Jewish Bolsheviks and Mass Murder: Rozalia Zemliachka and the Jews Responsible for the Bloodbath in Crimea, 1920

The fact that roving squads of Jewish terrorists—atheistic, hate-filled, and revenge-minded—liquidated millions of people over a period thrice the lifespan of the Third Reich places twentieth-century history in much better perspective. … On November 15 Red troops moved into Sevastopol “led by an armored car marked with a red star insignia and in large red letters, the word “Antichrist,”[61] a flourish highly characteristic of Jewish commissars in the early days of Communist rule.

12,702 words

Introduction

It is well known in some circles that Jews were responsible for a long list of atrocities in the Soviet Union. The sheer magnitude of the enormities committed in that era is staggering. Between 1917 and 1953, millions of Russians suffered arrest, torture and murder, millions more perished in the Gulag, and yet more millions expired in state-engineered famines. Among the people responsible for these horrors were many Jews. Yet the connection between specific perpetrators and specific crimes is often vague.[1] This paper aims to delineate the connection between a certain group of Jews and a particularly notorious massacre: that in Crimea in late 1920. As background, we will take a look at the career of one of the main actors in this tragedy, an acutely fanatical Bolshevik named Rozalia Zemliachka. This woman, an odious hardline communist, had a lengthy revolutionary career. She entered the movement as a young woman in 1896, joined Lenin’s Bolshevik faction, participated in the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, acted as political commissar of armies during the Russian Civil War, and later thrived under Stalin’s regime, which corresponded so well with her own convictions. She garnered the highest of state honors, and died naturally—quite the accomplishment for the era—in 1947. She was buried in Red Square alongside other leading figures of the regime. She carried out the massacre that is the subject of this essay in 1920, at the close of the Russian Civil War, when Lenin sent her to the Crimea, with a group of other high-ranking Jews, to liquidate elements hostile to Communist power. Historians believe that the death toll—in only a few months—amounted to more than 50,000 people. Let us take a look at a vicious group of Communist Jews and the great tragedy they visited upon the people of Crimea.

Rozalia Zemlichka

Early Life. Rozalia Samoilovna Zalkind, who later took the underground name Zemliachka (“fellow countrywoman”), was born in 1876 into a Jewish family.[2] Her father, Samuil Markovich Zalkind, was a wealthy merchant based in Kiev. The family sympathized with the burgeoning Russian revolutionary movement—which was, to a remarkable degree, Jewish[3]—and all the sons and daughters joined revolutionary parties.[4] When Tsar Alexander II fell victim in 1881 to a conspiracy in which a Jewess played a key role,[5] the Zalkind family approved of the murder and may have had some distant connection with the regicides. “Later that year the police searched their house, looking for illegal pamphlets.”[6] As a young girl, Rozalia witnessed the arrest of two of her brothers for revolutionary activity.[7]

Rozalia attended Gymnasium in Kiev, graduating at fifteen. By this time the precocious revolutionary, under the influence of her older brothers, already viewed herself as a populist, but she soon switched to Marxism, delving into the required texts. It is quite likely she made the switch because the Populist movement stressed a connection to Russian culture and the peasants; as a Jew she would have sympathized much more with the internationalist and “scientific” Marxist model. She had also identified the industrial workers as more likely than the peasants to lend themselves to the destruction of the existing order.[8] Like Marx and many other radicals, she proceeded from the imperative of revolution to the plight of the workers, not vice versa.[9]

Rozalia as a young revolutionary, attractive and feminine

Revolutionary Career

Her father sent her to Lyon to study medicine, but by 1896 she was back in Russia; the sources conflict on whether she earned a degree. She committed herself body and soul to the revolutionary movement. In that year she “made her debut as a Marxist. She spoke to a clandestine meeting on “the workers’ movement in western Europe.” Shortly thereafter she was arrested and sent to prison, where she studied Marxism still more diligently. Zemliachka’s career as a Social Democrat had begun.”[10] (The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party later became the Bolshevik Party.) She spent over two years in prison (1899–1901) and emerged a hardened communist, a stance from which she apparently never wavered. She cultivated an implacable persona, and used the pseudonym Tverdokamennaia, “Hard as a rock.” Another underground name she used was “Demon,” which makes one wonder what the soul of this young woman was experiencing.[11]

Before long she came to the attention of Nadezhda Krupskaya, Lenin’s wife, who was helping direct Party operations. Lev Bronshtein, who soon began calling himself “Trotsky,” had forwarded a glowing report on his friend Rozalia, praising her revolutionary temper and energy, although cautioning that she was domineering and lacked tact. Krupskaya (the Lenins were in exile in Western Europe, the Party being illegal in Russia) sent Rozalia to organize the underground Party group in Odessa. Soon,

Zemliachka became a leader in the underground. By March 1903 the Odessa party committee was firmly in the hands of the [pro-Lenin group] and she had been elected their delegate to the upcoming Second Party Congress. . . . Zemliachka proved herself to be commanding, energetic, and hard-working.[12]

Zemliachka’s friend Lev Bronshtein-Trotsky

In mid-1903 Zemliachka attended the fateful Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) in Brussels. (The founding congress had transpired in 1898 in Minsk, essentially under the auspices of the Jewish Labor Bund, which was by far the largest socialist organization in Russia. Four of that congress’s nine delegates were Jews.) Of the forty-three delegates attending the Second Congress, twenty were Jews.[13] At least until the Belgian police deported her, Zemliachka was able to meet Lenin and Krupskaya and take part in the debates in which she supported Lenin’s decidedly non-Marxist idea to form a small conspiratorial coterie of professional revolutionaries to “lead” the working masses to drink at the correct well: violent revolution. Lenin’s intransigence on the point led to a bitter break with the more orthodox Marxist moderates, who became known as Mensheviks (“the minority”).[14] Lenin seized upon a favorable vote during the debates to proclaim his faction the Bolsheviks, “the majority.” The split between the two groups became permanent, and Zemliachka committed herself fully to Lenin. Others adhering to Lenin were Joseph Stalin, Yakov Sverdlov, and Lev Kamenev (real name Rosenfeld), three men destined for major roles. Trotsky, however, drifted away with the Mensheviks, then struck off on his own (he was notoriously arrogant) until joining forces with Lenin shortly before the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917.

After the Congress, the Central Committee co-opted her as a member, demonstrating her new prominence. She was one of the most important Bolsheviks working in Russia as an agent of Lenin. She did political work in St. Petersburg and attended meetings of Bolsheviks in Switzerland and London. She asserted herself forcefully in the debates on policy at these meetings, urging stronger measures to build up the Party and speed the revolution, not shying away from speaking sharply to those she disagreed with.[15] Meanwhile, the Revolution of 1905 was mounting steam. After a quarrel with party members in St. Petersburg, Rozalia moved to Moscow and became secretary of the Moscow Party Committee, making her one of the top Bolsheviks in the city. She argued against an uprising because she thought it would fail, but when a strike-cum-revolt began in December, she “fought on the barricades” and deployed armored street cars in the futile struggle against the powerful government forces sent to restore order.[16] (The sources on Zemliachka are frustratingly sparse; even Barbara Evans Clements, who utilized Russian sources, gives us few details: “fought on the barricades” is all we get. A Russian-language article says she fired weapons in the course of the revolt.[17])

In the government crackdown that followed, Zemliachka was arrested and imprisoned in St. Petersburg. She contracted tuberculosis (of which her husband, Schmuel Berlin, had died in 1902) and a heart ailment, and the government granted her a medical release. She then went abroad (1909) until the outbreak of the First World War, staying mostly in Switzerland. Barbara Evans Clements says she avoided any contact with the other émigré revolutionaries (thousands of whom were in Western Europe), but another source says she worked closely with Lenin.[18] She “was profoundly depressed by the outcome of the 1905 uprisings and blamed her comrades, who, in her opinion, had bungled the great opportunities the revolutionary year had offered . . .”[19] She only returned to Russia in 1914, quietly resuming party work in Moscow.

After the February Revolution in 1917 toppled the Tsar she supported Lenin’s radical demands for “all power to the Soviets” and an immediate withdrawal from the war against Germany. At this time virtually all the socialists, including a majority of the Bolsheviks, assumed that the goal was supporting the new democratic Provisional Government and preparing for a Constituent Assembly to form a constitutional republic. This would represent (in Marxist theory) the “bourgeois revolution” that Russia, with its small industrial establishment, needed to develop an advanced capitalist system and pave the way for a Marxist dialectical showdown between the “oppressed workers” and the “capitalists.” This might take decades, however, and Lenin was not prepared to wait; neither were Trotsky and Zemliachka. They could see that the Provisional Government was weak and power was there for the taking. Th preponderant weight they gave Marxist dogma in their writing and rhetoric evaporated when they whiffed the possibility of taking power. “By mid-summer [Rozalia] was calling on the Moscow party committee to gather weapons and organize a militia in preparation for a seizure of power.”[20] Lenin and Trotsky goaded the reluctant Bolsheviks in Petrograd to do the same. As soon as Trotsky seized power in Petrograd that November, the Bolsheviks in Moscow prepared a coup, erecting a Military-Revolutionary Committee (patterned on that of Petrograd) to direct it. The secretary of the Committee was Arkady Rozengolts, and he appears to have played the leading role in the uprising.[21] Zemliachka led the takeover in one of the districts of the city (again, no details). After a few days of fighting, they overcame the small detachments defending the Provisional Government, and the two main cities of Russia fell to the Bolsheviks, largely through Jewish initiative.

