Spencer J. Quinn’s “Solzhenitsyn and the Right”

Solzhenitsyn and the Right
Spencer J. Quinn
Antelope Hill Publishing, 2021

Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right summarizes a large portion of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s voluminous body of work, but its focus isn’t entirely on Solzhenitsyn. It is replete with parallels between pre- and post-revolutionary Russia/Soviet Union and the present situation in the West.

Fundamentally, Solzhenitsyn was a Russian patriot, and certainly not in a civic nationalist sense:

In his memoirs, he refers to Russians as his people and Russia as his country, and never does the fate of either escape his concern. He identified with the Russian people and so he bled when they bled, cried when they cried, and cheered when they cheered. He also longed for the Russian soil when he was away from it. Religion, tradition, and patriotism bound him to his people, and his people to each other, as in any enduring civilization. … For Solzhenitsyn, nationalism was more about blood than what it says in one’s passport. (3, 5)

Not surprisingly given such attitudes, he was highly critical of the West where he was exiled for almost 15 years, repeatedly “predicting the West’s downfall” because of its individualism, Enlightenment values, and lack of religious fervor. (4) And, as Quinn notes, he is proving to be right as a result of the immigration tsunami that has transformed Western societies into battlegrounds of conflicting and incompatible peoples and cultures, and where the native European-derived peoples are routinely vilified by elites in the media, the university, major corporations, and the political class in the societies they created. Of these, Solzhenitsyn identified the media as the most influential: it “distorts and embellishes its reportage to be as sensationalist as possible in order to ‘miseducate’ public opinion and garner profits and influence.” (17) In particular, the media appeals to and encourages weakness, whether in the food we eat (often resulting in obesity and its attendant diseases like diabetes), how we spend our leisure, how important we regard material wealth, or the value one places on conforming to the media’s moral imperative to admit and care for an unending stream of migrants who will eventually displace the peoples of the West. As always the demise of Western societies is presented as a moral issue, with payment to the descendants of colonial peoples and slaves quite possibly requiring the forfeit “of everything it owns.” (21)

Quinn notes the parallel between Soviet communism and the contemporary West:

While for Solzhenitsyn this Evil took the form of Communist and totalitarian governments which for the most part existed outside the West, today it appears as the equally totalitarian anti-white Left which lurks among us and has laid claim to our universities, our media, our corporations, and nearly all of our other institutions. It is this Left which has imported its shock troops from the Third World, and it is this Left which the West’s ‘conservative’ leadership has continually bowed down to and appeased. (22)

The composition of Western elites matters, and in particular the media elites. Fundamentally, they hate us. And, although Jews, with their long list of (imagined and real) historical grudges, are highly overrepresented in all areas of Western elites, they are by far most overrepresented as owners and creators in the media.

Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in a Gulag and survived assassination attempts by the KGB. Quinn notes that even this sort of Soviet oppression is more extreme than what we see in the West now, there are certainly the beginning signs of similar repression—travel restrictions, bank account and credit card suspensions for dissidents, banning and shadow banning on social media, double standards of justice in which the legal system throws the book at rightists and typically refuses to even investigate or indict leftists—as exemplified by the consequences of the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally and the recent January 6 protest. There is no reason at all to suppose that the West couldn’t end up being at least as oppressive as the USSR. Powerful interests are seeking just that. “If the Far Left ever succeeds in gaining control over a major government (as it did in Russia in 1917), then the Dissident Right can expect oppression similar to what Solzhenitsyn and other figures faced in the Soviet Union.” (11)

Jewish Issues

Pyotr Stolypin, Prime Minister of Russia from 1906–1911, was assassinated in 1911 by a Jewish radical, Mordecai Bogrov, at a time when such radicalism was common among Jews. Jews hated Stolypin because, as Solzhenitsyn described it, “he boosted Russian interests too blatantly and too insistently—the Russianness of the Duma as a representative body, the Russianness of the state.” (26; italics in text) Solzhenitsyn believed Stolypin’s assassination was catastrophic because it unleashed “the first eddies in a swirl of nihilism, war, and death which would soon consume Europe.” (27) Quinn notes that Solzhenitsyn “dared to depict Bogrov in a way resembling Jewish stereotypes” (30)—a lying, two-faced manipulator, physically weak and neurotic but highly intelligent. “There was nothing the Russians could do, other than cede power to the Jews, that would satisfy him” (31). And indeed, he was motivated by his Jewish identity and sense of Jewish interests: “I was fighting for the benefit of the Jewish people.”  (34)

Parallels to the Present

After describing Lenin’s psychopathic personality (e.g., his duplicity and his “enmity toward everything traditional, natural and morally wholesome,” (43) Quinn notes that “the left has not changed much since Lenin’s day, merely exchanging class for race in the twenty-first century. The same bunch that called for the civil rights of non-Whites is now calling for the open oppression of whites. Just as with Lenin, what the Left says it wants and what it truly wants are two different things. … A stroll through Twitter or anti-white Hollywood in the 2020s will show quite clearly that the left’s violent fantasies against their perceived enemies haven’t gone away and aren’t going anywhere.” (44)

The February Revolution which led to the Provisional Government resulted from well-organized, well-funded activists, just as we see today in the wake of George Floyd’s death; “they are also engaging in the kind of violence, ruthless intimidation, and hateful rhetoric that Solzhenitsyn documents in March 1917.” As today, rightists in 1917 trusted the leftists, who were clearly attempting to end the monarchy, to be “acting in good faith when they clearly weren’t.” And as today, the left is full of promises for a utopian future free of strife and oppression if only power is ceded to them. Solzhenitsyn: “Tranquility would only come to Russia when the present government system had been ripped out at the root.” (54; italics in text) Solzhenitsyn comments on the police being intimidated and rendered powerless, and Quinn draws the contemporary parallel: “During America’s riots in the summer of 2020, how many times did the police stand down or kneel to the rioters? How many times did we see the police actively take the side of the rioters, or refuse to protect innocent people from them?” (57) As now, the media was on the side of the rioters, not only presenting fake news, e.g., on police violence against rioters, but also, as Solzhenitsyn notes, intimidating those with power from enforcing the law: “Columns in the liberal newspapers alone made the governors pale and attempt to justify their measures. … They could not kill their own people” (57)—quite unlike the Bolsheviks who had no compunctions about mass murder against their perceived enemies.

As Quinn notes, the main message of March 1917 is that the Bolshevik Revolution did not have to happen, and neither does the current revolution playing out throughout the West. “The Left does not have to win. But for today’s Right to check the Left and achieve victory, it will need leaders who possess the nerves and confidence that the Russian leaders depicted by Solzhenitsyn entirely lacked”—something sorely lacking at this point. (63; emphasis in text) As Solzhenitsyn noted in his play Prisoners,

We clutch at life with convulsive intensity—that’s how we get caught. We want to go on living at any, any price. We accept all the degrading conditions, and this way we save—not ourselves—we save the prosecutor. But he who doesn’t value his life is unconquerable, untouchable. There are such people. (70; italics in text)

At this point, the Right in the West needs such people to win.

We can only imagine how many intelligent, well-meaning Russians were swayed by the liberal-left media, wanting to be seen as a good person, and conforming to whatever mandates the left proposed. They supported the left and looked forward to the utopian, classless future promised by the Bolsheviks. What is clear now is that there are millions of White voters throughout the contemporary West, many of them calling themselves conservatives, who have been eager to embrace today’s promised utopian future of racial harmony and equal outcomes for all races.

Two Hundred Years Together

The longest section of Solzhenitsyn and the Right discusses Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, placing “much of the blame for the October Revolution, the atrocities of the early Soviet period, and subversive Left-wing behavior in general squarely on the shoulders of the Jews. [Solzhenitsyn] also … exonerates much of Tsarist Russia from the charge of anti-Semitism, which Jewish authors never seem to tire of leveling. … Dissidents on the Right should take advantage of Solzhenitsyn’s fame and cite him as often as possible in the battlefield of ideas—especially when it comes to the Jewish question.” (83, 84)

Jews were heavily overrepresented in Lenin’s inner circle and indeed, in Lenin in Zurich “Solzhenitsyn offers tantalizing evidence that the October Revolution would not have occurred (or would not have been successful) without actions carried out by Jews at its most critical moments.” (47)

Nevertheless, Solzhenitsyn often bent over backwards not to be negative about Jews. Quinn notes that “Solzhenitsyn was no anti-Semite. There are many passages in this work that demonstrate a desire to show justice, even tenderness, toward Jews. It cannot be denied that he had great respect for them” (84)—a trait, as Quinn notes, that is entirely lacking in vast majority of Jewish writers commenting on the behavior of White gentiles toward Jews. And commenting on Jewish characters in his play Republic of Labor, Solzhenitsyn noted in Two Hundred Years Together that he had fictionalized them somewhat because the truth “would be inevitably considered anti-Jewish incitement (as if that trio of Jews was not inflaming it in real life, caring little about consequences).” (78)

Departing from Solzhenitsyn, Quinn eschews any perspective that flinches from dealing honestly with Jews. White nations are in the process of being subjugated and the great majority of Jews, including many wealthy, politically involved Jews and Jews with prominent positions in the media, support this revolution. Of course, this does not mean that White advocates should be dishonest, only that they should not flinch from the truth. So despite what Solzhenitsyn would have advocated, “the value and importance of Two Hundred Years Together cannot be overstated.” (86) What follows then are three chapters listing the “misdeeds” (87) of the Jews.

