The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 F. Roger Devlin Archive
Solzhenitsyn for Today’s World
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Spencer J. Quinn
Solzhenitsyn & the Right
Quakertown, Pa.: Antelope Hill

The widespread perception of Solzhenitsyn as a figure inseparable from the vanished world of the Cold War has become an obstacle to appreciation of his works. To some extent, an earlier generation of his Western admirers contributed to this misunderstanding: e.g., many Cold War conservatives were dead set against any discussion of race, which would make it impossible to apply any of Solzhenitsyn’s insights to our struggle against today’s racially-obsessed Left. Once I shared an article relating Solzhenitsyn to current American politics with a distinguished Solzhenitsyn scholar. His response was unfavorable: Solzhenitsyn’s principal concern was with his beloved Russia, and so citing him in an article on current American politics amounted to “instrumentalizing” the author for ends alien to his own. Of course, Solzhenitsyn had made strenuous efforts to get his message out to the West, knowing that we love our countries for the same reason he loved Russia, and that there was absolutely nothing “Russian” about the kind of thinking behind Communism, which can be found all over the world.

Orthodox Marxism-Leninism never exercised any appeal in the United States, but a variant developed by the Frankfurt School, now widely referred to as “cultural Marxism,” has become the de facto ideology of the American State. It is admittedly not identical to classical Marxism: In the new way of thinking, the villains are European-descended people who behave in evolutionarily adaptive ways rather than greedy capitalists squeezing surplus value out of the toiling masses (indeed, capitalists are now among the most reliable champions of cultural Marxism). But the two ideologies have clear common roots, tell similar stories about supposedly oppressing and oppressed groups defined a priori, and (most importantly) were developed by the same sort of people motivated by the same unquenchable resentment of European civilization and the people who created it. History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes, and with due caution in recognizing differences in historical situations, there should be much in Solzhenitsyn’s struggle against Communism which can instruct us on the nature of our present-day enemies and how to fight them.

To take one example, many in the West are unaware that the same anti-majoritarian animus Americans are experiencing today was prefigured in Solzhenitsyn’s homeland, where the revolution was more anti-Russian than Russian. As the author recalls:

During the 20s the very understanding of Russian history was changed — there was none! And the understanding of what a Russian is was changed — there was no such thing! . . . I recall from my school days that even the word “Russian,” such as “I am a Russian” sounded like a call to counter-revolution. . . . But everywhere was heard and printed the term “Russopyati.” [an insulting epithet]

It was all there a hundred years ago except the expression “social construct!”

Or consider how Solzhenitsyn came to see through the apparently humanitarian ideal of internationalism:

Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed — nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity — too bad for you.

Indeed, nations — meaning groups of people who share a common birth (Latin: natio), not a common passport — are biological realities which enable altruistic behavior even as they recognize the necessary limits upon it. They are part of the rules of evolutionary survival. Fantasies of universal selflessness are the preserve of the callow, or of those whose survival has never been threatened. Either white people will learn what it means to share a common birth, or we will be pushed aside by groups which have such an understanding.

So in producing a book on Solzhenitsyn’s relevance to the contemporary Right, Spencer J. Quinn is filling an important need. He himself emphasizes another aspect, however: Many of the younger generation are put off by the sheer bulk of Solzhenitsyn’s works. It should also be pointed out that compared with the sprawling history which was Solzhenitsyn’s subject matter — the Revolution, the Gulag system, two centuries of Russian-Jewish relations — his works represent a considerable achievement of compression. But to an American generation brought up on Twitter, they will undoubtedly be a challenge. Solzhenitsyn and the Right is a good beginner’s guide. Many of the chapters first appeared as articles here on Counter-Currents.

As Quinn notes, Solzhenitsyn was at one time among the most recognized and admired figures in the world due to his fearless battle against the Soviet authorities and his sudden, dramatic exile to the West in 1974. But enthusiasm quickly cooled when he began criticizing the West itself, and journalists realized he was “not the liberal we had hoped for.” A primary catalyst for the shift in perceptions was Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard commencement address of 1978, “A World Split Apart,” with which Quinn appropriately starts. Here Solzhenitsyn accused the West of:

  1. failing to recognize civilizational differences and thus assessing other societies according to its own inappropriate criteria;
  2. losing courage and self-confidence in the face of brazen aggression, whether from terrorists or Communist governments;
  3. being preoccupied with material goods to the neglect of the higher things in man’s nature;
  4. cultivating a “legalistic” mindset which disregards the distinction between the merely legal and the morally right;
  5. having a sensationalist and overly powerful press; and
  6. embracing a humanism which does not “admit the existence of evil in man, nor see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth.”

Negative reaction was swift, with liberals declaring Solzhenitsyn a “Russian Ayatollah.” As Quinn writes, he was thought to be recommending an illiberal political order “in which enlightened autocrats venerate God and benevolently coerce their people into living honorable lives.” In reality, much of the speech was concerned with things which lie beyond any possibility of merely political reform. Moreover, at one point he succeeded in putting his finger on the great political danger which would succeed Communism: “Relations with the former colonial world now have switched to the opposite extreme and the Western world often exhibits an excess of obsequiousness.” Presciently, he suggested that “the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West” may demand not only the surrender of its last colonies, “but of everything it owns.” Quinn comments:

But what we know now that most of us did not know then is that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was essentially correct. As a consequence of the societal loss of courage and the inability to escape outdated Enlightenment ideals such as the primacy of individual liberty and the equality of all men (and women), the West has commenced its own rapid collapse, just as Solzhenitsyn had prophesied. The surging influx of Africans, Middle Easterners, and other non-whites across the porous borders of Western nations has seriously destabilized their host societies through crime, terror, mafias, and grooming gangs. Further, a militant and egalitarian Left has aligned itself quite perversely with non-whites and is in the process of smashing all that is Christian, traditional, and patriotic among the West’s founding populations — that is, the people collectively referred to as white people.

All of this could have been prevented had whites heeded Solzhenitsyn’s warnings. All of this could have been prevented had whites not been so smug in their adulation of unworkable ideals. All of this could have been prevented had whites not renounced their own traditions and histories. All of this could have been prevented had whites adopted something akin to Solzhenitsyn’s steadfast ethnocentrism as white people.

Quinn moves on to August 1914 and its treatment of Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, the ablest statesman of late Imperial Russia. His accomplishments included saving the country from the chaos of the 1905 Revolution and giving it its first national legislature, the Duma. Among his most cherished domestic reforms was encouraging the independence of peasant families by freeing them from the power of the peasant commune. Quinn mentions that shortly before his death, Stolypin “had convinced the Tsar not to mobilize against Austria-Hungary over a pesky little affair in the Balkans.” One wonders how the history of the twentieth century might have been different if he had been there to do this a second time in July 1914.

Stolypin was determined that Russians should rule Russia. His influence may be seen in the royal manifesto which accompanied the dissolution of the First Duma:

The State Duma must be Russian in spirit. The other nationalities which form part of Our Domain must have deputies in the Duma to represent their needs but they must not, and shall not, appear in numbers which give them the possibility of determining matters of purely Russian concern

Try to imagine America’s white majority expressing itself with such confidence!

Stolypin never said or did anything against the Jews or Russia’s other minority populations, but his very Russian patriotism made him plenty of enemies in their ranks. Solzhenitsyn depicts his eventual assassin, the Jew Mordecai Bogrov, reasoning that Stolypin must be an enemy of the Jews because he

boosted Russian national interests too blatantly and too insistently — the Russianness of the Duma as a representative body, the Russianness of the state. He was trying to build, not a country in which all were free, but a nationalist monarchy. So that the future of the Jews in Russia was not effected by his goodwill toward them. The development of the country along Stolypin’s lines promised no golden age for the Jews.

Bogrov shot Stolypin at a performance at the Kiev Opera House on September 14, 1911; he died three days later. Shortly before the assassin was hanged, notes Solzhenitsyn,

a rabbi was allowed in to see the condemned man. “Tell the Jews,” Bogrov said, “that I didn’t want to harm them. On the contrary, I was fighting for the benefit of the Jewish people.”

That was the one and only part of his testimony to remain unchanged.

The rabbi said reproachfully that Bogrov might have caused a pogrom. Bogrov replied, “A great people must not bow down to its oppressors!”


Quinn devotes five chapters to Solzhenitsyn’s study of Russian-Jewish relations, Two Hundred Years Together, pointing out the pains the author was at to remain balanced in his treatment, but also the difficulty of doing so in the chapters on the Revolution and early Soviet period. Other chapters deal with Lenin in Zürich, March 1917, Solzhenitsyn’s memoirs, From Under the Rubble, and some of his early works. I hope Solzhenitsyn and the Right will succeed in its mission of introducing a new generation to this monumental literary and political figure.

(Republished from Counter-Currents Publishing by permission of author or representative)
Hide 154 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Phibbs says:

    Solzhenitsyn stated the Bolsheists were not Russians. In fact, they hated Russia, its culture, its ethnicity and Christianity. These Bolshevists were mostly Jews, of course.

    • Replies: @HVM
    , @Ace
    , @soll
  2. The Jewish assassin Bogrov said “I was fighting for the benefit of the Jewish people” as did the Jewish assassin who silenced Lee Harvey Oswald and the truth about what happened in Dallas when he too said “I did it for the Jewish people”

    The spirit of tikkun olam is just trying to make the world a better place – for themselves.

  3. anonymous[101] • Disclaimer says:

    Solzhenitsyn – openly a fan of Spain’s Franco – is certainly a figure of ‘the Right’ … but there is a question whether he is a grifter, a deceiving opportunist who got rich by going along with trends of his time

    Solzhenitsyn’s first ‘Stalin gulag’ book in 1962 was sponsored by Nikita Khrushchev himself, who was trying to avoid his upcoming downfall by demeaning his more Stalin-indulgent rivals, Khrushchev more in sync with Western anti-Stalin narratives

    After Solzhenitsyn tasted fame and glory thanks to this, and saw the West full of ‘Stalin killed tens of millions’ stories, Solzhenitsyn got fabulously rich going along

    Israel Shamir has written here on Unz, about sources saying the popular Soviet death and gulag figures are fake, with Soviet archives listing, e.g., about 10 million total arrested during thirty years of Stalin’s rule … whilst the USA arrests about 10 million people every single year these days

  4. 36 ulster says:
    @Jack McArthur

    And that “spirit” continues to fail–eventually–in the attempt.

  5. Anonymous[992] • Disclaimer says:

    Solzhenitsyn was pure scum. He wrote poems and letters undermining Stalin in the middle of the war. He was an existential threat to every Russian or member of the Soviet Union. It’s incredible how lenient the Soviets were not to sentence him to death immediately. This supposed “victim” lived to 80, had 2 wives and 4 children. The way Westerners worship this traitor as some sort of saint is a joke.

    • Disagree: Rich
  6. Although there is much to admire in Solzhenitsyn, this analogy is not correct.

    European peoples’ nation-states were either mono-national, with negligible minorities, or if multi-national, they tended to split along ethnic-national lines.

    France was French, Germany was German, and Britain was British, with the Irish pressing for Home Rule, and perhaps future independence.

    The Russian empire was, on the other hand, a giant prison for the oppressed peoples- Poles, Ukrainians, Jews, Georgians, Lithuanians, Finns, … who wanted their nation states, or at least some kind of autonomy. Russians were barely 50% of the empire.

    This empire should go down in history because various other nationalities wanted their own states.

    On the other hand, the US was a white-majority country, with only 13% of blacks and a much smaller number of Native Americans. Current lunacy with white-hating press & suicidal behavior of too many Euro-Americans has nothing to do with the state of affairs in, say, 1910.

    America in 1910 was a prosperous and good country which could give, at most, more rights to some blacks; the Russian empire was, on the other hand, a gigantic prison for non-Russian peoples.

    Apples and oranges.

    • Troll: John Gruskos
  7. hearing rumors that Solzhenitsyn’s definitive study of the Jew Problem in Russia

    200 Years Together

    will soon, despite the best efforts of the Jews to prevent it,

    be published in a complete, professional English translation.

    any substance?

    • Replies: @Weaver
    , @soll
  8. @Anonymous

    Solzhenitsyn was a great man. Here is what Brother Nathaniel has to say:

    “A SPIRITUAL IMPERATIVE runs through Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s works.
    A proponent of Russia’s special mission in the world, Solzhenitsyn often expressed how the Jews have negatively impacted on Russia’s destiny.

    A predominant focus of Solzhenitsyn’s vision for Russia’s special mission in the world is the Russian Orthodox Church’s call for its people to forego the West’s materialistic pursuits. In a 2007 interview with Der Speigel, Solzhenitsyn outlined the role of the Orthodox Church for Russia over against the West’s materialism:

    — “The faith of our Church is the foundation and support of one’s life. And don’t forget what a horrible human toll the Russian Orthodox Church suffered throughout almost the entire 20th century. The Church is just rising from its knees.” — Here.

    This suffering of the Russian Orthodox Church is one of the topics Solzhenitsyn discusses in his magnum opus, “Two Hundred Years Together.” Labelled by Jews as “Anti Semitic” and banned from publication in English by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, (that wicked enemy of free speech), the book charges Bolshevik Jews with the guilt of the Church’s suffering in the 20th century.

    The Jewish attack on Solzhenitsyn has its roots in the ongoing battle of the synagogue against the Church. In his 1995 essay, “The Russian Question At The End Of The Twentieth Century,” Solzhenitsyn wrote:

    — “Russian nationality is not about blood but about spirit. The greatness of our people is to be sought in its inner development, in its breadth of soul. The Russian spirit and Russian culture have existed for centuries. All those who feel themselves part of this heritage in spirit are true Russians” — Available Here.

    Jews do not feel themselves part of Russia’s “heritage in spirit” which is Christian and to them, “Anti Semitic.” But in the current battle between the synagogue and the Church, (at least in Russia — not in the Jewish occupied West), the Church is winning.

    SPEAKING FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, Solzhenitsyn gave a candid account of Jews in charge of the Soviet prison camps in his book, Two Hundred Years Together. According to his observations, Jews made up a clear preponderance in the Gulag administration.

    Digging deeper into Russo-Jewish Soviet history, Solzhenitsyn demonstrates in the book that the Jewish community’s positive response to the Jewish led sovietization that overran Russia and Eastern Europe is the crux of the issue between Russians and Jews. He asks the question, “What was the reaction of this groups’ larger community to the traitors of Russia within its ranks?” World Jewry’s reply is to call Solzhenitsyn an “Anti Semite.”

    In Volume II of Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn writes that “Jews could have simply subordinated themselves quietly to Soviet ideology as a recourse over German fascism, but instead, embraced Bolshevism wholeheartedly.” Solzhenitsyn goes on to censure the Jews for their “impiety in contributing to atrocities in a country in which they were an ethnic minority.”

    And with the voice of a Christ figure, Solzhenitsyn called on the entire Jewish community to “repent.” He cried out, “It is within the power of the Jews to break out of their pale of doom.” But sad to say, to repent is something most Jews do not very much like to do…

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride, geokat62, Ace
    • Replies: @geokat62
  9. Weaver says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Find out for yourself:

    Alternative link:

    To his last breath, he wrote books for Russia. The man truly loved his country. It’s complicated to post quotes, because he writes so many seemingly contradictory things. It’s an attempt at an honest history, not propaganda. That makes it difficult.

    The one who wants to demonstrate that the revolution was “anything but
    Russian”, “foreign by nature”, invokes Jewish surnames and pseudonyms, thus claiming to
    exonerate the Russians from all responsibility in the revolution of seventeen. As for the Jewish
    authors, those who denied the Jews’ share in the revolution as well as those who have always
    recognised it, all agree that these Jews were not Jews by spirit, they were renegades.
    We also agree on that. We must judge people for their spirit. Yes, they were renegades.
    But the Russian leaders of the Bolshevik Party were also not Russians by the spirit; they were very
    anti Russian, and certainly anti Orthodox. With them, the great Russian culture, reduced to a ‐‐
    doctrine and to political calculations, was distorted.

    A vicious battle for the dominance within the Party was waged between Trotsky and Stalin from 1923 to 1927. Later Zinoviev fought for first place equally confident of his chances. In 1926 Zinoviev and Kamenev, deceived by Stalin, united with Trotsky (“the United
    Opposition”) — that is, three of the most visible Jewish leaders turned out on one side. Not
    surprisingly, many of the lower rank Trotskyites were Jewish.


    “The opposition was viewed as principally Jewish” and this greatly alarmed Trotsky. … More than anything, Trotsky feared that Stalin would use popular anti-Semitism against him in their battle for power. And such was partially the case according to Uglanov, then secretary of the Moscow Committee of the CP. “Anti- Semitic cries were heard” during Uglanov’s dispersal of a pro-Trotsky demonstration in Moscow November 7, 1927 (246).

    Maybe Stalin considered playing the anti-Jewish card against the “United Opposition,” but his superior political instinct led him away from that. He understood that Jews were numerous in the party at that time and could be a powerful force against him if his actions
    were to unite them against him. They were also needed in order to maintain support from
    the West and would be of further use to him personally.

    Molotov delivered the main report on this topic and among the debaters were the murderers of the peasantry — Schlikhter and Yakovlev-Epstein (250). A massive war against the peasantry lay ahead and Stalin could not afford to alienate any of his reliable allies and probably thought that in this campaign against a disproportionately Slavic population it would be better to rely on Jews than on Russians. He preserved the Jewish majority in the Gosplan.

    In its essence, de-Kulakization was not a socio-economic measure, but a measure taken against a nationality. The strategic blow against the Russian people, who were the main obstacle to the victory of communism, was conceived of by Lenin, but carried out after his death. In those years communism with all its cruelty was directed mostly against Russians.

    And what was most painful, we Russians ourselves walked along this suicidal path. The very period of the 20’s was considered the dawn of liberated culture, liberated from Tsarism and capitalism! Even the word “Russian,” such as “I am Russian” sounded like a counter-
    revolutionary cry which I well remember from my childhood. But without hesitation
    everywhere was heard and printed “Russopyati”! *Translator’s note: a disparaging term for
    ethnic Russians.]