Zemliachka in the Revolution  

Zemliachka worked in the Moscow Party Committee for much of 1918. (Lenin had moved the capital from Petrograd to Moscow in March, and so all power coalesced there.) All that year, the Bolshevik regime faced immense problems: civil war was heating up on several fronts, the economy was virtually at a standstill, and there was massive domestic unrest. The populace was hungry and unemployed; they were also angry at being bullied and despoiled by commissars and Jews, and were not afraid of saying so. Incensed workers shouted down Grigory Zinoviev, Jewish boss of Petrograd (real name Radomyslsky), at mass meetings several times.[22] This was not an isolated incident, either. Lenin tried to placate the workers in the same city, but “he was booed off the stage, along with Zinoviev, to cries of “Down with Jews and commissars!”[23] Even units of the Red Army were mutinying, carrying out pogroms, and demanding the removal of Jews from the government.[24] All this contributed to produce a siege mentality among the Bolsheviks, who had, by late summer, already resorted to mass executions and concentration camps. Several assassinations of Bolshevik officials—both Jews—and an attempt on the life of Lenin, would provoke the regime to launch an extended bloodbath, the Red Terror, beginning in September.[25] This Red Terror would bleed into and exacerbate the Civil War that lasted well into 1920.

Zinoviev-Radomyslsky, boss of Petrograd

In this atmosphere, with the Bolshevik regime in grave danger, Zemliachka decided to join the fight to secure the future socialist Elysium. She requested a posting to the front to combat the White Armies taking the field against the Bolsheviks. At the age of forty-two, however, she was not going to lead men into battle. What could a middle-aged female Bolshevik do? Why, she could be a political commissar in the Red Army. That way, she could harangue the soldiers about politics, supervise operations, and boss the officers around. She could also order the execution of anyone opposed to the rule of “Jews and commissars.”

Because they did not trust the peasants and former Tsarist officers that made up their army, the Bolsheviks created a system of political control over military units: political commissars.[26]

They embedded trusted party men in major military units to carry out political indoctrination of the troops and exercise control over the officers. In fact, operations could only proceed with the approval of the commissar, who was equal in status to the commanding officer, and who countersigned all orders. Needless to say, a large number of the commissars were Jews.[27]

Between late 1918 and late 1920, Zemliachka filled the high-profile role of commissar of two armies: the Eighth and the Thirteenth (consecutively), both of which operated on the Southern Front in Ukraine. In this role she headed a “political department” of a dozen or more activists, and had great power over perhaps 80,000 fighting men, virtually equal to the commanding general. She had an opportunity to display her fanaticism and energy in the crucial arena of the Civil War, wearing men’s garb and a leather jacket to display her Bolshevik toughness: “[n]ow in her forties, the only vestige of her bourgeois origins was the pince-nez that she wore in grotesque contrast to her short hair, boots, pants, and leather coat.”[28] She was “[h]ardworking and efficient . . . a demanding commander who issued instructions on everything from speech-writing to personal hygiene.”[29] She was eager to destroy the enemies of Red rule, saying, “We need pitiless, unceasing struggle against the snakes who are hiding in secret . . . We must annihilate them, sweep them out with an iron broom from everywhere.”[30] This echoed the infamous call of Zinoviev, who stated in a public speech in September 1918 that “[w]e must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.”[31]

Zemliachka in the Revolution  

Heaven only knows how many men perished under Zemliachka’s orders in those two years, which were the height of the Red Terror and Civil War. Doubtless it was a great many. The terror would reach an apocalyptic phase when the Bolsheviks moved into Crimea in late 1920, after the evacuation of the last White Army. Then the world would see an example of pitiless Jewish blood-lust, exercised against a defenseless population, whose only sin was desiring a life free of Jewish domination.

The Massacre in Crimea

Baron Wrangel and the Evacuation from Crimea. By the fall of 1920, the Bolsheviks had secured their power; the Civil War was essentially over. There was, however, an enclave of White forces under Baron Wrangel holding out in Crimea. Peter Wrangel, scion of a renowned Baltic-German noble family with a history of service in Prussia and Russia, was a towering former Tsarist general, a man of ability and force of character.[32] Wrangel’s small force was not a threat to overthrow the regime in Moscow, but he did intend to hold a territory as a refuge for anti-Bolshevik Russians and as a political model for a future non-Communist Russia. Hundreds of thousands of political refugees, fleeing the Red Terror, gathered in Crimea under his protection. The Bolsheviks, naturally, had no intention of permitting Wrangel to hold any part of Russian soil. When the Civil War wound down and the war with Poland ended, the Reds gathered large forces to clear Crimea.

 

Peter Wrangel, the Black Baron

General Mikhail Frunze was the commander of the Southern Front tasked with clearing Wrangel’s forces from Crimea. His boss was Trotsky, Commissar of War since March 1918 and creator of the Red Army. A three-man Revolutionary-Military Council directed the operations of the Southern Front: assisting Frunze on the panel were the Jews Bela Kun and Sergei Gusev. (We will take a look at these men below; they were soon to direct the bloodbath that is the subject of this paper.) Frunze gathered over 300,000 men to oppose Wrangel’s 70,000. The Whites were confident because the only entrance to Crimea was the narrow Isthmus of Perekop, which they had heavily fortified. However, weight of numbers decided the issue, and after launching two offensives (October 28 and November 7), the Reds broke into the Crimea.[33] Wrangel had already carefully planned an evacuation, and he directed his army via a fighting withdrawal to various ports, where most of them, along with thousands of civilian refugees, were evacuated, using all available shipping, to Constantinople. “It was brilliant evidence of Wrangel’s ability to control troops and civilians that the evacuation took place with a minimum of panic and disorder.”[34] Almost 150,000 people were able to escape, but unfortunately—tragically—tens of thousands were stranded. Piteous scenes transpired on the docks as their last hope disappeared over the horizon and Red troops approached.

Bela Kun (left), Trotsky (center), Frunze (rear) and Sergei Gusev (right)

The Jewish Terrorists. To understand the role of the Jews who directed the Red Terror in Crimea, we must look at the organs of political and military control the Bolsheviks set up. The supreme body controlling Soviet military affairs was the Revolutionary-Military Council of the Republic, headed by Trotsky; his deputy was the capable, chain-smoking twenty-seven-year-old Jewish doctor Ephraim Sklyansky. A Bolshevik from 1913, Sklyansky participated in the November coup in Petrograd and caught the eye of Trotsky, under whom he exercised great authority, running affairs at the center while Trotsky was away directing armies during the Civil War. Trotsky and Sklyansky monitored the situation in Crimea closely, as it was the sole arena of combat at that time. Directly subordinate to this Council was the Revolutionary-Military Council (RMC) of the Southern Front, which directed the Red Army in the occupation of Crimea. Sergei Gusev continued to sit on this body, while Bela Kun stepped down to take a more direct role.

Ephraim Sklyansky  

The Bolshevik state erected various temporary regional Revolutionary Committees (distinct from Revolutionary-Military Councils), holding complete power to oversee the transition from war zones to regular civil administration. One was now set up for Crimea.[35] Two Jews sat on this panel: Bela Kun, who was chairman, and Samuel Davydovich Vulfson. This position made Kun the most powerful man in Crimea. Some sources list Zemliachka as a member of the committee, but the more scholarly ones do not; I follow the latter. There were also four non-Jewish members.

There were two other arms of the Communist regime active in Crimea: the Bolshevik Party Committee of the Crimea and various detachments of the Cheka, the dreaded secret police. Noteworthy components of the Cheka were “special departments” assigned to the Red Army at the divisional and army level; these were counter-intelligence units that had wide responsibilities, including suppression of counter-revolution. These detachments would have a large part in the looming massacre. Lenin named Zemliachka Executive Secretary of the newly-erected Party Committee, making her the top Party official in the region, and a number of Jews, including Semyon Dukelsky and Ivan Danishevsky, held important posts in the Crimean Cheka (although it appears that Jews were a minority in the leading positions).

Let us take a look at these men.