Solzhenitsyn notes that Jews began to be represented among revolutionaries in the 1870s after originally being underrepresented. The reason for this was that leftist revolutionaries often viewed Jews as exploiters—a perspective that disappeared from revolutionary rhetoric after Jews became prominent among them. This is an important point that is missing from typical accounts by Jewish historians. From Separation and Its Discontents (Ch. 2, pp. 41–42):

Emancipation often accentuated the importance of resource competition as a source of anti-Semitism. Lindemann (1991, 17) notes that Jews in pre-emancipation Russia “were viewed by the authorities and by much of the rest of population as a foreign, separate, exploitative, and distressingly prolific nation.” The official Russian view was that emancipation had resulted in Jews economically dominating and exploiting the Slavic peasants (Judge 1992, 9, 11). The following passage, from an article published in 1893 by M. Pierre Botkine, the Secretary of the Russian Legation in Washington, was also emphasized by Goldwin Smith (1894, 248) in his anti-Jewish writing. It combines the issue of economic domination with the loyalty issue … :

The Hebrew, as we know him in Russia, is “the eternal Jew.” Without a country of his own, and as a rule, without any desire to become identified with the country he for the time inherits, he remains, as for hundreds of years he has been, morally unchangeable and without a faculty for adapting himself to sympathy with the people of the race which surrounds him. He is not homogeneous with us in Russia; he does not feel or desire solidarity with us. In Russia he remains a guest only—a guest from long ago, and not an integral part of the community. When these guests without affinity became too many in Russia, when in several localities their numbers were found injurious to the welfare and the prosperity of our own people as a whole, when they had grown into many wide-spreading ramifications of influence and power, and abused their opportunities as traders with or lenders of money to the poor—when, in a word, they became dangerous and prejudicial to our people—is there anything revolting or surprising in the fact that our government found it necessary to restrict their activity? . . . Is it just that those who have never had to confront such a situation should blame us for those measures?

            Our peasantry has only recently been organized in their existing social relations, and is not yet well educated, or well trained in the exercise of social rights or obligations under their present system. . . . If we take into consideration the character of the Slavonian folk, it is easy to understand why our meek, ignorant, and easy-going peasantry fell under the control of the Jews, who, as a class, are far better educated and more thrifty, and have the aptitude for commerce and for money making which distinguishes their race everywhere—and who readily perceived and soon abused their superiority in those particulars, after the emancipation of the serfs had deprived them individually of the safeguards the old system of things had afforded them. This Jewish influence was everywhere oppressive, and now and then became an unbearable yoke. The peasants in some localities, having lost all patience, were guilty of violent excesses, mobbed the Jews, and destroyed their property. (Botkine 1893, 613–614)

Solzhenitsyn presents numerous Jewish writers who basically say the same thing: that diaspora Jews do not identify with the country they reside in. Israeli author A. B. Yoshua: “The Galut [diaspora] is an immoral creature. He uses all the benefits of his host country but at the same time he does not identify with it.” (129) As has often been the case, Zionists had a much more realistic perspective on Jews, and often regarded Jews as a separate ethnicity and acknowledged that anti-Semitism was a natural reaction to Jews as foreigners. A statement published by the Zionist Federation of Germany after the National Socialists came to power stated “Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition” (SAID, Ch 5, 161).

Continuing SAID (Ch. 2, 42–43) on Jews as oppressors in nineteenth-century Russia:

In 1881 a government document decried the failure of its twenty-year-long campaign to fuse the Russian and Jewish populations and perceived the problem to be “the exploitation [by the Jews] of the indigenous population and mostly of the poorer classes” (in Frankel 1981, 64). This was the view of official American government observers as well (see Goldstein 1990, 36, 290), and it was also apparent in the Jewish revolutionary socialist Hayim Zhitlowski (1972, 129): “Whenever I turned my eyes to ordinary, day-to-day Jewish life, I saw only one thing, that which the antisemites were agitating about: the injurious effect of Jewish merchantry on Russian peasantry. No matter how I felt, from a socialist point of view, I had to pass a death sentence not only on individual Jews but on the entire Jewish existence of individual Jews” (italics in text).[i]

Gentile revolutionaries were also prone to anti-Semitic pronouncements. In 1869 the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin stated of the Jews that “their history, since well before the Christian era, has imprinted on them a trait essentially mercantile and bourgeois, which means, taken as a nation, they are par excellence the exploiters of the work of others, and they have a horror and a natural fear of the masses of the people, whom, moreover, they hate, openly or secretly” (in Rather 1990, 178). The revolutionary party Narodnaia Volia took a tolerant view toward the 1881 pogroms and issued the following statement to the Ukrainian people:

The people in the Ukraine suffer worst of all from the Jews. Who takes the land, the woods, the taverns from out of your hands? The Jews. From whom does the muzhik [peasant], often with tears in his eyes, have to beg permission to get to his own field, his own plot of land?—the Jews. Wherever you look, wherever you go—the Jews are everywhere. The Jew curses you, cheats you, drinks your blood. . . . But as soon as the muzhiki rise up to free themselves from their enemies as they did in Elizavetgrad, Kiev, Smela, the tsar at once comes to the rescue of the Jews: the soldiers from Russia are called in and the blood of the muzhik, Christian blood, flows. . . . You have begun to rebel against the Jews. You have done well. Soon the revolt will be taken up across all of Russia against the tsar, the pany [landowners], the Jews. (In Frankel 1981, 98)[ii]

Importantly, the previous footnote concludes: “In later years, Jews assumed a much larger role in the revolutionary movement in Russia. This resulted in a very different interpretation of the 1881 pogroms. Writing in 1905 during another period of pogroms, the Jewish socialist theorist Shimen Dubnov attributed the 1881 pogroms to “imaginary economic factors,” while the recent pogroms had been the result of “revenge for the revolutionary activity of the Jews” (in Frankel 1981, 136). Workers and peasants were active participants in the 1905 pogroms as well.” In other words, what had originally been a movement dominated by non-Jews had been transformed in a manner congruent with Jewish interests. Solzhenitsyn notes that by the 1880s and 1890s Jews became disproportionately involved in revolution—between a quarter and a third of revolutionaries were Jews and Jews constituted 37 percent of political prisoners despite being only 5 percent of the population.

Like 1960s Jewish radicals (The Culture of Critique, Ch. 3), Russian-Jewish radicals of the late nineteenth century tended to come from wealthy families and were not estranged from their families, both of which were often the case with non-Jewish radicals.

One thing that may surprise many, given the representations of Jews in the popular media and the occupational and social class profile of Jews in the West, is how violent these Jewish revolutionaries were. Solzhenitsyn notes that the 1903 pogrom in Gomel, Belarus was started when “armed and organized gangs of Jews had instigated the pogrom against Russians. … All the casualties were Russian.” But when the troops arrived, they protected the wealthy Jewish parts of the city, “and to show their appreciation, the Jews fired guns and threw stones at them.” (89) These Jews were angry because of the Kishinev pogrom which had happened 6 months previously. Nevertheless, when many Jews showed how violent and sadistic they could be after the Bolsheviks came to power, there was widespread surprise. As I noted in a review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century:

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the ‘transformation’ of Jews: In the words of another Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, ‘cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.’ And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A Bromberg, noted that: the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of “unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness (Slezkine, 183–184).

This psychological “transformation” of Russian Jews was probably not all that surprising to the Russians themselves, given [Maxim] Gorky’s finding that Russians prior to the Revolution saw Jews as possessed of “cruel egoism” and that they were concerned about becoming slaves of the Jews.

Quinn notes that all of the blameworthy aspects of Jewish behavior in Gomel have been whitewashed by Jewish historians, and that Jewish accounts of the Kishinev pogrom routinely ignore Jewish behavior as implicated. Moreover, as Andrew Joyce has documented, Jewish accounts at the time played up various hoaxes of Jewish victimization (“Babies were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob,” as a New York Times article claimed).