    S. Schwartz adds that in the second half of 1930s Jews were gradually barred from entering “institutions of higher learning, which were preparing specialists for foreign relations and
    foreign trade, and were barred from military educational institutions.”*147+ The famous
    defector from the USSR, I.S. Guzenko, shared rumors about a secret percentage quota on
    Jewish admissions to the institutions of higher learning which was enforced from 1939.
    In the 1990s they even wrote that Molotov, taking over the People’s Commissariat of
    Foreign Affairs in the spring of 1939, publicly announced during the general meeting with
    the personnel that he “will deal with the synagogue here,” and that he began firing Jews on
    the very same day.

    That was the high point of Jewish hopes. G. V. Kostirenko, a researcher of this period, writes: the leaders of the EAK “plunged into euphoria. They imagined (especially after Mikhoels’ and Feffer’s trip to the West) that with the necessary pressure, they could influence and steer their government’s policy in the interests of the Soviet Jews, just like the American Jewish
    elite does it” (16).

    But Stalin did not approve the Crimean project – it did not appeal to him because of the
    strategic importance of the Crimea. The Soviet leaders expected a war with America and
    probably thought that in such case the entire Jewish population of C rimea would sympathize
    with the enemy.

  10. Weaver says:

    Hundreds of Jews returned from the United States: former emigrants, revolutionaries, and draft escapees – now they all were the ‘revolutionary fighters’ and ‘victims of Tsarism’. By order of Kerensky, the Russian embassy in the USA issued Russian passports to anyone who could provide just two witnesses (to testify to identity) literally from the street. (The situation around Trotsky’s group was peculiar. They were apprehended in Canada on suspicion of connections with Germany. The investigation found that Trotsky travelled not with flimsy Russian papers, but with a solid American passport, inexplicably granted to him despite his short stay in the USA, and with a substantial sum of money, the source of which remained a mystery.*33+

    pg. 435

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  11. Sean says:

    As seen from the outside, the careening fluctuations of Western society seem to be approaching that amplitude beyond which a system becomes metastable and must disintegrate

    • Agree: Ace
  12. Weaver says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The Jewish stance toward Russian unity during the months when Russia was pulled apart not only by other nations, but even by Siberians, was remarkable. “All over the course of revolution Jews, together with Great Russians, were among the most ardent champions of the idea of Great Russia.”*81+ Now, when Jews had gotten their equal rights, what could they have in common with different peoples on the periphery of the former empire? And yet the disintegration of a united country would fracture Jewry. In July at the 9th Congress of Constitutional Democrats, Vinaver and Nolde openly argued against territorial partition of peoples and in favor of Russian unity.[82] Also in September, in the national section of the Democratic Conference, the Jewish socialists spoke against any federalization of Russia (in that they had joined the Centralists). Today they write in an Israeli magazine that Trumpeldor’s Jewish detachments “backed the Provisional Government and had even foiled the Kornilov’s mutiny.”*83+ Perhaps. However, in rigorously studying events of 1917, I did not encounter any such information. But I am aware of opposite instances: in early May 1917 in the thundering patriotic and essentially counter- revolutionary “Black Sea Delegation,” the most successful orator calling for the defense of Russia was Jewish sailor Batkin.

    pg. 448

  13. Jews and Libs had problem with Solzhenitsyn because, even as exile in America, he remained a Russian and loyal to the Motherland. He was an exile, not a traitor. He wasn’t against Russia but the system that took over Russia, and his idea was that, for all the Cold War ideological differences between USSR and the US, both systems were based on soulless materialism. Both waged war on culture and roots, except USSR did it in the name of the collective and the US did it in the name of the individual.

    When people like Thomas Mann turned against Nazi Germany, they went much further. They turned against Germany itself. And so many people who found exile in America switched loyalties to the US and more or less gave up any sense of deeper loyalties to the motherland.
    Solzhenitsyn wasn’t like that. Even as he appreciated the help of Americans who provided with him sanctuary, he remained profoundly Russian.

    In a way, the great tragedy of American History is the Germans dropped their deep identity in favor of Anglo-Americanism. Had Germans insisted on their own roots and identity, US could have developed as an Anglo-German nation, one that was fair to both UK and Germany. But in the end, Anglos converted German-Americans who joined the US in war on motherland Germany in World War I. Just terrible when there was no reason for the US to fight Germany. Indeed, there was no reason for UK to fight Germany. Just stupid Anglo snobbery.

    Jews hate Solzhenitsyn because Russian-ness was as vital to him as Jewish roots were to Jews. Jews want to be the ONLY people with deep roots in the US. Jews want everyone else to abandon their deep roots and just become deracinated Americans. Indeed, Jews want this in the original homeland itself among the goyim. Jews want every European nation to become afro-homo-shlomo nation. This is why Jews hate Hungary.

    At any rate, the lesson for all goyim in America is to reconnect with deeper roots. ‘American’ isn’t enough. Too vague and bland. Also, as Anglos, the founders of US, surrendered to Jews, Americanism lost its prestige. ‘America’ now means deracinated materialism and opportunism and worship of mammon and power. So, it is not enough for identity and culture. So, everyone in the US must reconnect with deeper roots in the Old World. Jews have done just that, and they rule America over all the groups who cut their ties to old world roots and identities.

    Ship needs sails but also an anchor and compass.

  14. Dumbo says:

    I’m reading the Gulag Archipelago, it’s interesting.

    It’s curious to see some “anonymous” commenters posting slanderous comments, and Jew-lover Bardon Kaldian defending the “Russian” Revolution…

    I think anonymous comments without a pseudonym shouldn’t be allowed on UR.

    Pick a handle, any handle, it’s not difficult, lazy boy.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch, donut
  15. Smith says:

    3rd Solz article in months, this guy refuses to die on Unz for some reasons.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  16. derer says:

    What crime has he committed…you fool. Stalin killed Soviets best generals just before the war and after Hitler’s Barbarosa went to his dacha and resign being defeated and betrayed by Hitler. Gen. Zhukov is responsible for the victory and not Stalin.

    • Replies: @Observator
  17. Schuetze says:

    “many Cold War conservatives were dead set against any discussion of race, which would make it impossible to apply any of Solzhenitsyn’s insights to our struggle against today’s racially-obsessed Left. ”

    LOL. “Cold War conservatives” were the successors to the “American Firsters” who had tried desperately to keep the US out of the war, being represented by people like Lindberg and Hoover. Lindberg’s child was kidnapped and murdered by the communists in retaliation. Roosevelt and his Judeo-Communist cronies, along with Churchill and his, having already declared war on Germany in 1933, were hell bent on dragging Germany into another world war and then genociding her people.

    The point here is that everything the “conservatives” did then, and this remains true today, was in reaction to the assault against white civilization and Christianity by the Jew owned and run left. If they were “dead set against discussion of race” it could also be because they didn’t want Communists and Judeo-Democrats to use race issues as a wedge to cause social instability, which is precisely what they did. Besides, compared to how Solzhenitsyn and millions of others, including thousands of illegally detained Americans, were treated by the Judeo-Bolshevics in the Gulags, the Negroes in the US were living high on the hog.

    In “The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia” the author goes into detail about how depraved this Hell on Earth created by Jewish communists was. Here is a relevant quote:

    In Moscow, the American reporter William White had noticed that few people living inside this carefully controlled world had any real notion of what life was like outside the USSR. They were told over and over again that capitalism was on the brink of collapse, and the state’s propaganda was carefully edited to reflect that view. Only very occasionally did the clunking machinery of monolithic censorship make an inadvertent error. During the war, William White happened to watch a Soviet newsreel which featured the Detroit race riots. On the Moscow cinema screen the Russian audience watched a close-up of a black American getting beaten by the Detroit city police. The effect on the audience was, according to our American witness, immediate and “electric.” In the darkness of the cinema, the Russians jumped to their feet. “Look,” someone cried, “at that wonderful pair of shoes the Negro is wearing!”

  18. Adûnâi says: • Website

    1. Solzhenitsyn is a hopeless liar. Klim Zhukov has done a many-episode analysis of his libelous fiction on Puchkov’s YouTube channel (in Russian).

    2. Being anti-Communist in the USSR largely meant being anti-Russian. No matter what the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism were, Lenin proved out to be a saviour of Russian statehood in the face of liberal White scum ready to sell Russia to the Anglo capitalists in the Civil War. Case in point – the White émigrés readily sold themselves to the genocidal Führer of Germans Hitler.

    3. The Frankfurt School is the direct descendant and the most resplendent scion of Christianity. The Frankfurt’s School’s only connection to Marxism is that they are both Jesus’ bastards. I never understood why you confuse them. Marxism is anti-racist, but only tangentially, it’s not them ,ain focus – which is economism, Marxism denies sovereignty to culture and considers all culture to be an ephemeral superstructure built on the basis of economic relations (they ignore that Christianity has survived Rome and colonialism).

    The Frankfurt School, on the other hand, is a purely idealistic formation. Fully adhering to the tenets of Christian axiology, they put the value in loving the enemy, turning the other cheek, killing oneself (=the Aryan race) for the sake of the imperceptible spirit of universal love (=heavenly Jerusalem). These symbols are all too familiar to any nation intoxicated with Christian poison.

    Marxism is at least practical and constructive, often uplifting in practice. Class warfare’s role may be overblown, but it exists in some form, sometimes. The Frankfurt’s continuation of the inner logic of Christian morality, however, is dead-set on its goal – the suicide of its host race. This is pure crucifixion, not even for an economic benefit like in Marxism, but for the sake of moralistic self-immolation, because the strong and the beautiful must be turned into the weak and the ugly (=worship of the BBC). With a hideous drum beat, burning of books, hysterical bleeding trannies – all to spite the Nature’s potential of man.

    • Disagree: John Regan, Robert Dolan
    • Troll: HT
  19. GMC says:

    I like much of Solzhenitsyn’s writings and I agree with his findings. He came to live in the States , so he brought with him His experience of Soviet Russia times. Then he got a bird’s eye view of how America works and he could see right away , what will be beneficial or be devastating for the Americans.
    Any of us who have spent time living, working etc. in another county can see the same thing, if we have our eyes open. Example – I lived in Ukraine and now Russia, and while Ukraine is a total disaster today , there is not much to say about it, until it gets rid of all the foreign owners.
    My time in Russia is limited but I see things from the West that could help immensely and things that must be done, in order to keep the west – Out. Russia needs to use a computer software system in their Dept of Motor vehicles, just like the US has, and in fact there are some other programs that would help their government agencies run smoother and speed up the process.
    On the other hand , Russia needs to heed the advice of Solzhenitsyn about the Zionists and other Western snakes. They need to start taking forcefull steps in eliminating the threats on their borders, and accept the consequences before it’s too late. And they need to step up to the plate and call out the liars and hypocrites that publicly denounce Russia in the bought off Western World Agencies. Erdogan , with his troops and proxy terrorists in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and other countries, while not accepting Crimea’s vote comes to mind – as does Britain, Nederlands and Germany shills.

    I think if one lives long enough, we all have a little Solzhenitsyn , in us.

  20. As might be predicted, Solzhenitsyn gives a biased apologia for Stolypin. In all fairness, Stolypin was one of the wiser representatives of the Czarist monarchy and if people like him had been more commonly in authority 50 years sooner then this might have made a big difference. But the most distinguishing step in Stolypin’s career was when he dissolved the Duma in 1907. The Duma was the closest thing that existed in Czarist Russia to some kind of coherent half-awake response to the overwhelming demands for revolution that broken out all across Russia in 1905.

    Contrary to what liars like Solzhenitsyn try to portray, the outbreak of revolution in 1905 was not a conspiracy engineered by Jews or any other special minority. It was a mass-display of sweeping popular discontent by Russians with the monarchy and its ruling social caste. The formation of the Duma was a response to this outpouring of revolutionary sentiment from the Russian people. But the real authorities in Czarist Russia were not willing to accept the implications of these events. Instead they waited for the popular movements to die down and then Stolypin set about dismissing the Duma and reverting authority back into the traditional elitist hands.

    While it’s perfectly reasonable to look for special motives in an individual assassin such as Bogrov, this piece is overplaying that aspect. If Stolypin had simply been a consistent advocate of maintaining the Duma which had been established in response to the 1905 revolution then not only is it likely that he would not have been assassinated but had he been assassinated then the popular response would have been completely different. Solzhenitsyn, as per usual, is simply lying his pants here by portraying Stolypin as a champion of the Russian people. He was nothing of the kind. He was an elitist aristocrat who had a few more brains than most anyone else in the Czarist autocracy, but wasn’t even really that far-sighted himself.

    • Disagree: Rich
  21. gotmituns says:

    The vast majority of our people would never read a line of Solzhenitsyn. They strain to read a simple label and you think they’d get into The Gulag, Cancer Ward, One Day in the Life, etc.?

  22. JackOH says:

    From Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard address:

    ” [C]ultivating a “legalistic” mindset which disregards the distinction between the merely legal and the morally right”

    Nailed it. We’re in a bad spot when “good” and “right” are defined, as I think our political masters define them, as whatever law they can ram through the legislature, or whatever the results of plebiscitary democracy stage-managed by their media flunkies are.

    Libertarians used to use “legalized corruption” to describe laws and regulatory actions that wouldn’t pass an elementary smell test, and I guess that sort of fits in with Solzhenitsyn’s point. I suppose the history of legal positivism that undergirds this thinking is honorable enough, but something’s gone way wobbly with the idea.

    • Replies: @Void
  23. Jordan B. Peterson refers to Solchenyzin steadily. The Solshenyzin-reception in the West being an obstacle for him and proof, that the West has no idea of the sour grapes of ideology as soon as Communism/leftism/Wokism is at play. – An intellectual deficit of the highest order in Peterson’s mind – a proof, that the educational system in the West is ” rotten to its core”.

  24. AndrewR says:

    You’re Jewish.

    • Thanks: HT
    • LOL: Schuetze
  25. @Schuetze

    “Lindbergh’s child was kidnapped .. in retaliation.”

    Try to get your dates straight. The Lindbergh baby was abducted on March 1, 1932, long before Hitler had come to power and at a time when “America First” did not exist.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  26. Schuetze says:
    @Priss Factor

    ‘America’ now means deracinated materialism and opportunism and worship of mammon and power.

    I think ‘America’, dominated by its coastal elites, now has come to mean satanic androgynous whore. It is the ultimate gay disco, at least outside of Tel Aviv.

    I think that it is far to late for “everyone in the US to reconnect with deeper roots in the Old World“. That train left the station in 1917, perhaps even 1861.

    To me the only possible solution that would be good for the great grandchildren of white Americans would be secession and breakup. At least then some small clusters of like minded Americans of European origin could build a sustainable long term culture free of Judeo-Jungle corruption and undertow.

    • Agree: Marcion, Ace
  27. @Weaver

    There was nothing very peculiar about Trotsky’s back to Russia. Kerensky would have sought the return of a long-standing anti-Bolshevik Leftist such as Trotsky at a time when Lenin had been shipped back to Russia by the Kaiser. Having a credible opponent of Lenin’s such as Trotsky back in Russia could have been quite useful to the Provisional Government. It’s just an example of how revolutionary circumstances can turn things upside-down very quickly that, in the aftermath of the July Uprising which broke without any instigation from Lenin, suddenly Lenin and Trotsky were able to form a political alliance. After 14 years of bitter hostility between themselves, Lenin and Trotsky suddenly began talking about each other as comrades.

    Of course a liar like Solzhenitsyn will typically obscure the fact that Lenin and Trotsky had, in fact, been bitter opponents for 14 years and will then pretend that Trotsky being furnished with aid on a trip back to Russia is evidence of “aid to the Bolsheviks.” It was nothing of the kind. The most logical explanation for Trotsky’s stay in New York is that Jacob Schiff sought to promote opposition to US entry into World War I and hence likely supported Trotsky as antiwar proponent. Once the Czarist government had been overthrown, Schiff gave his full support to the Provisional Government. At no time in his life did Schiff ever give any aid to the Bolsheviks.

    • Troll: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Weaver
  28. Fr. John says:

    While the book review seems fairly unbiased, the utter stupidity of some of the comments-

    (many of them, conveniently ‘anonymous’- one thinks of the ‘Whatcha doin,’ Rabbi?’ memes re: ‘acts of anti-[sic] Semitism’ that later turn out to be selbsthaß, anyway)… but I digress-

    clearly indicates minds on this site who either: a) do not understand the Orthodox Christian phronema (mindset) of the Russian people; or b) do not WISH to understand the Russian Christian/Orthodox phronema, precisely because it IS Christian and Russian in a hypostatic union, totally incomprehensible to Western, therefore, bisected psyches/souls.

    As an Anglo, an American, and one who has spent over twenty-five years trying just to grasp the differences between Eastern and Western THEOLOGICAL constructs (and they are immensely profound) one cannot even START to understand men like Solzhenitsyn and his place in the burgeoning Rightist turn against all things Marxist/Leninist – as well as the (((origin))) of that godless theology- because it IS a religion-

    cf. Gary North’s “Marx’s Religion of Revolution” – free pdf, here:

    Moreover, the clearly Jewish nature of Bolshevism/Frankfurt School/Finkelthink, suffuses the entirety of the West, due to the religious nature of our entire philosophy and aberrant theology, known succinctly as Filioquism. A small addition to the Nicene Creed during the ages after Constantine, that has created great havoc to Christendom, and therefore, the world.

    For that understanding – how one phrase added to a Church’s confession can wreak such havoc, one must ‘read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest’ the massive analysis of the filioque problem by Oxford-trained Dr. Joseph Farrell’s ‘God, History, and Dialectic’ -wherein Farrell makes the honest (and damning observation) that

    “Christian civilization—or what remains of it—stands, apparently exhausted and irreparably divided, on the uncertain terrain of a century’s and millennium’s finish, ill-prepared to carry any cogent or consistent witness into the third millennium and twenty-first century of its dispensation. This is because the equation of “Western European” with “Christian” civilization is itself founded upon a schism which resulted in a kind of cultural and historiographical heresy.”-

    Any honest analysis of AS, the West, and our collapse as a civilization, has to deal with these two constructs FIRST, before any analysis of the Russian- and it must be an analysis of the Rus on THEIR OWN TERMS- can be essayed.