Bela Kun (real name Kohn) is the figure that most sources depict as the main driver in this episode, along with Zemliachka. This man had already garnered lasting infamy as the head of the brief Jewish dictatorship over Hungary in 1919, which historians call the “Hungarian Soviet Republic.”[36] Born in 1886 in Transylvania into an assimilated Jewish lower-middle-class family, he joined the Hungarian Social Democratic Party before the age of seventeen and began writing for the socialist press. He studied law but did not earn a degree. In the war he served as a lieutenant in the Austro-Hungarian Army before Russian forces captured him in 1916. When the revolution came, he immediately joined the Bolsheviks (the POWs having been radicalized in the camps by socialist agitators), went to Moscow, met Lenin, and founded the Hungarian Section of the Bolshevik Party. He commanded a Red brigade during the Russian Civil War, before Lenin sent him and 100 “comrades” to Hungary to make a revolution in November 1918. The bacillus of Jewish Communism, having ripened in Russia, now began to erupt outward. In Budapest he founded and led the Hungarian Communist Party, and in March 1919 entered a Social-Democrat-Communist coalition government, which he headed in reality though not in name. As Commissar of Military Affairs, he “pursued an ultra-Leftist line, nationalizing all property, attempting to create collective farms . . . instigating a regime of Red Terror, and invading Slovakia.”[37] This Red Terror claimed about 500 people in just a few weeks. The group responsible was the “Lenin Boys,” commanded by the diminutive Jew Tibor Szamuely. The government quickly lost all domestic support and fell to a Romanian invasion (August 1, 1919). Kun fled and eventually made his way to Russia, where he became political commissar of a division, then joined the Revolutionary-Military Council of the Southern Front, where we met him earlier. Now he would vent his spleen upon helpless Gentiles as Lenin’s man in Crimea—Chairman of the Revolutionary Committee of Crimea. 

Bela Kun-Kohn                                 

Kun could inspire visceral disgust. Angelica Balabanoff, a highly experienced international Jewish revolutionary,

I had heard so much of Kun’s devious personal and political record, that I had been surprised . . . to hear that he had been sent to Hungary to “make a revolution.” The mere fact that the man was said to be a drug addict seemed to me sufficient reason for not trusting him with revolutionary responsibilities. This first meeting with him confirmed my most disagreeable impressions. His very appearance was repulsive.[38]

Victor Serge, another veteran revolutionary who wrote copiously on the movement, wrote that Kun was “a remarkably odious figure. He was the incarnation of intellectual inadequacy, uncertainty of will, and authoritarian corruption.”[39] Serge relates an episode in which, after Kun botched an attempted revolution in Germany in 1921, Lenin excoriated him in a meeting, in his presence, repeatedly referring to him as an “imbecile.”[40] It appears, however, that his talents were sufficient to oversee a massacre.

Samuel Vulfson, born in 1879 in Vilna province, was a chemical engineer. He joined the revolutionary movement around the turn of the century and soon adhered to Lenin’s faction. He worked in the underground Party in Russia for years, organizing and writing, suffering arrest and exile. He retired from revolutionary work for a spell, but the February Revolution galvanized him and he resumed Party work in Moscow, where he would collaborate with Zemliachka. He also worked in Crimea in the first phase of Communist occupation, requisitioning food as regional Commissar of Food and Trade (1919), before the Whites drove out the Bolsheviks. With the fall of Wrangel he returned, working with Kun on the Revolutionary Committee, and with Zemliachka on the Party Committee.[41]

Sergei Gusev, born Yakov Davidovich Drabkin in 1874, was a very prominent Bolshevik. He joined the revolutionary movement in St. Petersburg in 1896, working closely with Lenin. He crossed paths with Zemliachka frequently, beginning with the Second Congress of the RSDLP in 1903, and continuing with political work in St. Petersburg and Moscow. During the Bolshevik seizure of power he was secretary of the original Military-Revolutionary Committee (of Petrograd) that had directed the November coup.[42] His daughter Elizaveta had been secretary to the very important Jew Yakov Sverdlov, who essentially ran the Bolshevik Party (and was titular head of state) until his death in March 1919.[43] The Hungarian historian Georgy Borsanyi gives a favorable opinion of Gusev: “a Bolshevik intellectual who had visited the libraries and museums of Western Europe, spoke several languages, and had his own opinion on theoretical and practical issues of the revolution. He was an instant military leader just like Kun.”[44] Victor Serge, on the other hand, wrote: “I heard Gusev speaking to big Party meetings. Large, slightly bald and well-built, he got at his audience through the degrading hypnotism which is associated with systematic violence. In order to argue in this particularly foul manner one must, first, be sure of having force at one’s elbow, and, secondly, make up one’s mind to stop at nothing . . . Not a single word of his won conviction.”[45] In the summer of 1920 Gusev was appointed to the Revolutionary-Military Council of the Republic alongside Trotsky and Sklyansky, and then joined the Revolutionary-Military Council of the Southern Front, from which post he would play a role in the Crimean tragedy, directing the Red Army in the conquest and occupation of the peninsula.[46]

Semyon Dukelsky, very prominent in the Crimean Cheka the autumn of 1920, was born in 1892 in Kherson Province, southern Ukraine. He studied music and played piano in theaters in various Ukrainian cities. He served in the Tsarist Army in World War One, apparently as a musician, and joined the Bolsheviks after the February Revolution.[47] Superiors assigned him to work in the administration of the Red Army despite a lack of military expertise. Before long, Sklyansky sent him packing, disgusted at his lack of qualifications. He was appointed, some sources say, “head of the Cheka” in Crimea, but the various Cheka units there were not gathered under central administration until the spring of 1921. A more detailed source indicates that he served as head or deputy head of the special department of the Southern Front.[48] This was a powerful position, one that could be construed as the leading post of the secret police in that area. From this position he could oversee the lower-level special departments over the whole of Crimea, although I found no description of his actions during that time.

Ivan Danishevsky was another high-ranking Jewish Chekist. Born in 1897, he joined the Socialist-Revolutionary Party in 1916. When the February Revolution broke out, he threw himself into action, helping create a detachment of Red Guards in Kharkov and fighting in various capacities in the Civil War in Ukraine. He joined the Bolshevik Party and the Cheka (October 1919), filling various roles in the Communist government of Ukraine. In September 1920 he became head of the special department of the Thirteenth Army, which occupied Crimea after the evacuation of White forces. He was thus the leader of one of the major forces carrying out executions, and we do have details on the role he played. He was only twenty-three years old.[49]

 

Sergei Gusev-Drabkin 

Semyon Dukelsky

Donald Rayfield, author of Stalin and His Hangmen, names two other Jews who were involved in the massacre: Lev Mekhlis, political commissar in the Red Army and friend of Zemliachka, and the sixteen-year-old Chekist Alexander Radzivilovski (given name Israel), who was born in the capital of Crimea, Simferopol, in 1904. Rayfield does not detail the actions of these men, saying simply that Radzivilovski began his career there, and that Mekhlis “helped Rozalia Zemliachka murder captured White officers in the Crimea.”[50]

Lev Zakharovich Mekhlis was born in Odessa in 1889, and worked as a teacher and clerk as a young man. After a spasm of anti-Jewish violence in Odessa in October 1905, he joined a Jewish self-defense unit, and then the revolutionary Zionist party Poale Zion. He was conscripted into the Tsarist Army and served in World War One. After the Revolution he deserted the Army, joined the Bolsheviks, and became a political commissar in the Red Army—nice work if you can get it—in which role he worked in Crimea under Kun.[51]

A sidenote: Donald Rayfield states that Zemliachka was Kun’s “consort” at this time, without giving a source.[52] Kun had married a Hungarian woman, Iren Gal, in 1913 and had two children, the second of which was born in early 1920.[53] However, after he fled from Hungary upon the collapse of his “Soviet Republic,” he was separated from his family, which only rejoined him in Russia in the autumn of 1921.[54] Zemliachka’s first husband, Shmuel Berlin, had died in 1902, and some sources say that she married again, to a certain Samoilov, but I have found no further reference to this man. No further comment seems appropriate here.