And it’s no surprise that Jews became the primary theorists of revolution—they “tirelessly propounded anarchism, socialism, and other disruptive ideologies.” (91) It’s also fascinating that a pro-Jewish party and the Jewish press supported the Duma’s refusal to lift restrictions on Jews, likely as a strategic move to retain Jewish ardor in the revolutionary efforts. As Quinn notes, “we should never take the Left, especially the Jewish left at its word. Any progressive agenda is merely a smokescreen for destroying traditional gentile power structures and replacing them with totalitarianism.” (93; italics in text) And regarding the press, it’s no surprise that, as Solzhenitsyn notes, it “was dominated by left-wing or radical Jews who occupied key positions” (94) And it’s hard not to relate to the lament of a Russian newspaper editor in 1905 who noted that “The Jews have bet heavily on the card of revolution” and that Russians “who think seriously have understood that in such movements the press represents a force and that this force is not in their hands, but in that of their adversaries.” (94) In all of this, Solzhenitsyn bends over backwards to present Jewish actions favorably, but, as Quinn notes, “struggles with his evenhandedness [and] his efforts get more strained as the book goes on.” (105)

So it’s no surprise that Jews were overrepresented in the October Revolution or subsequent governments—6 of 12 of the conspirators and, according to mass murderer Lazar Kaganovich, “the vast majority of the presidium at the table were Jews,” as well as at least half of Lenin’s first Soviet Politburo. (103)

Not that other peoples weren’t involved. While Russians remained a minority in the power structure, other groups­—Poles, Latvians, Georgians also played a role, and the Russians who did participate were basically psychopaths. As I noted in the Preface to the 2002 edition of The Culture of Critique (p. 32):

It is interesting that many of the non-Jewish Bolsheviks were members of non-Russian ethnic groups or, as noted in CofC, were married to Jewish women. It was a common perception during the early stages of the Soviet Union that the government was dominated by “a small knot of foreigners” (Szajkowski 1977, 55). Stalin, Beria, and Ordzhonikidze were Georgians; Dzerzhinsky, the ruthless head of the Checka (Secret Police) during the 1920s, was a Pole with strong pro-Jewish attitudes. The original Cheka was made up largely of non-Russians, and the Russians in the Cheka tended to be sadistic psychopaths and criminals (Werth 1999, 62; Wolin & Slusser 1957, 6)—people who are unlikely to have any allegiance to or identification with their people.

Quinn notes that Solzhenitsyn accepts “for the sake of argument” that Bolshevik Jews were renegade Jews (Otshchepentsy), but then wonders why these same Jews hesitate to apply this argument to Russian Bolsheviks. The above indicates that the Russian Bolsheviks tended not to identify with their people—marrying into a group that was widely despised by Russians and counting among them “sadistic psychopaths and criminals.” On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence that in general Jewish communists retained a strong sense of Jewish identity. This is a critical question because a standard Jewish rationale for Jewish involvement in communism was that these revolutionaries were not really Jews—that they had become entirely removed from any Jewish identity. From The Culture of Critique (Ch. 3):

Several factors favor our supposing that Jewish identification occurred in a substantial percentage of ethnic Jews [in the USSR]: (1) People were classified as Jews depending on their ethnic background at least partly because of residual anti-Semitism; this would tend to impose a Jewish identity on these individuals and make it difficult to assume an exclusive identity as a member of a larger, more inclusive political group. (2) Many Jewish Bolsheviks, such as those in Evsektsiya [an explicitly Jewish section of the Communist Party] and the JAC [Jewish Anti-fascist Committee), aggressively sought to establish a secular Jewish subculture. (3) Very few Jews on the left envisioned a postrevolutionary society without a continuation of Judaism as a group; indeed, the predominant ideology among Jewish leftists was that postrevolutionary society would end anti-Semitism because it would end class conflict and the peculiar Jewish occupational profile. (4) The behavior of American communists shows that Jewish identity and the primacy of Jewish interests over communist interests were commonplace among individuals who were ethnically Jewish communists. … (5) The existence of Jewish crypsis in other times and places combined with the possibility that self-deception, identificatory flexibility, and identificatory ambivalence are important components of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy (see Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 8). …

Consider the case of Polina Zhemchuzhina, the wife of Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov (Premier of the USSR during the 1930s) and a prominent revolutionary who joined the Communist Party in 1918. (Among other accomplishments, she was a member of the Party Central Committee.) When Golda Meir visited the Soviet Union in 1948, Zhemchuzhina repeatedly uttered the phrase “Ich bin a Yiddishe tochter” (I am a daughter of the Jewish people) when Meir asked how she spoke Yiddish so well (Rubenstein 1996, 262). “She parted from the [Israeli delegation] with tears in her eyes, saying ‘I wish all will go well for you there and then it will be good for all the Jews’ ” (Rubenstein 1996, 262). Vaksberg (1994, 192) describes her as “an iron Stalinist, but her fanaticism did not keep her from being a “good Jewish daughter.”

Consider also the case of Ilya Ehrenburg, the prominent Soviet journalist and anti-fascist propagandist for the Soviet Union whose life is described in a book whose title, Tangled Loyalties (Rubenstein 1996), illustrates the complexities of Jewish identity in the Soviet Union. Ehrenburg was a loyal Stalinist, supporting the Soviet line on Zionism and refusing to condemn Soviet anti-Jewish actions (Rubenstein 1996). Nevertheless, Ehrenburg held Zionist views, maintained Jewish associational patterns, believed in the uniqueness of the Jewish people, and was deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Ehrenburg was an organizing member of the JAC, which advocated Jewish cultural revival and greater contact with Jews abroad. A writer friend described him as “first of all a Jew. . . . Ehrenburg had rejected his origins with all his being, disguised himself in the West, smoking Dutch tobacco and making his travel plans at Cook’s. . . . But he did not erase the Jew” (p. 204). “Ehrenburg never denied his Jewish origins and near the end of his life often repeated the defiant conviction that he would consider himself a Jew ‘as long as there was a single anti-Semite left on earth’ ” (Rubenstein 1996, 13). In a famous article, he cited a statement that “blood exists in two forms; the blood that flows inside the veins and the blood that flows out of the veins. . . . Why do I say, ‘We Jews?’ Because of blood” (p. 259). Indeed, his intense loyalty to Stalin’s regime and his silence about Soviet brutalities involving the murder of millions of its citizens during the 1930s may have been motivated largely by his view that the Soviet Union was a bulwark against fascism (pp. 143–145). “No transgression angered him more than anti-Semitism” (p. 313).

A powerful residual Jewish identity in a prominent Bolshevik can also be seen in the following comment on the reaction of ethnic Jews to the emergence of Israel:

It seemed that all Jews, regardless of age, profession, or social status, felt responsible for the distant little state that had become a symbol of national revival. Even the Soviet Jews who had seemed irrevocably assimilated were now under the spell of the Middle Eastern miracle. Yekaterina Davidovna (Golda Gorbman) was a fanatic Bolshevik and internationalist and wife of Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, and in her youth she had been excommunicated as an unbeliever; but now she struck her relatives dumb by saying, “Now at last we have our motherland, too.” (Kostyrchenko 1995, 102)

Solzhenitsyn, despite wanting to share blame for the October Revolution and the atrocities that followed, states that “Jews were the driving force behind the October Revolution.” (106) The horror of the early Soviet regime is almost impossible to comprehend. Solzhenitsyn describes the early days of the Russian Civil War not as a war, but as the “liquidation of a former adversary” (108). It was routine to execute their victims without trial, the only “evidence” needed being the social class membership of the victims.

Solzhenitsyn, commenting on the change in attitude among Soviet Jews after Jews became targets of Soviet oppression after World War II:

The Soviet government was as unjust and cruel [after the Revolution] as it was to be in 1937 and 1950. But in the Twenties the bloodlust did not raise alarm or resistance in the wider Jewish population since its force was aimed not at Jewry. (115)

Further, “Solzhenitsyn mordantly points out how convenient it was for his critics to profess outrage over these crimes [i.e., the hundreds of thousands of deaths involved in the construction of the Belomor Canal between Lake Onega and the White Sea] only decades after they had been committed. At the time, however, nearly all Jewish voices were silent; and most remain till this day—except when they want to heap more scorn on Solzhenitsyn as an anti-Semite.” (122)

Similarly, criticism of the USSR among Jews in the United States did not become widespread until there were signs that Jews were being persecuted in the USSR. Indeed, the origins of the neoconservative movement (a Jewish intellectual and political movement) can be traced to the 1950s. For example, Sydney Hook was “deeply concerned about the emergence of anti-Semitism in the USSR.”

