UK Riots, American Flash Mobs and Kyrgyzstan

Uzbeks setting up a road block to stop the Kyrgyz

Ethnic tensions between native Kyrgyz and the Uzbek minority still simmer in Kyrgyzstan. The country of 5 million is an obscure Central Asian nation, one that only the most geographically astute would be able to pinpoint on a map.  It is home to just one of literally dozens of ethnic conflicts that have wracked former Soviet Union countries.

A year ago, the tensions reached a deadly boiling point, culminating in riots and pogroms that left 400, mostly Uzbeks, dead. Though the unrest was quelled, the Uzbek community still live in fear, voluntarily ghettoised as they fear for their safety when leaving their various enclaves. There has been an exodus of wealthy and educated Uzbeks.

The Soviet Union represented the most ambitious attempt in history to mix a mass of different racial, ethnic, national and linguistic groups together, whether they liked it or not. ‘Multiculturalism’ was alive and unwell there long before it became the mantra of the West. This giant empire once comprised of, besides Russia itself, what have now become 15 independent countries.

From Mongolia in Asia to Lithuania in Europe, a myriad of different ethnic groups and religions were subsumed into the USSR, and mandated to think of themselves not as Kyrgyz, Latvians, Muslims or Orthodox Christians, but as “Soviet Citizens.”

Getting a sense of déjà vu? You should be, as the similarities with White nations from Australia to the Sweden and beyond are clear. The unrest between the Kyrgyz and the Uzbeks may make the flash mobs of American Blacks attacking Whites appear trivial. The riots that swept through UK cities recently also pale in comparison to the deadly rivalries in Central Asia. Yet they are symptoms of an identical disease.

This disease afflicts Russia to its core. Last December, the city of Moscow came to a standstill as thousands of White Russians protested the death of Yegor Sviridov, a football fan killed by immigrants from the Caucasus region. Counterclaims of racism were made, with ethnic Russians claiming Caucasian and Central Asians immigrants were guilty of thousands of rapes, robberies and murders of White Russians. In turn, the immigrants claimed it was they who suffered racial violence at the hands of White Muscovites.

In the Soviet era, of course, they had ruthlessly effective methods to deal with riots, protests and similar displays of discontent. A mixture of brute force, the gulag system and occasional concessions with the various “nationalities” as the different ethnic groups were termed. This contrasts with the pathetically light-handed approach one finds in America or Britain today, or for the matter any White nation on the planet. There were points during the recent UK riots when the police literally surrendered the streets to the thugs.

The Soviet system of dealing with racial tensions, though physically more robust than in White countries today, failed completely. When the Communist state collapsed, the USSR’s countless racial and religious groups clamoured for independence and reclaimed their identities immediately.  Decades of suppressing racial awareness patently hadn’t worked. The Soviet experiment in creating “Soviet citizens” and “socialist workers” had malfunctioned drastically. Tens of millions suddenly demanded to be known as Russians, Chechens, Georgians, Estonians, or Uzbeks. Both racial and religious affiliation were reaffirmed as if the post-WWII era had been little more than a brief interlude.

Religion had been subject to strict official supervision and a policy aimed at reducing public displays of religion. The 50 million Muslims of the USSR had only 500 officially approved mosques. The tens of millions of Orthodox Christians were allowed only 7000 churches. Countless historic places of worship were demolished or converted to hospitals, party offices or even stables. When the regime fell, the vast majority of Russians and other Slavs identified themselves as Orthodox Christian believers. The revival of the Church has been remarkable, it has returned to its former strong and central role in Russian society and culture. The resurgence was so rapid that it is clear that it had never been truly reduced, simply hidden under the boot of Soviet authorities.

Why had the effects of generations of propaganda faded so rapidly, exposing the fault lines of ethnic identity and conflict so starkly? To even a semi-intelligent individual the answer is obvious. “Soviet citizen” and “socialist worker” are not identities at all, they are artificial constructs. Thousands of years of evolution created different races and ethnic groups, which in turn created religious systems and nationalities. They are real. They have meaning. To wipe the genetic and cultural slate clean and assign dozens of disparate groups from two continents the same empty category was absurd, and doomed to failure from the outset. The laughable term “Soviet Race” was actually touted during this era. One would struggle to find today, amongst the hundreds of millions of individuals who once lived in the USSR, a single person who would class himself as a member of this “race.”