Other Jews played a role in these events—many of them lost to history, or hidden in archives—but a few have come into view: Moisey Lisovsky, N. Margolin, and Israel Dagin. We have some information about the actions of Lisovsky and Margolin, but not for Dagin. For Mekhlis, Radzivilovski, and Dagin, I found nothing more than statements that they were “involved.” Of two others, Dukelsky and Vulfson, we know the posts they held but have no details of their actions. Here is a list of the Jews who played some role, in rough order of importance:

Trotsky: Commissar of War, head of all armed forces
Sklyansky: Trotsky’s powerful deputy
Gusev: member RMC Southern Front, overseer of Red Army in Crimea
Kun: Chairman Revolutionary Committee of Crimea, top official in the region
Vulfson: member Revolutionary Committee of Crimea and Party Committee
Zemliachka: head of Bolshevik Party Committee in Crimea
Dukelsky: major figure in the Cheka
Danishevsky: major figure in the Cheka, killed thousands
Mekhlis: political commissar; specific actions unknown
Lisovsky: political commissar 9th Rifle Division; organized executions
Dagin: Cheka officer; specific actions unknown
Radzivilovski: Cheka officer; specific actions unknown
Margolin: commissar, threatened Whites with “merciless sword of the Red Terror”

This group of Jews is noteworthy for loathsome personalities and a special aura of brutality. Descriptions applied to them by historians or acquaintances include “atrocious,” “odious,” “vicious scorpion,” “legendary for cruelty,” “sadist,” “arrogant,” “cretin,” and “monster.” And this group was just one of dozens—perhaps hundreds—of similar gangs (mixed personnel with Jewish leadership or a powerful Jewish contingent) operating all over Communist Russia for more than three decades. The fact that roving squads of Jewish terrorists—atheistic, hate-filled, and revenge-minded—liquidated millions of people over a period thrice the lifespan of the Third Reich places twentieth-century history in much better perspective.

Israel Radzivilovski as older Chekist    

    Lev Mekhlis, Zionist turned Stalinist hatchet-man

Jewish Treachery: A Fake Amnesty. Before Wrangel had completed his evacuation, Sklyansky played a dirty trick upon the White officers, offering them a false amnesty in order to capture and kill as many as possible. He used the prestige of General Alexei Brusilov as bait. Brusilov, one of Russia’s best generals of World War One, had come over to the Bolsheviks (hoping to outlast Lenin’s shaky regime and keep the empire intact). Brusilov

had been approached by [Sklyansky] . . . who claimed that a large number of Wrangel’s officers did not want to leave Russia and might be persuaded to defect to the Reds if Brusilov put his name to a declaration offering them an amnesty. Sklyansky offered him the command of a new Crimean Army formed from the remnants of Wrangel’s forces. Brusilov was attracted by the idea of a purely Russian army made up of patriotic officers. It would enable him to . . . save the lives of many officers. He agreed . . . Three days later he was told the plans had been cancelled: Wrangel’s officers, Sklyansky told him, had not proved willing to defect after all. Brusilov later found out that this was not true. During the final evacuation at Sevastopol the Reds had distributed . . . thousands of leaflets offering an amnesty in Brusilov’s name. Hundreds of officers had believed it and stayed behind to surrender to the Reds. All of them were shot.[55]

Soon after this, Sklyansky sent a telegram to the Bolsheviks in Crimea, urging them to get on with the killing: “Let the struggle continue until not a single White officer remains alive on Crimean soil.”[56] For his part, Trotsky let Kun and Zemliachka know that he would not visit Crimea as long as there was a single “counterrevolutionary” left on its soil.[57] Lenin also made his views known: “It is necessary to make short shrift of them . . . mercilessly.”[58] Kun and Zemliachka could not mistake what Lenin and Trotsky expected of them.

The Massacre Begins. By November 17, 1920 the Bolshevik occupation of Crimea was complete. The peninsula, about the size of Massachusetts, historically had a very mixed population; besides Russians and Ukrainians, there were Turkic Tatars (Muslims), Germans, Greeks, and Armenians. The population at that time was about 800,000, a number swollen by large numbers of political refugees. Roughly 50,000 White officers and troops remained behind after Wrangel’s evacuation; so did well over 200,000 political refugees. Bela Kun sealed off the peninsula and the entire population was at his mercy. Hardline Bolshevik cadres and Cheka forces poured in, ready to apply the Red Terror to a populace they feared and loathed.

Peninsula of Crimea

The first city the Red Army entered was Simferopol, the capital (November 12). For several days soldiers rampaged, looting, raping, and shooting. Within a week, Red Army and Cheka units executed 1,800 people, and within a few months, the number exceeded 10,000 in the city and surrounding area.[59] They repeatedly drove batches of several hundred White officers and leading citizens out of town, forced them to dig large graves, and mowed them down. They shot many others and dumped them into ravines. General Danilov, a former Tsarist officer who served with the Red Fourth Army, reported that the

outskirts of the city of Simferopol were full of the stench from the decomposing corpses . . . which were not even buried . . . The pits behind the Vorontsov Garden and in the Krymtaev estate . . . were full of the corpses of the shot, lightly sprinkled with earth . . . The total number of those shot in Simferopol alone from the day the Reds entered the Crimea until April 1, 1921, reached 20,000 . . .[60]

On November 15 Red troops moved into Sevastopol “led by an armored car marked with a red star insignia and in large red letters, the word “Antichrist,”[61] a flourish highly characteristic of Jewish commissars in the early days of Communist rule. The “remnants of the Russian refugees that got stuck in Crimea stood on the shores in the cold wind . . . when the Red cavalrymen appeared at the jetties. When these barefoot Red soldiers in rags met with this people, they could still feel in their nerves . . . the rattle of the machine-guns. . . . The troops . . . felt they deserved some reward. It was obvious what this reward would be.”[62] The author does not describe what this “reward” was, but we can assume it was the usual soldierly fare. Rape “took on gigantic proportions, particularly in the . . . Cossack regions of the Crimea in 1920.”[63]

The rapes, however, faded from memory because of the massive scale and horrific manner of the executions that soon began. Sergey Melgunov, a meticulous contemporary chronicler, says that 8,000 perished in Sevastopol in just the first week, and that the Reds arbitrarily hanged people on a mass scale: “Nakhimovsky Prospekt became simply festooned with corpses of officers and private soldiers and civilians who, arrested then and there in the street, had been executed on the spot of arrest . . . with no previous trial.” (testimony of a witness).[64] The Reds hung victims not just on Nakhimovsky Prospekt, but all over the city, on lanterns, poles, trees, and statues. The city became a hellscape with the citizens cowering in cellars and basements, afraid to appear in public.[65]

Communists took hundreds of sick and wounded—not only White officers—from hospitals and shot them. They did the same to the nurses and doctors because they had provided care to the White soldiers; the names of seventeen Red Cross nurses appear on one death-list published by the Bolsheviks. Hundreds of stevedores were shot because they had helped embark Wrangel’s men. Melgunov estimates that the Reds executed over 20,000 people in the Sevastopol area.[66] In late November the Red authorities in Sevastopol published two lists of victims (an occasional practice of the Cheka). Such lists were never complete, but these totaled 2,836 names. Disturbingly, 366 of the names were female.[67]

At Feodosia thousands of White soldiers surrendered in expectation of leniency:

After being disarmed, many White soldiers offered to join the Red Army, but instead, soldiers of the Red Army 9th Rifle Division, under the direction of [Nikolai] Bistrih’s Chekists, executed 420 wounded White soldiers and put the rest in two concentration camps. As it turned out, this was just the opening act in a five-month terror campaign.[68]

The political commissar of this 9th Rifle Division was the Jew Moisey Lisovsky. He participated in the action just related, ordering the shooting of about a hundred wounded White soldiers at the railroad station on the night of November 16.[69] Heaven only knows how many others he had shot in the following months, but we have hints. We do know that thousands more perished in this city:

At first the corpses were disposed of by dumping them into the ancient Genoese wells; but in time even these wells became filled up, and the condemned had to be marched out into the country during the daytime . . . and there made to dig huge graves before daylight should fail, and then be locked into sheds for an hour or two, and, with the fall of dusk, stripped except for the little crosses around their necks, and shot. And as they were shot they fell forward in layers. And as they fell forward their own layer of quivering bodies speedily became covered with the following layer and so on until the graves lay filled to the margin.[70]

Many of these people would not have been killed by the gunfire, and faced an agonizing death after being buried alive amidst bloody corpses.

In Feodosia we also find the high-ranking Jewish Chekist Ivan Danishevsky. He headed the special department of 13th Army, working in Feodosia and in nearby Kerch with youthful, demonic energy. In December alone he sentenced 609 people to death in Kerch, and 527 people in Feodosia. Extant documents make clear that he was responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 people. On November 27, he reported that “273 White Guards were detained and sentenced in a day, including: 5 generals, 51 colonels, 10 lieutenant colonels, 17 captains, 23 staff captains, 43 lieutenants, 84 second lieutenants, 24 officials, 12 police officers, 4 bailiffs.”[71] In a day.