Until the Moscow Trials of the 1930s he was blind to the violence and oppression in the USSR. During a visit to the USSR in 1929, “I was completely oblivious at the time to the systematic repressions that were then going on against noncommunist elements and altogether ignorant of the liquidation of the so-called kulaks that had already begun that summer. I was not even curious enough to probe and pry, possibly for fear of what I would discover.” During the 1930s, when the Communist Party exercised a dominant cultural influence in the United States, “the fear of fascism helped to blur our vision and blunt our hearing to the reports that kept trickling out of the Soviet Union.” Even the Moscow Trials were dismissed by large sectors of liberal opinion. It was the time of the Popular Front, where the fundamental principle was the defense of the Soviet Union. Liberal journals like the New Republic did not support inquiries into the trials, citing New York Times reporter Walter Duranty as an authority who believed in the truth of the confessions. (“Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” p. 36)

Solzhenitsyn portrays the 1930s as the height of Jewish power in the USSR: “Despite offering the caveat that Jews never constituted all of these powerful organizations, Solzhenitsyn goes on for pages detailing the Jewish dominance of Soviet economics, diplomacy, culture, and politics during the 1930s. … And this was occurring while Stalin was supposedly purging Jews from the Party” (119, 120)

Ethnic networking was pervasive, including in the Gulag and in the construction of the Belomor Canal noted above. Quinn on the Gulag: “They were known to recruit other Jews for privileged positions among the medical staff, even if those they recruited had no medical training” (120) Solzhenitsyn again goes into voluminous detail, naming Jews so privileged, and then noting “Is it really reasonable to suppose that Jews were digging soil with their shovels and racing with their hand-barrows and dying under those barrows from exhaustion and emaciation?” He also notes one non-Jew with the name Bernstein who received privileged treatment because he was thought to be a Jew: “Jews took him for one of their own and never failed to help him when he needed it.” Which reminds me that a well-known article by media critic William Cash provided anecdotal evidence that individuals disguised themselves as Jews in their attempst to become accepted in the movie industry. (SAID, Ch. 2, note 40, p. 84)

Quinn discusses the negative Jewish reception to his work. Even before Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn stated, “Even at the height of the battle at the [USSR’s] Secretariat of the Writers’ Union I was not inveighed against with such bile, such personal, passionate hate, as I was now by America’s pseudo-educated elite.” (147) Regarding the reception of Two Hundred Years Together, Quinn notes that Jewish writers have “said little about the vast suffering of Russians during the Soviet period or cared to refute Solzhenitsyn’s linking of high-level Jews … to the suffering.” (130)

No surprise there. Nothing has changed. The Jewish unwillingness to see the enormity of Jewish behavior during the Soviet period and really for the entire gamut of Western history continues into the present. Quinn makes the obvious conclusion: “As whites slowly become minorities in their homelands, Solzhenitsyn’s calls for hope and reconciliation sound more and more like the stuff of fantasy. … How much longer can we afford to hope?” (131) Indeed.

And I agree with Quinn that “white identity is the only solution to Jewish conquest.” (134) In the Russian case, Solzhenitsyn shows that even a rather tepid sense of Russian ethnocentrism was enough to make many Jews leave Russia in the later decades of the Soviet regime. Quinn concludes: “If it can be done there, it can be done anywhere.” (134, emphasis in original) Nevertheless, only the rise of Vladimir Putin, who tamed the Jewish oligarchs who had basically inherited the Soviet economy after the fall of the USSR, prevented the Jews from once again dominating Russia—a source of much of the hatred toward Russia that we see today, especially from neoconservatives.

Besides an upsurge in White identity—which does seem to be happening, we therefore need strong leadership at the political level, and that is sorely lacking. The courage that has been in evidence in so much of the history of the West and enabled its many accomplishments is in short supply. And, as Solzhenitsyn noted in his much-maligned Harvard address of 1978, “Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?” (21)

Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right is essential reading, and certainly not only for those already well read on White identity and White interests. It will also be a red pill for many who continue to be under the spell of the current culture of Western suicide.

                [i]. The following report from British Vice-Consul L. Wagstaff sums up the public perception of the social and economic causes of anti-Semitism leading to the pogroms of 1881 in Russia and reflects many of the themes of this section and the previous section:

It is chiefly as brokers or middlemen that the Jews are so prominent. Seldom a business transaction of any kind takes place without their intervention, and from both sides they receive compensation. To enumerate some of their other occupations, constantly denounced by the public: they are the principal dealers in spirits; keepers of “vodka” (drinking) shops and houses of ill-fame; receivers of stolen goods; illegal pawnbrokers and usurers. A branch they also succeed in is as government contractors. With their knowledge of handling money, they collude with unscrupulous officials in defrauding the State to vast amounts annually. In fact, the malpractices of some of the Jewish community have a bad influence on those whom they come in contact with. It must, however, be said that there are many well educated, highly respectable Jews in Russia, but they form a small minority. . . . They thoroughly condemn the occupations of their lower brethren. . . . They themselves acknowledge the abuses practised by some of their own members, and suggest remedial measures to allay the irritation existing among the working classes.

Another thing the Jews are accused of is that there exists among them a system of boycotting; they use their religion for business purposes. . . . For instance, in Bessarabia, the produce of a vineyard is drawn for by lot, and falls, say to Jacob Levy; the other Jews of the district cannot compete with Levy, who buys the wine at his own price. In the leasing by action of government and provincial lands, it is invariably a Jew who outbids the others and afterwards re-lets plots to the peasantry at exorbitant prices. . . .

Their fame as usurers is well known. Given a Jewish recruit with a few roubles’ capital, it can be worked out, mathematically, what time it will take him to become the money-lender of his company or regiment, from the drummer to the colonel. Take the case of a peasant: if he once gets into the hands of this class, he is irretrievably lost. The proprietor, in his turn, from a small loan gradually mortgages and eventually loses his estate. A great deal of landed property in south Russia has of late years passed into the hands of the Israelites but principally into the hands of intelligent and sober peasants.

From first to last, the Jew has his hand in everything. He advances the seed for sowing, which is generally returned in kind—quarters for bushels. As harvest time comes around, money is required to gather in the crops. This is sometimes advanced on hard conditions; but the peasant has no choice; there is no one to lend him money, and it is better to secure something than to lose all. Very often the Jew buys the whole crop as it stands in the field on his own terms. It is thus seen that they themselves do not raise agricultural products, but they reap the benefits of others’ labour, and steadily become rich, while proprietors are gradually getting ruined. In their relation to Russia they are compared to parasites that have settled on a plant not vigorous enough to throw them off, and which is being sapped of its vitality.

The vice-consul also noted that peasants often say when they see the property of a Jew, “That is my blood.” The complaints of the pogromists also included charges that Russian girls in service at Jewish households were sexually exploited.

                [ii]. Other pronouncements from revolutionaries during the period stated that “one should not hit the Jew because he is a Jew and prays to his own God . . . but because he plunders the people, sucks the blood of the workingman”; and, “The Jew owns the bars and taverns, rents land from the landowners and then leases it out to the peasant at two or three times the rate, he buys wheat on the field, goes in for money lending and charges percentages so high that people call them simply ‘Yiddish’ rates” (in Frankel 1981, 100). A Jewish socialist, Pavel Borisovich Akselrod, analyzed the situation by writing that “however great the poverty and deprivation suffered by the Jewish masses . . . the fact remains that, taken overall, some half of them function as a nonproductive element, sitting astride the neck of the lower classes in Russia” (in Frankel 1981, 105). These comments agree with the assessment of the British Vice-Consul quoted in note 21. …

43 replies
    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      The video is a good rough-cut presentation of the indispensable powerful emotional foundation for launching a counter-offensive against the criminal globalist oligarchy . However , emotions do not win wars . Patriot war planners need to do some serious cold blooded calculations on neutralizing vital enemy infrastructure assets .

      There are three major NWO ILLuminati satanic capitols which are the primary drivers of the current low-intensity global war to enslave humanity to governmentally sponsored medical tyrannies ___

      1) USA Wash DC [ owned by Wall Street ]
      2) City of Satan within London England
      [ owned by Rothschildean Ashkenazi financial tribe ]
      3) The Vatican in Rome Italy [ owned by The RCC Jesuits ]

      These three major satanic capitols , among many other minor satanic capitols dispersed around the world , have interlocked bureaucracies . Fortunately , it is possible to simultaneously and with surgical precision deactivate the satanic core of each capitol and thus most likely suddenly defeat their evil war against humanity . Hope for the best and prepare for a more protracted war of attrition .

    • Rae West
      Rae West says:

      That video is an obvious fake. For example, the bald clown doesn’t mention that US wars have been to enrich Jews, using cheap labor of simpletons like him. His scriptwriter was cautious and didn’t mention that the sort of ‘defense’ eg in Europe was nothing to do with Americans. It’s amusing to see the ‘reporting for duty’ meme, where in effect they’re saying give me food, give me clothes, give me somewhere to live, and I’ll do what I’m told by Jews, oh and medical treatment (presumably by COVID experts!) Later, there’s a sort of simulated firefight against ‘Nazis’. Americans seem so easy to dupe it’s no wonder that Jews laugh at them.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          Sheeple , for obvious reasons , never take gritty emotional war talk seriously . Sheeple do submission to their masters — not war , not rersistance , not opposition . Soon many sheeple herds around the world will experience the cruel reality of their total expendability to the chosenhite jewmasterss ( re: the 1917 communist Bolsheviks exterminations of 20 million Russian Christian sheeple ; the 1950s extermination of 40 million Chinese peasants during the Mao communist cultural revolution ; the 1970s extermination of a million Cambodians during the communist Khmer Rouge purges ; and so on . These historical crimes against humanity are many times more vulgar than the warrior language in the video ).

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            You wouldn’t know warrior language if it bit you in your hindquarters.

            As for experience of warriors, I’ve been there and done that (Vietnam 1967–1968; the Tet offensive began when I was five weeks into my tour). While in the army, I never heard anyone, even the most vulgar black enlisted man, talk as crudely and to as little useful purpose as these wannabe celebrities in the video do.* Given my own experience of war and warriors, I second Seraphim’s comment, of course.

