The Failure of Multiculturalism in Polish Ukraine

Thomas Jones


Mykola Pymonenko – To War!

We are often told today that multiculturalism, that is to say a state made up of a diversity of peoples, is a great strength. No, it is in fact our greatest strength! To state any concerns or criticisms, no matter how mild, is seen as sacrilegious.

However, the opposite is true and throughout history where there are many examples of diverse and multicultural societies falling into discord and strife. The focus of this piece will be on a place that has been praised in hindsight for its liberalism and tolerance: the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania.

Poland-Lithuania came into being after the 1569 Treaty of Lublin when the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were unified and made into one country. Prior to this, in the 1385 Union of Krewo, the two were linked in a personal union under the reigning Lithuanian monarch. Before 1569 what are now Belarus and the bulk of Ukraine[i] were also part of the Grand Duchy, which was the largest European country at the time. As per the 1569 treaty, however, Ukraine was handed over to Poland, thus setting the stage for a violent future of ethnic conflict.

The Polish nobility or szlachta was used to a high degree of autonomy which only became greater after the old Lithuanian Jagellonian dynasty died out. After this occurred, the monarchy was elected and became increasingly subservient to the nobles. The szlachta, it should be noted, was not entirely ethnically Polish. It would come to include Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other non-Polish noble houses that Polonized to such an extent that they may as well have been ethnically Polish. Examples of the power to which the nobility held include their ability to bring back serfdom (so-called neo-serfdom) and a 1518 law which stated that the king could not accept in his royal courts complaints of subjects on noble land, giving the nobility a free hand. Nobles eventually gave themselves power to introduce corvée labour, seize peasant land and the peasants working it.[ii]

Yet all was not well with the nobility during the years leading up to the tumultuous seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,

Perceptive foreigners… saw, for instance, that the much vaunted freedom of the szlachta, which gave Poland the reputation of being one of the freest states in the world, rested on the complete deprivation of rights and enslavement of all the other classes of the population, that along with the unlimited freedom of the nobles, the burgesses were deprived of all participation in political life, hampered in their economic development, and shut within the walls of the towns. Parliamentarianism was flourishing in Poland, but alongside it, the executive was powerless to function. … The royal power was rigidly limited, and all decisions were made by the powerful ruling classes of nobles. This class, moreover, was degenerating. The Polish nobles had lost their former chivalrous and fighting spirit. They were corrupted by wealth and had lost their former energy which could now be aroused only to fight for privileges against real or imaginary attacks by the royal power.[iii]

Not only were they corrupted by vice and power, but the szlachta had ceased to see themselves as having any relation to the people they ruled over. The nobility had developed, from the sixteenth century on, an ideology known as Sarmatianism, which erroneously said szlachta were the descendants of Sarmatians, a steppe people originating in what is now southern Russia. Importantly, szlachta saw themselves as ethnically distinct from even the Polish peasants.[iv] It also came to view Roman Catholicism as the only true form of Christianity. Such an ideology was bound to create sharp social divisions but especially with their Ukrainian subjects. This was to have a great and terrible impact on the Commonwealth in the mid-late seventeenth century.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

Poland-Lithuania was by the standards of the time, incredibly tolerant and liberal towards religious matters. However, in practice Orthodox Christianity was generally not afforded the same rights and privileges as other Christian sects or even the Jews, who of course, are not a purely religious group but an ethnic one as well. For example, Jesuits managed to push through an Act of Union in 1596 which made the Orthodox church (which was almost exclusively the church of Ukrainians) part of the Catholic Church, thus creating the Uniate Church. However, most Orthodox priests refused to adhere to this.[v] It was only in 1632 that Orthodoxy was legally recognized, but by then the Ukrainian population had been split between Uniate and Orthodox and a great number had fled to Russia.

The role of Jewry in society was an important factor in the mass violence of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries so it is worth briefly explaining their situation in society.

Jews first came en masse into Poland at the behest of king Bolesław III in the 1090s. Jews were given the freedom to form their own self-government as well as privileges concerning religious festivals, restrictions, et al. Poland was for centuries the home to the largest Jewish community in Europe and was even called a Jewish Paradise —paradisus Iudaeorum. Much economic competition existed between them and Christians, but competition also existed between native Christians and foreign Christians who had also been allowed to settle in Poland-Lithuania. The countryside was largely homogenous but the towns and cities hosted a bewildering array of nationalities from as far afield as Scotland to the west and Armenia to the east.

The city dwellers, divided amongst themselves and politically impotent, were the major bearers of anti-Jewish animus. However, as long as there were also a bewildering variety of other national groups pursuing occupations similar to those of the Jews, this animus was somewhat diffused.[vi]

Multiculturalism, then as now, diluted any major outbreaks of anti-Semitism. However, conflicts did arise as a result of economic competition and attempts were made by individual townships to restrict Jews. But on the whole Poland-Lithuania was incredibly welcoming to and tolerant of Jews and this remained so even after the nobles had usurped all powers from the monarchy. In fact, they were to enhance Jewish power and privilege in Polish Ukraine.

Landowners wanted to exploit resources, but had little interest in administrating their lands or developing commercial skills. Instead they preferred to “cultivate their luxurious habits and cultural pursuits.”[vii] Thus they turned to Jews who had both the money and experience. The Jews acted as intermediaries and agents on the vast estates of the nobility and they rented and leased flour mills, breweries, markets, inns and ferries (among other services), “exacting heavy duties, and exhibiting great ingenuity in inventing ever-new methods of squeezing fresh tolls and taxes out of the population.”[viii] Not only were Jews looked upon with contempt for their professions but for how they acted in these professions; they readily exploited the masses for their own gain as much as for the aloof szlachta.

There was one group, however, that sided with the Ukrainian masses. This group were the Cossacks. Cossacks were people who had a semi-nomadic lifestyle and were ruled by a Sich or commune of elected elders. They responded to Tatar and Turkish raids with raiding of their own; including naval assaults upon Anatolia.

Józef Brandt – Cossack Wedding

The Polish nobles detested the Cossacks who answered only to the king and therefore wished to curb the power of the Cossacks, to make them as readily pliable as serfs. The Ukrainians were ruled over by an elite that was foreign to the masses; they had their religion attacked; had their defenders, the Cossacks, condemned; and of course had to put up with a nepotistic ethno-religious group that eagerly exploited them with full support of the nobility. It was only a matter of time before violence erupted.

In 1648 Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a leading Cossack, had his estate plundered, his son killed and his mistress abducted by a neighbouring noble. This event led to Khmelnytsky and his fellow Cossacks to launch a rebellion against the Poles. Khmelnytsky is not believed to have wanted independence, but that is clearly how many Ukrainians saw the rebellion. The revolt was highly popular throughout Ukraine — for example, “the whole of the province of Kyiv rose to a man.”[ix] The revolt quickly led to ethnic cleansing, as the largely Ukrainian peasantry burned down the landowners’ manors and plundered their possessions, killing them and those associated with them; of course the nobles weren’t Ukrainian; they were all Poles or Ukrainians who were so Polonized that they may as well have been Poles. Catholic clergy were also killed and so too were Jews.

The Jews in particular were targeted by the rebels who finally felt able to release their pent-up hatred and frustration at Jewish oppression. It is believed that upwards to one million people were killed or forced to flee the region because of the violence. Thousands of them were Jews.

It is believed that the Jews provoked the special hatred of the population by their petty, mean exploitation as collectors of all sorts of tolls and taxes, and as dishonest vendors of necessities at exorbitant prices.[x]

Khmelnytsky’s Revolt lasted for nine years and was a major reason for the so-called Deluge period of Polish history. Khmelnytsky’s memory is a mixed one in the minds Ukrainians who have both lauded him as a hero and condemned him as a traitor. He is known to have allied with the Crimean Tatars and given them free reign over much of the Ukraine in search of slaves to sell in the Turkish market. Perhaps more importantly, he brought Moscow into Ukrainian affairs after the signing of the Pereyaslav treaty in 1654, which the Russians interpreted as meaning the Cossacks were swearing allegiance to them. In the end, the revolt saw the splitting of Cossack territory between Poland and Moscow, which had used the uprising as a chance to intercede in Polish affairs.