In Kerch (and elsewhere) the Communists loaded people onto barges, drove them into the sea, and sank them. Some accuse Zemliachka of wanting to save the cost of bullets. This was a “technique” from the French Revolution that the Cheka had previously used, for example, by the demented Cheka Jewess Rebecca Plastinina-Maizel in the far north.[72] (She later sat on the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union.)[73]

The head of the Cheka in Kerch was a certain Joseph Kaminsky, of whom I have no further information; the name Kaminsky was common among both Russians and Jews. Some of the other executioners in Feodosia/Kerch include Zotov, N. Dobrodnitsky, Vronsky, Ostrovsky, and I. Shmelev, some of whom may well have been Jewish.[74]

Registration of the Populace

Within a few days, Kun issued an order for Crimean residents to register with the authorities. All adults were ordered, on pain of death, to

present themselves to the local Cheka to fill in a questionnaire containing some fifty questions about their social origins, past actions, income, and other matters, especially their . . . their opinions about . . .  Wrangel, and the Bolsheviks. On the basis of these inquiries, the population was divided into three groups: those to be shot, those to be sent to concentration camps, and those to be saved.[75]

The principle of action here was that already pronounced by Martin Latsis, a member of the ruling body of the Cheka (the Collegium), in November 1918:

We are out to destroy the bourgeoisie as a class. Hence, whenever a bourgeois is under examination the first step should be, not . . . to discover material of proof . . . but to put to the witness the three questions: “To what class does the accused belong?” “What is his origin?” and “Describe his upbringing, education, and profession.” Solely in accordance with the answers to these three questions should his fate be decided. For this is what “Red Terror” means.[76]

The results of this registration can be gauged in Feodosia, where “soldiers from the 9th Rifle Division arrested 1,100 people who registered, of whom 1,006 were shot, 79 imprisoned, and only 15 released.”[77] Moisey Lisovsky, the political commissar of this division, certainly played a part in this particular massacre. In Kerch, Cheka patrols cordoned off the town during the registration, marked out 800 persons, and shot them. Townspeople thought the number was much higher than that.[78] In Sevastopol the Cheka turned a city block into a temporary guarded camp and filtered all the registrants through it; hundreds or thousands were taken outside the city, forced to dig mass graves, and shot.[79] In all the main cities of Crimea the Reds carried out mass shootings as a result of this registration. It later came to light that all these shootings were the result of a direct order countersigned by Kun and Zemliachka.[80]

Zemliachka the Demon. The Russian writer Ivan Shmelev, who lived through these events—the Communists shot his son, a White lieutenant—and penned the wrenching novel The Sun of the Dead about them, gave testimony about Zemliachka (with impressionistic touches) before a Lausanne court in 1923:

She rushed from village to village, with a sickly pale face, a lipless mouth, faded eyes; In a leather jacket . . . small in stature, with a huge Mauser. . . . It was her finest hour. Here Zemlyachka-Zalkind managed to surpass everyone. . . . “Shoot, shoot, shoot …” she repeated incessantly, receiving satisfaction of a long-accumulated passion for murder. . . . Rozalia Samuilovna showed herself in the Crimea as the most loyal dog of her master Lenin. She did all this not counting on [reward] – she had enough meat and blood – the process itself was dear to her. She organized such a brutal epic in the Crimea that “the mountains were drenched in blood, and the Black Sea near the coast became red.”[81]

This portrait of “the Demon” finds resonance from a top Bolshevik official sent to Crimea in the spring of 1921 to investigate conditions there. Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev, a Muslim Communist Party official, said about Zemliachka:

Comrade Samoylova (Zemlyachka) was an extremely nervous and sick woman, who denied any system of persuasion in her work. . . . Unnecessary nervousness, too high a tone in conversation with almost all comrades, extreme demands . . . undeserved repressions against everyone who had at least a little courage to “dare to have their own judgment.” . . . When Comrade Samoylova was in the Crimea, literally all the workers trembled before her, not daring to disobey even the most stupid or erroneous orders.[82]

I have refrained from retelling the more lurid descriptions of Zemliachka because they lack solid sources, but these two accounts give an indication of her homicidal madness. Some writers say that she manned machine guns, tortured captives, and fell into fits. Perhaps she did. A modern Russian-Jewish writer (Arkady Vaksberg) who knows a great deal about these Communist Jews calls her “a sadist and a monster,” without details, unfortunately.[83] We can only await deeper work in the Soviet archives.

The Massacre Proceeds. Meanwhile, on December 5 a certain N. Margolin published an article in the paper Krasny Krim (“Red Crimea”):

With the merciless sword of the Red Terror we shall go through the whole of the Crimea and purge it of all the executioners, exploiters and tormentors of the working class. But we will be smarter and will not repeat the mistakes of the past! We were too generous after the October revolution. We, having learned from bitter experience, will not be generous now.[84]

He calls the victims of this great massacre “executioners”! Was this the same “N. Margolin” that Solzhenitsyn describes as a ruthless Jewish commissar, a requisitioner of grain, “famous for whipping the peasants who failed to provide grain. (And he murdered them too.)”?[85] I believe it was.

The killing in Crimea ran all the way into the following spring. In addition, tens of thousands of people were interned in makeshift concentration camps before being sent out of Crimea to bigger camps. 50,000 Muslim Tatars were sent to Turkey or to camps in Russia. There are later reports that 37,000 men from Wrangel’s army were languishing in terrible conditions in camps in the Kharkov area.[86] Unfortunately, given the conditions in Russian camps, many of those men certainly died. When the local Cheka sent a missive to Lenin asking what could be done to improve the conditions there, he did nothing, merely noting on the paper, “to the archive.”[87]

Recall of Kun and Zemliachka. After a month of bloodletting, tensions among the killers rose to a breaking point. Some officials became discontented, believed the purge was spiraling out of control, with the murder detachments running amok, thieving, keeping harems, killing for personal reasons. These officials also chafed under the fanatical intensity of Zemliachka and Kun, who were liquidating the entire Crimean middle class, including experts the Bolsheviks needed to help run the area after they established order. One of the non-Jewish members of the Revolutionary Committee, Yuri Gaven, wrote a letter to a friend on the Central Committee in Moscow (December 14), saying that Kun had turned into a “genius of mass terror” and needed to be confined in a mental hospital. Gaven protested that he, too, was for mass terror, but too many useful people were being killed.[88] That same day Zemliachka wrote a long letter to Moscow, complaining about the “softness” and worthlessness of local cadres, saying she was forced to do all the work.[89] (She had been writing very similar letters to Lenin since 1904.[90]) She demanded the recall to Moscow of a number of local officials, not one of them a Jew (including Lenin’s younger brother, Dmitry Ulyanov, who sat on the Crimean Party Committee). There is a possible ethnic component to this controversy, with some of the non-Jews advocating a moderation of the terror, and the Jews supporting maximum terror. In the event, Moscow replied by recalling Zemliachka and Kun, in early January 1921. They had been in Crimea only seven weeks.

Zemliachka and Kun were thus not responsible for all the 50,000 deaths, since some of these killings occurred after their recall. However, the sources do seem to indicate that the bulk of the deaths did occur while they were in the Crimea.

There is no evidence that Lenin reprimanded the two homicidal maniacs, or that they fell into disgrace. They quickly found employment elsewhere, Zemliachka in the Party Committee in Moscow and Kun in the presidium of the Comintern. Zemliachka was awarded the Red Banner for exemplary “service” in the Civil War.[91]

Of interest is the account of the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, published in New York in the 1940s, of Zemliachka’s activities during the Russian Civil War. Zemliachka, it said, “made herself useful at the front.” [Emphasis added] A nice piece of Jewish historiography.

The Aftermath

After arriving in Constantinople, Baron Wrangel struggled to keep order and unity among the White Russian exiles. In 1924 he established the All-Russian Military Union for that purpose, and to keep alive the possibility of overthrowing Communist rule in Russia. In 1927 he moved his family to Brussels, living in near-poverty. He wrote his memoirs, Always with Honor, which was published after his death. He died unexpectedly in April 1928, leading many to suspect he was poisoned by Bolshevik agents, who later kidnaped and killed the two men who succeeded him at the head of the All-Russian Military Union, Generals Kutepov and Miller.[92] Wrangel’s remains lie in the Church of the Holy Trinity in Belgrade.

In Crimea. Although the Communist authorities tightened up their organization and discipline, they continued killing into the spring. More Jews came in; Alexander Rotenberg took command of the consolidated Crimean Cheka in September 1921.[93] At that point, however, famine, often a concomitant of Bolshevik rule, was already beginning. The above-mentioned Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev reported to the Central Committee in April 1921:

The food situation is getting worse every day. The entire Southern district, inhabited mainly by the Tatar population, is literally starving at this time. Bread is given only to Soviet employees, and the rest of the population . . . receives nothing. Cases of starvation are observed in Tatar villages. . . . At the regional conference . . . Tatar delegates indicated that Tatar children are “dying like flies.”[94]

The overall situation in Crimea was terrible, but the main factor in the development of the famine, which killed about 100,000 people, was Bolshevik misrule, particularly food requisitioning and confiscation of landed estates to form (inefficient) state farms. By March 1922 the Crimean Cheka was reporting that cannibalism “is becoming common.” Meanwhile children were disappearing, and “in Karasubazar in April 1922, a warehouse with 17 salted corpses, mostly children, was discovered.”[95] Only in 1923 did a measure of normality return to Crimea, as much as was reasonably possible under Communist rule.

The Red takeover of Crimea was a horrific bloodbath that put the entire population of Crimea into a state of shock and horror, with a deep hatred of Bolshevik rule. Much of the population went over to the Germans in the Second World War, sparking further repression and waves of deportation when Stalin’s forces retook the area in the spring of 1944.

Here we must leave this unfortunate people and look at the later history of the butchers who had soaked their land in blood.

Later Lives of the Murderers. Of the figures introduced here, I found no further information about Lisovsky and Margolin.[96] Presumably they went on to careers as low-level apparatchiks, perhaps earning a bullet in the nape of the neck in the Great Terror.

Alexander-Israel Radzivilovski, the teenage killer, had a long career in the Cheka/NKVD, rising to the rank of Senior Major of State Security (a rank equivalent to army general) and deputy head of the Moscow NKVD, 1935-37. In 1936 he became a deputy of the Supreme Soviet, ostensibly the highest body of the Soviet Government. He won the Order of Lenin in 1937 shortly before accompanying Lazar Kaganovich to Ivanovo, where they applied the Great Terror to the Communist leadership of that province, an event remembered as “the black tornado.”[97] (Here at least Communists were the victims.) He was arrested in September 1938, accused of being a Polish spy, and shot in January 1940.[98]

Israel Dagin, another Cheka officer active in Crimea, also had a long career in the punitive organs. He rose to even higher rank than Radzivilovski, Commissar of State Security Grade 3, equivalent to corps commander. He worked in many different cities, arresting, purging, killing—the constant routine for Cheka officers. In 1937, at the height of the Great Terror,

Dagin and his men were . . . to supervise one of the most notorious of the mass terror operations. On 28 July 1937 E. G. Evdokimov assembled the local Party leaderships [in the Caucasus] and gave instructions for the long-projected mass purge. Dagin, in close co-operation, carried out the police operation proper. . . . Dagin had long since elaborated a plan, with lists of names in every locality.[99]

In just the first small region of this large operation, Chechen-Ingush, “5,000 prisoners were crammed into the N.K.V.D. prisons in Grozny, 5,000 in the main garage of the Grozny Oil Trust, and thousands of others into various . . . buildings. [Altogether] about 14,000 were arrested, amounting to about 3 per cent of the population.”[100] All these people were either shot or sent to camps. Same perpetrators, different victims, more individual tragedies. Dagin won the highest state decorations, but was also arrested, in November 1938, and shot a few days before Radzivilovski.[101]

Lev Mekhlis went on to have a long career under Stalin as his personal secretary, editor of Pravda, deputy of the Supreme Soviet, and member of the Central Committee. (The Central Committee was the ruling body of the Communist Party; the Politburo, Orgburo and Secretariat were technically subdepartments within it.) He directed various purges at Stalin’s behest, inspiring terror especially in officers. In 1937 Stalin made him head of the Main Political Directorate of the Army (making him political commissar over the entire army), in which role he helped carry out the notorious purge of the Red Army. He “was able to find “enemies” everywhere and played a special role in the political repressions of that period.”[102] In the Second World War, Mekhlis “raced thousands of miles across the fronts, killing as many Red Army generals as the Germans. His cruelty was legendary . . .”[103] In September 1940 he crossed paths with his friend Zemliachka again, succeeding her as Minister of State Control, a watchdog body placed over the Party and government bureaus. Mekhlis can be summed up by the fact that he could serve Joseph Stalin loyally and also be chummy with the likes of Rozalia Zemliachka, two of the most evil people of the twentieth century. Mekhlis retired in 1950, holding the highest honors, and died of natural causes in February 1953, less than a month before the death of Stalin.

Ivan Danishevsky, the youthful Cheka executioner, was awarded a gold watch after his “work” in Crimea. Within months he was sent to the Caucasus on a similar assignment, liquidating people of intelligence and worth—the natural enemies of Bolshevik rule—in a region newly conquered by Red forces. Before the end of 1921 the Party moved him to civilian work, in trade and finance. By the 1930s he was an engineer working on aircraft engines, and head of a major engine plant (the Soviet industrial plants were massive). During the Great Terror, he narrowly escaped arrest, denounced many others, and was finally arrested in August 1938. Tortured, he confessed to bogus charges and was sentenced to death, but was unaccountably spared and sent to the gold mines in Kolyma, where he survived until 1955, when he was freed and allowed to return to Moscow. He wrote a number of books on Soviet history and worked energetically to defend pure Communist doctrine to the very end of his life.[104] He died in 1979.

As for Semyon Dukelsky, the musician and Cheka killer, he soon left Crimea to take command of the Cheka in Odessa, replacing the Jew Max Deich, who had earned a “reputation for cruelty and drug addiction” and had to be recalled.[105] He worked in various Cheka and governmental positions until 1938—several times being transferred or reprimanded because of incompetence—when the Politburo put him in charge of the Cinematography Department of the Central Committee; his predecessor, the Jew Boris Shumiatsky, was shot. People who worked under him have left their memories of his management style: stiff, eccentric, doctrinaire, arrogant. Conforming to the pattern of his career, he was there only a year. From 1939 to February 1942 he was Commissar of the Navy (or merchant marine; the sources are unclear); then, until his retirement in 1952, he was Deputy Commissar/Minister of Justice. He began to issue denunciations of other officials, which soon became more and more implausible, so much so that he was confined to a psychiatric hospital. He died in 1960.[106]

Samuel Vulfson, collaborator with Kun on the Revolutionary Committee of Crimea, returned to Moscow in 1921. He sat on the Moscow Party Committee (with Zemliachka) and, after 1924, he worked in the Commissariat of Foreign Trade and as a trade representative in Western Europe. In 1929 his tuberculosis worsened and he went abroad, dying in Berlin in 1932.[107]

Sergei Gusev-Drabkin continued working in the political administration of the Red Army, for a time as head of the department, before Trotsky got him removed—Gusev was Stalin’s man. Gusev then worked in the Party, as candidate member of the Central Committee and secretary of the Central Control Commission (1923), which was a disciplinary body placed over the Party and government. In the mid-1920s Stalin sent him to work in the Comintern, in which role he visited the United States to arbitrate a dispute in the U.S. Communist Party, under the name “P. Green.” Gusev entered the controversy over literature in Russia, arguing (with Zemliachka and other hardliners) that writers must propagate pure Communist doctrine at the expense of literary freedom. In a speech at the Fourteenth Party Congress in December 1925 he said, “Lenin used to teach us that every Party member should be a Cheka agent—that is, that he should watch and inform,” and concluded that “[i]f we suffer from one thing, it is that we do not do enough informing.”[108] Chilling. The main advocate of the opposing viewpoint, the writer Alexander Voronsky, fell out of favor and was shot in 1937. Gusev continued working in high positions in the Comintern until his death in 1933.[109]

Ephraim Sklyansky, Trotsky’s young assistant who lured thousands of White officers into captivity and death, did not live long. In April 1924 he lost his position in the Revolutionary-Military Council because of the hostility of Stalin, whom he had strongly criticized in the Civil War. He moved to the economic sphere, heading a textile trust. In 1925 he toured Europe and America to gather information on industrial production, but drowned in a suspicious boating accident. Arkady Vaksberg, among others, blames Stalin:

Sklyansky was drowned in a lake during a business trip to the United States along with the director of Amtorg (the Soviet-American trading corporation), Isaiah Khurgin. . . . The murder of two Jews whom Stalin hated had been organized by two other Jews, Kanner and Yagoda.[110]

Grigory Kanner was one of Stalin’s secretaries; Genrikh Yagoda was at this time de facto head of the OGPU, successor to the Cheka. Another historian notes that Kanner “had been in charge of [Stalin’s] dirty tricks against Trotsky and others,”[111] but there is no hard evidence of Stalin’s guilt; it was an accusation first made by Boris Bazhanov, Stalin’s erstwhile secretary. Whatever the case may be, we return to our two remaining killers, the two ringleaders.

Bela Kun, who was essentially dictator of Crimea during the massacre, went from Crimea directly to the Presidium of the Comintern (which was headed by Grigory Zinoviev until late 1926). Lenin then sent him, as Comintern agent, to Germany, along with another Jewish Hungarian Communist, Joseph Pogany (real name Schwarz), to direct the revolutionary takeover of Germany. Expectations were high; Lenin had always viewed the success of the revolution in Russia being dependent upon Germany joining the world revolution. Imagine that terrifying prospect—Communist Russia joined with a Communist Germany! The result was the March Action, a very badly-planned uprising that quickly met defeat. Kun was roundly criticized and sent to the Urals to work in a local Party committee, though without losing his place in the Comintern. In the 1920s he worked undercover as Comintern operative in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, until an arrest in Vienna in 1928, after which he remained in the Soviet Union, still heading the Hungarian Communist Party in exile. He continued working in the upper echelons of the Comintern into the mid-1930s.[112] In June 1937, his turn came for denunciation and arrest. His NKVD torturers, quite possibly Jewish thugs, beat him and forced him to stand on one foot for up to twenty hours; when “he returned to his cell after interrogation, his legs were swollen and his face was so black as to be unrecognizable.”[113] He was shot in August 1938, along with practically the entire contingent of Hungarian Communist emigres. After World War Two Communist rule was reestablished in Hungary under the repulsive Matyas Rakosi (who served in Kun’s Hungarian government in 1919), and again it was heavily Jewish.

We finally return to Rozalia Zemliachka. Forty-four years old in 1920, she lived another twenty-seven years, serving in many different capacities in the Soviet state. She was a natural Stalinist, and avoided arrest—indeed, she did the purging. She “had always been the sort of Bolshevik to whom Stalin appealed because she shared his Manichean view of the world as a place of deadly struggle between allies and enemies.”[114]

After “making herself useful” in Crimea, she returned to Moscow in January 1921, working as secretary of one of the district Party Committees. In the succeeding years she worked in the Urals and the northern Caucasus, “responsible for training subordinates, supervising the production of pamphlets, and holding lectures and classes among factory workers.”[115] She carried out this work largely on behalf of Stalin, supporting him against the opposition, whether Trotsky or Kamenev and Zinoviev. In 1926 Stalin made her a member of the board of the Central Control Commission, which meant that “she had achieved the rank of senior enforcer of party discipline. It was a role she would continue to play for the rest of her career.”[116] In this role she worked with the NKVD:

There is no question that Zemliachka worked closely with the NKVD. Her jobs required that she turn over reports of infractions to them. Moreover, it is likely that she was their willing ally. . . . A believer in the plots alleged to be menacing the party, Zemliachka became an adroit participant in destroying them. She also managed to protect herself from the Purges that swept through the ranks of the NKVD itself. . . . Instead of falling victim, Zemliachka won promotions. In September 1936 she was awarded the highest Soviet civilian decoration, the Order of Lenin.[117]

In 1937 she became a deputy of the Supreme Soviet, and two years later, member of the Central Committee. That same year she became Deputy Chairman of the Control Commission and Deputy Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars (a post analogous to deputy prime minister). She was very near the pinnacle of power. She spent the war years in Moscow, writing polemical reminiscences of Lenin and carrying out various minor tasks. She retired in 1943 and died at the age of seventy in January 1947.

The Russia that existed in the year of her birth had been transformed utterly in the course of her lifetime. From a fruitful land of general peace and order and development, governed to a significant degree by the tiny German community,[118] Russia had been turned into a land of turmoil, fear, murder, denunciation, and concentration camps, governed to a large degree by its Jewish minority. Zemliachka serves as a great symbol of that transformation, embodying the power of Jewish hatred and perverted zeal.

The older Zemliachka

Zemliachka presiding at a purge trial

Summary

The question arises, how many more people did these Jews kill after Crimea? Most or all of them continued in their chosen profession—Communist terrorist—and they operated for many years in a system whose very basis was terror. It would be very difficult to obtain a realistic estimate of the number, but without doubt it is very large. The only mitigating factor is that their later victims included many Communists.

To properly appraise the Crimean tragedy, we must get an idea of the numbers involved. Estimates range from 12,000 to 120,000, but many researchers think the true number was 50,000—60,000, including modern Russian writers with access to at least some of the archives.[119] Crimea thus suffered 50,000 dead in the Kun-Zemliachka massacre, perhaps 20,000 dead in camps, and 100,000 dead in the famine, in the span of only eighteen months, and in a very small area. This pattern repeated itself literally everywhere the Bolsheviks ruled, and it continued from 1917 into the mid-1950s, with only periodic and brief lulls. Communist rule in Russia was a colossal, interminable tragedy, perpetrated by a criminal, deranged, largely Jewish clique, informed by ideology that was nothing less than satanic in its effects. It is highly disturbing to think that similar savage potentialities—driven by similar people—seethe in the midst of our society today, constantly threatening to erupt into a similar awful maelstrom, as is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.


[1] For instance, many assert that “the Jews” were responsible for the Holodomor, or the Katyn massacre of Polish officers. I do not doubt that Jews were involved in these episodes—respectively, Lazar Kaganovich and Leonid Raikhman, of course—but documentation is scarce, beyond the major figures. One example of a well-documented Jewish massacre is the murder of the Tsar and his family—the perpetrators being Sverdlov, Goloshchekin, Yurovsky, etc.

[2] The family was certainly Jewish; the sources are unanimous

[3] A perusal of Erich Haberer’s Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia (Cambridge University Press, 2004) will amply demonstrate the fact

[4] Barbara Evans Clements, Bolshevik Women (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 37.

[5] Namely, Hesia Helfman. See Haberer, Jews and Revolution, 198-99.

[6] Clements, Bolshevik Women, 23-24. It is Clements’ speculation that the family may have had some tie to the assassins.

[7] Kazimiera Janina Cottam, Women in War and Resistance: Selected Biographies of Soviet Women Soldiers (Nepean, Canada: New Military Publishing, 1998), 426.

[8] Clements, 24

[9] Arthur Rosenberg, the German Marxist historian, says “Marx did not proceed from the misery of the workers to the necessity of revolution, but from the necessity of revolution to the misery of the workers.” The History of Bolshevism (Oxford University Press, 1934), 24. Among the radicals of the American New Left, this was an open secret, taking form in the slogan, “the issue is not the issue.”

[10] Clements, 24.

[11] Rozalia’s new idol Karl Marx also delved into demonic imagery and themes. When he was just eighteen his troubled father asked him in a letter, “That heart of yours son, what’s troubling it? Is it governed by a demon?” See Paul Kengor, The Devil and Karl Marx (Tan Books, 2020), chapters 2-4

[12] Clements, 76

[13] Arno Lustiger, Stalin and the Jews: The Red Book (Enigma Books, 2003), 17. At least one other delegate had some Jewish blood: his maternal grandfather was named Israel Moses Blank. I speak of Lenin, of course.

[14] The top leaders of the Mensheviks were Jews: Julius Martov (real name Tsederbaum), Fedor Dan (real name Gurvich), and Pavel Axelrod. Wikipedia lists eight founders/most important members of the Menshevik faction, and five were Jews. The others were Trotsky and Alexander Martinov (real name Pikker).

[15] Clements, 77-78.

[16] Barricades: Clements, 79. Armored street cars: Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 (Princeton University Press, 1991), 275.

[17] Pyotr Romanov, Демон по имени Розалия Самойловна (“A Demon Named Rozalia Samoilovna”). Accessed May 20, 2025. https://ria.ru/20180817/1524692966.html

[18] Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Isaac Landman, editor. 1943. “Zemlyachka, Rozalia.”

[19] Clements, 79.

[20] Ibid, 142

[21] See Slezkine, House of Government, 138-39.

[22] Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (Vintage Books, 1991), 564. This incident took place in the summer of 1918. Zinoviev was boss of Petrograd by virtue of his post as Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, which was a revolutionary council that the Bolsheviks appropriated for their own use.

[23] This happened a bit later, March 1919, but is indicative of the growing feeling. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Edited by Stephane Courtois, Nicholas Werth, et. al. (Harvard University Press, 1999), 86.

[24] Pipes, The Russian Revolution, 611-12. In The Black Book of Communism, page 87, we read, “In Orel, Bryansk, Gomel, and Astrakhan mutinying soldiers joined forces with [striking workers], shouting “Death to Jews! Down with the Bolshevik commissars!”

[25] The assassinations were of powerful Petrograd-based Jewish Bolsheviks: Vladimir Volodarsky (real name Moisey Goldshtein) was commissar of the press, censorship and propaganda, a “terrorist” and hated figure according to his fellow Bolshevik Lunacharsky; he was shot down June 20. The head of the Cheka in the city, Moisey Uritsky, was shot and killed the same day as the attempt on Lenin, August 30.

[26] The “military commissar was one of the key military innovations of the Reds during the civil wars. These commissars acted as the representatives of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Soviet government and were attached to military formations . . . at all levels, so as to ensure political control over them . . . When, over the course of 1918, the Red Army became a mass conscript army, dominated by peasants, the military commissars (or voenkomy) assumed also a larger ideological and agitational role . . .” Jonathan D. Smele, Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916 – 1926 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 746. These were the political commissars that Hitler later targeted in his 1941 Commissar Order.

[27] “A Red brigade commander named Kotomin who defected in 1919 reported “that [the ranks of the commissars] included . . . ‘of course, almost a majority of Jews.’” Evan Mawdsley, The Russian Civil War (Pegasus Books, 2008), 62.

[28] Stites, Women’s Liberation Movement, 321

[29] Clements, 182.

[30] Bruce Lincoln, Red Victory: A History of the Russian Civil War (Simon and Schuster, 1989), 386

[31] George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police (Clarendon Press, 1986), 114.