    My two cents.

  29. JackOH says:
    @Priss Factor

    In a way, the great tragedy of American History is the Germans dropped their deep identity in favor of Anglo-Americanism.

    Priss, the “breaking” (for want of a better term) of a robust German-American cultural and social confidence between 1914 and 1945 is not much talked about. I’m pretty confident Alexander Sturm (of Sturm, Ruger) and other prominent Americans of German descent have expressed serious distress about the kneecapping of “German-ness”, but only in the vaguest terms.

    There was a German-born American academic who published something called Breaking the Silence. My memory is very dim, but I sort of recall some of the interviewees bristling angrily that their stereotypical German virtues (?), work efficiency and over-sincerity, were regarded mockingly by co-workers and bosses.

    Good observation, Priss.

  30. Schuetze says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Yes and no. Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. had already been against the US entry into WWI. Lindbergh Sr. had been speaking the truth about Jewish Power and even Weimar Germany.

    Ron Unz could easily do a thread or two on the family and the kidnapping.

    There are even claims that it was a ritual murder on Purim:

  31. @Anonymous

    As you know, people can believe the most idiotic things because of subjectivism.

  32. The kikes are truly the most cursed subhumans on the planet and deservingly so.

    No sane human should see them as anything but enemies.

  33. @derer

    Stalin was hardly “betrayed” by Hitler. Somehow I can’t see one of the most paranoid tyrants in history being convinced that a political party founded on the annihilation of communism had abandoned its first principle just to be good buddies with him. He contrived the alliance with Germany in order to provoke a larger European conflict, then supplied Germany with much of the wherewithal to fight it, in order to weaken the west for conquest. Millions of tons of ill-advised US aid enabled the Soviets to overwhelm Germany, go on to occupy Eastern Europe, and subsequently to inaugurate the Chinese communist rebellion from the Manchuria that FDR simply handed to Stalin on demand at Yalta.

  34. A primary catalyst for the shift in perceptions was Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard commencement address of 1978, “A World Split Apart,” with which Quinn appropriately starts.

    This one is available online, and always worth reading. An excellent critique of the “democracy” of Western society that is really ruled by the media and the oligarchs who own it.

    Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

    Admittedly he stops just short of naming the specific groups most responsible for this state of affairs. But that also makes it a good red pill for conservatives in the intermediate stage who aren’t quite ready for the real meat. Solzhenitsyn’s reputation as well as undisputed courage in saying as much as he does can often make him a good icebreaker with that kind of crowd.

    • Thanks: JackOH, John Wear
  35. Russia did not give us Cultural Marxism…….

    In General…there is a direct road from the anti-commie crusade to invade-the-world-invite-the-world…to the race war against the Historic Native Born White American Historic Majority.

  36. Gulag was a big part of my redpill experience some 15 years ago.

    I read the book with horror and disgust….and now I have the very same horror and disgust regarding what is happening now.

    Solzhenitsyn tried to warn us.

    • Agree: 2stateshmustate
  37. Z-man says:

    Solzhenitsyn was Da Man.

  38. Rich says:

    Wow, you’re wrong on so many levels it’s difficult know where to begin. Are you seriously making the argument that the Atheist-Jewish communist Frankfurt School was based on Christianity? That’s a stretch so far you must’ve already snapped. Being against a government that mistreats its people is a good thing. The communists were impoverishing Russians, imprisoning Russians, a Russian nationalist like Solzhenitsyn would have a moral obligation to speak against them.

  39. geokat62 says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Here’s the link to Brother Nathanael’s article…

    • Thanks: Robert Dolan
  40. There is a surprising amount of anti Solzhenitsyn comments here. Kind of a curious thing since the man in question is probably an unknown entity for anyone under the age of 45. Anyway Quinn’s book sounds interesting. Perhaps being interesting is the problem,

    • Replies: @Derer
  41. “Bogrov replied, “A great people must not bow down to its oppressors!””

    What a statement!

  42. HT says:

    Totally on the money that cultural Marxism developed by the Jew communists of the Frankfurt School is now America’s ideology. We allowed those scum to enter America, saving them from the justice they deserved from Hitler. In their gratitude, these filthy communist Jews poisoned our education system and our culture. Too bad they didn’t wind up in the camps where they belonged.

    • Agree: Schuetze
  43. @Bardon Kaldian

    the US was a white-majority country, with only 13% of blacks

    Back then the US was less than 10% black and falling. Today it is more than 13% and rising.

    This is to say nothing of America’s formerly bemused or dismissive attitude toward black culture versus today’s obsequious and worshipful attitude.

  44. White folks are being setup to be the next Kulaks. This is deadly serious business.

  45. geokat62 says:

    Excerpt from the Introduction of Solzhenitsyn and the Right by Spencer J. Quinn:

    With this slender volume, I hope to fulfill a crucial need for the Right: I attempt to distill Solzhenitsyn’s political ideas and observations for readers who lack the time or inclination to properly study his works. In a sense, I am reading Solzhenitsyn so you don’t have to. As a result, there will be spoilers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was an impeccable observer. He was as fearless as he was consistent. Even his enemies could not take this away from him. I intend to convert the anti-Leftist, anti-progressive, and highly conservative political themes which pulse through nearly all of his writings into nothing less than a metapolitical weapon for the Right.

    These words concisely explain why the “slender volume” is worth purchasing… I did.

  46. My first Solzhenitsyn reading was “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” decades ago. I remember even now the impact that book made, from the opening lines of the camp wake-up being clanged out and (unjustly imprisoned) Ivan Denisovich has a fever, thinks he will be OK though to take a little more sleep, knows the guard …

    Understated background of mass injustice/repression, portraits of other camp residents, so much more than just the novella I expected it to be when picking it up …

    Some detail, for any interested —

    From 1950 to 1953 Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned in the forced-labor camp of Ekibastuz in Kazakhstan. Prisoners here were stripped of their names and were addressed by the identifying number inscribed on patches sewn to their caps, chest, back, and knee.

  47. During my college days and that was a long time ago, circa 1976, Solzhenitsyn’s tome The Gulag Archipelago made a profound impression on me. It had more to do with the images he provoked rather than delving into the particulars found within many a lengthy diatribe. The paperback version was almost four inches thick. I can’t forget the importance of his spoon, one spoon, not losing it, keeping it safe and let’s not forget his description of “the organs” , frequently repeated and how in my mind, these same organs or directorates of “The Party” underwent a synthesis into the Apparat or more precisely today’s Moscow apparatchiks. Again, the organs, description provoked an indelible chill and not easily forgotten. It had such a smothering, garotted feel to it. One can easily visualize the tightly packed and integrated connections between human vegetative-organs all held neatly in place behind a rib cage. A third example of his writing style and the imagery it created had to do with “courtrooms” that were tantamount to the theatrical, a judicial sentencing policy, almost robotic, with judges striking the gavel with five, ten, twenty, thirty years for the hapless defendants. RIP Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  48. Steiner says:
    @Priss Factor

    the german larpers in the united states are some of the most cringe people alive. worse than plastic paddies. the only culturally german people in the united states are the amish. the hitler fetish leads to this demonisation of the founding british stock and cultural values which define the entire settlement of the united states. Germans as germans in the united states amounted largely to farmers. this was the caste which germans filled in the united states. Celts and anglos were the trail blazers, town builders, fighters, thinkers and leaders of this country. America and its settlers have and will always be anglo saxons, the german farmers who moved here became anglicized just as the saxons and frisians who came to fight in anglo-saxon warbands in old england became anglisc. Anti Anglo commentary should be viewed with extreme suspicion, you will never have large traction going against the english language in this country. move back to germany if you wish to be a foreigner. the idea that anglos are this evil force in the world coming from people who live in the anglosphere is very troubling, you are a 5th column. german protestants in the north were the champions of abolition if we wish to pick at scabs. celts and anglos have always designated the negro and the spaniard as alien. you mark yourself as unamerican with this commentary.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @Chris Moore
  49. geokat62 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Of course a liar like Solzhenitsyn…

    Excerpt from Solzhenitsyn and the Right by Spencer J. Quinn:

    In doing so, Solzhenitsyn, as a man possessing a tenacious literary genius, a historic reputation, and impeccable credentials, broadens our field of discourse and helps us to remember aspects of our souls that have been largely forgotten in the modern world.

    Shlomo O’Sullivanowicz impugning the good character of Solzhenitsyn? We, indeed, live in a twisted world.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  50. Thomasina says:

    “3rd Solz article in months, this guy refuses to die on Unz for some reasons.”

    What is good and true never dies.

    • Replies: @Smith
  51. Schuetze says:

    Solzhenitsyn was an avid communist at the beginning of the war, so according to you anyway, that made him a real Russian patriot.

    But it does make one thing clear, even the best, most patriotic Russians, including Solzhenitsyn, were still Untermensch when compared to the Wehrmacht and the SS. Sure, Russians were a noble breed until the Jews shot the good ones, starved them, or sent them all to the Gulag from 1917-1939. By the time Solzhenitsyn was being indoctrinated in school by the Judeo-Bolshevics, Russia was already lost. This is born out by Solzhenitsyn’s eager participation in the resistance to the liberation of Russia that Hitler attempted.

    Now if you want to really look at a hero of the Eastern Front, who suffered gravely under Russian depravity when they were united with Judea in their lust to exterminate Christian Europe, you would not have to look any further than Bubi Hartmann, who shot down 345 Soviet planes and seven American while serving with the Luftwaffe. This shows the degree to which Russians had been degraded by their stint as Jewish slaves, and how superior German fighter pilots and aces were over both Americans and Russians.

    Bubi was also no stranger to the Gulag either, but he didn’t whine and complain like Solzhenitsyn. Bubi spent over 10 years in the Gulag, the entire time refusing to cooperate with the Jewish racial supremacists who the Russian slaves spent almost a century lovingly licking the boots of.

    Bubi surrendered to the Americans, who were also little more than Jewish slaves, and they turned him over to the Soviets, who charged him with war crimes for shooting down Russian Jew-Stooges flying American Lend Least Airplanes.

    Here is what happened the night the Russian Rapist Army arrived to take custody of Bubi:

    “We went eight days without any food, and then were told we were to be moved. All of us, even women and children were taken to an open field. The trucks stopped and there were Soviet troops there waiting for us.
    The Russians then separated the women and girls from the men, and the most horrible things happened, which you know and I cannot say here. We saw this; the Americans saw this, and we could do nothing to stop it. Men who fought like lions cried like babies at the sight of complete strangers being raped repeatedly. A couple of girls managed to run to a truck and the Americans pulled them in, but the Russians, most were drunk pointed their guns at the allies and fired a few shots. Then the truck drivers decided to drive away quickly. Some women were shot after the rapes. Others were not so lucky. I remember a twelve year old girl whose mother had been raped and shot being raped by several soldiers. She died from these acts soon afterward. Then more Russians came, and it began all over again and lasted through the night. During the night, entire families committed suicide with men killing their wives and daughters, then themselves. I still cannot believe these things as I speak now. I know many will never believe this story, but it is true. Soon a Russian general came and issued orders for all of this to stop. He was serious, because some of the Russians who did not stay away and came to rape were hanged on the spot by their own men.”

    That is how patriotic Russians behave when wearing their Soviet uniforms. They truly were, and still are, Untermensch.

    Bubi also described what happened in the Gulag too. Once thing is certain, it is Russians and their beloved Jewish Kommisar slave masters who should have been put on trial at Nuremberg.

    “I was in several camps, Shakhty, Novocherkassk, where they kept me in solitary confinement, and Diaterka. I had gone on a hunger strike to protest the slave labor conditions and the fact that the Soviets were simply working men to death out of spite. I was ironically placed in a camp at Kuteynikovo where my squadron had been based in 1943.
    At Shakhty, the others and I refused to work, invoking the Geneva Convention. They placed me back in solitary. This was a work camp for mining and many men were tired of it, and I think my being gone started the problem. Within a few days the POWs jumped the guards, cornered the camp commandant and freed me. It was quite exciting. Then they sent me to the other camps, and at Diaterka there were 4,000 men there.”

    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Ace
  52. Dumbo says:

    I have never heard such stupidity. That must be why the Communists destroyed Christian churches or transformed them into warehouses, and why people were forbidden to keep religious icons, it was because of the “Christian morality” of the Soviet Jews.

    Marxism uplifting and constructive? LOL. Where?

    The “Aryan race” (or at least people who use terms such as “Aryan race”), appear to be complete dim-witted morons. No wonder they lose every damn time.

  53. Schuetze says:

    “german protestants in the north were the champions of abolition”

    LOL. That would be those same “champions of abolition” in Milwaukee like Pabst, Coors, Anheiser and Busch?

    After Wilson and his Jewish owners dragged the US into WWI against its will, the first thing they did was shut down all the German language newspapers, stop all German language educations and lock up any German nationalist leaders.

    In effect, Germans were purged in the US in many of the same ways that Russians were purged in the USSR. This is no surprise since WWI was all a Judeo-Masonic plot going back decades.

    As far as Priss Factor “mark yourself as unamerican with this commentary”, he had already explained that “Americanness” has become an illusion. It is non-existant for white males. For blacks, queers, trannies, feminists, and Jews “American” just means “white Christian slave owner”.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  54. US is headed towards secession and will end up like Russia, broken up by (((tribal clans))) seeking global dominance. They know the occupied territory known as Israel will be a future Hiroshima/Nagasaki and have made plans to move it to America under a different name.
    Just don’t give up the nukes, we’re going to need them for Armageddon and the finale battle for preserving the white human race.

  55. @geokat62

    Solzhenitsyn could indeed be quite inventive. Where the documentary archives show about 2 million camp and prison residents in 1938 someone like Solzhenitsyn would freely inflate this to 8+ million. The irony is that many Right-wing hoaxers who parade Solzhenitsyn as a hero will simultaneously complain about inflated Auschwitz numbers. For the actual data on Gulag camps one should consult the piece by Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, “Victims of the Soviet Penal System” in the The American Historical Review, October 1993.

    But he could get much more absurd than just that. In his Letter to the Soviet Leaders he goes on a bizarre rant:

    In addition to the toll of two world wars, we have lost, as a result of civil strife and tumult alone–as a result of internal political and economic “class” extermination alone–66 (sixty-six) million people!!! That is the calculation of a former Leningrad professor of statistics, I. A. Kurganov, and you can have it brought to you whenever you wish. I am no trained statistician, I cannot undertake to verify it; and anyway all statistics are kept secret in our country, and this is an indirect calculation. But it is true: a hundred million are no more (exactly a hundred, just as Dostoyevsky prophesied!) ..

    Even just comparing his own words within a few lines of each other, the man has obviously lost his marbles. First he claims with repetition “66 (sixty-six)” then he turns around with emphasis on repetition and claiming “exactly” tells “a hundred.” This reads like if a politician was taking in between writing a speech and forget what he had written 2 lines above before going to sleep. But the problems go further. Citing Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn is obviously referring to The Possessed which about 3/4 of the way into Chapter 7 features a conversation where the participants discuss “chopping off a hundred million heads.” So Solzhenitsyn has not only forgotten his original claim of “66 (sixty-six) million” but he now turns to a novel as a source as tells us “exactly a hundred, just as Dostoyevsky prophesied!”

    Worst of all though is that Solzhenitsyn’s own personal accounts of everyday life don’t reflect anything at all like this. In The Gulag Archipelago he tells us:

    Twenty-five years later we could think: Well. yes, we understood the sort of arrests that were being made at the time, and the fact that they were torturing people in prison, and the slime they were trying to drag us into. But it isn’t true! .. Two or three professors had been arrested, but after all they hadn’t been our dancing partners… Twenty-five years old, we marched in the ranks of those born the year the Revolution took place, and because we were the same age as the Revolution, the brightest of futures lay ahead.
    — Pp. 160-1 in the Harper & Row paperback edition.

    If Solzhenitsyn had had just a little bit of a capacity for self-reflection he would have realized that, yes, it is possible for people to live through a bad time and be blissfully unaware of a lot of things while they believe that “the brightest of futures lay ahead.” But if anything remotely resembling “66 (sixty-six) million .. a hundred million” had been going on then his own memories of 1937 would be very different from he himself records. This is perfectly with what such historians as Getty et al in the article cited above have documented. There were a lot of ugly things going on in the Gulag, although the extent to which such Solzhenitsyn inflates the scale is so out of bounds that it can’t be squared with his recollection of “the brightest of futures.”

    The fact that some sectors of the Right-wing have formed a personality-cult around Solzhenitsyn in which his reckless rantings are praised as the most refined historical analysis is no different from the way the Holocaust Industry raised Elie Wiesel up to the paragon of “remembrance.” Once a cult sets in around someone like this the members of the cult tend to easily overlook poor reasoning by the cult-figure.

  56. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Gulag Archipelago was not even close to 4 inches thick. You are lying. Why are you lying?

    • Replies: @JoeFour
    , @elmerfudzie
  57. geokat62 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    First he claims with repetition “66 (sixty-six)” then he turns around with emphasis on repetition and claiming “exactly” tells “a hundred.”

    Didn’t he explain in the quote you furnished that 34 million were lost to both wars, while the 66 million figure is related to those lost to “civil strife and tumult alone”?

    In addition to the toll of two world wars, we have lost, as a result of civil strife and tumult alone–as a result of internal political and economic “class” extermination alone–66 (sixty-six) million people!!!

    Regarding the reasonableness of the 66 million estimate, if you consider all the ethnic Russians dispatched during the Red Terror, the Civil Wars, the Holomodor, etc, the former Leningrad professor of statistics, I. A. Kurganov, may not have been that far off the mark.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  58. @Adûnâi

    Solzhenitsyn is a hopeless liar.

    I’ve come across this claim before, and, once again, no example is provided.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  59. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Craig Nelsen

    Lo, a playlist of 18 videos, detailing Soljenitsin’s lies, by Klim Jukov on Puchkov’s YouTube channel. All in Russian, just like any sensible critique of homosexualists or HBO’s Chernobyl is. Apparently, the Western cultural world is an echo-chamber of myths, just like any other society on the planet – who would have thought!

    • Replies: @JamesinNM
  60. America is about various peoples betraying their own identities and origins to assimilate into Anglo-America, only to observe Anglos betray themselves and serve the Jews. So, America as a meaningful enterprise is dead. At the very least, the Anglos once had the claim and pride of discovery, settlement, foundation, and development. So, even if non-Anglo immigrants assimilating into Anglo-America was a betrayal of their origins and true identities, they were becoming a part of something real, proud, and powerful. Anglos made something great and relatively freer than anything in the Old World. But once Anglos surrendered their pride and cucked to Jews, what has Americanism come to mean? It means that Becoming American amounts to emulating Anglo-cucks or Anglucks who kiss Jewish toes. Where is dignity in that?

    Also, there was a degree of consistency in the newcomers cutting off ties to the Old World. After all, despite the special relation between America and Britain, US came into being via independence from UK. So, what Anglo-Americans expected of newcomers — cutting ties to the Old World — , they’d done it themselves. But Jews didn’t do this. Their main loyalty remained with Jews in the Old World. Thus, they should have been regarded as Most Anti-American. Even radical Jewish ties were related to tribalism, i.e. Jewish radicals in US making common cause with Jewish radicals in the Old World.

    But , how is it that Anglo-Americans ceded power to the group that was most disloyal and resolute in prioritizing their tribal ties across the seas? Indeed, by aiding and abetting in the creation of Israel, US further emboldened Jews to bolster so-called ‘dual loyalty’ when, if anything, it was always about Single Loyalty among Jews: Jews with Jews. You’d think given the Jewish role in Soviet espionage, most Jewish Americans would side with the US against the radicals and traitors. But no, most Jews supported the Narrative of the Red Scare where freedom-loving patriotic American-as-apple-pie Jewish patriots were railroaded by crypto-fascists like Joe McCarthy and gang. Even most anti-communist liberal Jews sided with radical Jews.


    Americanism is now a total contradiction. It used to be “Give up your ties to the Old World to be part of the American Saga”, with Anglo-Americans leading the way with pride and prestige. Now, it’s “Give up your ties to the Old World(or Latin America) to be part of the American Future whose highest priority is to serve the bond between New World Jews and Old World Jews.” Huh? And it’s much the same in UK, Canada, Australia, and even Ireland.

    Jews would have us believe, “America had promise from the beginning but was marred by the ‘original sin’ of slavery and ‘racism’ in general. Therefore, New America must be based on total rejection of racial prejudice and favoritism. America must be for all the world.”
    Okay, but if so, why is current America so much about how we must favor Zionists over Palestinians(and Iran) and how we must always side with Jews over Arabs? Why doesn’t anyone call out on this obvious hypocrisy? If Anglos must be condemned for their past favoritism of their own kind(and whites in general), why must the New America favor Jewish Imperialists over Palestinians? Why must we always ‘stand with Israel’, even at the moral cost of wiping out countless Arabs? Also, it’s not even a case of ‘standing with Israel’ but kneeling-before-Israel. The hypocrisy is so blatant, but it goes unnoticed and unsaid.

    There is another contradiction. The fact that there’s the Holocaust Museum in the Mall suggests that Jews believe there is no crime worse than genocide or systematic eradication of a people. It’s so horrible that the US must remember and honor the Holocaust even though it happened in Europe and furthermore US had no role in it. This suggests that Jews believe there is a crime worse than slavery, the so-called ‘original sin of America’. But if genocide is the worst of all crimes, shouldn’t the original sin of America be the destruction of the American Indians? Why isn’t that a big issue? Also, if genocide is truly the worst thing ever, shouldn’t a museum on that theme in the Mall be dedicated to the American Indians because the ‘genocide’ happened on American soil? Morality in the Jewish-controlled Order is whatever Jews feel like.

    Given the bitter history between Anglos and Celts, you’d think the Irish would be somewhat different from Anglosphere, but in fact, they worship the same gods & idols and follow the same Narratives. Why? It goes to show that when a people adopt ideology(via academia & media) and idolatry(via entertainment & sports) over their own deep identity, they become tools of those who control the ideology and idolatry worldwide. Whereas Irish identity is specific to the Irish themselves — a matter of blood and origins — , ideas & idols in Irish minds are determined by those who control media, academia, and entertainment, all controlled by Jews. Also, Irish, with their inferiority complex, want to be thought of as global and world-significant than merely provincial and backwoods.

    So, the Irish were eager to keep up with the ‘most evolved’ fads and fashions in attitudes and values, and the result is they’ve fallen under the Jewish spell just like Anglos or Anglucks. Prioritize ideology and idolatry over identity, and you become a mental puppet of whomever controls the ideology and idolatry. So, both Anglucks and Celt-cucks(or Celtucks) are most enamored of homos and Negroes.
    Granted, the Irish still tend to be somewhat partial to Palestinians, but the Irish elites all take money from Jews and won’t do anything about it. Also, as Afro-Globo-Homo stuff is a proxy tool of the Jews, the Irish who cuck to blacks and homos are essentially in the pockets of Jews. If Jews can’t own you directly, they look for indirect ways. Via Afro-worship, Irish have become cucked. Via globo-homo worship, Irish have been turned wussy. In their worship of ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’, Irish are convinced Ireland must take in all the world. Cucked wussies have no real pride left and can be manipulated by Jews who are experts at picking apart weakened systems. Negros and Homos are like enzymes used by Jews to weaken the national fiber of others. It’s like an octopus will puncture a hole in a crab and secrete chemicals that turn crab flesh into goo that the octopus then sucks out with ease. So, even if the Irish remain somewhat Anti-Zionist, Jews can exploit and control them by weakening their sense of identity and unity via the enzymic power of Afro-Globo-Homo worship.

    Ultimately, what is America about? Is it about equal dignity of free individuals regardless of power and wealth? In other words, while some individuals or groups may be much more successful and richer, the dignity of man is about how good, decent, and virtuous he is. And no matter how rich and powerful someone is, if he does bad, he is bad.
    Now, the idea of equal dignity doesn’t mean everyone is equally dignified. Dignity, like everyone else, has to be earned. What it means is that one’s dignity and moral worth aren’t based on power or money. Many Americans would like to believe this, and one could say America was ‘spiritually’ founded on such principles: “All men are created equal…”

    But the opportunity culture of America made way for extreme opportunism. In America, one could succeed beyond anyone’s dreams in the Old World. The super-rich in America made the rich in Europe seem like nothing. And there were more opportunities as there was more land and a vastly expanding population in America. And then, success was linked to celebrity culture, and so, it went from admiration of success to downright worship of it. Many Americans take delight in seeing their heroes go from riches to even more riches… even if they themselves got little or nothing.
    Over time, this could only turn into worship of Mammon. Not a humanist worldview of equal dignity among fellow citizens but a gangsterist view of winners and losers. No wonder women-beating-up-one-another in cages is now a popular sport.

    Things have been made worse by mass degradation of the proles. In the past, the poor were moralized by three factors: Need, Church, and Tradition/Prejudice. Those in dire need tend to be more sober about the fundamentals, like the Joad family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Also, the church had authority among poor folks. And as the poor were less educated, they relied more on tradition and prejudice for moral compass. And elders had more respect than young ones. Also, as the elites back then were ‘racist’, they couldn’t use the Other to guilt-bait the less fortunate among their kind about prejudice. Morality was a matter of richer whites owing something to poorer whites, not a matter of richer whites invoking the plight of nonwhites to morally condemn the prejudiced lower whites.
    These days, the welfare state has turned even poor people into fatties. The church has lost all authority, and churches that remain spread nothing but globo-homo & BLM(if ‘liberal’) or ‘Muh Israel'(if ‘conservative’). And pop/youth culture has degraded the culture of the proles and the poor. Therefore, having little dignity of their own, the poor have less moral ammo to do battle with the rich. If the Joads were around today, they’d likely have tattoos and body piercings all over. And even green hair. And of course, as Jews and rich have idolatrized morality into a matter of mindless worship of Jews, blacks, homos, and diversity than about the needs of the working class and those who have less, the elites don’t feel any sense of noblesse oblige toward the masses.

    This is why anyone who says “the Left is winning and the Right is losing” are wrong. The Left, or true left, is dead. What kind of ‘left’ swoons over the likes of Tim Crook, the Google oligarchs, Jeff Bezos, and the like? What is Antifa but a street gang-thug wing of Wall Street and Hollywood Jews? What kind of left prioritizes the vanity of neo-aristo homos? It’s true that the American ‘right’ follows in the tracks of the Democratic Party, but the latter is Jewish-supremacist gangsterism.

    Even ‘social justice’ issues have nothing to do with universalism, the position of the traditional true left. Rather, it’s been idolized into favoritism of certain groups uber alles. Jews uber Arabs. Both parties say, “We stand with Israel” at every turn. Blacks uber everyone else… except precious Jews and homos whom BLM must pay respects to. And homos over the world, what with US embassies flying the ‘gay pride’ flag as its neo-globo-imperialist symbol. When justice is attached to specific identities regardless of their behavior, it is a form of group-supremacism, not true leftism. True leftism is about equal justice and judgement for all groups. The Left is dead.

    • Replies: @Ace
  61. JamesinNM says:

    Read Romans 2:28-29 and compare with Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

  62. JoeFour says:

    Well … I had the paper back version, too, and it was three hefty volumes … probably would have been at least 4 inches thick if I had stacked them one on on top of another.

  63. Adûnâi says: • Website

    > “Solzhenitsyn was an avid communist at the beginning of the war, so according to you anyway, that made him a real Russian patriot.”

    A curious feature of Americans is their fixation on arcane religious dogma. No, what made one racist in 1941 was whether he obeyed Stalin, the Leader of the Soviet state. His religion, just like his sexual orientation, made no difference when the survival of his people was at stake. “Being a Communist” in 1941 meant “being loyal to your country”. And the reverse.

    > “But it does make one thing clear, even the best, most patriotic Russians, including Solzhenitsyn, were still Untermensch when compared to the Wehrmacht and the SS.”

    According to what ideal do you measure them both? The Germans fought the Russians, two races of the same old mankind. The Germans lost in war-time, the Russians lost in peace-time. Both are dead meat. Both fought for their respective race, however inefficiently and tragically.

    > “By the time Solzhenitsyn was being indoctrinated in school by the Judeo-Bolshevics, Russia was already lost.”

    Not true. Russia was largely lost in 1991, with the failure of the GKChP. But being optimistic, I wouldn’t discount her even now. There is a possibility for a Russian revival – and such people as Puchkov are leading charge against the anti-Soviet self-hate of liberal Christians on American payroll.

    > “That is how patriotic Russians behave when wearing their Soviet uniforms. They truly were, and still are, Untermensch.”

    @Rich @Dumbo
    You will laugh at me, but the real subhuman character of the Russian Communists was in their Christian mercy. The Germans invaded Soviet Russia with a genocidal intent and without a casus belli, killing 27 million Russians and other Asians of the Union. In return, the Russians did nothing of the sort, giving the Germans a pardon, only taking the lands east of the Oder-Neiße line, and allowing the rest of the tribe live in the GDR in peace and prosperity – on Russian money.

    This is why I consider Marxism ultimately a Christianity-derived religion. In its universal love, it is blind to the realities of race. Just like how modern Americans abnegate their own Nordic people in favour of foreign mutt children, immigrant or Iraqi, so did the USSR deny the Russians their true place under the sun, as masters of Eurasia and the lords of the Slavs.

    The American liberals want “small state” – the Russian Marxists proclaimed the “withering away of the state” (at least, in theory). This is the biggest cuckoldry. But the USSR had not yet been withering away in 1941, and thus I am bewildered as to why any Russian would have opposed it. The state must exist for 10000 years, in the manner of the Juche Korean cry Manse!

    • Replies: @gotmituns
    , @Weaver
  64. True or False:

    If Solzhenitsyn were alive today he would be supporting the shelling of Donbas by the Ukrano-Nazis….

  65. gotmituns says:

    This is why I consider Marxism ultimately a Christianity-derived religion
    Sir, I don’t think it’s good for you to use so much narcotics so early in the day – I mean that only in the best way of course.

  66. @anonymous

    I was going to say you couldn’t carry his shoes but you prolly could, after you took them off his dead body.

    He was a great Christian man.

    You. Are. Neither

  67. Chris Moore says: • Website

    the idea that anglos are this evil force in the world coming from people who live in the anglosphere is very troubling, you are a 5th column.

    Zionist-infected “anglos” are the 5th column. Zoglodytes are the 5th column. And anglo-zoglodytes are responsible for the trans-atlantic slave trade, based on their “curse of Ham” rationales. These snakes putrify everything they touch, just like the Serpant from the Bible. Then they did 9/11 to spark the ruinous “War on Terror” for Israel — another epic act of betrayal and treason against the human race.

  68. Best patriotism is about speaking truth to power…. still, Bush II was just a puppet and shill. We need to name the Real Power.

    • Thanks: geokat62
  69. Solzhenitsyn I immediately perceived as a manipulator at the time The Gulag Archipelago became a best-seller to be read by everybody, about 1973-74. Whether you like it or not he grew tall in exactly the same niche as Milton Friedman and monetarism (he made efforts more than would have been suitable to applaud the installation of Pinochet’s regime in Chile), he was most willfully part and parcel of a general movement denying humanity any right to a better world but rather asserting its duty to submit to ant malfeasance inflicted upon it by the world oligarchy in the name of dubious religious conceptions claiming of Philosophy Eternal. Right from ten years before, when publishing One Day in the life of Ivan Denissovitch in the Early Sixties, it was clear that he wrote for the Western market, not for Russia. This guy was clearly courting global money powers.

    The first Big Lie about Solzhenitsyn was that he taught at last the Western intelligentsia about the widespread existence of forced-labour camps in USSR and in Marxist countries more generally. Everybody had always known about these camps and their horrors. As a general rule, even when under the overpowering influence of left media, all half-informed people made the spontaneous association between labor camps and one-party communism first at learning about the very existence of USSR. Most people among the Western-style university graduates, though many left-leaning, were not communists, and even those who were did not hide the fact that unpaid hard labour was the name of the game in China, for instance. Everybody knew that the Eastern bloc needed electrified walls to prevent mass migration of their denizens to the West and that touring an Eastern bloc country was next to impossible outside a state-organized group trip. The most current opinion among a great majority since WWII was that communism and fascism were closest to each other by nature and distinguished only for accidental reasons of political bloc formation.

    Solzhenitsyn taught nothing new to anybody, nor did he red-pill anybody apart from a tiny few very late coming fellow-dreamers who anyway would all turn into as fanatical and more cynical neocons of all sorts, not because they were enlightened in any way but because clearly the ready-to-wear thought fashion was lockstepping to the right towards Ayn-Rand style radical egoism or like opinions that were taught through the New Age nebula, this author being imposed to all media as a form of call to muster by often the same journalists who were still describing the Maoist experiment or even the Khmer Rouge one as globally positive. Solzhenitsyn was clearly a guy on the system’s side as people then said, asking for ever less political generosity and more submission to all kinds of legitimate authority, preferably religious. Solzhenitsyn was propounding a sickly form of Russian Orthodox thought that happened to mix perfectly well with American Zionist Evangelism as well as with the Dalai Lama’s globalist magical buddhism. Last but not least Solzhenitsyn was at least, despite his quite harmonious racial features, always ugly and repulsive to look at as for the mien and mimic, quite like so many Islamic muftis. Very dark energy was radiating from him.


    Second Big Lie : The figures provided by Solzhenitsyn were completely mendacious : tens of millions of Russian peasants and intellectuals didn’t perish in the gulag and kindred Soviet punishment or capital execution systems : the Soviet Politruks who ran the camps wrote down with minute care and delight the details of each death by overwork or direct execution, as that kind of sadism was a pre-condition for their advancement in rank (their interest was to inflate rather than to understate their prowesses), and everything tallies to a little more than one million during 30 years. Moreover the political opponents proper counted for less than 1% of the inmates to the point each intellectual imprisoned was generally most isolated among purely physical thugs, the very great part were nomadic predators and hooligans that had been a national scourge for centuries, coming from ethnic environments like today’s Chechens. And since Bill Clinton, the USA has overtaken USSR as it was at its peak as for the number of prisoners submitted to free labour for the prison for profit system. Stalin was a monster for sure, of the kind one will never be able to tell whether him or Hitler was the most dangerous, but most of the millions and millions of mass murders and death sentences he ordered to be carried out happened in the course and action of the various operations of WWII. But Churchill was no better in this regard, nor the French military establishment during the course of WWI, who had been as busy massacring their own population with a particular preference for the French Catholic peasants and intellectuals howsoever suspected of lack of republican spirit. The Soviet regime did nothing very different from what France had done in the Sahara bordering countries and from what Britain had done in the Indian subcontinent (against their own personnel quite often as well as against the conquered), also in the name of modernization and development, and with the precious contribution of about the same kind and percentage of Jews with great variations in time.

    Third Big Lie : Solzhenitsyn presents the Soviet system as something radically new by its horror and magnitude than the dictatorships of the past which were the result of personal interest conflicts rather than will for mass mind control through world transformation ambitions. That is completely false. The destruction and enslavement of Ireland by Britain for the benefit of the young USA was as massive in its kind as that of Ukraine during the 20th century. The absence of any dream to leave behind a better world by the application of an ideology did not prevent the Moghol emperors of India to proceed to the biggest genocides ever. The history of humanity has always been one of ideological control. And the Orthodox religion in most Slavic countries is traditionally motivated by the ambition to submit the portion of humanity allotted to them to justified divine wrath.

    Fourth Big Lie : The Russian Revolution, including that of October 1917, was not, or at least not essentially the result of a Jewish plot to destroy the local Slavic culture by reducing everyone into slaves of the Jewish entity. It had always been a slave-driving culture since at least Ivan the Terrible as well as by a bureaucratic tradition inherited from Constantinople to the point no Jew however supremacist and sadist could do worse, and most of the local Jews had no other ambition than to derive egoistical or community benefits as bailiffs and traders from such a system of enforced misery and despair as it was, as they had generally done in whatever country they installed themselves. The most open-minded were generally content with the February revolution together with the hope of turning Russia into a kind of anglo-saxon-style hinterland country with a somewhat more progressive and less oppressive semi-colonial parliamentary regime. The revolution of October, together with its procession of red revengeful punishments of the rich and of the intelligentsia, had been long hoped for by a majority of proletarians since the Bloody Sunday of 1905 at least, and remained so through the Stalinist regime at a well advanced stage, as all real geniuses of Russian literature had testified long in advance each one in their own way throughout their best works, to which those of Solzhenitsyn cannot be compared. The Jews, not mainstream ones at all, were dominant only in the Soviet of Petrograd where they were then liked by the working population more than anybody too linked with the Orthodox hierarchy or culture, which had come to be puked by everybody so corrupt it was. Many other republics of USSR started as rather pogrom-happy, especially where the culture was islamic, and the pro-Soviet Jews happened to be as a very general rule on the wrong side of the development of that new totalitarian regime bar a few opportunists and monsters that gravitated in Stalin’s court like they had always done around every court of the world. It is true that the Rothschild lent money to the early Soviet government but absolutely every party and everybody had to resort to their services and their dearest wish was not the triumph of USSR in priority, they would make do with nose-pinched it if nothing else but that red revolution would ensure enough stability. It is true that many American bankers, the most remarkable being Jewish, did their best to destabilize the Czarist regime by temporarily financing revolutionary ventures, but their only aim was to prevent Russia from overtaking America as the chief exporter of grain and other agricultural staples to denser populated Europe : the US wanted to keep that monopoly at any cost. But they had absolutely no preference for the Bolsheviks, they just wanted Russia to be ruined and preferably balkanized back into warlord-led principalities like China was, they for quite a long time, through the roaring thirties, hoped for Russia to become another kind of China before realizing that China might rather become another kind of USSR.

    Fifth Big Lie : the foundation of the USA involved far more Jews (2-3% of the general population, all at top level, then nearly all Sephardic, ultra-reactionary, and deeply involved in triangular commerce, though not too directly in slave trading but rather in commodity and equipment dealing) and far more big chunks of Judaism as well as kabbalistic magic at a much more essential level, than the Russian revolution has ever done at each single one of its stages. They championed the Southern oligarchical cause up to its fag end, hence the unsaid legend they let hover by omission in history books and media productions letting nearly everyone conclude to their absence in American life and especially around Gone with the Wind style sceneries, before their Ashkenazi brethren, who were progressive for the most part, mass-immigrated from central Europe after the Civil War. At every single year of their existence the USA have been the most Jew-ridden and Jewish-like of all modern countries, Russia never was an image of what America might become if the Jews conquered it all : it is rather America that was always right from the start the real cradle of nearly all Zionist causes of the world, it was among others the Bnai Brith’s birthplace. The only thing is that the modes of Jewish domination may change : before waging their present-day war and Kulturkampf against Whites, they had first encouraged specific kinds of White Anglo-Saxon racism and defined in totality and in extenso nearly all White behaviour stereotypes one had to adopt to be on the right side of the social line, like the Western movie genre which they phased in all European culture and then phased out, even though in reality a cow-boy’s life was nothing to get gratification from and most settlers of the Wild West were sensitive to ultra-leftist and anarchistic dreams rather than to “little House in the Prairie” fake Protestant ones. The real pact with the Jewish Devil was signed in Philadelphia in 1776 not in Petrograd 150 years later.

  70. Maybe Solzhenitsyn should make a tik-tok account instead.

  71. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    indeed, capitalists are now among the most reliable champions of cultural Marxism

    This is one of the key elements. It’s pushed top-down using the power of the state, major media, educational system, big tech, etc, with dissent increasingly muzzled and intimidated. It’s not Marxism, there’s no class struggle, it’s a misnomer, the rich continue to ride herd on the masses but have just changed the color of their caps. The parallels are really unsettling and one gets a sinking feeling as one reads on. The mass of Americans are just sleepwalking into disaster. It’s coming, sooner or later, we just don’t know the date or how it’ll be set off.

  72. HVM says:

    Specifically stated in his book Two Hundred Years Together.

  73. @Anonymous

    reply to anonymous from elmerfudzie; looks as tho JoeFour responded to your allegation with a much clearer head than mine. If memory serves, a recollection now over forty years ago- I believe the Gulag was indeed divided into parts or sections, cut an old man some slack, especially when it comes to splitting hairs about needless details-the damn paperback was thick!

  74. Thim says:

    What I remember, thinking back to 1974, when I first read the Gulag, at age 16, was thinking long and hard on one thing he wrote. He said the West would not learn from the Soviet experience, we could not learn the lesson vicariously, we would have to go through it ourselves.

    Now that we are going through it, one thing comes to mind, and that is his great failure, in my mind. Why didn’t he warn us clearly, in the 1970s onward, about the Jews?

    • Thanks: RestiveUs
    • Replies: @SafeNow
    , @HeebHunter
  75. Chris Moore says: • Website

    In effect, Germans were purged in the US in many of the same ways that Russians were purged in the USSR. This is no surprise since WWI was all a Judeo-Masonic plot going back decades.

    First the ((Jews)) purged the German-Americans, now they’re purging White-Americans. Now that’s chutzpah. They must be pretty confident in their Judeofascist network. Or maybe they’re getting desperate, sensing the walls closing in on their Zionist treason.

  76. Void says:

    Concur. This relates to being ethical. The former is relative and formable by things like media. I believe women and the more feminized males are more likely into the moral category.

  77. SafeNow says:

    “Why didn’t he warn us clearly, in the 1970s onward, about the Jews?”

    Philip Roth did.

  78. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    In addition to the toll of two world wars, we have lost, as a result of civil strife and tumult alone–as a result of internal political and economic “class” extermination alone–66 (sixty-six) million people!!! That is the calculation of a former Leningrad professor of statistics, I. A. Kurganov, and you can have it brought to you whenever you wish.

    Well, Solzhenitsyn was obviously writing somewhat loosely, but the notion that Russia’s population might have been 66 million larger absent the disastrous consequences of the Bolshevik Revolution really seems fairly reasonable. Anatoly Karlin recently had an entire post focusing on these sorts of demographic issues:

    Indeed, it’s not totally ridiculous to argue that the population of Russians+Ukrainians might today be closer to 500 million, or perhaps 300-350 million larger than the current total…

  79. Smith says:

    Solz is neither good nor true though, this guy has been exposed constantly in these articles.

  80. @Priss Factor

    Just as God used Julian the Apostate to his ends, so did the Negro-Saxons arrogantly choose sins over goodness.

    But thank the LORD, the negro-saxon monkey island and its dreaded cesspool spawns are going to be consumed by vengeful third worlders.

  81. @Thim

    It is difficult to spread the truth about the kikes in a country most busy with pumping out holohoax fiction and worshipping the yids.

  82. Schuetze says:
    @Ron Unz

    Somewhere between 66 and 100 million Russians were exterminated by the Judeo-Bolschevics. How many of those were Jews? Why don’t the Rabbi’s and Zionists ever try to calculate this?

    We know from the Havarra agreements that the Zionists in occupied Palestine only wanted “the best” Jews, and were forcing Germany to keep the low quality jews. American and England didn’t want the low quality jews either, they were only accepting the elite Jewish capitalists, the cultural marxists and the nuclear scientists.

    We also know that the Reinhard camps were shut down in November 1943 as the mass murdering and mass raping Red Army were approaching what was, and should still be, eastern Poland. We also know that as the German labor camps were shut down, the Jews were given the choice of heading west with the retreating German army, or taking their chances with the Russian Red Rapist Army. Even Ellie the Weisel fled with the Germans who he accused of holocausting him.

    So the question here is did Stalin trust the Jews he “liberated” in the Pale of Settlement and in Eastern Poland? We know that Stalin needed millions of fresh bodies to replace those millions who were dying off every year in the Gulag. We know that Stalin sent all the Russian POW’s he liberated and did not murder on the spot to the Gulag. We know Stalin sent all the axis POW’s off to the Gulag. We know that Stalin would not let anyone emigrate out of the USSR because they were his slaves.

    So the question here is, if millions of Russians and other ethnic groups were dying every year in the Gulag, how plausible is it that a few million poor quality Jews were not also worked to death or shot for refusing to do so? How plausible is it that a few million Jews weren’t worked to death? Why don’t Jews care if Jews get killed by Judeo-Communists?

    Knowing that Marxism and Bolshevism were Jewish creations and were run by Jews, and that Jews despised the NSDAP and even preemptively declared war on Germany in 1933, is there any reason to doubt that the Jews wouldn’t try to falsely attribute deaths of Jews in the Gulag to deaths of Jews at Auschwitz? Since no Allied journalists or the Red Cross were allowed to freely tour in Western “liberated” Russia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe after the war, how would the western press even know?

  83. Weaver says:
    @Patrick McNally

    I’m pressed for time, but look at the following:

    Second footstep: however fierce they are, the Bolsheviks reveal themselves as being more lame than the imperial government, abandoning half of Russia to the Germans a quarter of a century later, including Kiev.

    These words reflected the realization that the February regime was the best for the Russian Jewry, promising economic progress as well as political and cultural prosperity. And that realization was adequate. The closer it got to to October coup and the more apparent the Bolshevik threat, the wider this realization spread among Jews, leading them to oppose Bolshevism. It was taking root even among socialist parties and during the October coup many Jewish socialists were actively against it. Yet they were debilitated by their socialist views and their opposition was limited by negotiations and newspaper articles – until the Bolsheviks shut down those newspapers.

    It is necessary to state explicitly that the October coup was not carried by Jews (though it was under the general command of Trotsky and with energetic actions of young Grigory Chudnovsky during the arrest of Provisional Government and the massacre of the defenders of the Winter Palace). Broadly speaking, the common rebuke, that the 170-million-people could not be pushed into Bolshevism by a small Jewish minority, is justified. Indeed, we had ourselves sealed our fate in 1917, through our foolishness from February to October-December. The October coup proved a devastating lot for Russia. Yet the state of affairs even before it promised little good to the people. We had already lost responsible statesmanship and the events of 1917 had proved it in excess. The best Russia could expect was an inept, feeble, and disorderly pseudo-democracy, unable to rely on enough citizens with developed legal consciousness and economic independence.

    After October fights in Moscow, representatives of the Bund and Poale -Zion had taken part in the peace negotiations – not in alliance with the Junkers or the Bolsheviks — but as a third independent party. There were many Jews among Junkers of the Engineers School who defended the Winter Palace on October 25: in the memoirs of Sinegub, a palace defender, Jewish names appear regularly; I personally knew one such engineer from my prison
    experience. And during the Odessa City Duma elections the Jewish block had opposed the
    Bolsheviks and won, though only marginally.

    During the Constituent Assembly elections “more than 80% of Jewish population in Russia had voted” for Zionist parties.*86+ Lenin wrote that 550 thousands voted for Jewish nationalists.*87+ “Most Jewish parties have formed a united national list of candidates; seven deputies were elected from that list – six Zionists” and Gruzenberg. The success of Zionists was facilitated by the recently published declaration of British Minister of Foreign Affairs Balfour on the establishment of ‘Jewish national home’ in Palestine, which was “met with enthusiasm by the majority of Russian Jewry (celebratory demonstrations, rallies and worship services took place in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities).”*88+

    Prior to the October coup, Bolshevism was not very influential among Jews. But just before the uprising, Natanson, Kamkov, and Shteinberg on behalf of the left Socialist Revolutionaries had signed a combat pact with Bolsheviks Trotsky and Kamenev.[89] And some Jews distinguished themselves among the Bolsheviks in their very first victories and some even became famous.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  84. @geokat62

    Every single demographic study of the USSR shows that mortality rates improved for the population until the 1960s when the economic stagnation decisively set in. This is not just a matter of the falling death rates (mortality in Czarist Russia in 1913 was about 50% higher than in the USSR in 1937-8 at the height of the purges). It also translated into:

    Remarkably large and rapid improvements in infant mortality, birth weight, child height adult stature were recorded from approximately 1940 to the late 1960s. While this period of physical growth was followed by stagnation in heights and increase in adult male mortality, it appears that the Soviet Union avoided the sustained declines in stature that occurred in the United States and United Kingdom during industrialization in those countries.
    — Elizabeth Brainerd, “Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: An Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data,” The Journal of Economic History, Volume 70, Number 1, March 2010.

    The actual death rates which occurred in peacetime Czarist Russia on an ordinary annual basis were so much higher than the typical peacetime year in the USSR that it is ridiculous to echo the insane claims which a liar like Solzhenitsyn sought to propagate. Data can be found in such sources as Frank Lorimer, The Population of the Soviet Union, where he gives death rates per thousand for the region that was the USSR up until 1939:


    Year_____Deaths per thousand

    Every single one of these annual death rates is higher than the death rates that have at any time been asserted for China in the years 1958, 1959 and 1961. Judith Banister, China’s Changing Population, assigns the death rates of 20.65, 22.06 and 23.01 to these years in China. Every single one of the recorded death rates in Czarist Russia is markedly higher. As for death rates in the USSR during 1937-8, these are given as 21.7 and 20.9 by Andreev, Darskii and Kharkova after going through the archival data. Now it’s true that hundreds of thousands were executed in the ghastly purges of these years, and the death rates should have been a little bit smaller without such insanity. But the deaths from the purges were never high enough to exert more than a small effect on general demographics and this was why Solzhenitsyn could recall this as a time when “the brightest of futures lay ahead.”

    The attempts to promote the wildly inflated claims which Solzhenitsyn spouts in hid Letter to the Soviet Leaders require that one assume that natural mortality should have taken an unimaginable drop as soon as the Czarist monarchy was overthrown. One then shucks off the extremely high mortality rate which was a regular thing under Czarism and instead counts millions of totally natural deaths in the USSR as somehow the fault of the government. Now data from the Gulag or any other related events refutes this point. It’s just liars like Solzhenitsyn who promote insane claims and are treated seriously for ideological reasons by sectors on the Right.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  85. geokat62 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    It’s just liars like Solzhenitsyn who promote insane claims and are treated seriously for ideological reasons by sectors on the Right.

    Is that what motivated Ron to write comment #81?

  86. Ace says:

    The fanatical, aggressive Jewish promotion of “right-wing” National Socialism (and its spurious kissing cousin “nationalism”) as the locus of pure evil in the world serves two purposes.

    One, and most importantly, it draws all attention away from the central role of Jews in bolshevism, all its Soviet excesses, and the leading role of Jews in subversive and “solidarity” movements throughout the world. Only white Germans were evil and now all people with the same skin color as they had have the same evil ways, ready at the slightest provocation to run riot in Shaker Heights and fire up the ovens. Cue every war movie ever made after Casablanca.

    Two, to pour the distilled liqueur of satanic, left totalitarianism into the bottle labeled “right wing pathology.” The most avuncular advocate of ordered liberty, traditional values, reverence for the ineffable, delight in the differences between men and women, delight in reason and wit, delight in anything refined or clever, enjoyment of the natural order, and wariness of human fallibility and Satan’s powerful influence, inter alia, is thereby tarred as the incarnation of depravity and malevolence. What ends up being extolled is virtuous, narcissistic, enlightened totalitarianism. It’s all that’s left. To borrow from a famous quip, acceptable political options now run the gamut from a to b and God save the unfortunate who gets the pronouns wrong.

    The sappy ecumenical movement of the sixties and later was a wasted opportunity. Instead of mewling about “coming together” the divines, rabbis, and mullahs could have spent time excising and “reinterpreting” their home boy doctrines to rid them of supremacism, insularity, manipulative in-group orientation, the urge to exploit, and contempt for apostates, infidels, and goyim. But that didn’t happen and the 20th century turned out to be the Jewish century – revolution, subversion, cultural destruction, godlessness, and institutionalized revenge.

  87. Ace says:

    The problem is that we don’t arrest enough people.

  88. Ace says:

    He made an oblique reference to “the man with the mustache” in a private letter to a friend.

    If there were worse crimes the total of treasonous, morale-busting poems and letters must have soared to the high teens. Entire armies collapsed because of him and the Germans, ever adaptable, formed motorized shock poetry regiments to strike deep into the Russian heartland.

  89. The insistence of portraying Solzhenitsyn as a liar is probably not strange to him being the author of “200 years together”.

  90. Ace says:

    The personal accounts of soldiers and civilians are fascinating and Hartmann’s is one of the worst, particularly as it is consistent with — though not an example of — the pusillanimity of Operation Keelhaul. There was no American general — wink wink — who saved thousands and thousands of his comrades held in POW camps without shelter or sanitation. In fact, there was that American general who had the prisoners designated as other than POWs so the Red Cross could be kept away and the murders could proceed slow motion-like. One time, a US Army captain fired his pistol into the dense mass of Germans from a hill. Just like that.

    The general’s name will come to me in a moment.

    The German woman who wrote East of the Oder also told of rapists among the Soviet troops who arrived. There was one Russian officer, however, who was quite enamored of her mother. He wanted her to go back home with him and treated her very decently.

    Elsewhere, one German soldier described chatting with a Soviet fellow at night when their listening posts were close together. They shared food and passed the time pleasantly with each other. The German finally told his friend that his unit was moving out in the morning and that he’d best beware of any replacement. Some of the young Ukrainian women fell in love with the German boys and worried terribly about them when they had to go on operations.

    From what I’ve seen and read about war it’s a ghastly business that not infrequently is punctuated by the very best of human behavior. I’ve come to loathe it and all its greasy propaganda. Perhaps the crimes Hartmann described were committed by some non-Russians with a more primitive understanding of their place in the scheme of things. But perhaps not.

    I don’t know where you get the notion that Solzhenitsyn was an avid communist and that he was an eager participant in the war against Russia’s liberation. He did write of his haphazard accumulation of knowledge prior to his arrest and of how the fire of the camps burned away the dross in his mind leaving the pure metal of his Christian faith, so perhaps he was your garden-variety Ivan before who did his duty to maintain and extend Soviet exceptionalism. Lack of eagerness was of interest to the Jewish SMERSH units so perhaps a certain level of eagerness was politic.

    He didn’t whine or complain that I know of. Like most of us now, he underestimated the viciousness and rank dishonesty of his own government.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  91. Ace says:
    @Priss Factor

    A superb comment. Thank you.

  92. Schuetze says:

    Just look at wikipedia:

    “While still young, Solzhenitsyn lost his faith in Christianity and became a firm believer in both atheism and Marxism–Leninism”

    I read somewhere that he was an avid communist in his youth, and was very disappointed when the Red Rapist Army rejected him early in the war.

    World War II
    During the war, Solzhenitsyn served as the commander of a sound-ranging battery in the Red Army,was involved in major action at the front, and was twice decorated. He was awarded the Order of the Red Star on 8 July 1944 for sound-ranging two German artillery batteries and adjusting counterbattery fire onto them, resulting in their destruction.

    Above we see that he was such a great slave to Stalin that he was awarded multiple slave metals .

    “While serving as an artillery officer in East Prussia, Solzhenitsyn witnessed war crimes against local German civilians by Soviet military personnel. Of the atrocities, Solzhenitsyn wrote: “You know very well that we’ve come to Germany to take our revenge” for Nazi atrocities committed in the Soviet Union. The noncombatants and the elderly were robbed of their meager possessions and women and girls were gang-raped. A few years later, in the forced labor camp, he memorized a poem titled “Prussian Nights” about a woman raped to death in East Prussia. In this poem, which describes the gang-rape of a Polish woman whom the Red Army soldiers mistakenly thought to be a German,[21] the first-person narrator comments on the events with sarcasm and refers to the responsibility of official Soviet writers like Ilya Ehrenburg.”

    Its hard to tell what the Russians in the Red Rapist Army loved more: their masochistic and sadistic slave status, or the ritual sadistic rape-until-death orgies. In either case, Solzhenitsyn fought against the liberation of Russia and was an eager slave to Stalin

    In February 1945, while serving in East Prussia, Solzhenitsyn was arrested by SMERSH for writing derogatory comments in private letters to a friend, Nikolai Vitkevich,[23] about the conduct of the war by Joseph Stalin, whom he called “Khozyain” (“the boss”), and “Balabos” (Yiddish rendering of Hebrew baal ha-bayit for “master of the house”).”

    Here we have the proof that Solzhenitsyn didn’t object to the death-rapes. He was thrown in the Gulag for comments about Stalin. It was only after he had spent some time in the Gulag that he had the revelation that raping young German women to death was not behaviour suiting a Russian soldier, let alone a German one. However, Death-rape orgies were just one of the sadistic perks of being a slave in the Red Army to the Judeo-Bolshevics.

  93. Weaver says:

    The withering away of the state is a lie, certainly. Marxism was just an excuse to come to power. It’s like how the US lies to us Americans about everything.

    Marxism wasn’t truly blind to race, just wanted a global citizen, wanted to destroy all “irrational ties” to enable a United, progressive future. Lenin seems to have used the racial identity of others. I thought it intentional, but maybe not: The top Russians were killed, leaving Jews to rule early on within Bolsheviks. They had the needed skills, everyone else had been killed. There was no Jewish proletariat. The ideology really makes no sense, because it’s never the poor who come to power, for the most part.

    We’re told Germans invaded without reason, but if Stalin were truly planning an attack, then things might have been different. Did the Germans kill women and children or only soldiers?

  94. @Weaver

    It certainly is true that the majority of Jews never supported the Bolsheviks, and the majority of Bolshevik-supporters were not Jewish but Russian. What is obscured is the way that the Right-wing White forces both the majority of Jews and the majority of Russians to temporarily give their support to the Bolsheviks at key moments which decided the outcome of the Russian Civil War. The outburst of popular rebellion which occurred in 1905 had made it clear to any sane person that the monarchy was destined for the dustbin of history. Whatever hope there had existed of the monarchy enacted strong constitutional reforms and going the way of Britain was destroyed by Stolypin’s coup d’etat in 1907. Although Solzhenitsyn tries to dress Stolypin up as some kind of Russian populist he was nothing of the kind.

    When the Russian Civil War began in 1918 it occurred quite frequently that a town would be captured by the Whites and Jewish shopkeepers would welcome the anti-Bolshevik forces. Then a mass-pogrom would start at the instigation of the White officers. These pogroms carried on in the civil war were not some spontaneous outbreak by ordinary Russians. They were consciously instigated by conservative army officers who refused to admit that the mass of Russians had rejected the old social order and so found it necessary to blame Jews. The result was, of course, that many Jews did begin to support the Bolsheviks until at least 1921 when the White defeat was clear.

    But the same thing happened all across the Russian countryside with the war between the Whites and the mass of peasants. A really big difference between Russia in 1918 versus Spain in 1936 was that in Russia there did not then exist any well-consolidated base of middle-class peasants. The latter was what provided the basis for Franco’s support in the Spanish Civil War. In Russia during 1917-8 mass-rebellion by the peasants against the big landowners broke out. This was not an inherently “Marxist” rebellion because Marxism is more focused on the urban industrial proletariat as the force of revolution. But it did mean that Russia was bound to go through a very radical revolution one way or another.

    Among Russian peasants the popular support mainly shifted towards the Social Revolutionary Party and secondarily towards the Popular Socialist Party. Likewise among the urban industrial workers the main support was for the Mensheviks, whom Lenin had broken with in 1903. The same patterns were reflected in the Jewish population. There is no evidence at all of Jews having leaned heavily towards the Bolsheviks prior to the pogroms instigated by White officers. Most Left-wing Jews tended to be either Menshevik or even Social Revolutionary. Only a few were Bolshevik.

    But the Whites refused to accept the reality that Russia was demanding a revolution. The people who had been elected to the Constituent Assembly in 1918 were dismissed by Trotsky, but their opposition government was executed by Kolchak. Every type of popular force that could have been a counter-influence to the Bolsheviks was destroyed by the Whites who insisted that the old aristocracy be preserved. Russians rejected this idea en masse and instead gave a very conditional form of support to the Bolsheviks long enough to guarantee that the defeat of the Whites. Solzhenitsyn’s windbaggery is just an attempt to dance around this fact that the vast majority of Russians supported the overthrow of the old aristocracy.

  95. @Ron Unz

    It’s not at all reasonable. Russia had both abnormally high birth and death rates up to 1913. The 1913 birth rate in the regions which formed the USSR in the 1930s was 48.3 per thousand whereas the death rate was 30.9. Under Soviet development both of these dropped significantly (although the birth rate didn’t start to crash until the stagnation of the 1970s, it simply fell from high-40s to mid-20s). The population continued to grow, but at a slower rate. To invent a claim that the population should have been able to get to something 66 million greater one would have to maintain that the birth rate should have stayed up at 48.3/k while the death falls faster than it actually did.

    Nothing in the record of the Gulag allows us to testify to a missing “66 million” and so one is really arguing about how fast population growth should have been occurring, not about documentable human rights abuses in the camps. It was obvious that the high birth rates of 1913 were linked with the high death rates and any social development which brought down the death rates (as the development of the Soviet economy did manage to do) would also see a drop in birth rates.

    This kind of lie simply shows how Solzhenitsyn imposes standards on the Soviet government which he would never dream of demanding of the Czarist monarchy. Idealizing an era when mortality in the high 20s to lower 30s was considered normal under the best of circumstances while demanding something different from the Soviet government is not a basis for real history. It’s ideologically driven scribbling and nothing more.

  96. @Schuetze

    many Cold War conservatives were dead set against any discussion of race, which would make it impossible to apply any of Solzhenitsyn’s insights to our struggle against today’s racially-obsessed Left

    The point here is that everything the “conservatives” did then, and this remains true today, was in reaction to the assault against white civilization and Christianity by the Jew owned and run left. If they were “dead set against discussion of race” it could also be because they didn’t want Communists and Judeo-Democrats to use race issues as a wedge to cause social instability, which is precisely what they did.

    You are defending failed policy based on intellectual dishonesty. Conservatives after WW2 rallied around “Feel good” race denial and that gave the left an open pass. The massive mess we have today is from conservatives creating their own false reality where race doesn’t exist and “big government” is to blame.

    Here is the problem with conservative race denial:
    Leftist: Since race doesn’t exist we need to spend 50 billion on this racial inequality.
    Conservative: Er …. um… maybe the inequality is caused by big government.
    Leftist: That doesn’t make any sense.
    Conservative: No more taxes! God bless America!
    Leftist: Ok we’ll let the voters decide.

    Cold war conservatives have caused just as many problems as the left. Their incompetency and refusal to speak frankly about reality only enabled the left. The left should have been destroyed when Whites had a strong majority.

    Race is the Achilles heel of the left. The body of the left topples when you kick it hard enough.

    Conservatives should have followed their own principles after WW2 which I thought included HONESTY. Not lying to society about some bugagboo “big government” that must be creating all these racial inequalities.

    • LOL: Schuetze
  97. Schuetze says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Jews lie. Why do Jews change their names to be goyim names? Because it makes it easier for Jews to lie.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  98. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    It certainly is true that the majority of Jews never supported the Bolsheviks, and the majority of Bolshevik-supporters were not Jewish but Russian.

    You’re making yourself look totally dishonest and ridiculous, or perhaps (((totally dishonest and ridiculous))).

    While it’s certainly true that the top leadership of the Mensheviks was almost entirely Jewish, Jews were also an overwhelming portion of the Bolshevik leadership as well, especially after Trotsky (previously a Menshevik) and all his followers merged with the Bolsheviks.

    Just check the membership of the first 1917 politburo, the ruling Bolshevik body: Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Sokolnikov, and Bubnov. Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Sokolnikov were Jewish and Lenin was part-Jewish. So we’re talking 4-5 out of 7. Moreover, Sverdlov was Chairman of the Central Committee, and probably then second only to Lenin and Trotsky in power. So we’re talking 5-6 out of 8, which seems pretty “overwhelming” to me.

    I don’t doubt that a large majority of the Bolshevik rank-and-file members weren’t Jewish, since Jews were only about 4% of the country’s population. But the Bolsheviks were a tightly-run top-down organization, and Jews totally dominated the top leadership, as well as the Cheka and other control organs, just as they later dominated the Gulag leadership.

    Consider how ridiculous your analogy would be. Everyone knows that the Jewish Neocons totally dominated the George W. Bush administration and were responsible for the Iraq War, but I doubt that even 3% of “W”s voters were Jewish, so you would argue they had no influence in the early 2000s.

    Then again, you have repeatedly claimed that the gigantic famine caused by Mao’s Great Leap Forward never happened and is just an American CIA/MSM hoax, so your ridiculous claims about the Bolsheviks are just par for the course.

    • Thanks: Schuetze
    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @Patrick McNally
  99. @Patrick McNally

    When the Russian Civil War began in 1918 it occurred quite frequently that a town would be captured by the Whites and Jewish shopkeepers would welcome the anti-Bolshevik forces.

    1918? Dude at least get your dates right before posting here. The war started in November 1917.

    This was not an inherently “Marxist” rebellion because Marxism is more focused on the urban industrial proletariat as the force of revolution. But it did mean that Russia was bound to go through a very radical revolution one way or another.

    A few minor changes in history and there would have been gradual reform which would have most likely prevented WW2. The Nazis never would have gained power without the threat of the Soviet backed Communism.

    Often left out of the liberal version of history is that the government had actually been working on land reforms. The Marxists however wanted to to preserve the status quo in order to incite hostilities. They were actually afraid that the people would be satisfied with the reforms and leave the Tsar in power. So prior to 1917 the Marxists were actually targeting reformers. This has been the playbook for every Marxist takeover. Total takeover and total control.

    Not only did the Marxists go after reformers in the government but also fellow leftists. They weren’t willing to share power with anyone and that included social democrats. So this narrative of them liberating the proletariat is a load of bulls–t. The proletariat never had a choice and the Marxists never had majority support.

    But the Whites refused to accept the reality that Russia was demanding a revolution.

    How was Russia demanding a revolution? It was the Bolsheviks that attacked the provisional government which is also left out of liberal history. No one likes to talk about how the Bolsheviks were anti-democracy. They knew they were a minor party and pulled a coup. Well why didn’t they trust the people to vote on the matter? Most high school history books leave out the provisional government. It’s all about the Marxists vs the evil Tsar who wouldn’t share the land. That is a lie and in fact the Tsar had more support than the Bolsheviks. The Whites were absolutely right to fight a coup by a minor party. It’s a shame they lost and a bigger shame that so many Russians didn’t fight back. The Marxists tried the same thing in Germany and got their asses kicked.

    • Replies: @Weaver
    , @Patrick McNally
  100. Schuetze says:
    @Ron Unz

    The old adage “He who pays the piper calls the tune” really applies here as well. The Bolsheviks were financed by a cadre of Jewish bankers, the most prominent of whom was Jacob Schiff.

    We also have to recognize the propensity of powerful Jews for selecting Shabboz Goyim or Crypto-Jews to head their schemes and operations in order to deflect suspicion.

  101. Derer says:
    @Old and Grumpy

    No surprise there…negativity is stemming from Solzhenitsyn critique of American crony capitalist values and his refusal to live there. He returned to his beloved Russia.

  102. Trumpeter says: • Website

    The relevance of Solzhenitsyn today is seen by the power of his words on todays people.

  103. Weaver says:
    @John Johnson

    [Y]ou may have heard about [Putin’s] weird remarks last Thursday (June 13) when he handed over a batch of the treasure to the new Chabad-run museum in Moscow: “The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish.” He added that those Jews were blinded by “false ideological considerations,” from which we have thankfully recovered.

    Just a neat link.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Patrick McNally
  104. @Jack McArthur

    “[Ruby]… said “I did it for the Jewish people”

    But Ruby also said variously that “I did it for Mrs Kennedy” and “I did it for the American people”.

    Even about to stand trial for 1st-degree murder in a police-station and already (supposedly) dying of cancer, there came from a Jew mobster and thug absolutely nothing but lies, deception and cover-up to the last, to continue to do all he could to fool as many as possible who were still honest, trusting – or naive.

    Never ever forget who and what you are dealing with when you say or hear the word “Jew”.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  105. @Schuetze

    Trying to go on about how the early founders of the Russian labor movement involved so-and-so many Jews is a waste of time because the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Russians supported Left-wing labor parties in 1917. The Bolsheviks were just one fractional split from the Russian Social Democrats. The Mensheviks had been the larger faction, with both a much higher proportion of Jewish supporters in their party as well as more Russian workers ready to vote for them in the elections to the Constituent Assembly that were held in early 1918.

    The reason that the Bolsheviks eventually won was because the Mensheviks were more akin to Salvador Allende and had no organizational means of defeating the Whites when the latter dismissed all popularly elected candidates. Trotsky had also dismissed the candidates who had won the Constituent Assembly elections (“Go where you belong, to the dustbin of history!”) but Russians favored the Bolsheviks whenever they were forced to choose between them versus the reactionary Whites. Only if the Whites had been as smart as the CIA in the early Cold War (Congress of Cultural Freedom, a CIA effort to recruit Left-wing opposition to Soviet influence) would it have been possible for the Whites to win by championing the elected candidates of the Constituent Assembly whom Trotsky had dismissed.

    Actually, the man who provided the leading inspiration for Lenin does not appear to have been Jewish at all. Sergey Nechayev was born in Ivanovo to lower-class parents. There’s nothing to indicate anything Jewish about him. But it was his Catechism of a Revolutionary which provided the organizational blueprint for Lenin’s concept of the revolutionary party.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  106. @John Johnson

    If the Whites had merely been fighting the Bolsheviks then they would have endorsed and defended the Constituent Assembly which was first dismissed by Trotsky. Instead the Whites fought to punish peasants who had carried major land seizures. Kolchak specifically refused to cooperate with any Left-wing opponents of the Bolsheviks and doomed himself by arresting, executing and assassinating members of the Constituent Assembly who had sought refuge in Siberia after Trotsky had dismissed them.

    Also, a few minor details. The Russian Civil War did begin in early 1918. The Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky was chased out by the Bolsheviks in November 1917 without any sense of loss by Russians who were enraged over the failure to sign a peace with Germany. The civil war began a few months later.

    There is no evidence that the Communist Party had much to do with the rise of Hitler, beyond just the fact that a more united labor movement in Germany would have easily won the largest vote. But the voting patterns in 1928-32 don’t show any signs of German voters being influenced by the presence of the USSR. The rise of votes for the NSDAP to its peak in July 1932 of 37% of the vote was brought about by traditional conservative voters turning protesting the failure of the conservative parties to persuade the Allies to drop the reparations demand. Once Heinrich Bruning had succeeded in achieving this then the votes started to shift back to the older conservative parties. But the overall labor vote for the Communist and Social Democrat parties remained stable, with the Communist Party even increasing its vote in late 1932. Although later propaganda put out by Goebbels harped upon the idea that Hitler had allegedly saved Germany from “Jewish Bolshevism,” there is no evidence in the voting patterns to suggest that ordinary Germans were persuaded by this before January 30, 1933.

    The demands for a revolution were sweeping all across Russia. If not only Kerensky personally but all of the remaining aristocrats and officers from the Czarist Army had had any common sense they would have:

    1) Signed a peace with Germany soon after the March Revolution. The biggest immediate factor which made it to topple Kerensky was the continuation of the war.