In what remained of Polish Ukraine it was not long before life went back to how it had been prior to 1648. This included the system of governance. Poles resurrected their old system of governance in Ukraine, except this time the number of noble families with true power was limited to a small handful who had survived the trials of the Deluge and were now engaged in internal power struggles.[xi] The flight of Ukrainians eastwards and the end of Cossack influence made it easier to impose Catholicism[xii] and for the nobles to once again act with impunity. This meant, yet again, that Jews were brought in as tax-farmers, agents on noble land, etc., much to the consternation of the locals.

During the eighteenth century another rebellion occurred as a result of the actions of the Polish elite and Jews — the Haidamak rebellion. This rebellion, however, was generally more of a low-level guerrilla-style conflict, although major battles did occur such as the Siege of Uman in 1768, which resulted in the massacre of Poles and Jews by the victorious Haidamaky Cossacks. The Haidamaky used Russian territory as a base of operations to conduct their attacks and this inevitably resulted in a diplomatic row. The Haidamak revolt was put down in 1769 when a group of Haidamaky had raided Ottoman territory. The Turks threatened war with Russia over this, so the Russians decided not only to stop assisting the rebels, but to help the Poles crush them. The reason the Haidamaky had crossed into Turkey? They were chasing a group of Jews.[xiii]

After 1795, Poland-Lithuania ceased to exist, having been partitioned for the third and final time by Prussia, Austria and Russia. Its Ukrainian territories were split between the Russians and the Austrians. Life remained the same as it had for centuries. However, there were to be no major outbreaks of violence involving ethnic cleansing in either Austrian or Russian Ukraine. The reasons for this are as follows:

In the Austrian zone the szlachta’s powers were broken and they were brought under royal control (although Polish nobility continued to rule the area). In 1781 Austrian Emperor Joseph II ended serfdom, although aspects of it were brought back by his successor and peasantry continued to live in poverty, this was seen as a great accomplishment by the peasants.[xiv] The monarchy was shown to be an effective force that could intervene on the behalf of Ukrainians. After 1848 the monarchy even went so far as to actively promote Ukrainian national consciousness as a way of countering Polish nationalism. It helped, too, that most Ukrainians in Austria were Uniate and Joseph II gave Uniate church the same rights as mainstream Catholicism which even the Poles had not done.[xv] However, a short-lived bout of violence did occur in 1846 but it was more akin to the earlier Cossack and Haidamak uprisings in that it largely targeted Poles and not the Austrian government (which reacted to the rebellion by finally abolishing serfdom).

As for the hated Jews, Joseph II wanted to fully assimilate Jewry and so he made them liable for military service, got rid of their separate system of governance, made them pay the same taxes as everyone else and use German instead of Yiddish. Restrictions on movement and ability to serve in certain professions remained, however.[xvi] Thus, it appeared the Jewish problem was being solved by a liberal policy of integration combined with mechanisms to lower competition with Jews.

In the Russian zone the shared Orthodoxy of Russians and Ukrainians greatly helped and so did the destruction of the szlachta system. However, serfdom remained in force until the 1860s and the power of the Cossacks in Russia was destroyed in the Great Northern War (1700–1721). The Russians relied on autocracy to keep everyone in line and increasingly on Russification. Though this caused resentment, it did not lead to outright rebellion. No doubt it helped that the Russians, too, appeared to be solving the Jewish problem. As in Austria, the Jews lost much of their previous power and their separate system of governance. There were also restrictions on where Jews could settle. Under Russian rule, Jewry were largely kept under control at first but eventually the same problems erupted although in a far less violent or dramatic way. The so-called Pale of Settlement (i.e., the area where the vast majority of Jews could legally live) was largely in Ukraine and it was here that the highly exaggerated pogroms of the late nineteenth century would occur.

