroying the universitary life.
From a sanitary point of view probably they costed most dearly. They brought AIDS, homosexuality, hepatitis, and flu epidemies.
And yes, many girls, including the most beautyful, were attracted by money, many hoping to escape the communist heaven by any mean including whoring themselves.
If this means that the communists gave a damn about white race …
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment