Barnes Against the Blackout, Part 1 of 2

2424 words 

“In short, there is no unique or special case against Nazi barbarism and horrors unless one assumes that it is far more wicked to exterminate Jews than to massacre Gentiles. While this latter value judgment appears to have become rather generally accepted in the Western world since 1945, I am personally still quaint enough to hold it to be reprehensible to exterminate either Jews or Gentiles.”

—Harry Elmer Barnes

INTRODUCTION

Anyone still questioning the relevance of World War II revisionism to politics today should realize how often our liberal, globalist elites not only invoke World War II, but also ignore, suppress, or besmirch revisionism. Whenever a mainstream personality invites a revisionist on his program, he gets swiftly rebuked and called a Nazi not only by the Left but also by people presumably on the Right. Recently, Jewish commentator Mark Levin invoked the massacre of German civilians during World War II to justify the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Clearly, whenever someone questions the authority of our liberal elites, they fire back with World War II. Since Adolf Hitler and the Nazis represent the most extreme form of evil and since globalist liberalism is the ideological opposite of Nazism, any form of oppression and aggression by globalist liberals is justifiable—as long as it is aimed against so-called “Nazis.” And if you happen to be against liberalism or globalism these days, it’s only a matter of time before you get dubbed a “Nazi.”

Historian Harry Elmer Barnes understood this perfectly over seventy years ago and promoted revisionism in the face of eerily similar oppression and backlash. Nine of his most incisive essays on the topic—written between 1951 and 1962—are collected in Barnes Against the Blackout, which was published by the Institute for Historical Review in 1991. Several important themes run through these essays. First, Barnes wishes to proselytize revisionism, and does so by constantly referencing  and summarizing the great American works of revisionism of his day. These include:

Given the suffocating interventionist hysteria of the time, major publishers declined to publish these volumes despite how many of them had been written by prominent, well-respected historians. Either the publishers were ardent interventionists themselves, or they feared backlash from anti-revisionists who wielded great power in America, just as they do today. Except for the Neilson volumes, which were self-published, these works found only two small publishing houses brave enough to publish them: Regnery and Devin-Adair.

Two later volumes which Barnes discusses often are The Origins of the Second World War (1961) by AJP Taylor and The Forced War (1961) by David Hoggan. (See part one of my three-part review of Hoggan here.) These prove to be slight exceptions to Barnes’ America-centric approach since Taylor was British, and, although Hoggan was American, his work was only available in German at the time.

Another crucial theme running through Barnes Against the Blackout is the presentation of the evidence for revisionism. How do we know the official war narratives are less correct than what the revisionists offer? Barnes is never shy about sharing this information—and there is a lot of it. As with many essay collections from a single author about a single topic, there’s much overlap. And that’s okay. It’s never too much of a good thing revealing how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt “lied the United States into war.”

Describing exactly how the establishment suppressed revisionism in Barnes’ day emerges as another important theme. Barnes focuses on it most in his first two essays, both published in 1953: “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” (which also serves as the first chapter in his collection Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace from the same year) and “The Court Historians Versus Revisionism.”

Barnes’ final theme is also his most speculative: extending revisionism into the Cold War and postulating how it might avert a nuclear Armageddon. Here is where we find Barnes at his most stunningly prescient but also were he winds up, in spots, to be somewhat dated. Through it all, he utilizes George Orwell’s 1984, which never fails to produce a parallel for whatever point Barnes wishes to make. He explores this novel’s uncanny mirroring of reality in the book’s final essay, 1952’s “How ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends Threaten American Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity.”

Barnes Against the Blackout is also interesting for it seemingly negligible treatment of the Jews. Barnes says very little about them directly. However, this amounts to what I call an anti-theme because any reader familiar with Jewish power and supremacy can fill in the blanks where Barnes could have opined about the Jews, but didn’t—or at least didn’t seem to. This adds an extra layer of meaning to Barnes Against the Blackout.

THE EVIDENCE

The evidence for World War II revisionism which Barnes compiles appears in two distinct yet related branches of history: Pearl Harbor revisionism and Western European revisionism. For the former, he relies greatly on Tansill, Sanborn, and Morgenstern, and demonstrates how the U.S. not only goaded the Japanese into attacking as a “back door to war” against Japan’s ally Nazi Germany, but also knew where the attack would occur and approximately when, thereby outraging the American public into supporting military intervention. Barnes believes this “constituted one of the major public crimes of human history.”

The major facts line up as so:

  • Roosevelt floated war with the Japanese as early as 1933 during one of his first cabinet meetings.
  • The U.S. aided and encouraged Chiang Kai Shek to fight against the Japanese in China during the 1930s.
  • Days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt ignored Japanese Prince Fumimaro Konoye’s peace overtures which proposed humiliating concessions for Japan in return for “a little time and a face-saving formula.”
  • In early 1941 Ambassador Joseph Grew had clearly warned that Pearl Harbor would be the likeliest point of attack. Despite agreements from Washington, US forces at Pearl Harbor remained unprepared for it.
  • Secretary of War Henry Stimson stated on November 25, 1941 that, “the question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves.”
  • The US had intercepted the “East Wind Rain” message three days before the attack, which clearly signaled Japanese intentions. Yet Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, who were responsible for Pearl Harbor, were kept in the dark about it.

Barnes presents most of this information while piercing holes in the specious logic of pro-interventionist works written by what he calls “court historians.” The two most relevant to Pearl Harbor are Herbert Feis, who wrote The Road to Pearl Harbor (1950), and Basil Rouch, who wrote Roosevelt from Munich to Pearl Harbor (1950). Barnes demonstrates how these historians either ignored, distorted, or misconstrued the above evidence. His point is clear: if the notions of Pearl Harbor being a surprise attack and Roosevelt’s naïve innocence about it were lies, there’s no telling what other lies had been told. It turns out there were many.

As for Western Europe, the facts are equally damning, if perhaps more voluminous. All of them cannot be included a single review, but the points Barnes most often bangs home include:

  • The diplomatic history of the 1930s, as collected by Taylor and Hoggan, shows that Adolf Hitler did not want war and did what he could to avoid it.
  • The diplomatic history also reveals that Hitler had made reasonable requests to Poland regarding the “international” (yet very German) city of Danzig; yet Polish leaders refused to negotiate at the urging of Lord Halifax in England who had given Poland a “blank check” assurance of English military support against Germany.
  • In his last report as Chief of Staff in 1945, General George Marshall had claimed that Hitler “far from having any plan of world domination, did not even have any well-worked-out plan for collaborating with his Axis allies in limited wars, to say nothing of the gigantic task of conquering Russia.”
  • Hitler had allowed tens of thousands of British troops to escape at Dunkirk “to promote peace sentiments in Britain.”
  • Hitler had excellent reasons to invade the Soviet Union since the Soviets had “practiced sabotage, terrorism, and espionage against Germany, had resisted German attempts to establish a stable order in Europe, had conspired with Great Britain in the Balkans, and had menaced the Third Reich with troop concentrations.”
  • Documentary evidence, such as “The German White Paper” found by the Germans after their conquest of Poland, demonstrates the extent to which American ambassador William Bullitt had assured Poland of American military support in the event of war with Germany. This was corroborated by Czechoslovak president Eduard Benés who claimed in his autobiography that on May 29th, 1939 Roosevelt himself had assured him that if war broke out in Europe, America would join the fight against Germany.
  • The Lend-Lease program, the “Destroyer Deal” between Britain and the United States, the secret Tyler Kent documents, and Roosevelt’s 1941 meeting with Winston Churchill in Newfoundland offer circumstantial evidence that Roosevelt had clear belligerent intentions well before war was declared.

As with Pearl Harbor, Barnes often presents this evidence while reviewing books written by court historians. The most prominent of these is The Struggle Against Isolation, 1937–1940 (1952) by William Langer and SE Gleason. Despite never proclaiming Hitler’s innocence, Barnes repeatedly stresses that the man’s sole responsibility for starting the war is a complete falsehood—a falsehood which is the foundation of all post-1945 politics. In his 1962 essay “Revisionism and Brainwashing,” he states with characteristic flourish:

It is unlikely that there has been any vested interest in dogma, opinion, and politics since the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ equal in intensity to that built up around the allegation that Hitler was solely responsible for the outbreak of war in 1939.

One interesting side note: Barnes implies more than once that it was Hitler’s actions in East Asia rather than Europe which truly antagonized Roosevelt. This contradicts some of Barnes’ other claims about Roosevelt’s opposition to Hitler vis-à-vis Europe. Take, for example, this paragraph from the essay “Rauch on Roosevelt”:

Indeed, it was only in 1938, when Hitler recalled his military mission from China, where Nazi officers had been directing the forces of Chiang Kai-shek against the Japanese, that Roosevelt became actually hostile to Hitler in his policies, whatever the previous rhetoric. Right down through the Spanish Civil War, Mr. Roosevelt condoned when he did not favor, most of Hitler’s policies. Even as late as August, 1939, it appears from the Nazi Soviet Relations that Roosevelt was inclined to put nothing in the way of Hitler if he abandoned support of Japan, sent his military back to help Chiang, and delivered arms to the Chinese.

This is an interesting conundrum considering that Barnes brings up Benés’ recollection from May 1939 in the same essay.

THE BLACKOUT

Barnes spills a lot of ink outlining the ways in which revisionism was suppressed and marginalized after 1945. This often resulted from mainstream historians either having vested professional interests in perpetuating the “good war” myth of World War II—since they themselves promoted it while it was happening—or they sought the wealth, fame, and opportunity afforded to academics who adhered to the official narrative of the war.

In “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” Barnes enumerates the following methods of suppression:

  1. Excluding revisionists from official documents, while allowing state-approved court historians free access to them

Barnes describes how revisionist historians had been barred from viewing many sensitive documents and in some case had had their own notes confiscated after viewing the ones they were allowed to see. Barnes concedes that Charles Tansill did ultimately view more documents than other revisionists, but Tansill did not enjoy the free reign of information afforded to court historians like Langer and Feis.

  1. Intimidating publishers into not publishing revisionism

Barnes describes how political pressure groups not only ensured that revisionist volumes would not sell, but made it clear that publishers releasing such material would face business-crippling backlash. Barnes recalls how a major publisher explained this to him despite his personal sympathies towards revisionism. Libraries, book clubs, and nationwide periodicals also contributed to this blackout. Barnes mordantly notes that the post-1945 “Blackout Boys” outdid the Nazis in suppressing honest intellectual inquiry.

  1. Ignoring revisionist works that do get published

Barnes demonstrates how the majority of revisionist works simply did not get reviewed in important mainstream publications—or when they did, as with the case of Charles Beard, they received either cursory attention or were maliciously panned. It almost goes without saying that this silent treatment was not afforded to court historians, whose works received ample praise everywhere. Barnes relays the following recollection from journalist Oswald Garrison Villard to illustrate his point:

I myself rang up a magazine which some months previously had asked me to review a book for them and asked if they would accept another review from me. The answer was, “Yes, of course. What book had you in mind?” I replied, “Morgenstern’s Pearl Harbor.

“Oh, that’s that new book attacking F.D.R. and the war, isn’t it?”

“Yes.”

“Well, how do you stand on it?”

“I believe, since his book is based on the records of the Pearl Harbor inquiry, he is right.”

“Oh, we don’t handle books of that type. It is against our policy.”

  1. Smearing revisionists personally

Barnes offers several examples of ad hominem attacks upon revisionist historians by the “Smearbund,” as he calls them. Often “isolationism” itself became a slur, as if labeling a person thusly were reason enough to dismiss him. More often, however, reviewers would attempt to ruin a revisionist’s reputation by imputing some evil or underhanded motive rather than argue the facts. Barnes notes how reviewers used phrases such as “bitterly partisan” or “blind anger” when describing Morgenstern while ignoring their own partisan anger. He also notes how one reviewer attempted to discredit Beard because he was hard of hearing and lived on a farm. One reviewer freely admitted to lambasting The Forced War without having read a word of it.

To be concluded in Part 2.

The Mechanics of the Antisemitic Cycle: Pronatalism from Genesis to The Redemption

In Bullets

  • A family, tribe, or clan of pastoralists must adopt pronatalism to father enough sons to drive their rapidly reproducing flocks and herds before them.
  • When rapidly growing pronatal families, tribes, and clans are in proximity they soon begin to quarrel over available pasture. Persistent quarreling leads to armed conflict, so they must fission or fight. Abraham and Lot, and later Jacob and Esau, choose to fission rather than fight over pasture in two fission or fight events described in the book of Genesis.
  • Genesis 13:6-9 “The land could not support them both together; for their livestock were so numerous that they could not settle in the same district and there were quarrels between Abram’s herdsmen and Lot’s. Abram said, ‘Let there be no quarrel between us… let us part company.’”
  • Genesis 36:6-7 Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and everyone in his household, his herds, his cattle, and all the chattels he had acquired in Canaan and went to the district of Seir out of the way of his brother Jacob, because they had so much stock that they could not live together; the land where they were staying could not support them because of their herds.
  • The Biblical author culminates Genesis’ Darwinian threads regarding pronatalism (too many) and eugenics (too strong i.e., too smart) in the first few lines of the book of Exodus:

Exodus 1:7-10 “Now the Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they increased in numbers and became very powerful, so that the country was overrun by them. Then a new pharaoh ascended the throne of Egypt, one who knew nothing of Joseph. He said to his people, “These Israelites have become too many and too strong for us…”

The Pharaoh’s remark identifies the first significant instance of the “antisemitic” cycle:

  • the Abrahamic covenant that generates the cycle (too many) and
  • the Jacobian selection for intelligence that directs the cycle (too strong).
  • Consider the allegorical layers of the Genesis text in which shepherds and their flocks and herds (the surface layer) represent Orthodox Jewish communities in Diaspora (the concealed layer). “He [God] took Abram outside and said, ‘Look up into the sky, and count the stars if you can. So many,’ he said, ‘shall your descendants be.’”[1] In the wake of God’s promise, Abraham and his descendants will endeavor to have as many children as they can. An Orthodox Jewish community practicing Abrahamic pronatalism in Diaspora “sows over”[2] the educated classes of its colonized host with many, smart babies[3] who will compete directly with the host’s educated classes as they grow to maturity. In adulthood they will rise to the top of the socioeconomic hierarchies of the host’s indigenous populations and appropriate their broadest niches.[4] Ensconced in a host’s broadest niches, they will disperse the host’s homogenous population among diverse groups of foreigners until the host is incapable of preserving its group identity.[5] The genetically gifted Jewish colonizers effectively “become” the indigenous educated classes of the colonized host. Resistance to the niche seizure is often mislabeled “antisemitism.”
  • Orthodox Jewish communities fission rather than fight one another. They spread out over the earth in an ever-expanding matrix that will eventually cover the globe with its capitol in Jerusalem. The matrix is connected by intermarriage arranged by shadkhan (matchmakers) who ensure Orthodox Jewry’s far-flung communities forever remain a cohesive global network. The practice of pronatalism that generates the fission or fight cycle will necessarily culminate in an apocalypse and an eschatology once the competition has:
    • assumed global dimensions
    • surviving pronatalists have run out of niche space to seize and
    • the option of fissioning (i.e., parting amicably) is no longer available.
    • From Google: “While the root meaning of ‘apocalypse’ is about seeing and understanding something [revealed that was formerly hidden], its popular usage has evolved to encompass the concept of a final often destructive event that brings about the end of the world as we know it.”
    • From Wikipedia: “Eschatology concerns expectations of the end of the present age, human history, or the world itself. The end of the world, the end times, is predicted by several world religions, which teach that negative world events will reach a climax.”
  • Central to this paper is the understanding that pronatalism is driving the world toward the very real and violent end of apocalypse and eschatology. The three “Abrahamic” faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are so-called because they are all pronatal. Wherever these religions co-exist, their populations will grow rapidly and eventually generate the fission or fight cycle. Forced to compete with one another for dwindling niche space pronatal communities in conflict will seek the demographic decline of competing pronatal communities. For example, LGBT sexual ideology, a non-reproductive, anti-pronatal ideological weapon designed to be deployed against a pronatal competitor, has so enchanted Christians they’ve chosen to attend to their sexual proclivities rather than reproduce while Orthodox Judaism and Islam steadfastly maintain their ancient pronatal traditions. Emerging Islamic caliphates and rapidly growing Orthodox Jewish communities in Diaspora will continue to generate the fission or fight cycle due to their prolific growth within a colonized host nation’s borders.
  • Pronatal forces are driving the large population transfers of pronatal peoples of North Africa into Europe facilitated by the E.U.’s legislated Schengen Agreement.
  • Similar population transfers comprised of millions of unvetted foreigners entered the U.S.A. due to the dropping of its southern border during Joseph Biden’s traitorous presidential administration which dishonestly declared the border “secure.”
  • Below is a prophetic rendering of apocalypse and eschatology generated by the fission or fight cycle of pronatalism. In Gershom Scholem’s[6] treatment of the messianic idea in Kabbalism he describes the Redemption. Scholem writes: “The Zohar follows Talmudic Aggadah”[7] in seeing Redemption as “the gradual illumination of the world by the light of the Messiah.”[8]

“At the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, shall set Israel upright and bring them up out of Galut He will open to them a small and scant window of light, and then he will open another that is larger, until he will open to them the portals on high to the four directions of the universe. So shall it be with all that the Holy One, blessed be He, does for Israel and for the righteous among them, so shall it be and not at a single instant, for neither does healing come to a sick man at a single instant, but gradually until he is made strong. The Gentiles (who are designated Esau or Edom), however, will suffer the opposite fate. They received their light in this world at a single stroke, but it will depart from them gradually until Israel shall grow strong and destroy them.”[9]

  • The mechanics of the antisemitic cycle began with the pastoralist Abraham’s rapidly reproducing flocks and herds and will end in apocalypse and one world government.


[1] Genesis 15:5

[2] Diaspora: Greek, from diaspeirein ‘disperse’, from dia‘across’ + speirein ‘scatter’. The term originated in

the Septuagint (Deuteronomy 28:25) in the phrase esē diaspora en pasais basileias tēs gēs ‘thou shalt be a

dispersion in all kingdoms of the earth’. (From Google)

[3] For “smart babies,” see Richard Faussette, The Biblical Significance of Adam and Eve and Jacob and

Esau to appreciate Jacob’s preference for cunning Rachel over dull-eyed Leah, www.academia.edu

[4] Due to Jacobian selection for intelligence, see Richard Faussette, The Biblical Significance of Adam

and Eve and Jacob and Esau, www.Academia.edu

[5] See Richard Faussette, The Biblical Significance of the Tower of Babel, www.academia.edu

[6]   Gershom Scholem (an ardent Zionist) was appointed the first professor of Jewish mysticism at the

Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

[7]   Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality, Schocken

Books 1971 page 39

[8]   Ibid., page 39

[9]  Ibid., pages 39-40

Richard Faussette, copyright © All Rights Reserved, 9/29/25, 10/8/25, 12/29/25 Words: 1,303

The Bari Weiss Playbook: How a Zionist Operative Conquered American Media

Long before she ran a newsroom, Bari Weiss was already running a campaign. The target was anyone she perceived as a threat to Israel. In the mid-2000s, at Columbia University, she helped found a student effort that marketed itself as a defense of Jewish students and Zionist speech in an environment she portrayed as hostile.

The controversy reached its zenith with the release of Columbia Unbecoming, a documentary created in collaboration with The David Project, which leveled accusations against Middle East Studies faculty for their alleged intimidation of students who expressed pro-Israel views. The film circulated online as video testimony that Jewish students were allegedly under threat on campus.

The counterattack naturally came quickly. Civil liberties advocates warned that encouraging students to monitor faculty for ideological infractions would chill speech and collapse academic freedom into factional policing. An online critique from the Columbia ecosystem framed the campaign as overreach and a template for future pressure tactics. Such concerns proved to be prescient, as Jewish students would keep tabs on Columbia professors and report them for anti-Zionist and antisemitic conduct after October 7, 2023. ​

That early fight showcased Weiss’s primordial instinct to go to the mat for her tribe. This did not come out of the blue. Weiss grew up in a politically engaged Jewish household in Pittsburgh, where her father Lou Weiss served on the National Council for AIPAC and frequently organized missions to Israel, profoundly shaping her early Zionist identity.

With unwavering devotion to Zionist principles, Weiss navigated the political landscape with a singular focus, her commitment to advancing Jewish interests remaining unshaken by the petty squabbles and transient allegiances of partisan politics. By the time she rose inside legacy media, she carried a worldview that opportunistically fused free speech rhetoric with strong stances on Israel and antisemitism.

Weiss’s ascent mirrored the classic trajectory of the modern mandarin class, ascending the rungs of the opinion-making apparatus that manufactures public consent. Her journey began in the trenches of reporting, leading to an editorial position at The Wall Street Journal. In that capacity, she gained the skills of gatekeeping and narrative framing, which she would continue to employ as she climbed up the media ladder.

In 2017, she landed at the New York Times opinion section after she believed that the WSJ took too hard of a pro-Trump stance. She described herself “as center left on most issues”, but the issue of Israel was non-negotiable for her, when push came to shove. Ultimately, her position at the Times did not hold. In July 2020, she announced her exit with a resignation letter that accused the institution of enforcing ideological conformity, tolerating internal bullying, and letting social media pressure shape editorial decisions.

While the letter publicly signaled her break with legacy liberalism, it was fundamentally an act of strategic repositioning. A deeper, more calculating motive propelled this departure: the dawning realization that the very media establishments she inhabited were losing their effectiveness as guardians of Jewish interests. Her subsequent career trajectory into new media ventures confirms this was not an ideological conversion, but a pragmatic pivot to more reliable channels of influence.

In 2021 she took matters into her own hands by launching a Substack newsletter called Common Sense, then rebranded it into The Free Press, positioning it as a supposed bastion for free speech. The Free Press outwardly curated a portfolio of anti-woke commentary on issues like gender ideology and campus radicalism. However, these topics served as a popular façade for the publication’s central, animating purpose: the advancement of Zionism. Weiss meticulously assembled a stable of contributors—including prominent voices like Douglas Murray, Niall Ferguson, Konstantin Kisin, and Eli Lake—whose primary alignment was a staunch defense of Israeli policy, making the outlet’s broader ideological commitment unmistakable.

Israel was the unwavering constant, serving not as a footnote but as the central organizing principle of her moral worldview. She treated anti-Zionism as a mask for antisemitism and made that position central to her public identity, a framework reflected in discussion around her book and its reception. Her 2019 book How to Fight Anti Semitism became the manifesto version of the same argument.

The 2018 mass shooting at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, in which Robert Bowers murdered eleven Jewish congregants, threw Weiss’s propensity for targeting the hard Right into stark relief. The atrocity held profound personal significance for her, as the synagogue was the site of her Bat Mitzvah ceremony. Weiss pinpointed Bowers’ motive: his belief in organized Jewry’s outsized promotion of mass migration. She conceded this factual premise during an NPR interview, highlighting HIAS’s active role in facilitating refugee settlement, although it was much more than just HIAS—the entire organized Jewish community.

Weiss offered a trenchant analysis of the anti-Zionist left, warning that the climate of intolerance fostered by cancel culture posed a clear and present danger to American Jews—a concern that crystallized for her following the violence in Pittsburgh. She developed this argument while headlining a virtual event on June 6th dedicated to exploring the phenomenon of cancel culture through a specifically Jewish framework.

“I have felt more of a sense of alarm over the past few weeks now than I did in the aftermath of the attack on my synagogue,” said Weiss, referring to the 2021 Israel-Palestine confrontation. “Anti-Semitism,” she said, “has moved from the lunatic fringe firmly into the mainstream of American cultural life and into the halls of Congress.”

Weiss went mask off In October 2023, during the Israel-Hamas war, when her ethno-religious activism was on full display. Refaat Alareer, a professor and poet from Gaza, provoked outrage with a since-deleted tweet in which he jested about unverified claims that Hamas fighters had incinerated a Jewish baby in an oven, sarcastically asking, “with or without baking powder.” Weiss immediately pounced and quote-tweeted this post, highlighting it as an example of moral depravity. Alareer reported receiving death threats following Weiss’s post to her large following. He posted, “If I get killed by Israeli bombs or my family is harmed, I blame Bari Weiss and her likes,” arguing that her platforming of his tweet marked him as a target. The Israeli military would then kill Alareer, along with multiple members of his family, in a single, targeted airstrike on December 6. 2023.

The allegation from Alareer’s supporters was unequivocal: Weiss had committed stochastic terrorism. They argued she deliberately employed her massive reach to channel hostility and, by inevitable extension, the attention of military and intelligence agencies toward Alareer, a process that ended with his assassination.

Weiss’ fanatic commitment to her tribe was recognized by the likes of David Ellison—CEO of Skydance Media and the son of billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison. The younger Ellison had been considering how to revitalize CBS News even before the Paramount acquisition closed. Both David and Larry Ellison are described as “extremely fervent supporters of Israel,” with Larry being a “known Trump supporter” and David “at least suspected to be” pro-Trump as well.

Throughout summer 2025, as Skydance awaited regulatory approval for the Paramount merger, Ellison held discussions with Weiss about integrating The Free Press‘s editorial vision into CBS News. Democracy Now! reported that “Ellison has gotten very close with Bari Weiss”. CNN added that Ellison was “interested in infusing Weiss’s editorial perspective into CBS News.” The deal was eventually finalized in early October,  Paramount officially announced the acquisition of The Free Press in a deal valued at approximately $150 million in cash and Paramount shares, to be disbursed gradually and potentially varying based on Paramount’s stock performance.. Further,

Weiss was appointed editor-in-chief of CBS News—a newly created position.

In her position, Weiss reports directly to David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, not through the normal CBS News chain of command. The Free Press maintains independent operations as a separate brand within Paramount. Weiss will collaborate with Tom Cibrowski, president of CBS News, though they occupy parallel rather than hierarchical positions.

A lifetime of dedicated advocacy for Zionist causes has yielded its intended dividends for Bari Weiss. Her trajectory demonstrates a remarkable consistency, guided unerringly by the twin lodestars of perceived Jewish safety and the legitimization of the Zionist endeavor. In the end, Bari Weiss’s career trajectory reveals a fundamental truth: she is not a journalist in any meaningful sense, but a zealous agent for Jewish tribal power, making her a conscious and effective enemy of the gentile civilization whose institutions she has so skillfully subverted.

Three Savage Jewish Communists

Introduction

In my last article (“Jewish Bolsheviks and Mass Murder: Rozalia Zemliachka and the Jews Responsible for the Bloodbath in Crimea, 1920”), I described a group of Communist Jews and the slaughter they perpetrated in the early years of Bolshevik rule in Russia. Over the thirty-five years that spanned the rule of Lenin and Stalin, there were hundreds of similar massacres, carried out by various delegations of Cheka-OGPU-NKVD officers (with significant Jewish representation or even outright leadership), operating in every region of the USSR. These massacres cry out for more attention, and I hope to write about more of them. In the meantime, however, I will describe three depraved Jewish executioners, each of them richly deserving infamy and execration: Mikhail Vikhman, Revekka Plastinina-Maizel, and Isai Berg. Vikhman was a leading Cheka commissar in Odessa and Crimea in 1919–1921, where he personally shot hundreds of victims, including some of the highest rank. (His later career features an exquisite irony.) Plastinina-Maizel was a Party official who barbarically murdered thousands in the Far North of Russia together with her consort, a mad Cheka official. She later enjoyed a career at the highest level of the Soviet judiciary, a fine commentary on the perversities of Soviet society. Berg, a leading NKVD official in Moscow and executioner in the Great Terror, already boasts some notoriety among anti-Communists because he pioneered the homicidal gas van, which was meant to help him in his regular job: organizing nearly twenty thousand executions at the Butovo killing grounds in 1937–1938. These three Jews alone are responsible for the death of over twenty thousand people, and their names should be at least as well-known as Eichmann or Mengele, and for better reasons.