In both cases it should be noted that foreign rule was tolerated but it was not fully accepted. As soon as the empires began to crumble, Ukrainians were quick to declare independence. Even in the Hapsburg lands where, as explained earlier, there was greater cultural autonomy.

Multiculturalism failed in Poland-Lithuania, just as it did later on in Austria-Hungary and indeed has throughout history. The Polish case is especially interesting as it is often held up today as an example of a great multicultural state where the various disparate groups lived in peace and harmony. Reality, on the other hand, is much different, especially when it comes to the Ukrainian portions.

It is interesting to note the behaviour of the non-Jewish elites. Then, as now, they looked only at what would benefit themselves and completely cut any ties they had with the masses. The major difference between Polish Ukraine and the situation in the Occident today is that the elites were a foreign ethnie. Generally speaking, our (non-Jewish) elites are ethnically the same as the majority.

We can see similar connections today, again to the detriment of the majority. It is also interesting to note that multiculturalism failed for a people who today are its most prominent supporters: Jewry.

Another point to note is how there could be so much slaughter and violence between not only Ukrainians and Jews but Ukrainians and Poles. Both are Slavs, both are White, both are Christian. Advocates of multiracial states are incredibly short-sighted as they ignore the many incidences of intra-racial violence yet expect inter-racial societies to work out just fine.


[i]Crimea and the southern portions of Ukraine were at this time under control of the Turks and Tatars. The Russians eventually wrested these lands away from the Muslims in the 18th century.

[ii]PRM 143

[iii]Dmytro Doroshenko, A Survey of Ukrainian History. Trident Press Limited. Winnipeg. 1975. Page 214

[iv]Adam Zamoyski, A History of Poland.  HarperPress, London. 2009. Page 94

[v]Ibid. 139

[vi]Gershon Hundert, “The Implications of Jewish Economic Activities for Christian-Jewish Relations in the Polish Commonwealth,” The Jews in Poland ed. By Chimen Abramsky, Maciej Jachimczyck and Anthony Polansky

Page 62

[vii]Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1996. Page 147

[viii]Dmytro Doroshenko. 216

[ix]Ibid. 221

[x]Ibid. 223

[xi]Ibid. 486

[xii]Paul Robert Magocsi. 293

[xiii]Doroshenko. 498

[xiv]Magocsi. 391

[xv]Ibid. 398

[xvi]Ibid. 394

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

26 Comments to "The Failure of Multiculturalism in Polish Ukraine"

  1. AT's Gravatar AT
    March 1, 2017 - 3:50 am | Permalink

    Interesting.
    So where are we at today?
    HYPERLINK

  2. Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
    February 28, 2017 - 8:15 am | Permalink

    While the West was culturally advancing, the Poles stagnated for centuries by voluntarily adopting the Turkish way of life. The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was a big melting pot: The Polish aristocracy. was massily constituted by Tatars. This fact explain why Poland is to this day backward with a strong oriental flavor.

  3. Gotcha's Gravatar Gotcha
    February 27, 2017 - 11:58 pm | Permalink

    The diversity Joe Slovo and other members of the Tribe pushed for seems to be working wonders in South Africa. Zulus, who are very feral, are showing Nigerians and Somalis diversity hospitality.

    We must thank Hollywood for those Mandela films featuring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon about the Rainbow nation. Sadly I never watched them.

  4. February 27, 2017 - 10:45 am | Permalink

    What’s perhaps a rather obvious point has just occurred to me. The main point of this site is to examine Jews. Is it not the case that a great many disputes were started, fanned, encouraged etc by Jews? Three examples:- the English ‘Civil War’ had the aim of installing the Jewish ‘Bank of England’. And both World Wars had decisive actions by Jews – without them they may have finished earlier (I) or never have happened (II). There seems every reason to suppose the pattern may have happened earlier.