    2) Accepted the reality that a radical land reform was going to be carried out de facto by Russian peasants who would be voting for the Social Revolutionary Party which Kerensky belonged to. Lenin had a hard time persuading the members of his own party that they should support the peasant rebellion against major land-owners because most Marxists took for granted the natural tendency in history was for small farms to merge into large enterprises which are then collectivized by the proletarian revolution. By all rights Kerensky should have been the one urging the peasants to expropriate the big estates. He didn’t do this because he had committed himself to continuing the war against Germany and he knew that Russian soldiers would desert the army and go back home if a land reform was announced. As it was, the conservative White officers were far more hostile towards the peasants and ignited a major war-front where they sought to massacre peasants in support of the traditional land-owners. That war between the Whites and the majority of peasants, which occurred independently of the Red Army, was a major factor in enabling the Bolshevik triumph.

    3) Lastly, the Whites would absolutely have had to reconcile themselves to the fact that urban elected governments were going to be predominated for a long time by Mensheviks. In most open elections among workers the Mensheviks usually did manage to beat the Bolsheviks, but no other political faction was in the running. If the Whites had been willing to accept this then history might indeed look very different.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  107. @Ron Unz

    This is funny you bringing up the CIA again in connection with the way that I’ve noted that the claims about the Great Leap Forward in China have always involved a distortion of data. But this especially intriguing after the ludicrous way that you tried to give some vindication to Solzhenitsyn’s “66 million” hoax by implying that the population within the Soviet territory should have increased faster to attain an added number of such a scale, despite the fact that death rates among ordinary people steadily improved overall. But there’s no question that the Chinese population began growing very rapidly after the revolution to a point where by the late 1970s the government was concerned about slowing birth rates.

    One certainly can’t make any serious claim that the old warlord class which reigned over much of China before 1949 were going to achieve any such population growth. Chiang Kai-Shek was really a victim of their corruption. It’s generally agreed that Chiang himself was not personally corrupt, but he saw no way of cracking down on the corruption within the Kuomintang without undermining his own government.

    As far as the numbers of Jews in the various committees on the eve of the November Revolution, they usually fell percentage-wise somewhere in the 20s range. Like with the Central Committee that was elected in August 1917: 5 Jewish members out of 21. The proportion of Jews among the government in the early years was never a majority but tended to correspond to the ratio of Jews among urbanites as opposed the rural regions where Russians were much less educated.

    Unfortunately, a liar like Solzhenitsyn is not reliable on such things. When discussing the first committee of commissars in the Soviet government Solzhenitsyn claimed that it had 22 members with 3 Russians, 1 Armenian, 1 Georgian and the rest Jews. In fact Trotsky was the only Jew among the Council of Commissars which had 15 members, 11 of them Russian. You should not any claims on this from Solzhenitsyn for granted without a careful checking. Ditto for any offhand remarks which Putin may make which are likely to borrow from Solzhenitsyn.

    There was certainly a demographic overrepresentation, although not in the way that an ideologue like Solzhenitsyn tried to claim, and it was always clear that the leading figures regarded such overrepresentation as a problem. Even a hostile author such as Robert Service acknowledges that Trotsky had no interest in promoting Jews as such in the Soviet government:

    “Researching a book on Lenin, Prof. Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the Cheka.”,books

    The reason why it was so easy for Stalin to replace many Jews in the CPUSSR was because none of the leading Jewish figures in the party had ever had any desire to promote Jews as such. To the extent that some Jews joined the party out of distinct ethnic motives these were late-joiners who did not ever make it to the top. Trotsky himself is not a very good example precisely because he was a late-joiner who had never been either a Menshevik or Bolshevik before July 1917. Zinoviev is a clearer example of a “Jewish Bolshevik” in that he had always belonged to Lenin’s faction. But again, Zinoviev never showed any desire to promote Jews either. One thing which they all had in common with Stalin was the belief that they needed a majority of Russians into the party.

  108. Weaver says:

    It is, but I dont believe Stalin’s first two wives were Jewish. Wiki lists him with only two wives. The supposed third would be Jewish.

    Solzhenitsyn paints less blame on Jews for Bolshevism than we in the US and western Europe tend to.

    Link mentions wives.

  109. chris says:
    @Jack McArthur

    Wow, that’s a really interesting quote in context, Jack! Thanks.

    It certainly seems to support this hereto little explored angle on the Kennedy assassination.

  110. Schuetze says:
    @Patrick McNally

    “the overwhelming majority of Russians supported Left-wing labor parties in 1917”

    LOL. The overwhelming majority were still illiterate and living in the country. Only a Jewish liar would make a claim like that.

    The truth is that Jews have been conspiring in their synogogues for centuries. Their real power and motives remains hidden for decades, even centuries, until they are ready to strike. Ever wonder why the military doesn’t reject that fruitcake Milley?

  111. @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘…the Russian empire was, on the other hand, a gigantic prison for non-Russian peoples…’


    surely the correct solution was something other than what was put into effect?

    If I, say, am a cruel and philandering paterfamilias, some change might well be in order — but perhaps shooting me, locking up my wife, burning down our house, and turning my children out to roam the streets wouldn’t be it.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  112. @Schuetze

    The truth is that among the peasants in the countryside the Left-wing revolutionary went far beyond what most urban Jewish intellectuals would ever have endorsed. The Social Revolutionary Party (of which Alexander Kerensky was a member) was the main party which held support among Russian peasants. The Popular Socialists were a splinter from the SRs and also held some support. To the extent that peasant sentiments veered away from these types of parties it was towards utopian anarchism and the idea that they would simply destroy the state.

    The peasants began spontaneously seizing the lands of traditional landowners in Russia. Lenin responded by arguing that the Bolsheviks should declare their support for these actions of the peasants as a step in the revolution. Many of Lenin’s own party members were dubious about this as they believed in large-scale production and did not wish to see the big estates broken up. As it turned out though, it was the White leaders who went to war against the peasants in support of the traditional landowners and thereby enabled the Bolsheviks to win:

    In addition, landlords who returned to reclaim their lost property often carried out the most brutal revenge–with the aid of White soldiers–on the peasants who dared to take landlord property.
    — Peter Kenez, The Russian Review, Volume 50, Number 3, p. 347.

    Kenez very succinctly hits the mark on how the Whites were driven over the edge in the 2nd volume of his work Civil War in South Russia:

    “It was too painful to contemplate that the Bolsheviks were in Moscow because the Russian people did not object as strenuously to their presence as to the idea of reconstructing old Russia.”
    — P. 177.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  113. @Colin Wright

    I’ve already alluded to what the optimal solution would have been, but the matter deserves stress:

    The Whites needed to declare their support for the body of Left-wing candidates who had been elected to the Constituent Assembly in an election which the Bolsheviks had been calling for originally, but whom Trotsky dismissed when it was clear that the Bolsheviks had not won the elections. The Whites (and Kerensky) should have endorsed the call for a rapid signing of peace with Germany back in March 1917, before Lenin had even arrived. Failing that they should have gotten on aboard quickly with the demand to end the war. The Whites needed to accept that Russia’s peasants were going to carry out a very radical agrarian revolution one way or another and it was pointless to try to stop this by warring against the peasants. Instead they needed to focus on establishing an urban authority which would accept the peasant revolution as a given while establishing its own framework or authority for that revolution. This urban government would by necessity be made largely of Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries since these were the parties which had predominantly won the election to the Constituent Assembly.

    If the Whites had been willing to swallow all of this then history might look very different today.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  114. @Weaver

    It seems like Putin is here just repeating one of Solzhenitsyn’s later hoaxes. Solzhenitsyn made up a claim that the first Soviet government had 22 people with 17 of them being Jewish, 3 Russians, 1 Georgian and 1 Armenian. In reality it had 14 people with 11 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 1 Pole and 1 Jew. It was later increased to 15 with another Russian added. Solzhenitsyn’s hoax of a majority Jewish government seems to be getting casually passed along by politicians who don’t care to check the facts.

    • Replies: @Weaver
    , @Colin Wright
  115. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…If the Whites had been willing to swallow all of this then history might look very different today.’

    Yes — but all this is a bit like saying if my wife would just accept me installing a younger woman in the house as my mistress, then I could have more children.

    She ain’t gonna go for that, so there’s no point speculatin’.

    I prefer alternatives that lie within the realm of possibility, like a less competent Bolshevik leadership, or a living Stolypin/stronger-willed Tsar either staying out of World War One (which came close to happening as it was) or insisting on peace after the catastrophes of 1915.

    Russia was certainly going to change. It had been changing — very fast — in the decades leading up to the Revolution. There’s just no particular reason things had to run off the rails in quite the way they did. Even a Revolution absent Stalin could have turned into a kind of Khmer Rouge-style hiccup than the prolonged horror it did. Picture Lenin living another ten years and then slowly succumbing to bureaucratic inertia. See Trotsky managing to discredit the Revolution by dragging it into further disastrous attempts at spreading the revolution across Europe.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  116. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…Peter Kenez…Kenez…’

    Yes, but Peter Kenez appears to be a Jew. Can we really assume his characterization of the Whites is balanced?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  117. @Schuetze

    I checked the first three names on that image.

    A casual search on Bunch, Faller, and Cavoli suggests all are gentiles.

    Maybe somebody overegged the pudding? I suspect combing all sixteen of those supposed Jews would turn up four or five actual Jews.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  118. Weaver says:
    @Patrick McNally

    How can something like that be unknown? It’s ridiculous. “Oh, Putin doesn’t know Russian history.”

    That’s like the US not knowing whether Thomas Jefferson or Geronimo wrote the Declaration. And I know the times don’t match there; just looking for a quick analogy, two people everyone knows.

  119. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…Solzhenitsyn made up a claim that the first Soviet government had 22 people with 17 of them being Jewish, 3 Russians, 1 Georgian and 1 Armenian…’

    Is this actually a claim Solzhenitsyn made?

  120. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…Like with the Central Committee that was elected in August 1917: 5 Jewish members out of 21. The proportion of Jews among the government in the early years was never a majority but tended to correspond to the ratio of Jews among urbanites as opposed the rural regions where Russians were much less educated…”

    I’m skeptical of that. Jews only started flooding to the cities after the Revolution when (a) they legally could, (b) all institutions were open to them and they were even favored, and (c) they could take a wildly disproportionate share of all the spots opening up in the mushrooming Soviet bureaucracy.

    What share of the population of Petrograd and Moscow were Jews before the Revolution? I dunno — but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t anything like what you imply.

    Here we go:

    ‘…In 1900, Jews in Saint Petersburg already numbered 20385, or 1,4% of the population. This figure would climb to 50000 by 1917 (2%)…’

    Two percent. Is that the same or less than their proportion of the population of the Russian Empire as a whole?

  121. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…the Right-wing White forces both the majority of Jews and the majority of Russians to temporarily give their support to the Bolsheviks at key moments which decided the outcome of the Russian Civil War…’

    I very seriously doubt an actual majority gave their support to the Bolsheviks — or, for that matter, to the Whites.

    Like most people in such situations, the overwhelming majority were probably overwhelmingly concerned with (a) not attracting the attention of either faction, and (b) finding enough to eat.

    I'm reminded of an analysis I once read of the struggle between Red Partisans and German occupation forces in Belorussia. It wasn't at all about whether people liked Reds or Nazis more — it was about which group could more convincingly threaten anyone who opposed them with sure death.

    Few 'give' their support to either side in such situations. They try to live.

  122. Schuetze says:
    @Colin Wright

    “I checked the first three names”

    Really? provide the URL’s or shut up.

    “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  123. @Colin Wright

    With detailed studies of the type such as his 2-volume study The Civil War in South Russia one can honestly read through the details and check it against other things. Solzhenitsyn is a silly lying ideologue. Can we honestly trust his stupid hoax claim that the first Bolshevik government was made of a majority of Jews? Well, the thing is that one simply has to check around and find that it is false. No one has found any similar fallacies in anything produced by Kenez that I’ve ever heard of.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Colin Wright
  124. @Colin Wright

    There’s nothing to suggest that Trotsky would have done anything so stupid as dragging the USSR into reckless ventures across Europe. Trotsky had first come up with the idea of a 5-year plan because he felt that it was important for the USSR to industrialize. Unlike Stalin, Trotsky maintained that it would be better to hold off on the collectivization of agriculture until Soviet industry had developed which could provide farming tools that would reduce the amount of labor needed in the countryside and make a shift towards large-scale production a la collectivization more logical. Stalin decided to push for rapid collectivization because he knew that he stolen the idea of a 5-year plan from Trotsky and he wanted to distinguish himself apart from Trotsky. Hence the demand that agriculture be collectivized immediately.

    Trotsky in general had argued that Soviet industrialization needed to focus on developing better consumer goods. Stalin emphasized heavy industry with little interest in how one may eventually turn such-and-such quantity of steel into something useful for Soviet citizens. Trotsky understood this as a challenge which couldn’t just be waved away by pointing to the volume of goods produced.

    Trotsky’s point about the relation of “world revolution” to “socialism in one country” was not an argument that the Soviet leadership should neglect the serious attempt to develop the consumer industry. It was simply an elaboration on the distinction between merely improving some industry where needed versus attaining the next stage of history as socialism was postulated to be. That doesn’t mean that Trotsky ever advocated reckless adventurism in any form. On the contrary, after Pilsudski’s assault on the USSR had been halted, when Lenin insisted that the Red Army should march on Warsaw, Trotsky was one of those who warned that the Poles would see Russians as a traditional enemy and fight back so that it might not be such a good idea. Trotsky was never prone towards reckless ventures.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  125. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Can we honestly trust his stupid hoax claim that the first Bolshevik government was made of a majority of Jews? Well, the thing is that one simply has to check around and find that it is false.

    Your stubborn dishonesty seems quite remarkable to me. Everyone knows that the ruling body of the Bolsheviks was their politburo, and as I pointed out upthread:

    Just check the membership of the first 1917 politburo, the ruling Bolshevik body: Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Sokolnikov, and Bubnov. Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Sokolnikov were Jewish and Lenin was part-Jewish. So we’re talking 4-5 out of 7. Moreover, Sverdlov was Chairman of the Central Committee, and probably then second only to Lenin and Trotsky in power. So we’re talking 5-6 out of 8, which seems pretty “overwhelming” to me.

    By contrast, the official governmental positions in Bolshevik Russia were obviously subordinate to the Party leadership, and to some extent ceremonial. For example, I don’t think Stalin held any governmental position during his first couple of decades of rule, so are you saying he had no power?

    Consider that (non-Jewish) Rykov was officially head of the Soviet government during the late 1920s, but nobody ever regarded him as one of the top-ranking Soviet leaders, and eventually Stalin had him purged and executed. So who controlled the USSR, Rykov or Stalin?

    Your bizarre position is somewhat analogous to claiming that the Queen of England controls Britain, and ignoring the roles of prime ministers such as Churchill or Thatcher.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  126. @Schuetze

    ‘Really? provide the URL’s or shut up.’

    The URL’s for what? The statements that they’re not Jews?

    You’re an idiot.

  127. @Patrick McNally

    ‘There’s nothing to suggest that Trotsky would have done anything so stupid as dragging the USSR into reckless ventures across Europe…’

    Be that as it may. The point really is that the horrors of Communism could have been averted or at least truncated by some change less improbable than all the Whites miraculous becoming enlightened agrarian reformers or whatever.

    …and did you ever come up with a source for that statement you attributed to Solzhenitsyn?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  128. @Ron Unz

    ‘Your stubborn dishonesty seems quite remarkable to me. Everyone knows that the ruling body of the Bolsheviks was their politburo, and as I pointed out upthread…’

    It seems to me that this discussion is debating something that is of ultimately less than overwhelming significance. Regardless, it is clear that on the one hand, Jews played a disproportionately large role in Bolshevism, but that on the other hand, not everyone was a Jew.

    Ironically, it is Solzhenitsyn himself here who takes the middle ground. He points out that ‘yes, the Jews did this to us — but they couldn’t have done it without our help. We Russians need to blame ourselves as well.’ His point really is that the Jewish posture of aggrieved innocence is both hypocritical and absurd — but it’s equally absurd to deny that the Russians themselves willingly participated in their own crucifixion.

  129. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…Can we honestly trust his stupid hoax claim that the first Bolshevik government was made of a majority of Jews?’

    Now which statement is it, what are the actual words, and where did he say it?

    I’ve read most of what Solzhenitsyn wrote that’s available in English. You’ve already attributed one claim to him I’m fairly sure he didn’t make.

    So what is your source?

  130. @Patrick McNally

    ‘Solzhenitsyn could indeed be quite inventive. Where the documentary archives show about 2 million camp and prison residents in 1938 someone like Solzhenitsyn would freely inflate this to 8+ million…’

    When did he claim this?

    A number of possible explanations for the discrepancy occur to me: the two million figure is artificially low, we’re comparing total incarcerations to explicitly political incarcerations, we’re comparing total incarcerations to incarcerations at any one time….

    But then too, if Solzhenitsyn came up with this figure before 1991, it might be a matter of simply not knowing. After all, even to date the Russians haven’t been able to figure out how many soldiers they lost in the Second World War.