In reality of course, the re-emergence of the various groups was not sudden. No one woke up one morning in 1989 and decided they were no longer good Soviet comrades but rather Estonian, Azeri or Armenian. It had been a constant undercurrent since the creation of the unnatural empire. Racial and religious reclamation was a cause of the fall of the USSR, not a symptom.

Tensions between ethnic groups had been increasingly common after the Stalin era.  The largest manifestations of this were national uprisings and demonstrations in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1955, Georgia in 1956 and Prague in 1968. These movements were suppressed only with the force of the biggest state apparatus in the history of the world. When indoctrination does not work, use force. A lot of force was used in the Soviet Republic.

But tensions between ethnic groups were present from the outset of the Communist era. They were simply under-reported and repressed. Occasionally, the conflagrations were so big they could not be downplayed or covered up. The now infamous city of Grozny in Chechnya saw a race riot in 1958, with the Russian community, complaining of violent victimisation by ethnic Chechens. The  Slavic Russians briefly taken over the town in protest.

When these racially motivated outbreaks in the former USSR became too widespread and violent for even the Communist party’s advanced deceptive abilities, the response was feigned shock, despair and bemusement. “We’ve all been comrades for decades, why are we fighting now?” was a typical attitude. Russians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Mongolians, Chechens — they’d never been true comrades, they’d been inmates in the same prison. And like prisons the world over, when strict supervision was no longer maintained, they fought amongst each other in brutal fashion.

This was in the 1980s, the declining years of the empire, when state and military power had ebbed drastically, partially due to the military campaign in Afghanistan.  The pressure cooker scenario that had sporadically required the lid to be tightened now began to explode. In 1986, a major riot occurred in Khazakhstan when Gorbachev dismissed an ethnic Khazkh as the First Secretary of the local Communist party, and attempted to install an ethnic Russian in his place. 40,000 Kazakhs came out in protest, and in three days of rioting between 100–200 were said to have been killed, many more injured.

In 1989 a vicious ethnic riot occurred between Georgians and the Abkhazian minority in Sukhumi. The violence saw hundreds injured and 18 killed; this was the precursor to the secessionist war of 1992–1993. The discord continues to this day, and was one of the focal points of the brief 2008 war between Russia and Georgia. The other Georgian breakaway region involved in the 2008 war was South Ossetia, which had gained de facto independence after a 1991 war.

Northern Ossetia had its own territorial war in 1992 with its Muslim Ingush neighbours. This region was also the home of the town of Beslan, targeted in a gruesome siege by Chechen rebels in 2004. Relations between the Ossetians and many of their Islamic North Caucasus neighbours had been fraught throughout the Communist era.

In 1989, thousands of Meskhetian Turks were driven from Uzbekistan after deadly pogroms. The Uzbeks and Turks shared the same faith, Islam, but the age old problems of diversity manifested itself yet again in the dying empire.

The Christian Armenians were involved in confrontations with several Muslim ethnic groups, including the deadliest event in the initial death throes of the USSR, the war with Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region which led to 30,000+ deaths. It was in this crucible that many future Chechen rebels would gain their first experience of war, fighting on the side of their Azeri fellow Muslims. The Chechen conflict would later make even the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict appear insignificant.

Prior to the Nagorno-Karabakh war, Armenian territorial claims on the area were the catalysts for the Sumgait Pogrom of February 1988, where ethnic Azeris attacked minority Armenians. Ironically, many Armenians fled to Tajikistan, where the influx of refugees inflamed the Tajik majority, who then attacked Armenians and other minorities in 1990. That many of the ethnic disturbances later led to outright wars should not be too surprising. Aren’t most wars racial or sectarian riots writ large?