    —–

    (Mod. Note: Rerev., have you gotten into those smart pills in the medicine cabinet? ;-) )

  5. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    February 27, 2017 - 10:18 am | Permalink

    Overall, I share the opinion of other commenters (though in most cases for notably different reasons) that this article is very praiseworthy. However egregious the article’s partisanship and its more than occasional failings of organization, it examines matters of great significance in the West’s history, matters whose repercussions color present-day events in ways that the deceptive mass media prefer we all remain unaware. Exemplary, too, especially as bibliographic sources for all quotations are supplied, is the article’s plain exposition of the dark side of the Bolesłavian welcome of the Jews, anent which I have found nothing but sycophantic praise in any reading I’ve done into Polish history over the past thirty years and more—not that that reading could ever fairly be called exhaustive!

    Earlier in this thread, Seraphim helpfully wrote the following:

    Suspicion looms large that the Szlachta were in fact the ‘disappeared’ Khazars …

    This is a very interesting surmise. If true, it could explain a great deal. Should Seraphim or anyone else be aware of any supporting documentation, whether traditionally published or online, I’d be grateful to be pointed toward it.

    • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
      February 27, 2017 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

      As I said it is a suspicion, triggered by the role that ‘Sarmatism’ and ‘Orientalism’ played as identifiers for the Polish-Lithuanian nobility, by the long almost visceral fascination of the Poles with Turkish matters (Polish vocabulary concerning all things equine and ballistic is rife with words of Tatar and Turkish origin). Poles viewed Turkey as a potential ally against Russia.
      In actual fact affecting in various degrees all of the territories dominated by the Khazars (Hungary). The problem remains the Khazars themselves. Actually they were a rather ‘chameleonic’ mixed population. For my part I do believe that they were indeed the original ‘Cossacks’ (which the Sarmatians of yore were), the warring horsemen evolving in the shifty world of contacts between the ‘Empire of the Steppes’, the Greco-Roman World and the ‘Babylonian’ World. It is a complex and complicated history which cannot be expedited with simplifying concepts like Khazars=Jews.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        February 28, 2017 - 11:21 am | Permalink

        Pity. I’d hoped it was rather more than a suspicion.

        Happily, talk about “simplifying concepts like Khazars=Jews” is something that one sees precious little of here at TOO. Michael Hoffman is no dope—anything but in fact—but he has held on doggedly to that conceit even though its sell-by date has long passed. Indeed, for me at least, the notion that Khazars are the shadowy bogeymen of Eurasian history is a cow whose udders have been milked dry.

        • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
          March 3, 2017 - 4:18 am | Permalink

          It is nevertheless of some interest that they were described by Arab writers as ‘white’:
          “As to the Khazars,” an Arab chronicler* writes, “they are to the north of the inhabited earth towards the 7th clime, having over their heads the constellation of the Plough. Their land is cold and wet. Accordingly their complexions are white, their eyes blue, their hair flowing and predominantly reddish, their bodies large and their natures cold. Their general aspect is wild.”
          *Ibn-Said al-Maghribi, quoted by Dunlop, p.11
          @Koestler “13th Tribe”.

  6. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    February 27, 2017 - 4:35 am | Permalink

    I’m not advocating for multiculti even because a lot of different human cultures in the same land usually mean “a bunch of ossified stupidities”, but modern European states cannot be already considered “multicultural”?? Because modern states tend to centralize the power and homogenize cultural and often sub-ethnic differences (for example Bavarians versus Prussians).

  7. Kartoffelsalat's Gravatar Kartoffelsalat
    February 26, 2017 - 11:36 pm | Permalink

    There are many more examples like the Nordics – Danes, Swedes and Norwegians with the latter being treated historically as inferior but today Norway is much richer because of oil and gas.

    Another example is the Serb-Croat divide. You also have the Flemish and Walloon divide in Belgium.

    The same applies to East and West Germany. The former are still seen as inferior or backward due to Communist rule under the former DDR or GDR.

    I see the same parallels in the UK where the Irish, Scots and Welsh were junior partners to the English. The English thoroughly Anglicised their neighbours e.g. the English name Oswald is very common in Lowland Scotland and millions of irish have English names.The name is also common in parts of Germany as Oswalt sometimes.

    An exception seems to America where various European groups amalgamated to form a new identity e.g. Bill Gates who is part English, German and Scottish-Irish or Trump who is part German and part British. However, the American amalgamation was based on a Puritanical template not the melting pot propaganda.

    • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
      February 28, 2017 - 10:00 am | Permalink

      I’m not clear on your reference to the Nordics. There was a linguistic division into East Norse (Sweden) and West Norse (Denmark and Norway) more than a thousand years ago. The East Norse/Swedes traded and expanded to the East, then South and are considered to be the founding Rus, as well as being invited to settle in Ukraine.
      The Danes and Norwegians were expanded to the West and South. The Danes were the ones with large scale invasions to Britain and France, while the Norwegians were primarily raiders. If the Norwegians were considered inferior, it would have been after being conquered by the Danes circa 1300. This was made possible by several centuries of internal squabbles over who would be king of all Norway.
      Having been in all 3 countries prior to Norway discovering oil, I can assure you that Norway was already well-to-do pre-oil, although there is no denying the oil has helped. They were also very insular in that, at the time, they were not open to young backpackers who were traveling all over Europe at the time. In fact, after seeing 2 other my age turned away at customs, I was certain that I wasn’t going to be admitted. My “visiting a friend at the university” did not seem to be enough, and it was only when they saw my passport stamped by other Nordic countries, that they let me in.
      Obviously much has changed.

  8. Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
    February 26, 2017 - 8:45 pm | Permalink

    @Poland-Lithuania was by the standards of the time, incredibly tolerant and liberal towards religious matters.

    There is a little nuance to it. They were incredibly tolerant towards all Judaeo-protestant sects. Not towards the Orthodox Church, contrary to what they boast. The Union of Brest was not an act of tolerance. Tolerance towards Jews was in fact an alliance for the merciless exploitation (one of the most ruthless and degrading in the World) of the Orthodox peasants. Suspicion looms large that the Szlachta was in fact the ‘disapeared’ Khazars (the shifty Cossacks claimed also that they were the descendants of the Khazars!).

    • Lucy's Gravatar Lucy
      February 28, 2017 - 8:14 am | Permalink

      When leaving Poland in 1973, I only knew that Poles were a primitive untermensch species, which of course made me quite obsessed by order and cleanliness. Upon my arrival to Sweden I was to learn that we Poles also were Europe’s most fervent Jew-hunters/anti-Semites.
      The peculiar thing is that the only negative about Jews I’ve ever heard under my Poland-time came from my father. As he spent most of my childhood’s years incarcerated in a psychiatric asylum, I easily could wave off his opinions, especially as he not only was “crazy” but also praised the Germans and hated communists.
      My awakening came in autumn 2015 as Sweden got flooded by a big number of people from MENA, and I followed my adult (Swedish) son’s advice to check on the alternative websites. It was there I for the first time came across info about the JQ. With facit of sort in my hand, I realised that my father died in his early forthies not because he was crazy. Even though many Jews died during WWII – and a lot of them left Poland, which they – unlike Slavic Poles were allowed to do – Poland was far from as “abandoned” by this genius race as it is claimed by the followers of the Holocaust-religion. OK, some Jewish families left in 1968, but this was more about battles among two communists groups, i.e. the Pulawy/Jews against the Natolin/chamy (Slavs) than about anti-Semitism. Ascendants to those communists, of both ethnicities, are to be found on significant positions, in the Parliament and Senate, mass media, academy and the Church. This makes it impossible to come up with other proof than hints and “hate-propaganda” on the subject of who the real szlachta was. Naturally, I now harbour a strong suspicion that foreigners, I mean people without an ounce of loyalty to Poland, were behind the “liberum veto”-idiocy that made it impossible to decide on anything of importance for the nation, before Poland’s partitions.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        February 28, 2017 - 2:18 pm | Permalink

        Firsthand testimony is great to get, Lucy. Thank you—and may your father, taken far too soon from you by Poland’s true enemies, rest in peace.

  9. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    February 26, 2017 - 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Here is another painting (1899) by Ukrainian-Russian realist Pymonenko, titled Victim of Fanatacism.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Mykola_Pymonenko_-_%D0%96%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%83.jpg

    The painting tells a story about the real incident – punishment by the Jewish community in Kremenets in Little Russia (now Ternopil Province, Ukraine) of a Jewish girl
    for her relationship with an Orthodox boy and her transition to Christianity. She wears a cross on her neck.

  10. T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
    February 26, 2017 - 12:59 pm | Permalink

    OT

    It seems the NY Times is taking out an advert to appear during the (((Academy Awards))) claiming WE’RE NOT LIARS. . .

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      February 27, 2017 - 11:40 am | Permalink

      re the caulk up at the Oscars:

      Scratching my chin whiskers, the first thought was affirmative action may be involved.

      Price-Waterhouse Coopers has accepted full responsibility.

      “. . .PwC’s representatives were Brian Cullinan, a partner at the firm — and, according to his bio on the company’s website, a Matt Damon lookalike — and Martha Ruiz, the second woman to serve as a PwC Oscars tabulator.

      Cullinan is the lead partner for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, including the annual balloting for the Oscars ceremony. He has been part of the balloting team since 2014.

      Ruiz, a 19-year veteran at PwC who specializes in providing tax compliance and advisory services to entertainment clients in southern California, joined Cullinan as the Oscars balloting co-leader in 2015.

      In a promotional video on the company’s website ahead of Sunday’s show, Cullinan said he and Ruiz are the only two who knew who the winners were on the night of the awards.

      “There are 24 categories. We have the winners in sealed envelopes that we hold and maintain throughout the evening and hand those to the presenters before they walk out on stage,” he said.

      According to Mike Davies, PwC’s director of global communications, both Cullinan and Ruiz would have had a briefcase on either side of the auditorium to hand out the envelope for the category to be announced. Each briefcase would have had one envelope of each category winner.

      In his remarks before the show, Cullinan had said PwC’s relationship with the Academy Awards is testament to the firm’s reputation in the market for being “a firm of integrity, of accuracy and confidentiality and all of those things that are really key to the role we have with the Academy in counting these ballots.”

      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pwcs-hard-won-reputation-under-131057123.html

  11. February 26, 2017 - 11:28 am | Permalink

    Hey! Chmielnitzky was mad because someone stole his mistress!! I’d be mad too! Seriously, its very sad. Everything. Especially allowing slaves to be sent to turkey/Tatars! Looks like its still true today. I hate the ottoman empire and the republic of turkey for what they’ve done to Slavs. Everyone has to get over their differences. Today’s Ukrainian sex slaves frequently wind up in Israel. Hooray for the cossacks raiding ottomans

    • February 27, 2017 - 3:30 pm | Permalink

      marty, what do you think of the idea that Jews invented Islam? [1] By inventing an Arab alphabet, right-to-left; [2] by scripting the Quran for them, no doubt including Arabic BS along with the ‘Abrahamic’ stuff; [3] Incorporating Jewish things such as Taqqiya, food taboos, death penalty for apostasy – BUT [4] Allowing conversion, since presumably Jews wanted to recruit a simple army; [5] Including dysgenic things. Just an outline. Any views?