    Solzhenitsyn may or may not have been accurate, but it doesn’t follow he was ‘inflating’ anything. He may not have had a useful figure to start with.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  131. @Ron Unz

    Your confusion (manipulation?) is showing here in claiming that the entity which in 1917 was referred to as a “politburo” was ever a ruling body of anything. The “politburo” as a ruling body of some type was formed in 1919. Out of 5 full members Trotsky was the only Jew proper, though your welcome to count Lenin as a quarter-Jew. Out of the 3 candidate members Zinoviev was Jewish. The “politburo” which was formed in 1917 lasted for 2 weeks, played no role in the November uprising, and was promptly dissolved after the uprising. It was the Central Committee which took over leadership. The later Politburo which became better known was formed in the 8th Party Congress of March 1919. SO you’ve become fascinated with an inconsequential “politburo” from 1917 because you wish to pretend that this was an instrument of power. It absolutely was not.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Ron Unz
  132. @Colin Wright

    I’ll readily grant that there is reasonable space for someone to become confused about numbers to just this extent. Solzhenitsyn’s ranting of the “66 million” claim is far more clearly just a wild ideological rant, particularly because he himself tells us that “the brightest of futures lay ahead” when recalling what the era felt like. An honest person could easily look back on a camp system which left many gruesome memories and imagine that some numbers might be bigger than they actually were. But Solzhenitsyn should definitely have been able to think to himself, wait a minute, if I recall this as a time when the brightest of futures lay ahead, then it’s really to reconcile that with tens of millions of totally abnormal deaths occurring in peacetime.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @ivan
  133. @Colin Wright

    All that was necessary was for the Whites to avoid fighting a war against Russian peasants. No need for them to become agrarian reformers. Just recognize the fact that peasants were already determined to seize the large estates and don’t try to challenge this. With such acceptance of accomplished reality the entire character of conflict would have been altered.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  134. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…SO you’ve become fascinated with an inconsequential “politburo” from 1917 because you wish to pretend that this was an instrument of power. It absolutely was not…’

    It is indicative of who were the movers and shakers. If I show that the Birmingham, Alabama Country Club in 1953 was all-white, it may well be true that the Birmingham, Alabama Country Club was not where the critical decisions were made, but all the same…

    You’re desperate to downplay the Jewish role in Communism. Why is that? I’m genuinely not sure.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  135. O.T.

    The ‘Esteban Martin’ blend Costco is flogging is a pretty good value at $4.99 a bottle. At that price, if you get tired of it, use it to poison your cat.

  136. @Patrick McNally

    If the Whites had merely been fighting the Bolsheviks then they would have endorsed and defended the Constituent Assembly which was first dismissed by Trotsky. Instead the Whites fought to punish peasants who had carried major land seizures.

    The Whites were a mix of groups that formed after the Bolsheviks took over by a coup because they didn’t want to share power. That included the People’s Army which was formed by members of the Constituent Assembly.

    There was no fight to punish peasants. That is ridiculous.

    It was the Bolsheviks that didn’t have majority support of the public or the peasants. Like all Communists they can’t defend their ideas in a democracy.

    Also, a few minor details. The Russian Civil War did begin in early 1918.

    It is sometimes citied as starting in 1918 but that is incorrect.

    The battle of Pulkovo was in 1917:

    There is no evidence that the Communist Party had much to do with the rise of Hitler, beyond just the fact that a more united labor movement in Germany would have easily won the largest vote. But the voting patterns in 1928-32 don’t show any signs of German voters being influenced by the presence of the USSR.

    The voters were influenced by the USSR because the KPD was a Soviet puppet party and that is public record.

    There was no united labor movement because the Social Democrats and Communists had completely different plans for Germany. The Communists wanted Germany to be just another Soviet state while the Social Democrats wanted to maintain a democracy. The Nazis capitalized on the legitimate fear of the USSR taking over Germany either by invasion or through a KPD coup. Everyone seems to forget that the German Communists had already tried and failed to violently take the country. So much of the public understandably did not trust the Social Democrats or conservatives to deal with the openly traitorous members of the KPD. Meanwhile the USSR was not only funding the KPD but giving their leader Ernst Thalmann direct orders. Hitler was right to have him capped at the end of the war. Total traitor and Soviet documents later confirmed what the KPD had been denying.

    Lastly, the Whites would absolutely have had to reconcile themselves to the fact that urban elected governments were going to be predominated for a long time by Mensheviks. In most open elections among workers the Mensheviks usually did manage to beat the Bolsheviks, but no other political faction was in the running.

    What exactly are you saying here? You are desperately trying to avoid a basic fact which is that the Bolsheviks ATTACKED THE REFORMED GOVERNMENT and openly did not want the people to have a vote. The Whites were a response to that attack. The Bolsheviks were doing exactly what Marx called for which was to violently take over the government and destroy not only existing institutions but also the free press and any competing parties. If a Russian democracy had developed then the Bolsheviks never would have had a majority or even 25% of the vote. That is why they started killing people and they killed far more peasants than the Whites. The Bolsheviks were a bunch of losers that claimed to be on the side of the people when the people wanted democracy. Communists and leftists today are no different. They claim to represent workers but loathe Western democracy and would shut down this website and half the internet if they could.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  137. @Patrick McNally

    The proportion of Jews among the government in the early years was never a majority but tended to correspond to the ratio of Jews among urbanites as opposed the rural regions where Russians were much less educated.

    You are playing games of intellectual dishonesty and ignoring the greater point by Ron Unz.

    Tended to correspond to the ratio of Jews among urbanites????? Why would you not simply refer to their ratio relative to the population? Did Jewish leaders among the White armies also correspond to the ratio of Jews among urbanites?

    What you are trying to do is avoid the greater point which is that Jews were massively overrepresented in the early Soviet government. I wouldn’t go as far to say that it was a Jewish government but to say it was heavily Jewish relative to the Jewish population is entirely accurate.

    Here is an article by a Jew in a Jewish magazine who talks about how the early Soviet government was heavily Jewish:

    Jews were heavily involved in Communist leadership roles across Europe. Yes this is verboten in the mainstream but it is a fact of history and I think the better approach is to try and understand why instead of playing these silly games of avoiding reality.

  138. @Colin Wright

    You’re desperate to downplay the Jewish role in Communism. Why is that? I’m genuinely not sure.

    He is clearly trying to maintain the modern sanitized version of the revolution whereby:

    1. The Reds started a revolution against the Tsar (completely false, the Tsar had abdicated and they were attacking the reformed government that represented multiple parties).

    2. The Reds were on the side of the people (also false as the people were never given a choice)

    3. The Reds were fighting for land reform (Reds were actually targeting land reformers to increase resentment among peasants)

    4. Jews were not heavily involved and that was entirely a fabrication by Hitler (verifiably false and other world leaders including Churchhill made comments about this reality)

    For whatever reason he is tied to some pop history view of the Bolsheviks as justified rebels against an oppressive monarchy. That false view is still taught in high school history books and Hollywood/MSM continues to reiterate it.

    We had some self-described expert Marxist come in here a few months ago and tell us that the original Bolsheviks supported democracy. McNally could be a history teacher that doesn’t like how the internet had unearthed the truth on what actually happened. Probably just some kind of weirdo Bolshevik sympathizer that wants to view it as a Russian rebellion that didn’t involve Jews.

  139. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Your confusion (manipulation?) is showing here in claiming that the entity which in 1917 was referred to as a “politburo” was ever a ruling body of anything.

    Look, I’m the last person in the world to regard Wikipedia as an unbiased source on controversial topics, but it’s unlikely to get basic facts wrong. Here’s a link to the composition of Lenin’s Politburo at the time the Bolsheviks seized power, containing exactly the names I mentioned:

    The Soviet History website concurs:

    Of the five members of the 1919 Politburo, Trotsky and Kamenev were Jewish and Lenin was part Jewish.

    Since liars or crackpots like you have sometimes disputed the obvious reality that the Bolshevik leadership was overwhelming Jewish, I just dug up portions of one of my old comments:

    Meanwhile, all historians know perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish, with three of the five revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government, an estimate fully consistent with the contemporaneous claims of Winston Churchill, Times of London correspondent Robert Wilton, and the officers of American Military Intelligence. Recent books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Yuri Slezkine, and others have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to World War II, Jews remained enormously over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top ranks of the dreaded NKVD.

    And here’s a short passage from the personal memoirs of Henry Wickham Steed, a leading foreign correspondent and former Editor of the Times of London, then the world’s most authoritative newspaper:

    Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference — a proposal which had failed after having been transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. The well-known American Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists…

    …the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.

    There obviously were quite a number of very high-ranking Bolsheviks who weren’t Jewish, notably Stalin, Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky. But a strong majority were, and trying to claim otherwise makes you look (((ridiculous))). Why don’t you just provide the names of all those top Bolsheviks who weren’t Jewish?

    Maybe you should go back to promoting your claim that the gigantic famine produced by Mao’s Great Leap Forward never happened and is just a hoax.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  140. @Patrick McNally

    ‘Solzhenitsyn’s ranting of the “66 million” claim is far more clearly just a wild ideological rant…’

    It’s less clear that this is what Solzhenitsyn said, or what he said instead. You keep putting words into Solzhenitsyn’s mouth — without specifying exactly where they’re from. I suspect at least one of these quotes is distorted or simply manufactured outright. Perhaps they all are.

  141. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…All that was necessary was for the Whites to avoid fighting a war against Russian peasants…’

    I’m fairly sure that mischaracterizes the Russian Civil War. If I recall aright, by the time of the revolution, the aristocracy no longer owned a majority of the land.

    …and did you ever come up with a source for that statement you attributed to Solzhenitsyn?

  142. AReply says:

    This article is another Sizzler Steak House intellectual all-you-can-eat word-salad bar. But one there was one astute little observation that gives testament to the dominant theme of this entire site:

    //Try to imagine America’s white majority expressing itself with such confidence!//

    Translation: Try to imagine white people not being such losers.

    I think the author on to something here: whites where given by God and divine providence the great lands of North America the most advantageous confluence of conditions for development of the human diaspora that any tribe has ever been gifted, and you fucked it up.

    Good work!

    But it’s gratifying to see voices like this author’s with a willingness to own up to whites epic failures.

    Or… Just maybe it wasn’t just that whites are one God’s great failed experiments? Maybe the Devil has been at work through dickwads like this guy:

    What John von Neumann really did at Los Alamos


    //John Von Neumann was the quintessential product of turn-of-the-century Jewish affluence and intellectual achievement in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Born in 1903 to a wealthy banker and his wife in Budapest, Johnny was one of history’s great child prodigies, speaking half a dozen languages and learning calculus by the time he was barely past the first decade of his life. He had an amazing photographic memory and an intense interest in history that stayed with him all his life and dazzled his friends and colleagues; as the story goes, by the time he was eight he had read and annotated all forty-three volumes of a comprehensive world history written by the German historian Wilhelm Oncken, and he used to stun his parents’ friends by reciting entire pages from the phone directory as a child. As he grew up he collected around himself some of the great Hungarian minds of the 20th century – Eugene Wigner, Leo Szilard, Edward Teller. Later all of them became émigrés to the United States, and their superior intelligence led others to joke that they were Martians who had learnt to perfectly mimic human beings. Toward the end of his life, Eugene Wigner who won a Nobel Prize for his work on nuclear structure was asked why a tiny country like Hungary produced so many scientific geniuses. Wigner said that Hungary had produced only one genius – Johnny von Neumann.//

    False modesty I can assure you all… Too bad all Hungary’s Jewish geniuses had to leave. And too bad for whites in America who have had to suffer their devilishness since Hitler screwed up his great cleansing!


    Or try to imagine a sense of ethnic pride in place of this gargantuan self-loathing…

    Not that white self-loathing isn’t completely justifiable and well-deserved, but jesus — buck up, dickweeds!

    • Replies: @ivan
  143. ivan says:
    @Patrick McNally

    You are the liar here. The 66 million figure is from Robert Conquest. Solzhenitsyn didn’t endorse the figure, merely noted that the Soviets have to come out with the real figure for comparison. Now of course for a practiced liar like yourself, who airily dismiss the bloodshed that Mao imposed on China as so much fluff, this is par for the course.

    I get your schtick, gaslight everyone who may not have read the original with quotes out of context, to push your narrative. Well done.

  144. ivan says:

    John von Neumann died a Catholic, the faith of his mother. He knew what his fellow Jews like Bela Kun did to bring about the reactionary forces that eventually engulfed them. And stop wasting time praising the theoreticians as though only they built the bomb. Once the theoretical basis was understood, quite early on,

    it was left to the engineers, and others to actually develop the material substratum for any viable bomb.

  145. @John Johnson

    Your making the fallacy of running a straight line from Mensheviks such as Julius Martov and Georgi Plekhanov to Admiral Kolchak, General Denikin, Ataman Semyonov, Baron Unger et al. That is totally false. If the conservative military officers had chosen to support the non-Bolshevik Left then the entire contest would have had a completely different character. The nature of the Russian Civil War was determined by the fact that most Russians felt more agreeable to Lenin and Trotsky than to Denikin and Kolchak, though they would really have been more agreeable to Martov and Plekhanov.

    On this matter the attitudes of Russians and Jews were remarkably similar. Jews did welcome the Whites in the early stages of the Civil War when they thought that the Whites would be protecting shop-owners. They gravitated towards the Bolsheviks when they were faced with pogroms. Russian peasants became involved in war with the Whites because the Whites refused to accept the seizure of major land-holdings by the peasants. The Bolsheviks were in a very weak position initially because they had taken power in the cities and were then faced with the need to feed urban workers at a time when social breakdown had already begun in early 1917. If the Whites had accepted the elected representatives of the Social Revolutionaries (some of whom were Jewish) as the popular representatives of a government then again history would be very different. Instead Kolchak ordered that they be arrested and executed.

    Your point about the KPD having a bad sectarian policy is quite valid, but that’s a bit different from the claim that Hitler was supported specifically on anti-Communist grounds. If the Social Democrats and the Communists had been able to form a united bloc with some specific compromised positions for the sake of a general program then their bloc would have won more votes than the NSDAP gained in all elections but that of July 1932. More important, if an effective bloc had existed then it is unlikely that Papen would have attempted to persuade Hindenburg into appointing Hitler Chancellor. Papen wasn’t looking for a major conflict with a unified labor movement, and if it had seemed that such would have resulted then he probably would not have bothered to talk Hindenburg into what he did.

    But as far as the rise in votes which Hitler saw in July 1932, this did not reflect any choice by voters to vote against the KPD. Actually the KPD saw an increase in votes during 1932. But the rise in votes for Hitler came from voters who had always voted conservative. The motive for this was not a hope that Hitler would stop the KPD but rather it expressed disillusionment with the traditional conservatives who had not yet persuaded the Allies to slack off on reparations. When it became clear that Heinrich Bruning’s diplomacy had achieved this the votes started to slowly move back to the other sectors of the Right, while the KPD continued to see a rise in votes.

  146. @Ron Unz

    Maybe your confused about wording, but let’s go back to that Wiki:

    “this precursor did not outlast the event; the Central Committee continued with the political functions.”

    By “precursor” they mean the politburo in question, whereas the Central Committee is something else. Did that early little politburo actually play any role in the overthrow of the Kerensky government? Not according to any historians. Lenin and Trotsky were the only two people listed in that 7-member set who played any notable role in the November Uprising and their actions were not implemented through this politburo in any way whatsoever. It proved to be completely irrelevant to the seizure of power and it was immediately disbanded after that.

    What replaced it on the day of the revolution was the Council of People’s Commissars. This was not some kind of fig leaf set up to hide the real masters of the revolution. Lenin and Trotsky were a part of the Council, and those Jews who had been a part of the earlier politburo but not of the Council had played absolutely no role in the revolution. It was as simple as that.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  147. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    By “precursor” they mean the politburo in question, whereas the Central Committee is something else.

    You’re continuing to make yourself look (((ridiculous))).

    I gave you a link to a page showing the changing composition of all the Soviet Politburos, starting with 1917 and 1919, and going into the 1920s and beyond. Excluding Lenin, who was part-Jewish, the membership is almost invariably about half-Jewish in a country that was 4% Jewish. The reason that’s useful information is that it provides a fairly reasonable objective metric for assessing how heavily Jews were represented among the top Bolshevik leaders. Solzhenitysn (and many, many others) have said “very heavily” and you said he was lying. But you were wrong or lying.

    I quoted numerous other credible contemporaneous sources on the issue, and you’ve provided nothing but hot air, without even including any references or links. But here’s another datapoint. Lenin named and evaluated a handful of top Bolsheviks as his potential successors: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, and Stalin. Three Jews out of five. If Sverdlov hadn’t already died (or been killed), he surely would have also been in that group, making it 4 Jews out of 7.

    Meanwhile, you’ve just been talking in total generalities, and still haven’t even met my challenge of naming those top non-Jewish Bolsheviks who you claim actually ran the country. The reason you haven’t done so is that their names would be so obscure and their power so minimal that doing so would destroy your own argument. There certainly were some very high-ranking non-Jewish Bolsheviks, but mostly the ones I’ve already named. And don’t forget that quite a number of those non-Jewish Bolsheviks had Jewish wives.

    You’re clearly just a dishonest propagandist, so I’m providing this detailed information for third-parties reading this comment-thread.

  148. @Dave Bowman

    Thanks Dave. I think whatever hat fits best …. and the small one is plausibly the most likely.

  149. soll says:

    No, that is a hoax quote invented by “Dr.” David Duke, after Solzhenitsyn’s 2008 death, presented to the world for the first time in 2013 while Duke was attempting to crowd-fund money for his “The Secret Behind Communism” (2013) book. Try better.

  150. soll says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    David Duke was the sole person that started the meme that “Two Hundred Years Together” was being “suppressed” which his followers mindlessly keep repeating to themselves while claiming it is also as “banned!” Seriously, a book with over 3 million copies sold in (Russian/French editions) is allegedly a “banned” book!

    Duke introduced this nonsense in 2013, he would appear on radio programs to tell his audience “Two Hundred Years Together” is banned by the Jews!!!! So instead, buy my book, ‘The Secret Behind Communism”! Attached with his hoax quote, “You Must Understand…” pure marketing.

    “Two Hundred Years Together” was ALWAYS relegated in priority for the English translation by Solzhenitsyn himself, who wanted his most important works a 6,000-page tome, “The Red Wheel” to be published first which is now available in English. “Two Hundred Years Together” is currently being translated into English at this very moment, with an expected release date for 2024.

    No more fringe neo-Nazi, poorly edited, selectively redacted passages and chapters to misrepresent the works of Solzhenitsyn. Lay off the conspiracies Haxo, Solzhenitsyn never claimed that the Jews were behind either Russian Revolutions of 1905/1917. More misrepresentations by that alleged, “Dr.” David Duke. (his degree was purchased from a private Ukrainian University, not even recognized by the State); he has no title of Dr.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All F. Roger Devlin Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?