MIKHAIL VIKHMAN

Mikhail Vikhman was born in 1888, in or near Astrakhan on the Caspian Sea. His father Moisey was a dealer in fish. Mikhail graduated from the Realschule in Astrakhan in 1907, then worked as an electrician until he was conscripted in 1912. He served in a sapper battalion,[1] fought in the World War, and won the St. George Cross (4th degree). When the Revolution came, he suddenly ascended to positions of power, initially chief of police in Tsaritsyn (Stalingrad).[2] By 1918 he had joined the Bolsheviks, become a Chekist, participated in suppressing a Cossack uprising, and, as commander of the 1st Red Partisan Regiment, fought in Ukraine against various anti-Bolshevik forces. In the spring of 1919, he became a leader of the Cheka in Odessa, the third-largest city in Ukraine. The erstwhile sapper corporal now had the power of life and death over nearly half a million people. (The city was heavily Jewish, and its Cheka was too.) Here he won fame, not as a wise administrator or promoter of the common good, but as a bloodthirsty mass murderer. Sergei Melgunov in The Red Terror in Russia tells us that Vikhman employed six executioners but “would go into the cells, and slaughter prisoners for his personal pleasure.”[3] In the summer of 1919 forty or fifty prisoners were shot every night, and former White officers were killed “by chaining them to planks and then pushing them very slowly into furnaces . . .”[4] One source states that Vikhman shot over 200 people during his time in Odessa, including the former police chief Baron Sergei Vasilyevich van der Hoeven (1865–1919) and the rector of the Novorossiysk University, Sergei Levashov.[5] Melgunov gives another story, sadly typical of the era:

. . . there is on record a case where, on the lid of a coffin slowly opening and emitting a cry of “My comrades, I am still alive!” a telephone message was sent to the Che-Ka, and elicited the reply, “Settle him with a brick,” whilst a further appeal to the head of the Che-Ka himself [Vikhman] called forth the jest: “We are to requisition the best surgeon in Odessa, I suppose?” and finally a Che-Ka employee had to be dispatched to the scene, to shoot the victim a second time with a revolver.[6]

Vikhman seems to have worked in Odessa through part of the year 1920, but in the spring of 1921 he became the chairman of the Crimean regional Cheka.[7] The Red Army had recently conquered Crimea, and Bolshevik forces under the leadership of two repulsive Jews, Bela Kun and Rozalia Zemliachka, had subjected the peninsula to a horrific scourging. Now Vikhman, another remorseless Jew, headed all Cheka forces in the peninsula, and the killing proceeded. Remnants of the White forces had taken to the hills to wage guerrilla warfare (as much to survive as to resist Communist rule) and Vikhman organized forces to wipe them out; captives were liquidated. The Communists judged many others deserving of death, and Vikhman lent his hand and his Mauser to the task. Among others, he shot the former Ukrainian ministers Alexander Ragoza and Komorny. Years later he stated that in Crimea he personally shot “many hundreds” of “enemies of Soviet power … the exact number of which is written on my combat Mauser and combat carbine.”[8]

But there was trouble: the Crimean Bolshevik Party Committee became upset with Vikhman’s haughty manner. They charged him with arresting Party members and defiance of Party authorities. He was removed from his position and sent to the Caucasus, where he worked in the Stavropol Provincial Cheka. By the end of 1921, however, the Party expelled him and cashiered him from the Cheka.[9] It was the end of the first phase of his career.

Vikhman returned to Odessa and worked in the administration of the city tram network, quite the fall for the menacing, all-powerful Cheka executioner. Before long, however, he gained readmittance to the Party and even the Cheka. After 1928 he worked in various mid-level capacities for the OGPU (successor organization of the Cheka), in Kharkov (Ukraine) and the Caucasus. He participated in suppressing peasant revolts, headed the Chernigov city department OGPU, and won the award “Honorary Worker of the Cheka-OGPU” (1932). By the year 1938 he was working in Vinnytsia as deputy head of the NKVD militia. Then there came a knock at the door. It was July 8, 1938, the height of the Great Terror, the absolute peak of the decades-long repression, and Stalin was beginning to liquidate the liquidators. Genrikh Yagoda, Jewish head of the NKVD, had been shot in March, and thousands more secret police perished in the next few years. Now it was Vikhman’s turn: the secret police searched his house, seized a cache of weapons, and took him to Lukyanivska prison in Kiev.

The Party was carrying out a major purge of the Ukrainian NKVD: Vikhman’s former boss, the Jewish head of the NKVD in Ukraine, Izrail Leplevsky, had been replaced in January, arrested in April, and shot in July. The new boss, the Russian Alexander Uspensky, had orders to clear out Leplevsky’s men, “who included large numbers of Jewish NKVD operatives.”[10] Hundreds were arrested, but not all: Leplevsky had been tortured during his interrogation by the Jewish NKVD men Lulov and Vizel,[11] and Vikhman now faced a similar experience: he was tortured by the Jews Kogan (Russian form of Cohen) and Ratner.[12] These men beat him mercilessly and forced him to stand continuously for up to four days. (How many people had Vikhman done this to?) By July 17 he gave in and admitted guilt. He was left badly damaged, even crippled, by this treatment.

Vikhman in the hands of Jewish interrogators

It was an astonishing scene: in twentieth-century Russia, a man named Cohen, descendant of the ancient Hebrew priestly line, interrogating and torturing another Jew, both avowed atheists and ruthless members of the same secret police force, serving a Georgian tyrant ruling over Russia in the name of Marxist socialism![13]

Vikhman, understandably, was outraged that he was subjected to such treatment and appealed to higher authorities. In a letter to a deputy of the Supreme Soviet, he cited his work for the socialist motherland, proudly boasted that he had shot hundreds of the enemies of Soviet rule and appealed to “justice” and “Bolshevik Stalinist truth.”[14] In his desperate straits he suddenly found verities to cling to. In the end he escaped the bullet in the neck: he was sentenced to five years (November 1939), and a few months later the State ordered him released, probably because of his physical deterioration. He spent the next year in a neurological hospital, but eventually resumed work, in the Soviet electric power industry and in a shipbuilding plant in his hometown of Astrakhan. Eventually he retired but had to sell mineral water to supplement his meager pension. He won political rehabilitation in 1956. This was a process in which the state proclaimed some of the people repressed under Stalin innocent and restored them to their rights, including pensions. The courts would look at the evidence and make a ruling, and Vikhman saw his name “cleared” before his death.[15]

One wonders what he thought about it all as he neared the end of his life, the dreams of a socialist paradise, the prestige and power he enjoyed, flashbacks of the deafening crack of his Mauser in the death-cellars, the bitterness of his own arrest and torture. And finally, penury and physical impairment. He wasn’t an intellectual; perhaps he spent little time in reflection, assuaging his grievances by cleaving to the old vision of socialism, the one thing that could make it all seem worthwhile. Like other old Stalinist apparatchiks (even Kaganovich and Molotov)[16] he lived out his life in a threadbare apartment, waiting for the monthly pension check, playing checkers and reading Pravda. He died in 1963.[17]

REVEKKA PLASTININA-MAIZEL

Our second subject is Revekka Plastinina-Maizel. Plastinina was her married name, Maizel her maiden name. She was born in 1886 in Grodno, a typical city of the Pale of Settlement, near the junction of Belarus, Lithuania, and Poland, with a mixed population to match, nearly half Jewish. Her parents were Kivel and Olga; her brothers Moisey and Yakov emigrated to America, and her sister Anna later lived with her children near Revekka in Moscow. In 1904 Revekka joined the underground Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), and a couple years later she helped her cousin Eva, imprisoned for revolutionary activity, escape from Grodno prison.[18] By the year 1909 she was married to Nikandr Plastinina, a Russian revolutionary, and they were living in Switzerland, where Nikandr helped Lenin print his newspaper Iskra. They had a son, Vladimir.[19] They were of that class of professional revolutionaries who spent their time reading, writing articles, “organizing” the workers, and dreaming of the future. Revekka’s father, a lawyer, presumably supported her lifestyle.

Nikandr Plastinina, Vladimir, and Revekka in Geneva 1916

When the Tsar fell from power, they hurried back to Russia, along with thousands of other exiles. Nikandr’s hometown was Shenkursk in north-western Russia, and that became their base. By January 1918 Revekka became secretary of the Shenkursk City Soviet and in June a member of the Archangelsk Provincial Executive Committee. Archangelsk, on the White Sea, was a much bigger city, the hub of Archangelsk Province. Revekka and Nikandr worked together to establish Bolshevik power, but quite soon an Allied intervention drove the Bolsheviks out of the area. In early August Archangelsk was taken by British and American troops, who drove south as far as Shenkursk. Russian uprisings against the Communists had aided the Allies in both cities; Revekka and other members of the Executive Committee had been seized by the rebels, but Revekka escaped.[20] Revekka and Nikandr then worked as political commissars in the Sixth (Red) Army, which was fighting in that area. In early 1920 Bolshevik forces retook the area and commenced a vengeful and murderous purge, in which Revekka played a leading role. It was a wave of terror very similar to that which took place in Crimea later that year.

Moscow sent a top Cheka official, Mikhail Kedrov, to Archangelsk to “pacify” the area. Revekka left Nikandr and took up with Kedrov, eventually marrying him. Some sort of quarrel had broken out between Nikandr’s family and Revekka, with the result that she ordered the death of his entire family, “whom she crucified in an act of savage revenge.”[21] Apparently, the family were disgruntled when Nikandr and Revekka executed the brother-in-law of Nikandr, and evinced insufficient revolutionary ardor for the liking of Revekka. Sergei Melgunov says that she “repaid petty insults once shown her by her first husband’s family by having that family crucified en masse . . .”[22] Petty insults and lack of revolutionary ardor repaid with mass crucifixion? She was clearly a homicidal maniac, but this was only the start. The result of the family holocaust was that Nikandr fled and took up work elsewhere.[23] He did not escape Stalin, however. He died in a camp after being arrested in 1938.

Kedrov, it seems, was inflicted with hereditary madness (his father died in a lunatic asylum), although he was a highly cultured man from the lower Russian nobility, a musician and doctor. He used to play Beethoven for Lenin in exile before the Revolution.[24] He had three sons with his first wife, one of whom, Igor, became a vicious NKVD interrogator in the 1930s. Now, in March 1920, Mikhail was sent north “as a member of a commission charged with the investigation of crimes perpetrated by White Guard and Allied . . . troops. In effect this was a punitive expedition . . . and it earned Kedrov a reputation for extreme cruelty.”[25] Revekka took full part in this campaign, matching the cruelty and madness of Kedrov, who reportedly had to be confined in a mental hospital afterwards.

 

Revekka, Mikhail Kedrov and his son Igor

Party leaders in Moscow placed Revekka on the Archangelsk provincial Revolutionary Committee.[26] She and Kedrov held untrammeled power over the area, and the killing began. White officers who managed to flee later reported that in Arkhangelsk they shot 60-70 people a day. The ancient monasteries of Solovetsky, Kholmogory, Pertominsky were turned into concentration camps, later famous as the dreadful White Sea camps of the Gulag. Kholmogory was set up as a simple extermination center. Thousands were shot in these camps in 1920 alone.[27] Kedrov “had 1,200 White Army officers machine-gunned aboard a barge at Kholmogory, killing half of them . . . whilst his second wife, Rebeka Plastinina-Maisel, drowned 500 refugees and [White] soldiers aboard a scuttled barge …”[28] The two would travel the region aboard their train and “question prisoners from their travelling saloon at railway stations, and then and there shoot the wretches as soon as Rebekah had finished belabouring them, and shouting at them, and attacking them with her fists as . . . she cried hysterically “To be shot! Put them up against the wall!”[29] Another White Russian refugee testified that Revekka “killed eighty-seven officers and thirty-three citizens with her own hand.”[30]

Archangelsk Oblast (Province)

It was not long before the two alarmed even their superiors with their wild excesses. That summer an anti-Bolshevik uprising broke out and they suppressed it with such murderous abandon that they were removed from their posts. Kedrov was reportedly preparing to execute a schoolful of students. Party comrades noted officially that Revekka was a “sick woman” (the same diagnosis applied to Roza Zemliachka after she had descended into a bloody psychosis in Crimea a few months later.)[31] They were not punished, of course, merely reassigned. Kedrov “spent some time in psychiatric care before reemerging to work, just as cruelly, for the Cheka around the Caspian Sea. He retired from the Cheka after the civil war . . .”[32] Revekka presumably accompanied him in his various posts. Eventually they settled in Moscow, near her sister Anna and her family.

Kedrov would not live out his natural life, unlike Revekka. Kedrov had accused the new chief of the NKVD (November 1938), Lavrenty Beria, of being a double agent, and Beria arrested him in November 1939. Kedrov amazingly won an acquittal from the Supreme Court, but Beria simply ordered him shot in October 1941.[33] Revekka fared much better: she ascended to a seat on the Soviet Supreme Court in the same decade.[34] (Other than this, I found no other details of her later life.) She died at sixty in October 1946, and was buried in Donskoye Cemetery in Moscow, which was the site of secret mass burials in the Great Terror.[35] The Russian land breathed a little freer that winter.

Isai Berg

Isai Davidovich Berg was born in Moscow in 1905.[36] In the early 1920s he served in the Red Army. By 1926 he had joined the political police and completed the course at the OGPU School, after which he joined the OGPU border guards. In 1930 he joined the Communist Party, then worked undercover in several Moscow area factories, monitoring the attitudes and speech of the workers for his OGPU superiors. In 1932-35 he headed the Shchyolkovo District Department of the OGPU, just northeast of Moscow. In 1935-36 he worked in the Kuntsevo District Department of the NKVD.[37] Kuntsevo was also near Moscow, and there Berg became a member of the NKVD “clan” headed by Alexander Radzivilovski, a high-ranking officer and deputy head of the NKVD in Moscow Province. These clans, pervasive in the NKVD, were formed on the patron-client model and served to protect their members amid the dangers of the Stalinist state. Radzivilovski, you may recall, began his career in the Crimea under Zemliachka and Kun in 1920. He was a Jew, as was his right-hand man, Grigory Yakubovich. Radzivilovski’s clan included many NKVD officers—Russian as well as Jewish—in Kuntsevo, which served as a recruiting ground for higher appointments in Moscow.[38]

Berg worked in Kuntsevo until mid-1936. Radzivilovski and his henchmen often came to Kuntsevo to relax in his nearby dacha. Berg was responsible for laying on the amenities, and the officers involved later admitted under interrogation to “immorality and degeneracy.”[39] Whatever this involved, Berg played a central role, and at his next posting, as head of the Vereya District NKVD, he was caught attempting to rape a prisoner (1937). He was sentenced to 20 days’ solitary confinement, then promoted.[40] He became the assistant secretary to the head of the Moscow NKVD, Stanislav Redens (who was married to the sister of Stalin’s wife). That summer Radzivilovski recommended Berg to head the Administrative and Economic Department of the Moscow Province NKVD, and Redens approved the appointment. “Berg, who had a long history of official reprimands, went instantly from being a minor figure—the assistant secretary to the head of the province’s NKVD—to a person with considerable authority.”[41] His rank was Lieutenant of State Security, equivalent to major in the army.

 

Berg assumed his new duties in August 1937, the exact moment that Stalin was launching a massive new purge, later called the Great Terror,[42] which lasted until November 1938 and totaled over 700,000 executions in about sixteen months. The Politburo—prompted by Stalin—had raised the alarm in early July about “anti-Soviet elements” causing sabotage and crime, and called for preemptive mass arrests and executions.[43] Each NKVD jurisdiction was directed to prepare quotas for arrests and executions.[44] These were collated and finalized by Ezhov, head of the NKVD, whose resulting formal order, “Operational Order No. 00447,” called for 270,000 arrests and 75,000 executions. “Eighteen months later these targets had been exceeded ninefold,”[45] as the purge acquired a horrifying momentum, the NKVD officers terrified to be seen as lacking in vigilance. Killing and burying people on this scale was a massive project,[46] and Redens assigned Berg the job for Moscow (the quota for which had been set at 5,000). He was responsible for finding suitable execution sites, moving the prisoners from the jail to the site, managing the executions, and burying the bodies. The now-famous Butovo shooting range, about fifteen miles due south of the Kremlin, became the biggest execution site/burial ground in the Moscow area, and Berg managed most of the massacre that took place there.[47]

 

NKVD Lieutenant Isai Berg  

Upon the receipt of Operational Order No. 00447, the NKVD went into action. In each district of the vast country, officers began arresting people, based on long-accumulated files, or social standing, or other information. They then forced the prisoners to confess to

a fictitious crime. Officers obtained confessions using various tactics, most often through torture and beatings . . . during the [Great Terror] the NKVD undertook falsification [of confessions] on an industrial scale. Agents had to create a huge number of documents each day …[48]

One officer stated, “During the day we . . . made up fabricated interrogations for the accused and at night we made them sign under compulsion.”[49] Some people were forced to sign blank sheets of paper. Agents then sent these signed confessions up the chain of command, where they landed on the desk of the “troika,” a special body erected for the purpose. The troika in each province consisted of the head of the NKVD, the prosecutor, and the local Communist Party secretary. (Because Moscow was the capital, it had three troikas, plus several other sentencing bodies, all extra-judicial.) The troikas would process hundreds of cases at a time, passing sentence (death or gulag) on each person with little deliberation. Almost all of them involved Article 58, counterrevolutionary activity. Radzivilovski’s ally Grigory Yakubovich chaired the second Moscow troika, and Berg later stated, “Semyonov competed with [Y]akubovich to see who was the faster.. . . Semenov always went over to [Y]akubovich’s room and boasted that he had dispatched fifty cases more than him . . . and they were both delighted to have been able to pass sentence so quickly without even having glanced at the dossiers.”[50]

Two other Jews sat for a time on one of the various Moscow troikas, and also condemned hundreds or thousands to death: Vasili Karutsky and Vladimir Tsesarsky.[51]

Grigory Yakubovich

Vasili Karutsky

The NKVD photographed the unfortunate people fated to die at Butovo from the front and side (as in Vikhman’s photo above), and had their names entered on a list; Berg had a copy of the list and the photos. Around midnight, prison vans or trucks holding up to fifty people each were dispatched from the Moscow prisons to Butovo. The area, wooded and secluded, had searchlights and a long wooden building. A deep, long ditch had been prepared beforehand with earth-moving equipment. NKVD personnel or militia herded the people into the building, where each person’s identification was carefully checked, a lengthy process. Then the prisoners were led out of the building one at a time towards the trench, where an executioner would shoot them in the back of the head and cast them into the pit. The executioners, a special small team of Russians, were given as much vodka as they wanted. After a final round of paperwork, the job was done and the killers were driven back to Moscow.[52] The next day the bodies were covered with a layer of earth and the operation was repeated. From August 1937 through July 1938,[53] there were an average of 1645 executions a month or about 55 a day, but a few nights the number exceeded 400, and once reached 562.[54] Berg’s role in the actual killing is unclear; one historian states he “took part in the executions,” which does not necessarily mean he shot people.[55] Given the fact that he was responsible for the operation (and worked practically under the nose of Stalin), he probably would have been on site, ensuring the operation proceeded smoothly and finalizing paperwork. It is at least possible he participated in the shooting, for there was a lot of shooting to be done—almost 21,000 people were executed at Butovo between August 1937 and October 1938.[56]

Vladimir Tsesarsky  

Whether or not Berg personally shot people at Butovo, he was interested in making the process as efficient as possible. He oversaw the introduction of a van designed to gas its inmates on the way to Butovo.[57] Berg felt pressure to accelerate the rate of executions to keep up with the avalanche of names coming down from the troikas. He also desired to relieve the strain on the executioners, who may have been called upon to shoot forty or fifty people a night, and reduce the possibility of resistance among the prisoners. Sources do not indicate whether Berg himself originated the idea, nor how many of the vans were utilized. (The vans were described as trucks disguised as bread-delivery vans.) In the Soviet Union at the time there was a general mania for technology, which probably gave some impetus to the desire to find a cleaner and more efficient method of killing than drunken killers and revolvers.

One version has NKVD personnel taking the condemned from the prisons, stripping them naked, binding and gagging them, and throwing them into the van before driving off.[58] On reaching Butovo, some of them might still be alive, albeit not much, and had to be finished off, or thrown alive into the pit. Later investigation showed that some of the dead had been buried while still alive; perhaps these were from the gas van.[59] We know that there was at least one group of people buried there who had no gunshot wounds:

[W]e know from limited archaeological excavations at Butovo in 1997 that there was at least one van load of victims since 55 . . . bodies found . . . don’t have the standard bullet wound to the back of the head/neck that is the hallmark of NKVD executions of this period and thus are almost certainly victims of Berg’s gas van(s).[60]

One author speculates that Berg may have operated multiple gas vans, over the space of months, with as many as five or even ten thousand victims.[61] Logistical problems, however, lead me to believe their use was quite limited. First, if the secret police bound people and threw them into the van, fifty people would not fit inside without great pains being taken to stack them. This would reduce the numbers and efficiency. The best method would be to jam people in, standing upright. Next, arriving at the site, they would have to laboriously unload the dead and dying by hand and throw them into the ditch, a very difficult task, much harder than having victims walk to the ditch under their own power. If they unloaded the bodies in this way, they could make prisoners do it, but the sources do not mention it, and the task would have to be overseen by NKVD personnel.[62]

The most likely and optimal scenario would be to jam the maximum number of people into the van, drive roughly 40 minutes to the site, back up to the ditch, and have prisoners unload them. Gathering, identifying, and loading the prisoners at Butyrka or Lubianka prisons, driving to Butovo, unloading, and driving back would take at least two and a half hours. Realistically, this means that only two trips could be done in a night. If, say, three trucks were in use, they could dispatch 300 victims a night, but with mechanical breakdowns and other problems, that number would often be lower. Meanwhile, in six hours or so 500 prisoners could be transported, examined, shot, and cast into a ditch, with no need of help from other prisoners. Gas vans were simply not as efficient as shooting, and the proof comes from the aftermath. There is no evidence that such gas vans were ever utilized again, not at Katyn or Vinnitsia, nor anywhere else the NKVD wanted to kill many people quickly. In addition, had Berg deployed fifteen or twenty trucks and killed many thousands with them, it would have represented a major phenomenon, with a very high likelihood of showing up clearly etched in the documentary record, which, as it is, has all the earmarks of recording something ephemeral: vague references, few details, few witnesses even remembering it. In the final analysis, the Berg gas van could have been nothing more than a short-lived novelty.

Nevertheless, Isai Berg the Jew stands guilty before all mankind of pioneering this infernal killing machine.

Berg would not oversee the final ten weeks of killing at Butovo, for he was arrested on August 4, 1938. The ostensible reason was drunkenness and indecent behavior, but the real reason was the breakup of his NKVD clan and the loss of its protection. Radzivilovski and Yakubovich had been transferred away from Moscow and the new superiors began to notice the pervasive corruption in the Kuntsevo district NKVD. The head of that district was arrested, and Berg was hauled in too because of his connections to Kuntsevo. Berg was interrogated—continuing with our theme—by a Jewish officer, Matvei Titelman, who demanding he confess merely to abuse of authority and not the dreaded “counterrevolutionary activity.”[63] After Beria took over the NKVD in November 1938, however, the attitude of the leadership hardened. (Stalin had called an end to the Terror and needed scapegoats to blame for the massacre getting so far out of hand.) Berg and many of his clan members were now accused of operating a counterrevolutionary conspiracy in the NKVD in the Moscow area, which was nonsense, like all the other accusations that year. Titelman was arrested in late November and his successor beat Berg with a truncheon to make him confess.[64] On March 7, 1939, Berg was sentenced to death by the Military Collegium of the Soviet Supreme Court and executed. Titelman had been shot a few days before; Yakubovich was shot in late February; Radzivilovski was shot in January 1940. The era of Jewish domination of the NKVD was crashing to an end, but the damage had been done.

Conclusion

The three persons described above, bloodthirsty as they were, had innumerable counterparts in the Bolshevik state. The number of Jews in the top-level leadership of the Soviet Union has been the subject of much debate, but far more important for ordinary Russians was the huge number of Jews in power all over the country, in mid-level positions, particularly in the secret police, with its power over life and death.[65] Few of these Jews had definitively cut their ties with the Jewish nation, although they attempted to hide that fact, and worked in and through the Russian nation and under the guise of international socialism.[66] Yet they could no more cast off their Jewish identity and motivation than a leopard can shed its spots. They were bent on revenge not only for the wrongs they believed they had sustained in Russia, but also because of the deeply-ingrained hatred for non-Jews they had developed and nourished since ancient times. Once they gained a foothold in power in Russia, no matter how lowly or tenuous, they began killing, and they continued killing for three decades or more, because it was rooted in their nature. When the Soviet state began crimping the power of the Jews and phasing out massacre as a tool of governance, the Jews suddenly lost their enthusiasm for Communism, Russian style.

In the end, there were few Jewish Communists, only Jews.

The Soviet Union and Jewish Bolshevism have passed away, but the Jewish nation—loaded with its grim memories and expectations—is stronger than ever. It has moved on to new venues and tactics, but the deep hatred still burns. We can see it in action almost everywhere in the modern world, at a time when the West is poised on the brink of dissolution. What will the next quarter century look like? If the Jews gain the power they dream of, it will look like this—

Rothschild-commissioned painting by Cleon Peterson

Fortunately, the West is awakening rapidly, largely because of the Jews themselves, who, with typical insolence, have exhibited their inner essence for the whole world to see. Their arrogance is stunning, their malice breathtaking, their power brazen. Events are clearly coming to a head. If God permits justice to triumph, the Jews will sustain a conclusive defeat in the coming war. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate. “If . . . the Jew conquers the nations of this world, his crown will become the funeral wreath of humanity . . .”[67]


[1] Sappers are combat engineers, building roads, bridges and fortifications, laying and clearing minefields, handling demolitions, etc.

[2] The sources on Vikhman are scant and can be contradictory. I’ve relied on the following:

a) Alexandra Polyak, Михаил Вихман — палач Одесской ЧК и жертва коммунистического режима (Mikhail Vikhman, Executioner of the Odessa Cheka and Victim of the Communist Regime) Jan 2020. https://zaodessu.com.ua/articles/mihail-vihman-palach-odesskoj-chk-i-zhertva-kommunisticheskogo-rezhima/

b) D. Sokolov, Чекист Вихман в необычной для себя роли (Chekist Vikhman in an Unusual Role) https://d-v-sokolov.livejournal.com/2189489.html?es=1

c) Tumshis M. and V. Zolotaryov. ЕВРЕИ В НКВД СССР 1936-1938 (Jews in the NKVD of the USSR, 1936-1938). 2nd edition, revised and expanded. Moscow: Dmitry Pozharsky University, 2017. Pages 192-94.

d) Abramov, Vadim. Евреи в КГБ (Jews in the KGB). Moscow: Izdatel Bystrov, 2006. Pages 142-43.

Abramov, Tumshis, and Polyak identify Vikhman as a Jew.

[3] The Red Terror in Russia (Westport CT: Hyperion Press, 1976), 203. Melgunov was a Russian writer and politician who opposed Bolshevik rule, was imprisoned and sentenced to death, then reprieved, whereupon he went abroad. He gathered information from Russian exiles (often witnesses to these events) in the voluminous Russian expatriate press in Western Europe and published it in 1924.

[4] George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police (New York, 1981), 200, 198.

[5] This information appears in Polyak.

[6] Melgunov, Red Terror in Russia, 213.

[7] Two characteristics of early Communist rule in Russia were the rapid ascension of mediocre Jews to positions of power, and the constant shifting of personnel to different jobs and regions.

[8] Tumshis and Zolotaryov, Jews in the NKVD, 193.

[9] The sources give no details that might illustrate the story behind these events.

[10] Lynne Viola, Stalinist Perpetrators on Trial (New York: 2017), 27.

[11] Shimon Briman, “Stalin’s terror: Jewish victims and executioners,” at Forum Daily, https://www.forumdaily.com/en/politicheskie-repressii-evrei-zhertvy-i-palachi/

[12] Sokolov, “Chekist Vikhman in an Unusual Role.”

[13] It is amazing the permutations that the Jewish messianic ideal can go through when its one true object is overlooked.

[14] Sokolov.

[15] Cleared according to Soviet ideas of justice, of course. I doubt many of his own victims were rehabilitated.

[16] Kaganovich lived out his life alone in a sixth-floor apartment in the Frunze Embankment in Moscow. Like Molotov, his pension was a meager 120 rubles a month. His flat was described as “poor,” and he had no car or dacha. Certainly, Vikhman fared no better than that. From E. A. Rees, Iron Lazar: A Political Biography of Lazar Kaganovich (Anthem Press, 2013), 268.

[17] I found no hint of a wife or children for Vikhman.

[18] The sources I was able to access on Plastinina-Maizel were even scantier than those for Vikhman.

[19] Vladimir later worked for the NKVD, served in World War Two, and became an academic at Voronezh State University. He died in 1973. From Andrei Zhukov at Memorial: https://nkvd.memo.ru/index.php/Пластинин,_Владимир_Никандрович

[20] Natalia Golysheva, “Red Terror in the North “Did the civil war never end?” Dec 2017

https://www.bbc.com/russian/resources/idt-sh/red_terror_russian

[21] Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924 (New York: Penguin Books, 1998), 647.

[22] Melgunov, 200.

[23] Rokiskis Rabinovičius, “Revekka Kedrova-Plastinina-Maizel” at his blog: http://rokiskis.popo.lt/2011/06/06/revekka-kedrova-plastinina-maizel/

[24] Leggett, The Cheka, 270.

[25] Leggett, 270.

[26] Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Zwei Hundert Jahren zusammen: Der Juden in der Sowjetunion (München, 2003), 141.

[27] Natalia Golysheva, “Red Terror in the North.”

[28] Leggett, The Cheka, 431 note 13.

[29] Melgunov, 199.

[30] Melgunov, 200.

[31] D. Sokolov, Михаил Кедров и Ревекка Пластинина (“Mikhail Kedrov and Rebeka Plastinina”) Sept 8, 2009 https://d-v-sokolov.livejournal.com/9061.html

[32] Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him (New York: Random House, 2004), 84.

[33] Rayfield, 358.

[34] Solzhenitsyn, 141.

[35] It is also the site of Solzhenitsyn’s grave.

[36] Berg is a name common among Germans as well as Jews; Tumshis and Zhukov identify him as Jewish. Another note: two of our three subjects were born outside the Pale of Settlement, the vast area in which the Jews lamented they were “imprisoned.” Many Jews in Imperial Russia had the privilege of living outside it, and many more did so illegally.

[37] Tumshis and Zolotaryov, Jews in the NKVD, 125. The NKVD was the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, equivalent to an Interior Ministry. It was established in July 1934 and absorbed the OGPU (the “Joint State Political Directorate”), the former Cheka, which became the GUGB (the “Main Directorate for State Security”). A Jew, Yakov Agranov, headed the GUGB, and another Jew, Genrikh Yagoda, headed the NKVD. Technically the OGPU/GUGB and the NKVD were separate but the terms are often used interchangeably.

[38] Alexander Vatlin, Agents of Terror: Ordinary Men and Extraordinary Violence in Stalin’s

Secret Police. (Edited & translated by Seth Bernstein. University of Wisconsin Press, 2016), 12-13.

[39] Vatlin, Agents of Terror, 14.

[40] Tumshis and Zolotaryov, 125.

[41] Vatlin, 15.

[42] By Robert Conquest, in his magisterial work, The Great Terror. This phase of Stalinist rule, 1937-38, came after an exhaustive succession of Communist massacres and upheavals: the Red Terror under Lenin, the destruction of the Church and murder of the clergy, forced collectivization of the farmers, breakneck industrialization with its dislocations, the vast expansion of the gulag and press-ganging its inmates into vast economic projects, and the Holodomor, to name just the highest peaks in the mountain range of Soviet atrocities.

[43] For a discussion of Stalin’s motives for the purge, see Vatlin, xi-xii and xxvi. Stalin wanted to eliminate a potential fifth column in case of war, which was considered imminent, clear out the old Bolshevik bureaucracy in favor of young Stalinist cadres, and cow the populace afresh to instill obedience.

[44] Seth Bernstein, Introduction, in Vatlin, Agents of Terror, xxiii. For the table of quotas for each region, see Karl Schlögel, Moscow 1937 (Polity Press, 2013), 495-96. It should not escape notice that a quota system for executions is the height of barbarity.

[45] Rayfield, 308.

[46] Unlike certain other genocides, a high percentage of the remains of the victims of the Great Terror have been found and identified. For information on burial sites, see “Map of Memory” at https://en.mapofmemory.org/

[47] There were several other major execution/burial grounds in the Moscow area: Donskoye Cemetery had a crematorium and thousands of executed prisoners were cremated there and buried in mass graves. Kommunarka was the site of over 6000 executions, mainly of high-ranking Bolsheviks.

[48] Vatlin, xiv.

[49] Vatlin, 31.

[50] Karl Schlögel, Moscow 1937, 482.

[51] Nérard François-Xavier, “The Butovo Shooting Range,” https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/document/butovo-shooting-range

[52] Schlögel, 482-84.

[53] After early August, Berg was no longer involved.

[54] Schlögel, 472, 474.

[55] Schlögel, 482.

[56] 973 people were shot for being Christian Orthodox believers, including hundreds of priests, bishops, and abbots. Forty-nine priests were shot on one day, 10 December 1937. For comparison, two rabbis were killed. Schlögel, 487.

[57] At least five historians have stated that Berg used gas vans: Yevgenia Albats in The State Within a State: The KGB and its Hold on Russia—Past, Present, and Future (1994), Timothy Colton in Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis (1998), Catherine Merridale in Night of Stone: Death and Memory in Twentieth Century Russia (2002), Alexander Solzhenitsyn in 200 Years Together (2002), and Robert Gellately in Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe (2007). Merridale gives Colton as her source, but Colton quotes no source. Albats, Gellately, and Solzhenitsyn cite a 1990 Russian article by Evgeni Zhirnov, who read the original investigative record of Berg (when he was arrested by the NKVD) and provided details. A relevant portion of that article appears here, in a later article by Zhirnov: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1265324

In addition, at least six high-ranking Soviet secret police officers, from Berg’s time up to the 1990s, testified to the existence of Berg’s gas van. Karl Radl reviews the statements of five of them in “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: The Jewish Origin of Stalin’s Gas Vans,” https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/stalins-willing-executioners-the?utm_source=publication-search

[58] Tumshis and Zolotaryov, 126, citing the testimony of E. Zhirnov, who details the investigative record of Berg and testimony from contemporary NKVD men.

[59] Schlögel, 476.

[60] Karl Radl, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners.”

[61] Radl.

[62] A far-fetched idea: hydraulic dump-truck style vans, which could back up and dump the dead into the ditch automatically. There is no hint of such a truck in the sources, which all mention a vehicle disguised as a bread van. A dump truck would pose much greater technical problems to build than the described gas vans, and dump trucks were not widespread in Russia in 1937.

[63] Vatlin, 157-58, note 156.

[64] Vatlin, 67 and 157-58, note 156.

[65] For three decades I have collected data on Jewish Communists, and can testify that the number of Jews who held positions in the middle ranks of the Soviet State is immense. These were the people who governed the country on a day-to-day basis. The number of Jews in academia was equally large.

[66] Kevin MacDonald discusses this point cogently in the third chapter of The Culture of Critique.

[67] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941), 84.

Civilizational Erasure? Look in the Mirror, America

The orchestrated demise of the West and the Hidden Hebraic Hand behind it.

While American politicians wring their hands about Europe’s demographic future, they remain willfully blind to the organized Jewish interests driving replacement migration on both continents.

The Trump administration’s newly published National Security Strategy boldly proclaimed that Europe faces “the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.” This warning comes from a country where Whites now constitute just 57.8% of the population and continue to decline as a percentage annually. The sheer audacity of American leaders lecturing Europe about demographic preservation while presiding over the most rapid racial transformation in modern history reveals deliberate obfuscation.

The demographic data speaks for itself. While European nations maintain White majorities averaging between 72-85%, the United States has already crossed the threshold into minority-majority status in countless cities and states. American cities increasingly resemble post-modern Towers of Babel where traditional White Americans are pushed into suburbs and exurbs—de facto White people reservations—far from city centers of power and influence. Notwithstanding these unsettling revelations, debating which nation’s demographic foundation appears marginally more intact represents a distraction from the shared existential threat confronting White civilization on both continents absent immediate corrective action.

Before we can solve this civilization crisis, we must ask the critical question: Who caused and continues to benefit from this demographic transformation? The answer lies not in abstract ideologies but in a concerted political effort by world Jewry to demographically dilute the lands inhabited and built by Whites. Since the dust settled from World War II, Jewish-run organizations have been at the forefront of orchestrating mass migration to Western nations with the help of their complex life-support machine that is the United States government.

Groups like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), which went from helping Jewish refugees to actively facilitating Muslim and Christian immigration from the Middle East to Western countries, operate with the explicit goal of altering Western demographics. As Earl Raab of the Jewish Community Relations Council noted in 1993 demographic transformation makes America “safe” from what he called “Nazi-Aryan” movements. Barbara Lerner Spectre, the founding director of Paideia (The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden), said during a 2010 IBA News interview that the Jewish community would be the primary driver of Europe’s demographic transformation. She expanded:

Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that… Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.

The pattern is consistent and undeniable. At the height of the European refugee crisis of the previous decade, Israeli organizations like IsraAID operated refugee centers on the Greek island of Lesbos, processing the very migration flows that have transformed European demographics. These events did not transpire in a vacuum but were the result of the United States’ military and hidden-hand operations in North Africa and West Asia that destabilized countries ranging from Libya and Iraq, which Jewish-run NGOs took advantage of. The strategic facilitation of mass migration served a dual geopolitical purpose: it systematically depleted the demographic reservoirs of Israel’s regional adversaries—specifically targeting the cohort most capable of militant opposition—while simultaneously engineering a fracturing of European ethnocultural cohesion, thereby preempting the rise of any potent ethnonationalist movements that could contest the international Jewish community’s power.

This Jewish-driven engineering of demographic change continues today through a network of Jewish and Israeli NGOs that frame their work as humanitarian while achieving precise political outcomes. The European Council of Jewish Communities coordinates continent-wide operations to clothe and shelter migrants throughout their journeys across the Old Continent. These initiatives mirror the candid admissions of Jewish leadership: advocating for diversity functions as a calculated protective measure for Jewish concerns, fundamentally reshaping the demographic fabric of host nations. This engenders an enduring divide-and-conquer dynamic that systematically obstructs White populations from achieving political cohesion.

A singular calamity unfolds as both European and American societies confront identical threats to their continued existence, tracing back to the same root cause. The White state-building peoples of both continents are being systematically replaced not by accident but by design. The Judeo-Liberal consensus that emerged victorious from World War II created a transnational class of Jewish oligarchs that view traditional White majorities as obstacles to their transnational criminal enterprise.

There can be no cessation of the Great Replacement while Western polities remain satellites of the Judeo-American empire, grant free rein to Jewish-supremacist NGOs, and persist in endorsing political parties that sustain the post-World War II consensus. The future of the West hinges on a binary decision of monumental significance: either we sever the hold of the Talmudic bird of prey, or we condemn our civilizations to be nothing more than a fleeting, forgotten whisper in the annals of time.

Lying About Churchill: Responding to Richard Evans on the historicity of the ‘Zionist lobby’

Winston Marshall: “The next generation of people fighting for the truth against the conspiracy theorists: what wisdom do you have to impart to them?”

Richard Evans: “First of all, take it seriously. Address them for what they are. Tackle them head-on. Do the work. Interrogate them. Ask where they got their sources from and what they did with them. I think that’s the most important thing.”

Winston Marshall asked some good questions in his interview with Richard Evans. I particularly liked the one above, and Evans’ reply to it. I agree that the next generation should fight conspiracy theorists by inspecting sources and the use of them. Evans said rightly that “if the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling about Hitler as the man who started World War 2 as the beginning of a deliberate attempt … to take over the world … you can’t just deny the evidence.” Evidence is what we can trust more than anything else. Marshall then acknowledged, and Evans agreed, that “the history of the war is the founding story of the modern era” and “perhaps that’s one of the reasons it’s being relitigated.”

The history of the war is being relitigated like never before. 2024’s interview between Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper is still provoking reactions from anti-fascist historians, and Carlson interviewing Nick Fuentes in October 2025 has inflamed them further. Richard Evans, author of the book Lying About Hitler, has been called upon to dispatch these conspiracy theorists..

I object to Evans’ response to another of Marshall’s good questions, that of whether, paraphrasing Cooper, “Churchill was funded by Zionists” which Marshall said “originates with David Irving” and “is a David Irving idea”. Evans said that Cooper, building on Irving, said that Churchill:

went bankrupt and Jewish financiers and media moguls put [him] as it were back on his feet, but this is all absolute nonsense. I mean Churchill was a member of one of the richest families in Britain, the Duke of Marlborough, owners of Blenheim Palace and so on, definitely a member of the British upper classes. He did support the idea of a state of Israel, but the idea there’s a kind of huge Jewish conspiracy backing Churchill later on against Hitler [is] a classic conspiracy theory joining the dots in a way that seems to suggest one thing but it’s all built on a tissue of disinformation.

Marshall mentioned that “it was the case that [Churchill] was constantly on the edge of being broke and would then write…”, referring to articles and books. Evans agreed that Churchill, like Lord Salisbury, supported himself by writing. Marshall persisted: “it was true that he struggled with money, right?” Evans: “sometimes, yes.” Marshall: “the idea is that there was some sort of lobbying interest group that Irving and Cooper might allege were entirely Zionists…” Evans: “That’s the problem. You smell a rat any time you hear anyone talking about a Jewish lobby. That is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. No group in the modern world has been as divided as the Jewish community, and you can still see that today.”

Eugen Spier

The existence of a ‘Jewish lobby’ and ‘funding by Zionists’ are not mere theories. Evidence of Jews and/or Zionists funding and supporting Churchill’s political activities comes directly from Eugen Spier, co-founder of the Focus (also known as the Focus Group or the Anti-Nazi Council), and Robert Henriques, the biographer of Sir Robert Waley Cohen, who was another co-founder and the main fundraiser. Spier was a wealthy Jew who immigrated from Germany in 1922 and released the book Focus in 1963. He recounts that Churchill asked him not to publish the book until after his (Churchill’s) death.1 He then describes the founding of the group in 1935 and its activities between then and 1939. According to Spier,

groups embracing members of every religious and political body were being organised up and down the country to bring help to victims of Nazi brutality. From 1933 onwards I was being continuously approached to assist in fighting antisemitism. Among those who came to see me was a Mr. A. H. Richards who sought my co-operation both in combating Hitler’s propaganda and in helping his victims. Many prominent people had already promised to help.2

Spier says that he objected to treating the Nazis as a threat to Jews specifically as opposed to the whole world. Gentiles would be difficult to recruit if not convinced that the threat was to themselves too. Spier continues:

Richards was much excited by my views. They represented, he declared, just what he and his friends were thinking, but he had not felt it wise to make his first approach to me in such terms. He had been given to understand that I was deeply affected by the sufferings of my fellow-Jews and he had therefore raised antisemitism as the primary issue. … He then disclosed the names of some of the people with whom he was associated.

To Spier’s “joy” they included Sir Winston Churchill, Lady Violet Bonham Carter, Henry Wickham Steed, Oliver Locker-Lampson, Sir Robert Mond, Sir Robert Waley-Cohen and Sir Archibald Sinclair.3 All were Zionists, except Spier and Richards of whose opinions I am not sure. All the funding appears to have come from Jews: Spier and Mond initially, then Cohen on behalf of others later. Churchill, the most famous person present, had already been condemning Germany in Parliament, on the BBC and in the press since soon after Hitler became Chancellor, and his inclusion in government became the particular object of the Focus’ campaigning, alongside the establishment of a Ministry of Supply and a Ministry of Information. The Focus itself was secret and would operate under other names (including the Defence of Peace and Freedom) and via front groups. Spier says that he told his wife about the Focus in confidence and that they thereafter referred to Churchill by the codename Oscar, meaning “the spear of God”.4 He told Churchill in 1938 that it was “one of the objects of the Focus to provide its members, and you most of all, with just those facilities which a party machine provides, publicity by public meetings, through the press and our publications.”5 This quasi-party had included Tories and Liberals from the start, and by then included prominent Labour politicians too, including Clement Attlee and Hugh Dalton who later served as ministers under Churchill. At about the same time, when the Focus took control of the League of Nations Union’s magazine Headway, Spier asserted that “Our campaign was avowedly all-party, while the policy of the new Headway would be to turn out the Conservative government.”6

Recalling the origins of the group, Spier’s aims had grown: “In the meantime [1938] I had embarked on a project of my own, the evacuation of all Jews then under Nazi rule.”7 Violet Bonham-Carter prefigured the rhetoric of refugee-cum-anti-fascist activists today: according to Spier, she “had repeatedly reminded our politicians that it was the very glory of this country that British shores throughout the centuries had offered sanctuary to the oppressed and that Britain had thrown its doors wide open to fugitives and those who were persecuted.”8 Refugees like Stefan Lorant (Istvan Reich), Emery Reeves (Imre Revesz) and Jurgen and Ursula Kuczynski contributed to the Focus’ cause and the promotion of Churchill, as I have discussed in previous essays.9 Revesz’ assistance to Churchill, given specifically because of Churchill’s anti-German stance, was particularly lucrative and as helpful to Churchill as the large gifts of money he received from others.

In contrast to the members’ favourability toward Jews, co-founder Henry Wickham Steed “detested Germans in general”10 as did Robert Vansittart, the civil service head of the Foreign Office from 1930 to 1938 and a sometime attendee of Focus meetings. Steed, as editor of The Times before the Great War, had urged the government to fight Germany in 1914. Churchill also had a long history of belligerence toward Germany, as did his close friend Frederick Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell.

Robert Henriques was given access to the papers of Sir Robert Waley Cohen, his wife’s grandfather, in order to write his posthumous biography. He relates that in 1936, “Every week Bob and a few other leaders of Anglo-Jewry met at New Court”, the London headquarters of the Rothschild financial interests, “to plan a form of defence against anti-Semitic propaganda. In June, Bob, and several others had an interview with the Home Secretary and returned with the assurance that the Government would do everything in its power to arrest what it acknowledged to be “a growing evil”.” Waley Cohen was, among other things, a Vice-President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. There was a perceived need “to find a platform which would enlist the whole-hearted support of the greatest possible number of Gentile friends.” The Focus became that platform, and

it was decided at New Court to raise a secret fund, initially of £50,000, which would work with the sympathetic non-Jewish organisations as well as with the Jewish Telegraph Agency […] Bob agreed to raise, control and administer this fund. […] Bob insisted from the start that the Jewish defence movement must concentrate on attacking Nazi philosophy and its denial of human rights, rather than on the direct refutation of anti-Semitic propaganda. … [H]e insisted that propaganda should be directed against ‘pursuing peace without caring for freedom and justice’ — a summary of the British policy of appeasement.

Colonel Robert David Quixano Henriques
Robert Henriques

The same “leaders of Anglo-Jewry” later began to fund Neville Laski as well as the Focus, enabling Laski to suspend his private business as a lawyer and pursue the communal ‘self-defence strategy’, of which the Focus was another component, in his capacity as the President of the Board of Deputies.11 In terms of communal hierarchy, the Board was evidently junior to the unnamed “leaders” who regularly met at New Court.

Jewish self-defence

According to Richard Hawkins, the Focus, also known as the Anti-Nazi Council, was a continuation of the British branch of the World Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council for Human Rights, started in the USA in 1934 by the wealthy lawyer and Jewish activist Samuel Untermyer and intended initially to co-ordinate a global boycott of Hitler’s Germany to effect regime change.

In April 1936, Winston Churchill joined the WNSANCHR. … In July, the Board of Deputies of British Jews created a secret fund to support anti-Nazi groups including the WNSANCHR. At a meeting on October 15, the WNSANCHR, at the suggestion of Churchill, decided to establish a Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace movement. The Focus helped revive Churchill’s political career. As Eugen Spier later observed, ‘Later on it was easy to forget the part [the Focus] played in creating a platform for Winston Churchill at a time he was in the political wilderness.’12

Untermyer launched his boycott in March 1933. Zbynek Vydra describes it as having the goal of “terminating Jewish persecution by overthrowing Hitler” and says it “was meant to be one of the means of bringing Germany down on its knees.”13 In Untermyer’s words, the aim of his “purely defensive economic boycott” was to “undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depend[ed].”14 Hawkins and Vydra, as well as Sharon Gewirtz and Daniel Tilles, have contributed illuminating work on the Untermyer boycott and the early activities of the Anti-Nazi Council and other components of ‘communal self-defence’ which came to constitute a “Jewish foreign policy” (Vydra).15 Evidently the policy could not be effective unless it supplanted the existing British foreign policy with which it directly contrasted, hence the need to either pressure the government into adopting it or, as Spier said, “turn out” the government and replace it with one led by Churchill.

Much of the government and state were amenable to pleas from leading members of the Board of Deputies or even their relatives. Gewirtz describes Robert Vansittart meeting Neville Laski, Robert Waley Cohen and others to advise them on how best to conduct Jewish domestic policy and obtain the most from their relations with civil servants and politicians.16 Laski’s brother Harold, a leading Labour activist and a sympathiser with communism and the Soviet Union, was also able to directly lobby the Home Secretary to have the British Union of Fascists banned from conducting uniformed demonstrations.17

In his book Twilight of Truth, which is vehemently critical of Neville Chamberlain and appeasement, Richard Cockett describes the relationship between Vansittart and Reginald Leeper and the Focus and Churchill, including having many of the same sources of intelligence. (Cockett contradicts Spier by saying that Churchill joined the Focus in 1936 at the prompting of Leeper whereas Spier says Churchill was present and active from the first meeting in 1935.)18 Lord Lloyd, another extremely anti-German Focus member, became the first head of the British Council, an overtly “anti-fascist” propaganda initiative of Leeper’s which worked to the same purpose as the Focus.19

Corroboration

Other historians, even if concerned to dispel anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, still acknowledge that a Jewish lobby supported Churchill for his anti-German stance. As Michael Cohen says, “When Churchill joined Focus, an anti-appeasement group formed by, among others, [Sir Henry] Strakosch and Lord Melchett [Sir Robert Mond], his political opponents spread stories that he was in the pockets of the Jews.”20 Martin Gilbert, the admiring biographer of Churchill, corroborates Cockett in regard to the collaboration of Churchill, Vansittart and Leeper that centred on the Focus, emphasising their inclusion of leftists like Walter Citrine and several leading Labour MPs.21 Gilbert also makes frequent references to the Focus (under its operating name ‘Defence of Peace and Freedom’ or ‘Freedom and Peace’).22 He quotes Spier on the “formation and working of Churchill’s Anti-Nazi League”.23 Gilbert highlights Churchill’s remark to his son Randolph in November 1936 that

the basis of the Anti-Nazi League, which he had recently helped to launch, ‘is of course Jewish resentment at their abominable persecution. But we are now taking broader ground rather on the lines of my Paris speech.’ A Peace with Freedom committee had been formed. It aimed ‘at focusing and concentrating the efforts of all the Peace societies like the New Commonwealth and the League of Nations Union in so far as they are prepared to support genuine military action to resist tyranny or aggression.’24

Roy Jenkins’ strongly admiring biography of Churchill includes discussion of the “the Focus Group” and its activities in some detail.25 The Focus is also described by Gerard de Groot as a “secret organisation” among frequent mentions in Liberal Crusader, his biography of the Focus co-founder and old friend of Winston Churchill, Sir Archibald Sinclair.26

Churchill And Sinclair
Archibald Sinclair and Winston Churchill

Financing Churchill personally

Having covered the evidence for direct Zionist and/or Jewish support for Churchill’s political activities, we should mention No More Champagne by David Lough, a book which, though approving of Churchill, is frank about his financial ineptitude. Evans’ remarks about the Churchills’ ancestral wealth failed to account for Winston’s tendency to overspend, gamble in casinos and speculate in shares. Lough shows Sir Henry Strakosch to be both an outstandingly generous funder of Churchill personally between 1938 and Strakosch’s death in 1943 and a supplier of intelligence to Churchill. His interest in financing Churchill appears to have been to keep Churchill in politics when he came close to retiring because Churchill was the best available champion of an anti-Hitler policy.27

Lough also refers to “the American arm of [the] Focus”, a network of Jewish activists centred on Jacob Landau, founder of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. They intended to pay Churchill to visit the USA to “launch a parallel American Focus group” with speeches in major cities. The kernel was assembled; Churchill would reach out to recruit gentiles. Churchill had to cancel the trip but remained a correspondent of Landau, as he was of Felix Frankfurter and Bernard Baruch, both Zionists, Jewish activists and close advisers to Franklin Roosevelt. Eugen Spier describes Henry Wickham Steed taking a similar trip to the USA to co-ordinate with the Focus’ collaborators there in 1938.28

When Churchill became Prime Minister, British Security Co-ordination was established to support pro-war forces in the USA and vilify their opponents. In How the Jews Defeated Hitler, Benjamin Ginsberg describes Jews’ crucial roles in the American equivalent of the Focus. Quoting myself,

Ginsberg attributes the weakening and discrediting of American nationalists and anti-communists to “the relentless media and public information campaign” conducted by the Fight for Freedom Committee (FFF), the Century Group, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) and others. Ginsberg refers to the first two as a union of “Jews and members of the Eastern establishment”; both included the financier James Warburg, the founder and owner of Viking Press, Harold Guinzburg, the intelligence agent Allen Dulles and several Hollywood film producers including two of the Warner brothers. Allen Dulles was a leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an overtly elitist policy group also composed of Jews and Eastern establishment figures, which was created to lobby for global governance and the largest business interests under the name of ‘internationalism’. Ginsberg says that the FFF “worked closely with British intelligence services” under the name of British Security Co-ordination (BSC) which “found in the FFF a useful ally to help them discredit America First.” The BSC supplied “newspaper editors associated with the FFF” with material to justify denunciations of American patriots as traitors and Nazi agents. Ginsberg adds that “BSC also coordinated efforts with the FFF to disrupt America First rallies”, in which they were joined by Jewish gangsters and hired thugs under the leadership of Meyer Lansky. Lansky’s involvement came at the request of Nathan Perlman of the American Jewish Congress. Soviet intelligence also benefited. The Representative from New York, Samuel Dickstein, a Jewish immigrant from the Russian Empire, campaigned for, and then co-led, what became the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which “worked to harass and intimidate Bundists and other pro-German groups.” The NKVD paid him monthly.

America’s two biggest broadcast networks, the Columbia Broadcasting Service (CBS) and the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), “embodied the pro-British, anti-German alliance between America’s Jews and establishment Protestants.” CBS was owned by William Paley, a son of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, and NBC was owned by the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), whose president was David Sarnoff, a Jewish immigrant from Minsk. Ginsberg adds that “their most important news broadcasters and journalists were such establishment figures as Edward R. Murrow and William Shirer.” Murrow was a protege of the arch-internationalist and director of the CFR, Stephen Duggan, and had already campaigned since 1933 for the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars which worked to import Jewish subversives and communists into the US from Germany. The New School for Social Research in New York was a base for many of the arrivals including the members of the Institute for Social Research, the so-called Frankfurt School.”29

Ben_Ginsberg.JPG
Benjamin Ginsberg

The ‘American Focus’ thus not only complemented the work of and collaborated with the British branch but, like the British branch according to Spier, also appears to have germinated in part from activism for Jewish refugees (or ‘displaced scholars’).

Lifelong support for Jews and Zionism

David Irving’s statement that Churchill was “bought” in 1936 might be misleading if one doesn’t know (as Irving presumably does) that Churchill’s support for Jews and Zionism was already decades old before he met Spier, Mond, Cohen or Strakosch.30 His intermittent reliance, since early adulthood at the latest, on wealthy Jews like Ernest Cassel (also a lavish benefactor of King Edward VII and his widow), is well-documented by Richard Davenport-Hines among others.31 Also at least thirty years old was Churchill’s support for Jewish immigration into Britain, in pursuit of which he even harmed his own political career.32

Churchill’s equally ardent support for Zionism also dated to the early years of his career. I have thus far discussed the Focus in particular, but another ‘Zionist lobby’ bore upon Churchill (and British politics in general) to largely the same effect, and partly in the same personnel. Zionists led by Chaim Weizmann, who lobbied for and facilitated Jewish immigration into Palestine, sought, like the Focus, to have the government adopt policies that promoted Jewish interests. Churchill had, since earlier in the 1930s, joined other politicians in working to support and collaborate with Weizmann’s group. As Martin Gilbert describes,

On 8 June 1937, Weizmann presented his reasoning [in regard to the prospect of partitioning Palestine between Jews and Arabs] at a private dinner given by Sir Archibald Sinclair at which Churchill was present, as well as James de Rothschild and several parliamentary supporters of Zionism: Leo Amery, Clement Attlee, Colonel Josiah Wedgwood and Captain Victor Cazalet. ‘You know, you are our masters,’ Churchill told Weizmann, and he added, pointing to those present, ‘If you ask us to fight, we shall fight like tigers.’33

Martin Gilbert

Apart from the commonality of membership between this group and the Focus (Churchill, Attlee, Sinclair and Rothschild), note that the leader of the Liberals, the leader of Labour and its next prime minister, and the next Tory leader and prime minister were all militantly servile toward the Zionist cause. Once Chamberlain was cleared away, Zionists would have near-total control of British politics, at least at the level of party leadership.

Churchill’s contribution

I have been concerned here with the historicity of the Focus. I have discussed it in detail and in context in my earlier essays.
Champions of Judea

Champions of Judea

·
April 25, 2024

Churchill himself contributed nothing to this history, simply avoiding all mention of it in his tomes, consistent with his letter to Spier asking for secrecy unto death. Evidently he saw the Focus as a conspiracy from the start, one aiming to frighten the public, which Spier credits it with doing, and “turn out the Chamberlain government”, institute a “Jewish foreign policy”, ally with the Soviet Union and “bring down Germany on its knees” regardless of the cost. I have shown, with reference only to undisputed sources, that the Focus was a Jewish and Zionist lobby (in addition to Weizmann’s group) which assisted Churchill in becoming prime minister, seeing him as an instrument (‘the spear of God’) for Jewish interests, operated in secret and worked successfully to install Jewish interests as the main concern of the British government and state.

Doing the work

Anti-fascist historians may well believe that all this was to the good, but that is a different argument. Professor Evans dismissed the idea of Jewish or Zionist lobbying or backing for Churchill as a conspiracy theory, yet there are abundant, and mostly laudatory, accounts attesting to it. If you insist on denying all this, Professor Evans, tackle the evidence head-on, as you counselled. Tackle Martin Gilbert and Robert Henriques. Do the work.

Horus’s Substack


1 Focus – a Footnote to the History of the Thirties, Eugen Spier, 1963, p13

2 Spier, p19

3 Spier, p19-20

4 Spier, p22-23

5 Spier, p108

6 Spier, p141

7  Spier, p141

8 Spier, p143, 147

9 About Revesz and the Kuczynskis, see my essay Champions of Judea. About Lorant, see A Conflict of Philosophies. Martin Gilbert describes Focus co-founder and lead journalist Henry Wickham Steed writing in Lorant’s Picture Post Churchill promotional issue in 1939, which Gilbert credits with helping force Chamberlain to bring Churchill, portrayed as a saviour in exile, into government. Gilbert refers to the Focus as the Anti-Nazi League. See Churchill and the Jews, Martin Gilbert, 2007, p156

10 Spier, p31

11 Sir Robert Waley Cohen, 1877-1952: A Biography, Robert Henriques, 1966, p361-4

12 “Hitler’s Bitterest Foe”: Samuel Untermyer and the Boycott of Nazi Germany, 1933–1938, Richard Hawkins, American Jewish History, Volume 93, Number 1, March 2007, p46

13 British Jewry and the Attempted Boycott of Nazi Germany, 1933–1939, Zbyněk Vydra, Theatrum historiae 21 (2017), p206

14 Hawkins, p31

15 Vydra, p212

16 Anglo-Jewish Responses to Nazi Germany 1933-39: The Anti-Nazi Boycott and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Sharon Gewirtz, Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 26, Number 2, April 1991, p267

17 “Some lesser known aspects” – The Anti-Fascist Campaign of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, 1936-40, Daniel Tilles, p138-140 and p151

18 Twilight of Truth: Chamberlain, Appeasement and the Manipulation of the Press, Richard Cockett, 1989, p24

19 Lord Lloyd and the decline of the British Empire, John Charmley, 1987, p208, 211. About the British Council’s budget, see Cultural Diplomacy and the British Council: 1934-1939, Philip Taylor, British Journal of International Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, October 1978, p244-265

20 Churchill and the Jews, Michael Cohen, 2003, afterword to the second edition

21 Churchill: a Life, Martin Gilbert, 1992, p554, p584, p596

22 Winston S. Churchill – The Prophet of Truth, Martin Gilbert, 1976, chapters 36-50

23 Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, p xvii, chapter 12

24 Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, p135-6

25 Churchill, Roy Jenkins, 2001, chapters 26-28

26 Liberal Crusader, Gerard De Groot, 1993, chapters 5 and 6. One of the chapter titles, Arms and the Covenant, was a name used by the Focus similarly to ‘Peace and Freedom’.

27 No More Champagne – Churchill and his Money, David Lough, 2015, chapters 18, 20 and 21

28 Spier, p124-5 and p129. He refers to Bernard Baruch as “the most influential Jew in America”.

29 From my essay A Conflict of PhilosophiesBritish Security Coordination was established in the early days of Winston Churchill’s government and received the expressed approval of J Edgar Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. See British Security Coordination, William Stephenson (editor), 1999, xxv

32 See my essay Beaconsfield Revisited

33 Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 11

THE FAKE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL GENOCIDE

Time to Abolish the White Race

Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.
Lysander Spooner

Did you know that the children of the nomadic Siberian Nenet tribe are sent to boarding school for nine months of the year to learn the basics of civilization? Many of them don’t tolerate it and literally freeze to death trying to return to the tundra to rejoin their tribe. It’s hard to change worlds, to go from freedom to confinement from one day to the next. We sure know something about that, don’t we?

Does this mean they are coerced? Of course not. It’s not the evil civilized “superior” White people forcing them. Like all responsible parents, Nenet parents who want the best for their children, know very well that their kids need to learn how to live in the modern world.

After their education which lasts several years, most of these kids, in fact, do not want to return to the tundra. The most gifted become lawyers, doctors, or researchers, the others find a job of some kind and integrate themselves into the society that raised them. Nobody forces them. They themselves choose where they want to live and how. And that’s a good thing.

Russians have great respect for the hundreds of ethnic groups that have lived on their territory since time immemorial. Contrary to woke liberals such as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau who are constantly trying to inflame minorities against their own race, they want things to go well and everyone to be happy.

And so did the missionaries who taught the Amerindians in residential schools. By vocation, they were also sincerely concerned about their students who just like the Nenets were to be civilized for their own good. The same goes for Canadian aboriginal parents, who were as concerned about their children’s welfare as the Nenets and the missionaries. None of these children were forced at gunpoint to do so like all main stream media claimed. [1] To pretend otherwise is a form of racism.

Since their families lived in the wilderness, sometimes far from the boarding schools, some of those students could not be sent back to their families on weekends as they would today. There were no roads or buses. In order to adapt them as well as possible, it made more sense to keep these children in boarding schools for several months. That being said 2/3 of the kids who attended residential schools were day students that went home every day to those parents who lived on the reserve at a walking distance from the schools. Moreover, half of all Amerindian children never went to school.[2]

Yet, in spite of this long period far from their parents, a majority of students such as the prominent Aboriginal playwright Tomson Highway and the late band chief Cece Hodgson-McCauley greatly enjoyed their time at their schools. “Nine of the happiest years of my life were spent at that school… some people have been bad-mouthing residential schools for money,” the chief told The Huffington Post and CBC.[3]

Fortunately, the thesis of systematic, large-scale abuse and mistreatment has finally fallen by the wayside.[4] The mass grave of 215 bodies allegedly discovered near a residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia, with laser imaging and telemetry techniques, is just one more lie to be added to the false reality that the controlled globalist media such as the New York Times is constantly imposing on us by repetition.[5] “Only soil anomalies — not ‘remains, bodies, or graves’ — had been detected by the inexperienced radar operator” writes journalist Brian Giesbrecht. “Only excavation can conclusively prove that graves exist. However, the Tk’emlups Indian band that made the claim refused to excavate and to release the radar operator’s report.”[6]

In fact, “after two years of horror stories about alleged mass graves of aboriginal children in Canada’s residential schools,” writes journalist Dana Kennedy, “a series of recent digs at suspected sites have revealed no human remains.”[7] Jacques Rouillard, professor emeritus in the history department at the Université de Montréal, told the New York Post: “I don’t like to use the word hoax because it’s too strong, but there are too many falsehoods circulating on this issue without any proof.”[8]

Graves where children who died of natural causes were indeed found around residential schools, but there was no Native American genocide. At the time of the alleged mass graves, the infant mortality rate was close to 40%. Some boarding schools were overcrowded and hygiene was sometimes poor. As Amerindians were less resistant to disease than Europeans, many succumbed to malnutrition, tuberculosis, typhus, influenza (Spanish Flew) and several other infectious diseases. There were no antibiotics to treat them. As some of the parents lived far away in the woods, there was no easy way to warn them, and the bodies had to be properly buried to avoid epidemics. Things eventually improved once the nutrition and living conditions of the Aboriginals changed for the better thanks to the care of the missionaries, the government, and the indigenous staff who worked in these residential schools.

There may have been isolated cases of mistreatment, as is the case in all institutions of this kind, but there is no trace of forcible transfer of a population, persecution against an identifiable group, enforced disappearance of persons, apartheid, and general inhumane acts of cruelty, torture, hangings, medical experimentation, or systematic rape and sexual slavery.[9] In the end, there was no reason to burn churches all across Canada, as some Aboriginals and the social justice left have done in revenge.

This is not only a story about indigenous people telling lies to obtain reparations and social benefits, but a story about people of all denominations losing their minds because of a false consensus effect.[10] A prominent group of lawyers, who called for an International Criminal Court investigation of anyone involved in Residential Schools, the Vatican, incompetent government officials, the social justice left, politized RCMP, subsidized government media, “missionary” scholars who use their research to serve a cause, and the public always ready to believe the first wolf disguised as sheep readily jumped on the bandwagon of lies in a frenzy tantamount to hysteria as if they had been prepared or groomed beforehand by decades of anti-Christian and anti-White propaganda.

Anti-Catholic and Anti-White Propaganda

It is very much Hollywood that prepared the ground for what happened in Canada. In films on television and in the movies, Christians, especially Catholics, are most often portrayed as bigoted, narrow-minded, and intolerant, even as rapists or murderers. As for the Catholic clergy, they are most often portrayed as a bunch of sadists and pedophiles.[11]

Whites by association are also systematically targeted. As a matter of fact, anti-White propaganda has been a fixture of Hollywood movies as far back as the early 50’s. As noted by Frank L. Brittons in his 1952 booklet Behind communism, “Hollywood has now committed itself to producing at least four race pictures annually. Most of these pictures are destined beforehand to lose money, and are made purely for propaganda purposes. Some are so inflammatory they cannot be shown in certain sections of the United States. […] While minorities are systematically taught to think and act in terms of race, Whites are instilled with a sense of guilt for the ‘wrongs’ committed against minorities; they are taught that race consciousness is wrong and a manifestation of bigotry, and that all races being equal, they should discard the concept of race.”[12]

This massive ongoing propaganda machine has only one goal in mind: to sully Christians, demonize the White race and turn against it not only the minority groups, but also the majority White population and its leaders, who by dint of being told in schools and on theater, TV, and computer screens, almost 24/7, that their race is rotten, hate it more than the minorities themselves.[13]

As Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review says, “Even many of those who readily acknowledge the tremendous influence of American film and television seem not to fully comprehend the formidable scope of the power behind Hollywood, or the outlook and agenda of those who wield that power…”[14]

The Myth of the Noble Savage

You’ve probably seen the film, Dances with Wolves, with the handsome Kevin Costner, but did you know it’s pure fiction? Before their evangelization and education in boarding schools by missionaries, Native Americans were not noble, good, kind, or innocent as portrayed in the movie. The idea of the peaceful and noble savage is pure bunk.[15] They were savages of unprecedented cruelty[16]; primitives who practiced cannibalism, polygamy, and slavery; warriors who spent their time fighting over territory.[17] They knew nothing of writing, agriculture, the wheel, the sail, or the pulley – inventions that were centuries old. The term “First Nations’ is a misnomer as they had no idea of what a nation is. There was no unity between these tribes. Only conflict and abject cruelty. Hollywood glorifies them only to smear Christians and Whites.

According to prolific New Zealand author journalist Kerry Bolton, there are two fundamental objectives to this propaganda: 1. Disparage European colonial empires with a concomitant idealization of ex-colonial people, and 2. Glorify the national liberation struggles of indigenous people. This emotion-laden propaganda is given the scholarly name of post-modernism. As Kerry Bolton says, these ideological studies are “a broad front for the theoretical deconstruction of Western Civilization, and is part and parcel of a neo-Marxian movement in academia which includes gender studies […] These studies are intended to serve political agendas rather than the ‘truth’ per se.” [18] According to Bolton,

The tendency is for the European peoples, or rather governments in their name, to forever apologize for the alleged wrongdoings of the colonial era. This universal guilt complex is transposed to the present so that reparations can be demanded in perpetuity on the basis of collective hereditary guilt. Hence European peoples will be forever judged guilty for the alleged crimes of their colonial oppressor forebearers.[19]

In other words, claims of mass deaths, unmarked graves, and “disappearances” in Residential Schools are exaggerated or fabricated for political gain, financial compensation, or to advance the anti-colonial agendas that are used to guilt-trip Whites. Indigenous lawyer Kimberley Murray is often targeted in this discourse as a key figure “pushing” these claims due to her Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report (TRC) and Interlocutor roles.[20]

Grave Error

The former Globalist Pope Francis, after a visit to Canada in July 2022, apologized for what happened at Roman Catholic and other Christian Church mission schools. He did not use the word “genocide” but he did say it was a “Holocaust,”[21] although there is absolutely no proof of such a thing as shown conclusively by editors C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan in their landmark book Grave Error forwarded by Conrad Black. [22] Was the Pope duped by the fake narratives promoted by subsidized media and the TRC report on the alleged Residential School genocide is an open question? This report is everything but a truthful document. It is filled with totally false assertions and gross exaggerations such as:

  • –Thousands of missing children went away to residential schools and were never heard of again.
  • –These missing children are buried in unmarked graves underneath or around mission churches and schools.
  • –Many of these missing children were murdered by school personnel after being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, even outright torture.
  • –The carnage is appropriately defined as genocide.
  • –Many human remains have already been located by ground-penetrating radar, and many more will be found as government-funded research progresses.
  • –Most Indian children attended residential schools.
  • –Those who attended residential schools did not go voluntarily but were compelled to attend by federal policy and enforcement.
  • –Attendance at residential school has traumatized Indigenous people, creating social pathologies that descend across generations.
  • –Residential schools destroyed Indigenous languages and culture.[23]

“It is striking that every single one of the 94 recommendations […] of the TRC is a demand for the federal government, or occasionally, some other organization such as the Catholic Church, to provide some benefits to First Nations,” note C.P. Chapman and Tom Flanagan, the editors of the above-mentioned book, Grave Error.[24]

No solutions are suggested for the many social pathologies such as violence against women, heavy consumption of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol and lack of family support for education, which affect First Nations. Instead of looking for biological causes to these problems such as the average low IQ of the population, the only factor responsible cannot possibly be anything other than the harm done by the Residential schools, what the TRC calls “cultural genocide.”

The Criminalization of Denial

Leah Gazan, the NDP Member of the Canadian Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, has been a leading figure in the recognition of the Canadian Indian Residential School system as an act of genocide. She has both Jewish and Indigenous ancestry; her advocacy for social justice is informed by the fact that her father was a holocaust survivor and her mother is a member of the Wood Mountain Lakota Nation. Mrs. Gazan has introduced legislation into the House of Commons to criminalize denial of the residential school genocide. Here is a quote from one of her interventions made in the House of Commons on October 31, 2025, during the reintroduction (first reading) of her private member’s bill aimed at amending the Criminal Code to address residential school denialism as a form of promoting hatred against Indigenous peoples:

Today, I will be reintroducing my bill to recognize Residential School denialism as a form of inciting hate. You know, it’s been over a decade since the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Report, and since that time we have seen since the discovery of unmarked graves an increase in denialism about what occurred in the Residential Schools. This is horrific particularly because all members of parliament unanimously supported my motion in 2022 to recognize what has happened in residential schools as an act of genocide, the first genocide that was recognized within Canadian borders at a time, where we are looking once again at building a nation on the backs of indigenous peoples around our lands, territories, and resources in the name of national interests in violation of constitutionally enshrined indigenous rights. If this government is serious about reconciling with indigenous people, it must ensure the protection of survivors. It was the story of survivors and our family that put us on a path towards reconciliation. So, I’m calling on the government to do the right thing. To take on this bill, to support this bill and truly honor the gift that residential school survivors provided to Canada.

The accusation of denialism is a powerful rhetorical weapon because of its association with the Holocaust. As C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan state in their sequel book to Grave Error, Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, “Labelling a certain position on residential schools brings in the powerful emotions associated with anti-Semitism and the Holocaust without having to make a logical and factual case.”[25] In fact, this reflexive mantra is used to stamp out criticism of any argument that contradicts the gimmicks that are used to scare us such as the fake climate urgency and the planned Covid pandemic or to make us feel guilty such as slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, etc.

Critical Theory

As a result of these lies, Canada has officially recognized that genocide did take place. This admission of guilt based on thin air is in effect another giant step on the way to demonizing and abolishing the White race and the nations and civilization it created. “Everything today,” writes James Pew, one of the authors of Grave Error, “is viewed through the cynical lens of radical critical theory. […] It asserts that the relatively peaceful and pluralistic first-world societies of the West are actually oppressive regimes upholding the white patriarchal power structure left over from colonialism, and serving the interests of public enemy number one: White men.”[26]

The Poison of Postmodernism

It is postmodernists like the Jewish philosopher Jacques Derrida and the homosexual child rapist Michel Foucault[27] who invented the idea, roundly denounced as an intellectual imposture by the physicists Alain Sokal and Jean Bricmont[28] that reality does not exist. Their philosophy is quite simple: it is enough to believe something for it to be true. Everything is subject to interpretation, everything is relative.[29], [30]

In their world, you can be whoever you want, a male, a female, half-and-half, whatever suits your fancy. Everyone has the same abilities. Equality in everything is the rule. So, women and men are interchangeable in all areas, including pregnancy. There is no such thing as race and all cultures are equal. For these deniers of reality, behaviours and abilities have no genetic basis.[31] It is so simply because you decide that it is so; so, there is no need to prove anything with objective arguments, objectivity does not exist anyway.[32]

And if it doesn’t fit with reality, they manage to make it fit by lowering the selection criteria, by favouring through positive discrimination (affirmative action) the less qualified over the more qualified. In this tyranny of “your opinion is as good as mine,” men who are women by choice become female weightlifting champions, a plant nutrient such as CO2 becomes a poison, soil anomalies become mass graves, the discovery of a potentially unmarked burial site becomes the discovery of an unmarked burial site containing 215 children secretly killed by priests who forced six-year-olds to dig the graves.

All you have to do is want it, et voilà, with a wave of a magic wand your wildest desires become a reality that no one can contest on pain of reprisals, as this kind of policy can only work at gunpoint. This is behaviour by culture vs. behaviour by nature, our real vocation enshrined in our DNA. That’s why all leftist utopias finish in bloodshed, they’re in conflict with human nature.

In short, as Pope Benedict XVI says: “Relativism appears to be the only admissible attitude in our present age, a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive and that gives as its ultimate measure only its own ego and its desires.”[33] In this reign of subtle, perverse terror veiled by good intentions and noble sentiments, the very concepts of facts and knowledge are denounced as hate speech and racism. Truth no longer has any meaning. Minority opinion takes precedence over that of the majority. Freedom of expression is stifled. Democracy is nothing more than an empty word. Threats of dismissal, vandalism, intimidation, banking exclusion, and personal attacks are the rules of engagement in this war of subjectivity against common sense, logic, and objectivity.

The scourge of relativism, in other words, boils down to an excessive, dogmatic, or performative ideology that prioritizes identity politics, victimhood hierarchies, cancel culture, and enforced conformity over merit, free speech, and individual responsibility; it divides society into oppressors and oppressed based on group identities and leads to intolerance or reverse discrimination particularly towards Christians and White people, who are seen as the most important obstacles to progress that must be erased from the surface of the Earth.

Global Utopia

Don’t be fooled, though, progress has nothing to do with it. The decolonizing social justice left and the government puppets that are involved in this destruction of Christianity and the White race are the useful idiots of international capitalism that is leading the world down a path to planetary servitude.

The ultimate goal of the banker-merchants who call the shots in the background is to create a worldwide collectivist society of consumers easy to manipulate and control;[34] a society where the notion of belonging to a country will be obsolete; a society where no one will have any identity, other than that of consumer. This future is described as a “global utopia” for the ruling elite, a nightmare for the millions of rootless, acculturated post-national nomads.[35]

In this post-modern drama that’s unfolding in front of our very eyes, the “worker bees” will be able to move unhindered to wherever they are needed. Trade and all other transactions will be greatly facilitated by the elimination of all barriers, not only physical, but also psychological and social.

The fake residential school genocide is just one step in that direction.


[1] Editors C. P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, preface by Conrad Black, Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools), True North and Dorchester Books, 2023.

[2] Lifesitenews staff, “Rescued from the memory hole: Some First Nations people loved their residential schools,” June 28, 2021.

[3] McRAE: Is the real truth not bad enough? Western Standard, December 15, 2022.

[4] C P Champion and Tom Flanagan, work cited.

[5] Gabrielle Fonrouge, Mass grave with 215 Indigenous kids found on former school grounds in Canada, New York Post, May 28, 2021.

[6] Brian Giesbrecht, ‘Lawyers Should Apologize for False Accusations,’ Editors C. P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, sequel to Grave Error,  Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North and Dorchester Books, 2025, p. 142.

[7] Dana Kennedy, “No Human Remains Found 2 Years After Claims of ‘Mass Graves’ in Canada,” New York Post, August 31, 2023.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Jared Taylor, Kamloops: Greatest Hate Hoax Ever?  YouTube, January 29, 2022.

[10] AI GROK definition on X: The false consensus effect is a cognitive bias in psychology where people tend to overestimate the extent to which others share their own opinions, beliefs, behaviors, or preferences. In brief: We assume our views are more common than they actually are. This phenomenon was first systematically studied by Lee Ross and colleagues in 1977, and it’s supported by extensive research showing it’s a pervasive egocentric bias in social perception.

[11] Hervé Ryssen, Satan in Hollywood, The Barnes Review, also on the Internet Archive, 2016.

[12] Frank L. Britton, Behind Communism, River Crest Publishing, 2021 (first published in 1952), pp 116-118.

[13] Arthur Kempt, The War Against Whites. The Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West, Ostara Publications, 2020, p. 82.

[14] Mark Weber, Hollywood’s Agenda, and the Power Behind It, Institute for Historical Review, Feb. 6, 2013.

[15] Lawrence H. Keeley, War before Civilization, Oxford University Press, Nov. 1 1997.

[16] Adam Stueck, “A Place Under Heaven: Amerindian Torture and Cultural Violence in Colonial New France, 1609-1729″ (2012). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 174. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/174

[17] Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance. Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, Stackpole Books, 1996.

[18] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Parihaka Cult, Black House Publishing, 2012.

[19] Ibid, p. 19.

[20] Michelle Stirling, “Open letter,” Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North, 2025, pp 218 to 230.

[21]Pope says genocide of Aboriginal children in Canadian mission schools,” epicnews, July 30, 2022.

[22] C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, Grave Error.[22] How the Media Misled us (and the Truth about Residential schools), Forward by Conrad Black, True North, 2023; there is a sequel to this book, Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North, 2025; see also a controversial documentary on the “worst lie in Canadian history,” Making a Killing: Reconciliation, Genocide, and Plunder in Canada, released December 2, 2025.

[23] C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, Grave Error, p. 330.

[24] Ibid., p. 329.

[25] Editors C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong, True North, 2025, chapter 7, p. 18.

[26] James Pew, “Canada’s descent into collective guilt,” Grave Error by Editors C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan, p. 160.

[27] Matthew Campbell, “French Philosopher Michel Foucault ‘Abused Boys in Tunisia,’” The Sunday Times, March 28, 2021.

[28] Alain D. Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Impostures intellectuelles, Odile Jacob, 1997.

[29] Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Ockam’s Razor Publishing, 2018.

[30] Noretta Koertge, A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science, Oxford University Press, 1998.

[31] Robert Plomin, John Defries, Gerald Mcclearn, and Michael Rutter, Des gènes au comportement : Introduction à la génétique comportementale, Université de Boeck, 1999.

[32] David Ruse, Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Doggy Data, Regnery Publishing, 2017

[33] Greg Kandra, « Benoît XVI : “Le relativisme est un poison” », Aleteia, January 31, 2017.

[34] Kerry Bolton, PhD, Revolution from Above, Arktos, 2011; see also by the same author, The Banking Swindle. Money Creation and the State, Black House Publishing, 2017. French jurist Valérie Bugault, PhD has also written extensively on this subject, Demain l’aube… le renouveau, Sigest, 2023; lastly but not least: Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Humanity, Black House Publishing Ltd, 4th Edition, 2019.

[35] Gearóid Ó Colmáin, “Rothschild’s ‘Slaughter Ships.’ Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 4 of 11),” Dissident Voice, 2016. Cited by Scott Howard, The Open Society Playbook, Antelope Hill Publishing, p. 223.