  12. February 26, 2017 - 11:13 am | Permalink

    This picture shows German prisoners of war and a Russian soldier. The picture shows, that the “Russian type” and the “German type” are relatively similar. — Also we Germans do not feel strange against the east Europeans. We are middle-Europeans and they are east-Europeans. We know the difference, for example the “Russian soul” and we respect it.
    https://www.dhm.de/fileadmin/medien/lemo/images/ba108376_1.jpg

    We have an German anthropologist, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, who says:
    There is a broad belt in Europe, roughly from Paris to east of Moskau, that is very homogenous by anthropologistical measuring standards
    For those who understand the German language, for example Tom Sunic: That sentence is from the arcticle below, about immigration: simple, clear, from the year 1996.
    http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/deutschland-sagen-sie-mal-irenaeus-eibl-eibesfeldt—_aid_158854.html

  13. RoyAlbrecht's Gravatar RoyAlbrecht
    February 26, 2017 - 10:21 am | Permalink

    Very informative contemporary piece in the overall historical puzzle.

    I have often wondered about the circumstances of the Jewish migration Westward through the Slavic states.

    “…The revolt was highly popular throughout Ukraine — for example, “the whole of the province of Kyiv rose to a man.”[ix] The revolt quickly led to ethnic cleansing, as the largely Ukrainian peasantry burned down the landowners’ manors and plundered their possessions, killing them and those associated with them; of course the nobles weren’t Ukrainian; they were all Poles or Ukrainians who were so Polonized that they may as well have been Poles. Catholic clergy were also killed and so too were Jews.”

    Music to my ears. Anyone who decides that the Spirit does not exist and abandons its pursuit in exchange for the pursuit of hedonistic addictions must be deemed a long term threat to society and dealt with accordingly.
    This is an expression of love for the long term health of all life on the planet.

  14. mike's Gravatar mike
    February 26, 2017 - 10:04 am | Permalink

    Starting in the 13th and 14th centuries, Armenians fleeing the Turkish invaders of Armenia sought sanctuary in eastern Europe. Many thousands eventually settled in Poland where they contributed to the country in every way imaginable–military, business, arts, scholarship… But then the Catholic Church started an anti-Armenian propaganda campaign saying that since the Armenians had their own Church and didn’t recognize the Pope as the head of their Church they should be shunned. Thus began a tacit anti-Armenian campaign which forced Armenians to convert to Catholicism… and to assimilate to become ethnic Poles. Within a century or so, the community vanished.

    • Betty's Gravatar Betty
      February 26, 2017 - 4:41 pm | Permalink

      “a tacit anti-Armenian campaign which forced Armenians to convert to Catholicism…” Today we have an in-your-face RCC that wants the West to assimilate blacks/Asians/Muslims so that Caucasians/Europeans vanish.

  15. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    February 26, 2017 - 9:11 am | Permalink

    Another example of failed multiculturalism is the conflict between the Singalese majority and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. In the armed conflict that lasted from 1983 to 2009, more than 100,000 people were killed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

    And need I mention the Kurds, who spread over the states of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey, fight for an independent Kurdistan ?

    Only homogeneous ethnostates are stable. Homogeneity is strength !

  16. February 26, 2017 - 9:11 am | Permalink

    With respect, Dr MacDonald’s work has been on Jews and their strategies. You haven’t made it clear how Jews (you state they were used as something like tax collectors, but apparently with a free hand to take what they could) interacted with the ‘nobility’. If other regions are any guide, they would have intermarried and Jewified the nobility, and of course ‘cut any ties they had with the masses’.
    .
    Again, if western Europe is a guide, Jews would have made loans etc, but this activity would be forbidden to non-Jews, keeping the Jewish monopoly.

    • Floda's Gravatar Floda
      February 26, 2017 - 5:20 pm | Permalink

      Another good example is Fiji, when the British noticed that the Fijian natives were next to useless and, ‘wouldn’t work in an Iron Lung’ they began importing Indians assuming they were used to a hot climate as labor.

      Fiji was given its independence in 1970 and in 1987 a series of coups d’etat replaced the then Indian dominated Government.

      The demographic situation today is, 55% Native Melanesian and app. 40% Indian with the Indian population shrinking as they flee to places with richer pickings, like Australia and New Zealand.

Comments are closed.