            Even so, it is hardly a coincidence, I think, that by far the crudest soldiers I encountered were careerist enlisted men (those whom everyone called “lifers,” even the lifers themselves), who were usually but not always blacks. With their seniority, they sought and got the softest and safest jobs. War as viewed through a military-issue picture window.

            Finally, although I seldom find it possible to concur with Rae West (formerly Rerevisionist) about anything, candor requires me to say that the fourth sentence of his comment identifies the participants’ state of mind pretty much to a T. (Elsewhere he lets his customary vitriol toward white people run to excess, but that’s as expected.)
            *Don’t get me wrong. I have indeed heard quite a few people fluently and effortlessly mouth similar filth and profanity. Most of them, however, have been Antifa cuties in their early twenties freshly graduated from Barnard, Radcliffe, Bennington, and Vassar.

  1. Rick
    Rick says:

    Putin tamed Russia’s Jews? Some would beg to differ.

    All the Western patriots and White nationalists that believe Russia’s dictator, Putin, is a man who will align with Western nationalist values if or when they get power are clutching at straws. And there are many of them. Far too many.

    A little history on Putin and his long-term close association with, and love of, Ashkenazi Jews: 
    Vladimir Putin started his career in the mid-1980s as a KGB officer in Dresden, East Germany – he’d have known and worked with the Ashkenazi Merkel at this time. In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, he moved to Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) where he very quickly became the city’s KGB/FSB boss.

    It was in Leningrad that Putin began his meteoric rise to what was in effect the god-father of a mafia clan. In 2007 it was estimated that Putin had amassed a $40 billion fortune.

    In 1996 Putin moved to Moscow where he was appointed a big-wig in Boris Yeltsin’s administration. Then in December 1999 Putin became president of Russia.

    How did this Mr Nobody from a Dresden KGB field office waltz into Leningrad and, almost overnight, become a powerhouse in the Russian criminal and political world? Then nine years later trot on over to Moscow and become president of Russia?

    For this to happen, you have to be in bed with very powerful people.

    When Putin started out in Leningrad his boss was the mayor, Anatoly Aleksandrovich Sobchak. Putin worked well with this extremely wealthy Ashkenazi Jew and maintained a lifelong close friendship with him.

    Boris Berezovsky was another rich Ashkenazi Jew that Putin was very close to in his Leningrad days. Berezovsky is rumoured to have been the real power behind Yeltsin – he’d have been instrumental in Yeltsin handing the Russian presidency over to Putin.

    Berezovsky eventually fled to the UK where he was granted asylum. This was just another controlled act by the Ashkenazi to lead anti-Jew/Globalists in Russia and the West to believe that Putin was a White patriot. It was also done to distance Putin from the corruption and incompetence of the Yeltsin era – as I’ve said, Berezovsky was closely associated with the Yeltsin administration and a lot of Yeltsin’s sins departed with him. 

    Ashkenazi Jews actually view England as being more their homeland than they do Israel. The seed of the Ashkenazi originated in and around the ancient civilisation of Sumer, Mesopotamia. From there this seed migrated north and established a kingdom known as Kharza near the Caspian Sea – they eventually got chased out of this region but were accepted and allowed to settle in Europe.

    The area now known as Israel means nothing to them. Their ancestors never lived there. It’s simply a Global headquarters for them, and a place they can flee to if their world domination plans go wrong.

    So, it’s no big deal for Jews like Berezovsky to decamp from Russia and set up home in England, where he’ll actually see himself as living his retirement among more refined Jews.

    Vladimir Putin’s strings stretch almost to the top of International Jewry. While in Leningrad Putin met and became close friends with the Ashkenazi international script writer, Henry Kissinger.

    In the early 1990s Kissinger visited Leningrad under the guise of boosting international investment in what was known as the “Kissinger-Sobchak Commission”. He was really there, though, to access damage control on the collapsing Ashkenazi Soviet Empire, and to direct and manage the transition to a stable and Jew controlled dictatorship.

    Kissinger went to Russia to ensure that it would be on-side and be able to participate when the New World Order plan was implemented – and he successfully got the job done.

    Another fundamentalist Ashkenazi who is a close friend of Putin is Berel Lazar. This Italian Orthodox Jew was brought to Russia and installed as the Chief Rabbi by Putin in the 1990s. Lazar is actually known as Putin’s rabbi.

    Berel Lazar controls an Orthodox Jewish movement known as Chabad, or sometimes as Lubavitch or Chabad-Lubavitch. Chabad is a Jewish movement that has spent billions of dollars establishing a network of almost 4,ooo institutions worldwide. It has set up institutions in 49 American states, and possibly also in the 50th one by this time. Soros and Lazar are two sides of the one coin.

    The billions of dollars spent by Chabad to set up these institutions was supplied by Russian, US and European Ashkenazi Jews. One of the stated aims of Chabad is to: “Provide outreach to unaffiliated Jews and humanitarian aid, as well as religious, cultural and educational activities at Chabad-run community centres, synagogues, schools, camps, and soup kitchens.”

    (I’d bet my right arm that their “educational activities” doesn’t entail promoting young Jewish boys to believe they are girls, and advising them to take female hormones. Or teaching them that Negro’s are their intellectual superiors.)

    There are 6.4 million Jews in the United States, and hardly o.3 percent of them below the bread-line. Why then spend billions of dollars setting up Jew “soup-kitchens” and “outreach programmes” in all of the states?

    Or might these “institutions” actually be training and control centres so as to have in place Ashkenazi Cheka units to provide “security” in the forthcoming totalitarian US?

    Notice how the Washington Post reports that Putin slams “cancel culture” and “trans rights” and calls teaching gender fluidity a “crime against humanity”. Yet if 10,000 people demonstrated against SARS CoV-2 vaccines in New York, the WP would not report it, or if they did, they’d pretend that there were only 10 people at the demonstration.

    The general modus operandi of the MSM is to not report anything or anybody that questions or speaks against progressive ideology. But yet the MSM reports every utterance  made by Putin against progressive “values”. As they also do when China erases Negros from movie advertisements, and when it confines children to three hours a week of video games and internet access.

    It’s doubly odd that the MSM publicises these railings against their “values” and “ideology” because it is exactly what White nationalists would want to hear. Is there a patriot or White nationalist anywhere that would not agree with what Putin said about transgenderism? Hardly.

    The MSM don’t report on the anti-vax demonstrations because they don’t want to encourage others to question the vaccines. They also don’t want others to know that there is a high number of people against vaccine mandates. The MSM wants everyone that is anti-vax to believe they are in a very small minority.

    Thus, it should naturally follow that the MSM would also do its utmost to hide the fact that there are governments and people that are utterly against transgenderism and Negros. They should want the anti-transgender and anti-Negro people to be discouraged and also to believe they are in a small minority.

    But they do the exact opposite. They promote what Putin’s says against progressive ideology, which therefore promotes him as a White hat to Western nationalists. The reason:
    The Ashkenazi are conducting a somewhat clever controlled operation against the nationalists and patriots of the West. Putin and China are simply following the screen-play given to them by the Jews.

    This operation has given the Western nationalists White hats to cling on to and Black hats to despise. Top White hats in the West are: Trump in the US; Le Pen and Zemmour in France; Batten and Farage in the United Kingdom.

    I’ll just go with the US and Russia. Notice how Trump is portrayed in the MSM as to wanting a close amiable relationship with the “White hat” Putin. Look through their propaganda over the last half decade and you’ll see that Putin and Trump are portrayed as having similar moral codes in regards to society, patriotism and politics.

    Putin even went all out in 2016 to steal the election for Trump. Politically wise, you couldn’t get two people more on the one page than this! Or so the MSM wants you to believe.

    And White nationalists and patriots in the West lap it up. They drink it in so much, it runs down their chests. Even the alt-media lap it up and spend vast resources and time feeding it to their readers.

    The intended outcome for this controlled operation is that in the West the progressives and their ideology are earmarked for defeat.

    You can put your life savings on Trump winning the next presidential election in the US. Or they might dump Biden before the next election is due, and arrange to install Trump before 2024. The halfwit, Kamala Harris, will never be president because this would risk firing up nationalists to rebel; and the Ashkenazi are too near their goal to risk that.

    With Trump back in the White House and on the same page as CCP and Putin, and giving the impression he’s enacting policies to eradicate progressive ideology and clean up the educational institutions, White patriots will relax. They’ll be delighted to see their progressive nemesis being defeated and put back in their boxes.

    The White hat Trump, though, is an Ashkenazi stooge. To compare him to Putin, Trump is a Jew puppet while Putin is one of their 5-star generals. Many of the perceived White hats in Europe are also probably Jew stooges.

    I can picture the scenario of how they put Trump back in the White House. They’ll conduct a managed war with China that is ostensibly about Taiwan. The US under Biden and his band of idiots will be defeated in this war. This will be an absolute humiliation for America, and particularly patriotic White Americans. Especially coming hot on the heels of the US defeat and rout in Afghanistan.

    Thus, senile Biden and his cohorts will have to go, and the reinstalled “White hat” Trump, via intermediary Putin, will negotiate an “honourable” peace treaty with China. Then the US will have Trump, sparkling like a new pin, in the White House, with most nationalist Americans believing he’s the Messiah.

    Then, nice and handily and with applause from nationalist Whites, Trump will order the arrests of treasonous Americans and those involved in the SARs CoV-2 vaccine criminality. All sections of the US media will each evening churn out news about those arrested and faithfully report on the trials and sentences handed down.

    White American nationalists will think they’ve been transported to Paradise. They’ll believe that the US is back in the real world. Trump will be sainted, he’ll be the immaculate and infallible one.

    But during this extended honeymoon, and under the cloak of cleaning up traitors and criminals, the Ashkenazi controlled Trump administration will be silently hauling in the White nationalist leadership, and all those perceived to have the ability to lead a rebellion.

    The Ashkenazi will also have another cloak in place, under which they can clean up White patriots, in Trump’s second administration – this is if they wait until the 2024 “ presidential election” to reinstall him.

    This cloak is currently being constructed using the SARs CoV-2 vaccines. It’s going to take about three years for the majority of the vaccines to start showing their adverse and poisonous effects.

    The people that are unquestionably accepting the vaccines are progressives, liberals and Antifa types. These currently view themselves as being at one with the Globalist power structure. Like spoiled children, they won’t be able to believe it when they realise that the people they worshipped for so long, the people whose bidding they’ve carried out without pay, have turned on them. Not only turned on them, but actually have poisoned them.    

    But it’s going to be a double whammy for these idiots. Trump will be in power and they will have seen their much loved “values” and “ideologies” being swept off the streets and out of educational institutes.

    Then in early 2024 the vaccine poisons will start to kick in and the progressives and Antifa will watch their fellow travellers get ill and drop dead like flies from weird and hitherto unknown diseases. Doctors will be scarce because a lot of them will be in jail for aiding and abetting the geocidal vaccine scam.

    It’s then that progressives will finally realise how stupid they were. It’s then it will finally dawn on them how wonderful it was when all Americans lived in a land with free speech and fair elections where thugs and criminals got thrown in jail.

    It’s then the fools will realise they shot their own feet off. And they are going to be mad. Very mad. They’ll actually have nothing to lose. Antifa and others will burn and riot like there’s no tomorrow when they realise they’ve been dosed with a poison – by a smiling Negro nurse – that’s going to kill them at any minute. And in many cases, there will actually be no tomorrow.

    Then there’s the Negros and BLM. These fools will also see that there is no pot of gold waiting at the end of the BLM rainbow. The rioting and easy pickings from smashed up stores will have dried up and they too will be swept off the streets like so much trash. So, they’ll get on board with the poisoned progressives fools in a quest for vengeance and also because rioting and destruction comes naturally to them.

    As we know, the Ashkenazi never let a crisis go to waste. The rioting by the poisoned Antifa, progressives and Negros will give them cover to sweep up even more White nationalists and patriots and thrown them into camps alongside the genuine rioters.

    Trump isn’t White America’s friend, far from it. It’s through his perceived friendship that the Globalists are going to snuff the life out of White America.

    The alt-media that promote the Ashkenazi propaganda that Putin and the CCP are essentially on the same page as White Western nationalists need to educate themselves.

    Remember that Putin and the CCP are reading from the Ashkenazi screen-play. And both think as little of White Western nationalists as do the Khazars.


      • Tim Folke
        Tim Folke says:

        Quite true. In 2013 Russia passed a law limiting foreign ownership in any type of media (books, internet sites. TV, newspapers, etc…) to 20%. Shortly after passing that law, they were able to outlaw internet pornography. The backbone of the 20% law is that ‘foreign’ includes those with dual citizenships.

      • Mikhail Vasilievich
        Mikhail Vasilievich says:

        Mr. MacDonald, that really is not the case with Putin.

        The fact that he had a “conflict” with Berezovskiy and Gusinskiy does not prove his supposed anti-Jewish stance. That was a conflict inside the mainly Jewish oligarchy. Not a single of them, except Khodorkovskiy, was criminally persecuted. But the real problem is that Putin refused to reconsider privatisation outcomes, thus providing protection for the (Jewish) oligarchs’ money and power.

        What really began with his first term is totalitarisation of state and repressions against Russian nationalists. It was during the beginning of Putin’s “presidency” that the articles 280 and 282 of the Penal Code (basically punishing for free speech) were introduced. For example, Igor Artyomov was charged for his pro-Christian Orthodox rhetoric. There are even sentences for publishing pictures which are supposed to be “extremist”. (What is “extremism” is determined by an “expert”, who will make any decision the state wants.) Of course, you can not even question the official WWII narrative without penalty, especially when your critique touches Jewish victimhood.

        All real opposition was forced into underground about 2012 – 2013. Now we have mass surveillance, police state, sadistic tortures in prisons et cetera.

        Do not let them fool yourself – there is no political struggle between parties, no opposition in Duma, no elections. Everything in the official political spectrum is directly (or indirectly) controlled by the administration of the so-called “president”. Do not believe the official Russian “statistics”, “experts”, or what WaPo or NYT want you to believe about comrade Putin.

        And, also, he is an outstanding hypocrite. What he says is sometimes good, but the deeds are often opposite. He speaks against perverts, but they have, for example, Anton Krasovskiy at a high position in the RT network, pervert governors and so on. The state has restricted access to pornography, but the main censorship effort is to forbid accessing political (mainly nationalist) websites. They can speak about foreign financiers behind the Bolsheviks, but promote (openly, not implicitly) the cult of Stalin. I can continue on and on, but maybe it should be enough.

        As you wrote, the USSR was a state controlled by ethnic minorities, not only Jews, but also Georgians, Armenians, Latvians and some others. It is important to understand the fact that it is absolutely right today. There was no transition point, before Putin or during his presidency.The Jewish participation is not so overwhelming, but they constitute only about 0,25% of the whole population. Nevertheless, they hold a large portion of finance, industry, are in the key directive positions in the government and media.
        Why do you think that the Jews are removed from media in Russia?! I can give some examples: Urgant at the television (I don’t know the channel, since I do not watch television completely), Ernst (one of the principal figures in Putin’s propaganda, the head of the First Channel), Schatz; Albatz, Venedictov, Felgengauer at Moscow Echo (the radiostation first controlled by Gusinskiy, then overtaken by Gazprom-Media). These are the most obvious examples. Among those in charge there are also lots of potential Israeli citizens, although I named only Ernst. Check for yourself!

        The fact that the current Russian regime is being portrayed as nationalistic is really disturbing and disgusting. That is a straightforward, 100% lie. It can be laughable that Western countries are provided with propaganda so dumb and raw, but it is very obvious. What we have here, in Russia, now, is essentially colonial government. And it has no conflicts with the Western powers, on the contrary, it is NECESSARY for them. Really, they need an opponent outside, but only imaginary. An opponent justifies military spending, continuous propaganda, political repressions (remember Assange accusations that he allegedly had some contacts with the Russian intelligence services) and so on. But the real masters of this “opponent” sit in Washington, London, Harvard and Yale.

        I would like to give an advice “go and look by yourself”, but it is not possible today, unfortunately.

        And, also: when we, the Russian people, get our country in our hands, you will notice a change, I guarantee!

        • Kevin MacDonald
          Kevin MacDonald says:

          I agree that Putin has opposed various Russian nationalists–we have had articles on this on TOO. However, I would like to see evidence that Jews are pulling the strings and actually have the power to promote typical diaspora Jewish interests, say regarding multiculturalism, non-Russian immigration, LGBTQ+, and foreign policy in the Middle East where Russia has supported Syria which is hated by Israel. Neocons were apoplectic that Putin prosecuted Khodorkovsky and exiled other oligarchs who were deeply involved in politics. The Israel Lobby, neoconservatives, and the US media (with some exceptions, like Tucker C) hate Russia, and not just because Russia opposes the LGBTQ+ stuff.

          • Mikhail Vasilievich
            Mikhail Vasilievich says:

            I see the evidence every day, Mr. MacDonald. Unfortunately.
            However, it requires a lot of time to gather the data and systemise it. I am a mathematician and an engineer, not a sociologist. I really want to inform the Right abroad, in the Western countries, about the real situation, not an MSM picture. But it would require significant efforts to put it clearly, especially in English. Should I try? If you wish, contact me by e-mail.

            Here I would answer only in short.
            If neoconservatives hate Putin, that can be the result of their wishful thinking, financial or power conflicts, or maybe it is a theatre for the American public (I suppose, it is more probable cause). If they had a real conflict, they would arrest all bank accounts and property owned by Putin and his comrades in America, Switzerland, France and elsewhere, but they only show their “commitment” to do something about it, seldom touching some Russian officials, but not their core.

          • James Bongstreet
            James Bongstreet says:

            Putin defeated the West’s ISIS project in Syria, alongside Soleimani/Iran/Hezbollah/Assad earning the undying hatred of CIA, MI6, Mossad, Saudi, Qatar, Turkey axis. Syrian Christians free to worship again in Aleppo, thanks to Putin. No wonder he’s hated here!