This bewildering array of conflicts were merely more violent manifestations of what we see now in the West. The Soviet Union was crumbling in the 1980s. Today, after a decade of prosperity, Europe and America are experiencing a harsh economic downturn.  The years of growth, as we know all too well, also saw the largest immigration in history of non-Whites into White countries, a tidal wave of tens of millions.

In Europe and America, racial identities are encouraged. Public funding is poured into educational programmes, museums, bilingual educational instruction, immigrant rights groups and cultural sensitivity training. With a singular exception. The White race is told one of two things: that it is inherently evil, or alternatively that it does not exist and in fact, there is no such thing as race. Marx, Trotsky and Lenin would certainly have approved. They certainly would not have approved, however of the anaemic response to race riots we see around the White world, although in ruthlessly crushing such displays, they would have downplayed the racial element.

Here’s another sense of déjà vu. Political figures and pundits in America and Britain either ignored or minimised the racial aspects of flash mobs and riots, just as occurred with Communist media manipulation. Despite the UK riots being set off by the police shooting of an armed Black criminal, and comprising over 70% Black protagonists, they gleefully pointed out the occasional White face amongst the mob as prove that there were no racial undertones. With Blacks making up less than 5% of the population and Whites well over 80%, this was a peculiar way to claim a victory for the “it’s nothing to do with race” argument.

All four fatalities of the UK riots were at the hands of Black thugs. An elderly White man in London was beaten to death for remonstrating with vandals, and three Asian men in Birmingham were mown down by Black looters as they tried to protect their community. In Liverpool, White lowlifes engaged in the turbulence, but only after it ignited in Toxteth, the scene of race riots in the 1980s and still home to the majority of the city’s large Black community.

In Manchester, the sizeable White contingent in the violence and looting was grasped upon by the media almost as a moral victory for multiculturalism. It transpired that one of the ringleaders arrested, Dominic Noonan, an infamous White criminal gang leader in the city, was an uncle of Mark Duggan, the Black criminal whose death sparked the initial riot in Tottenham. The downplaying of the racial elephant-in-the-room in coverage of the riots would have made the Communists proud. An identical scenario is being played out in America, from Iowa to Chicago and California, where the flash mobs of all-Black youth gangs attack White, Asian and Hispanic passers-by in random assaults. Police officials and politicians instantly divert the attention to the small minority of fellow Blacks targeted by the gangs. This is supposed to prove race isn’t a factor.

Philadelphia’s first deputy commissioner Richard Ross, denied the racial element in the flash mob attacks in his own city this July in words that could have been from the lips of a Communist party official in the 1960s. He claimed that there was “no confession. . . . .  or epithets overheard.” This supposedly made it impossible to attach any racial motivation to the attacks, despite the fact that they were perpetrated exclusively by Black gangs on White victims.

Will we be able to keep the pressure cooker under control for decades like the Communists? Our political and media elite can certainly lie, downplay, misrepresent and underreport on a par with the Soviets. However, it is evident that they are unable, or unwilling, to use the crushing force the Politburo would have used at the height of their strength. Whole nations rose up against them, but were flattened by military might. An elderly Hungarian today would shudder at the thought of how the London riots would have been quelled by his former Soviet overlords. In his magisterial Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn illustrates a thousand examples of just how quickly and with what grim efficiency the flash mobs of Blacks would have been extinguished.

Today interethnic conflict rages across the White world, from the near civil war between Black and Hispanic gangs of California, to France’s now annual summer riots, or the epidemic of racist rapes in Scandinavia. Australia’s Lebanese Muslims victimise Whites and Indians for beatings and rapes with near impunity. The cracks in the dam wall are growing at an unprecedented pace. White Nationalists and race realists have been the sole voices in the wilderness, predicting for decades the inevitable rise of racial tensions. They are excluded, however, from any public discourse on such matters.

The official focus groups, televised debates, and parliamentary enquiries show liberal leftists blaming various manifestations of institutional racism. Minority activists point to slavery and its legacy, and the mainstream Right tiptoes around the race issue like someone navigating a minefield at night. May I suggest that delegations of Kyrgyz and Uzbeks be invited to these discussions to provide their opinion on the merits of diversity and the path multiculturalism is likely to lead us down?

84 replies

Comments are closed.