      • Al Ross
        Al Ross says:

        Jews were permitted temporary real power as long as they flew in to Moscow and Siberia to rescue the Russian economy . The Yeltsin days were exemplified by the hapless, de – nationalised Soviet resource industries wondering how to sell anything .

        Enter, the ‘American’ , Marc Rich and the ‘British’ Reuben brothers offering to trade just about anything and with scant regard to sanctions or any other impractical obstacles.

    • Lancashire Lad
      Lancashire Lad says:

      What does Rick mean by the phrase the “Ashkenazi Merkel”? “Ashkenaz” is Hebrew for Germany, or so I’ve been told, but Angela Merkel is the daughter of a Lutheran pastor from Hamburg and is of German and Polish ancestry, according to Wikipedia.

    • Jediee
      Jediee says:

      The communist party of the russian federation is almost NATIONAL socialist,as in pro ethnic russian and support standard mixed economy late 20th century conservative communist variety.The same could be said of the CPC for that matter.The american rights obsession with revolutionary marxism of the early 20th century is kind of nuts IMHO and embracing protocols anti semitism of the same era is also a loser in the medium and long term.Jews need a homeland and have one after1948.I don’t disagree with many of these stereotypes and am not a p.c. nationalist,but that conspiratorial rant rick,shows either a troll or someone with to much time on their hands.The u.s. and european new left and anti white progressives are the main focus of political warfare in my playbook.The jews can be outflanked BECAUSE of israel and zionism and it engenders a conservative impulse to that group.They are not as hard left as they were before the creation of israel.

    • kolokol
      kolokol says:

      You are right – “The Ashkenazi never let a crisis go to waste.” They use any crisis to advance their ethnic interests, at the expense of the host population. We see this with the Covid-19 pandemic, which they used to help steal the 2020 election for the Democrats. They did this, despite the fact that Trump & Biden are equally tools of the globalist jews.

      However, I am pro-Putin. I think he has contained the jews in Russia, and usurped their power. That would explain their hostility against Putin and Russia.

      It’s OK to be skeptical of Putin, but I think you go too far. We would be much better off with someone like Putin in power in America, even if he’s not perfect. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      • Mikhail Vasilievich
        Mikhail Vasilievich says:

        Putin is not perfect, but he is also not good and not mediocre. It is difficult to answer everybody, but I will try. Putin is a puppet, not a self-sufficient political figure. He was installed by Berezovskiy and Gusinskiy, than there was some conflict inside the oligarchy, and Berezovskiy together with Gusinskiy and Khodorkovskiy “suffered” (or we are supposed to believe their “suffering”). In reality, the rest of the oligarchy benefits from the totalitarian regime of Putin, and the Russian people suffers. I think that you judge by your media and have never seen the situation from inside!

        You can say that Putin is “good” only as an actor, or an enemy of Russia (as a Gauleiter, if you wish).
        If somebody hangs him tomorrow, nobody would feel sorry (except, maybe, for Margarita Simonyan from RT, who is not Russian).

        • kolokol
          kolokol says:

          Thank-you for your reply (“ochen vam blagadaren”). You are obviously better informed about Russia than I. I’m not Russian – but I like the name “kolokol”. I studied the language for one semester, at a local college, about 30 years ago – it was fun. Soon after, the USSR collapsed, and Russia descended into another Time of Troubles. Then 9 years later, Putin came to the rescue. For that, I am grateful.

          I support the recovery of Russia. During the Cold War, I was pro-US. Now I hate it, because it’s ruled by globalist-jews and their tools (Trump, Biden, etc). It would be tragic if Putin were another – I don’t think he is.

          I support China, also, and anyone else who is against the US regime. I agree with the Chinese government – that Covid-19 was developed at the US biowarfare lab at Fort Detrick, and planted in Wuhan by the US military in November 2019. They are that evil and crazy.

    • Annacat
      Annacat says:

      “The White hat Trump, though, is an Ashkenazi stooge. To compare him to Putin, Trump is a Jew puppet while Putin is one of their 5-star generals. Many of the perceived White hats in Europe are also probably Jew stooges.”
      I truly wish I could disagree with you, Rick!
      The Polish “nationalist” PM, Mateusz Morawiecki, who had declared himself eager to rechristianize Europe appears to be even more than a stooge; https://www.timesofisrael.com/poland-appoints-ex-banker-with-jewish-roots-as-prime-minister/
      Mr Morawiecki’s children went to the in Warsaw in 1989 established Lauder Morasha Jewish school, where the students are taught Jewish history and Hebrew language. When asked why he sends his four children to Jewish school, Mr Morawiecki, said that Lauder-Morasha school simply is first rate/top quality;https://lauderfoundation.com/warsaw-first-lady-poland-visits-lauder-morasha-school/ (The first lady, Agata Kornhauser-Duda is of Jewish origin herself.)

    • Abel Wolfgang
      Abel Wolfgang says:

      If true about President Putin and it’s not, why hasn’t he allowed the filth the jews spread in the west to be done in Russia?

      • Mikhail Vasilievich
        Mikhail Vasilievich says:

        You are told so. There is enough of filth in the Russian Federation. Perversion is not encouraged by the law, but it is because the Russians are not mentally deranged and won’t allow it to be openly promoted. Actually, they (officials, I mean) tried even to organise a pervert procession in Moscow about 2004 – 2005, but then it was stopped by RONS (Russian All-National Union). What did the government do after that? They declared RONS “extremist” about 2010 – 2011 and forbade it, imprisoned (or tried to imprison) a lot of people, threatened even more.

        I think, you have distorted view of the Russian affairs. Putin is even worse than Biden or Merkel. He is a chekist, and it already says a lot about him. He can be a good torturer, but not a good president.

    • Abel Wolfgang
      Abel Wolfgang says:

      Mr Rick, sir apologize for insulting the wise and honourable President Putin and all of Russia. The orthodox Chuch and Russia may be the only remnant remaining of true Christian culture, values.
      Apologize for insinuating Putin works with those filthy animals. Yes, Russians talk to even tneir worst enemy but that is wise. Doesnt mean tbey are in cohorts with them.
      Again, I call on you to apologize.

  2. Karl
    Karl says:

    Jewish American leaders are pro-illegal immigration.

    They think that diluting the White population will guard against anti-Semitism.

    One wonders.

    American Christian Zionists are largely White. And much of the Left is not at all pro-Israel. One doubts that the growing population of Muslims in America are pro-Israel.

    So Jews may end up with a very different result than what they now imagine.

    • JimB
      JimB says:

      “They think that diluting the White population will guard against anti-Semitism.”

      Not so! You shouldn’t assume that Jewish Power seeks to eliminate anti-Semitism. It doesn’t. Quite the opposite, in fact. Anti-Semitism is one of the most powerful tools in its war-chest! You must always remember that Jewish Power has always set up a dichotomy whereby opposites play off one another towards an outcome that’s ultimately beneficial to Jewish Power. In all aspects of Gentile affairs, including religion. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.

      • Bernard Thomas
        Bernard Thomas says:

        Yes, the jews opened the borders of every western nation to disempower the white Christians in every nation on earth.
        They believe this will “Holocaust-proof” western society to make the west user friendly for jews.
        There is no doubt regarding these facts. The destruction of Christendom by jews forcing massive third world immigration is a FACT, an undeniable FACT.
        The ethnic cleansing of whites (white genocide) is a FACT.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          Christianity ( both Catholic and Protestant versions ) is practically a defunct religion . All that remains is the worldly powerful organized cult of the Pope , for Catholics ; and the Protestants have the less powerful cults of proponents for JC .

          Time to consider a new and vastly improved religion .

          • Poupon Marx
            Poupon Marx says:

            Have you explored Buddhism and Carl Gustav Jung, as I recommended? Reform and rehabilitation for a People necessitates individual spiritual, intellectual, and moral strength. It requires the attainment of wisdom, in quality, quantity, and certainty.

            Those here and elsewhere who focus on external changes primarily will fail. Think of any fighting force. What determines in the main, the salient characteristic for mission successes. Is it better equipment, compensation, emotional stimulus, or….is it the individual’s inner strength, purposeful actions, and being a “full and complete metaphysical and physical vessel?

            Introduction to Buddhism

            This short essay is intended to give a brief introduction to Buddhism. It will discuss the way Buddhists perceive the world, the four main teachings of the Buddha, the Buddhist view of the self, the relationship between this self and the various ways in which it responds to the world, the Buddhist path and the final goal. – Mike Butler

            Buddhism has been described as a very pragmatic religion. It does not indulge in metaphysical speculation about first causes; there is no theology, no worship of a deity or deification of the Buddha. Buddhism takes a very straightforward look at our human condition; nothing is based on wishful thinking, at all. Everything that the Buddha taught was based on his own observation of the way things are. Everything that he taught can be verified by our own observation of the way things are.


            There is too much collective denial that addresses the plight-ever worsening-of the Info-European by spotlighting esoteric biographies, marginal philosophical positions, posturing, and pretending that very limited trains of thought and values-fractional in nature-will assist in our reconstitution and resurgence.

    • Pilot
      Pilot says:

      That doesn’t make sense, no offense…If they were trying to “blend in” by “diluting the population”, it doesn’t make sense because they are so openly bold about what they are doing. They don’t even try to hide it.
      The worst thing, right now, besides the invasion–how they are trying to take our jobs away.

      • William Gruff
        William Gruff says:

        It does make sense. The Jews dilute the culture with a multiplicity of alien traditions so that no one culture can be said to be paramount. In a milieu in which no one culture is paramount almost anything may be considered acceptable and practised openly, and boldly.

        • Pilot
          Pilot says:

          Eh, that’s not what I was saying. The original claim was that they were trying to blend in, by bringing millions of nonwhites into the US. I said they are being bold, and not even trying to hide what they are doing.

          It’s not about one culture being more important.

      • JM
        JM says:

        “The worst thing, right now, besides the invasion–how they are trying to take our jobs away.”

        Too true. I’ve said the same elsewhere. At any other time this would be called a Lockout…of small business and working people by the Ultra-Imperialist masters through their agents.

        I am of the opinion that this is ‘it’. If this is lost, if this vermin prevail and the opportunities are still there as their agenda unfolds, then any subsequent “politics” will become ‘…a mere tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’

  3. Pilot
    Pilot says:

    That doesn’t make sense, no offense…If they were trying to “blend in” by “diluting the population”, it doesn’t make sense because they are so openly bold about what they are doing. They don’t even try to hide it.
    The worst thing, right now, besides the invasion–how they are trying to take our jobs away.

  4. kolokol
    kolokol says:

    Great review of this new book. I’m going to buy it. It contains some articles by Spencer Quinn from Counter Currents.

    Selected quote from this review: “Nothing has changed. The Jewish unwillingness to see the enormity of Jewish behavior during the Soviet period and really for the entire gamut of Western history continues into the present.”

    We see this today in the overwhelming control of the Media by the jews, and with its biased coverage of Israel, always favorable, always concealing its many crimes, including assassinations and terrorism.

  5. Dr Tom Sunic
    Dr Tom Sunic says:

    Communism fell apart in the East, 1990, because the West/US had already more successfully achieved the same Bolshevik dreams; welfare state, multiracial society & dictatorship of scientific progress. Unlike the ex-communist East, the West is imposing, however, a far more insidious form of repression: academic-self-censorship and culture of White guilt. Solzhenitsyn spotted it in the US long ago. Homo sovieticus morphed into Homo americanus.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      I do not disagree with anything you have written. However, while much energy and attention has been spent deconstructing the motives and actions of our {{{Enemy}}} and enemies, little has been directed to our deficits and real inventory of our present strengths, assets, weaknesses, and liabilities.

      Furthermore, very little is advanced toward a prescriptive outline and delineation of what we need to do, to initiate changes externally and internally to our people. An analogy here to clarify.

      If we are beset and made ill by a pathogen, we can focus on external forms of prophylactic and active measures. We can apprehend knowledge of the pathogen(s), formulate counter substances to mitigate the negative effects, and use defensive measures, e.g., isolation, forms of material protection, etc., etc. This is the Disease Model of Medicine. Advanced by elites in the early part of the 20th Century, funded by Rockefeller, this model emphasizes the modalities of vaccines, medicines, treatment, etc. This orientation assisted the rapid expansion of institutional medicine treatment post hoc to a malady.

      The other emphasis in on general health and natural resistance of the mind/body organism. It is axiomatic that a healthy body has a less chance of contracting external pathologies and internal disfunction, such as auto immune diseases. The overriding point here is that we have been beset by an External Pathology for thousands of years. This pathology has been consistent, unrelenting, and methodical in inflicting morbidities upon us. We have not displayed or pursued intrinsic spiritual, mental, and organization action, which is preceded by ideals, ideas, and thoughts. Our resistance has always been inadequate, disorganized, dishonest, and racked with denial or delusion.

      NOTHING WILL CHANGE, unless a concerted effort is made to improve herd resistance, fitness, and completeness-as individuals through processes that includes Individuation.

      Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) was one of the pioneers of modern depth psychology and psychoanalysis.  Born near Basle, and working mostly in Zurich, Switzerland, he first became a physician and then entered the emerging field of psychoanalytic psychiatry.  Through his personal experience, his work with patients, and copious research, Jung developed ideas and methods of inquiry that have deepened and broadened our understandings of personality, psychodynamics, and the shaping energies of social history. 
      Over time, his ideas and methods of investigation have profoundly influenced the humanities, the arts, psychotherapy, religious studies, and many other fields. Many of Jung’s concepts have entered the mainstream of our language and culture: complex, archetype, persona, shadow, introvert, extravert, typology, collective unconscious, and others.
      Jung believed that most of our questions, most of our sufferings, arise from the distresses of the human “soul,” which is the original meaning of the Greek word psyche.   His work invites a new form of dialogue between ego consciousness and the “soul,” the latter being approachable only through our effort to understand our symptoms, our inexplicable life patterns, our compensatory dreams, and so on.   This dialogue serves as a form of psycho-spiritual enlargement in which one is able to contain more opposites rather than be split by them.  
      Jungian analytic work does not remove one from the world, but brings a more differentiated consciousness to bear for participation in intimacy, parenting, social relationships, and creative responses to the challenges of life.  Jungian psychology obliges an on-going discernment of personal authority from amidst the cacophony of claims upon our lives, and a reality-based move toward living that authority in respectful but more authentic relationship to others.
      Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious describes how the timeless realm of the human psyche links us to our ancestors, and shapes our culture and our personal responses to the demands of daily life.  His work is a summons to personal accountability in the face of the complexities of life.   While wholly compatible with a secular culture, Jung also notes that our choices and their consequences constitute an operating spiritual perspective, a mode of life that may increasingly lead to a more meaningful journey.   Jungian psychology invites a deepened dialogue: with oneself, with others, with collective society, with history, and with whatever transcendent energies move us and move history.

      The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of his life.
      Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite can we avoid fixing our interests upon futilities, and upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance. Thus we demand that the world grant us recognition for qualities which we regard as personal possessions: our talent or our beauty. The more a man lays stress on false possessions, and the less sensitivity he has for what is essential, the less satisfying is his life. He feels limited because he has limited aims, and the result is envy and jealousy. If we understand and feel that here in this life we already have a link with the infinite, desires and attitudes change.

      – Carl Jung, “Memories, Dreams, Reflections”


  6. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thank you for the great review Kevin.

    Spencer has a five part piece on ‘200 Years Together,’ over at Counter-Currents. He has a very ‘spry,’ writing style for such an immense, and important topic.

    I’ve always believed that the study of the Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, is one of the most important aspects of the study of Jewish supremacy because we can see through this study what happens when Jews takeover a Christian nation. We also learn what led up to that takeover and what contributed to it.

    I have read the Word Press version of ‘200 Years’, and although I felt that the translation was not the greatest, Solzhenitsyn’s endearing writing comes through. It seems that the Word Press version only has 15 chapters with some missing. If I’m wrong about that, or if anyone can tell me where I might read the remaining chapters, in English, please let me know.

    I look forward to reading Spencer’s new book.

  7. Luke
    Luke says:

    If anyone doubts the observations noted by Professor Kevin MacDonald that jews either refuse to admit to, or are simply consumed with a narcissistic cloud of self-denial, or just so incredibly infected with a pathological, near psychopathic, or genetic driven to resort to extreme levels of chutzpathetic LYING about the endless list of evil that their tribe is responsible for, I urge them to check out this recent article:


    October 28, 2021
    The Persistence of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theo
    By Kevin A

    I read it it just this morning, while at the same time, working my through this Spencer Quinn excellent article on Solzhenitisyn and seeing the blatant, unbelievable, over-the-top, bald-face lying by this Kevin A character laid alongside the preponderance of easily verifiable historical facts laid out by Quinn regarding the jewish role in the invention and promulgation of totalitarian, murderous Bolshevik Communism – anyone who reads both of these articles cannot possibly come away from the experience without becoming fully Red Pilled on the jewish question and realize just how deadly these people are when they seize control of a White European nation.

    I wonder if the American (((Thinker))) website people saw this Spencer Quinn piece and it triggered them to crank out the anonymous Kevin A pile of steaming hebrew manure?

    • Chris
      Chris says:

      Wow … manure indeed.

      The structure of these articles is always the same.

      Paragraph 1-There’s an increase in A-S.
      Paragraph 2-This is not new, has a long and “sordid” history

      BTW don’t fall for this:
      “To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.”
      MeWe is run by Jews. (Yes the supposed normie-conservative alternative to Facebook, is also run by Jews).

  8. Chris
    Chris says:

    Even in some of my hobbies and side-interests, like baseball research, Jews are overrepresented in the mix, trying at every turn to subvert an otherwise neutral subject-matter, and making full display of their “enmity toward everything traditional, natural and morally wholesome.” (Quinn). And the more grotesque-looking the Jew, the heavier they lay it on, seemingly.

Comments are closed.