[32] Alexis Wrangel describes the family and the Baron charmingly in General Wrangel: Russia’s White Crusader (New York: Hippocene Books, 1987).

[33] Lincoln, Red Victory, 443-48.

[34] Ibid, 448.

[35] For Revolutionary Committees, see Smele, Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 938 and 1378.

[36] The Frenchmen Jerome and Jean Tharaud wrote a book about it, giving it the apt title When Israel is King. It is back in print, available at Antelope Hill Books. A long review appeared on the Occidental Observer in April 2024. The man writing under the name “Karl Radl,” whose research on Jews is prolific, gives a detailed examination of the Jewish personnel involved here: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-jewish-role-in-the-hungarian

[37] Most of the information in this paragraph comes from Smele, Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 640-41.

[38] Angelica Balabanoff, My Life as a Rebel (New York, 1968), 224.

[39] Victor Serge, Memoirs of a Revolutionary (New York Review of Books, 2012), 220.

[40] Serge, 163.

[41] “Samuil Davydovich Vulfson,” in Russian-language Wikipedia. Accessed May 17, 2025. https://fi.wiki7.org/wiki/Вульфсон,_Самуил_Давыдович. I do not have a source that identifies this man as a Jew, but I am confident he is, mainly because of the name. “AI Overview” states: “Vulfson is a surname of Jewish origin, specifically Ashkenazi . . .”

[42] Branko Lazitch and Milorad Drachkovitch, Biographical Dictionary of the Comintern, revised edition (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. 1986), 160.

[43] Slezkine, The House of Government, 289.

[44] Georgy Borsanyi, The Life of a Communist Revolutionary, Bela Kun, (Columbia University Press, 1993), 236. Borsanyi was a Jewish Communist.

[45] Serge, 248.

[46] Clements, 184. Georgy Borsanyi also depicts him as taking an active role,  241.

[47] Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Dukelsky) and A. N. Zhukov, Memorial Society, “Semyon Dukelsky.” https://nkvd.memo.ru/index.php/Дукельский,_Семен_Семенович

[48] From Russian-language Wikipedia, Дукельский, Семён Семёнович, “Semyon Dukelsky” https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дукельский,_Семён_Семёнович

And a Belarusian website on Human Rights: https://protivpytok.org/sssr/antigeroi-karatelnyx-organov-sssr/dukelskij-s-s

[49] Alexei Teplyakov, Иван Данишевский: чекист, авиастроитель, публицист (“Ivan Danishevsky: Chekist, Aircraft Builder, Publicist”) Accessed May 26, 2025.  https://rusk.ru/st.php?idar=57915

[50] Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen, 311 and 396.

[51] Jews in the Red Army: “Lev Mekhlis.” Yad Vashem. Accessed June 6, 2025. https://www.yadvashem.org/research/research-projects/soldiers/lev-mekhlis.html

[52] Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him (Random House, 2004) 83, 358. Rayfield is not a historian, but a professor in Russian and Georgian literature. This book is quite interesting, being larded with information about the men—often Jews—who killed millions for the Communist regime.

[53] Borsanyi, Bela Kun, 31 and 212.

[54] Borsanyi, 275.

[55] Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: A History of the Russian Revolution (Viking, 1997), 720.

[56] Sergey Melgunov, The Red Terror in Russia (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1926), 76-77.

[57] Ibid, 76

[58] Vladimir Brovkin, Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War (Princeton University Press, 1994), 345-46.

[59] Russian-language Wikipedia, “Red Terror in Russia,” (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Красный_террор_в_Крыму) citing Авторский коллектив. Гражданская война в России: энциклопедия катастрофы (“Civil War in Russia: Encyclopedia of Catastrophe,” 2010) Editor D. M. Volodikhin. Volodikhin claims his estimates are based on official Soviet sources.

[60] Dmitry Sokolov, “Карающая рука пролетариата” Деятельность органов ЧК в Крыму в 1920-1921 гг (“The Punishing Hand of the Proletariat”: Activities of the Cheka in the Crimea in 1920-1921) Accessed May 28, 2015. https://ruskline.ru/analitika/2009/11/16/karayuwaya_ruka_proletariata/

[61] Robert Forczyk, Where the Iron Crosses Grow: The Crimea 1941-44 (Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing, 2014), 24

[62] Borsanyi, 241

[63] Courtois, Black Book of Communism, 105.

[64] Melgunov, Red Terror in Russia, 81.

[65] Courtois, 107.

[66] Ibid, 80-81.

[67] Courtois, 106-07 and Melgunov, 81.

[68] Forczyk, Where the Iron Crosses Grow, 25.

[69] A. Bobkov, Красный террор в Крыму. (“The Red Terror in Crimea”). Accessed June 2, 2025. rovs.atropos.spb.ru/index.php?view=publication&mode=text&id=277

[70] Melgunov, 78.

[71] Alexei Teplyakov, Иван Данишевский: чекист, авиастроитель, публицист (“Ivan Danishevsky: Chekist, Aircraft Builder, Publicist”)

[72] For Kerch, Forczyk, 26. For Plastinina-Maizel, Melgunov, 200.

[73] Solzhenitsyn, Ch. 16.

[74] Russian-language Wikipedia, “Red Terror in Russia,” (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Красный_террор_в_Крыму)

[75] Courtois, 107.

[76] Melgunov, 39-40.

[77] Forczyk, 25-26.

[78] Melgunov, 80.

[79] Dmitry Sokolov, Месть победителей (“Revenge of the Victors”). Accessed May 27, 2025. https://rusk.ru/st.php?idar=112133

[80] Melgunov, 77

[81] Pavel Paganuzzi, Красный террор в Крыму (“Red Terror in Crimea”). Accessed May 25, 2025. https://www.belrussia.ru/page-id-3316.html. The court was trying the killer of a Soviet diplomat, Vatslav Vorovsky. The defense turned the trial into a referendum on Soviet atrocities.

[82] Dmitry Sokolov, “The Punishing Hand of the Proletariat.”

[83] Arkady Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews (Alfred Knopf, 1994), 23.

[84] Russian-language Wikipedia, “Red Terror in Crimea.” (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Красный_террор_в_Крыму)

[85] Solzhenitsyn, Ch. 16.

[86] For the Tatars, Forczyk, 27. For Wrangel’s troops, Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (Vintage Books, 1995), 135.

[87] Pipes, 135

[88] Russian-language Wikipedia, “Red Terror in Crimea.” Accessed May 17, 2025. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Красный_террор_в_Крыму

[89] Andrey Sorokin, “Красный террор омрачил великую победу Советской власти…”

(“The Red Terror Overshadowed the Great Victory of Soviet Power …”) Accessed June 3, 2025. https://rodina-history.ru/2016/08/10/rodina-krymu.html

[90] Clements, 77.

[91] Cottam, Women in War and Resistance, 434.

[92] Kutepov was kidnaped off the street in Paris by the Jewish Chekist Yakov Serebryansky and his wife, who posed as French police. His body has never been found. Pavel Sudoplatov, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness – A Soviet Spymaster (Little, Brown and Co., 1994), 91.

[93] “Alexander Rotenberg,” Accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_r/rotenberg.html

[94] Mykola Semena, “A forgotten tragedy. One hundred years since the mass famine in the Crimea in 1921–1923.” Accessed June 4, 2025. https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/news/a-forgotten-tragedy-one-hundred-years-since-the-mass-famine-in-the-crimea-in-1921-1923/

[95] Ibid.

[96] Neither appear in Heinrich Schulz’s Who was Who in the U.S.S.R. (Scarecrow Press, 1972), which has data on 5,015 prominent personalities of the Soviet Union, nor in the on-line Jewish Encyclopedia of Russia, which has basic but minimal data on 8,500 Jews born in Russia: (https://www.jewishgen.org/Belarus/misc/JewishEncycRussia/a/index.html).

[97] Robert Conquest, Inside Stalin’s Secret Police: NKVD Politics 1936-39 (Hoover Institution Press, 1985), 38.

[98] Zhukov, Memorial Society, “Alexander Radzivilovski.” Accessed May 22, 2025. https://nkvd.memo.ru/index.php/Радзивиловский,_Александр_Павлович

[99] Conquest, Inside Stalin’s Secret Police, 38.

[100] Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (Oxford University Press, 1990), 261.

[101] Zhukov, “Israel Dagin.” Accessed June 12, 2025. https://nkvd.memo.ru/index.php/Дагин,_Израиль_Яковлевич

[102] Boris Morozov, “Mekhlis, Lev Zakharovich,” in The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://encyclopedia.yivo.org/article/852

[103] Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen, 398.

[104] Teplyakov, op. cit.

[105] Leggett, 447.

[106] Russian-language Wikipedia, “Semyon Dukelsky.” Accessed May 13, 2015. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дукельский,_Семён_Семёнович

[107] See note 41.

[108] Slezkine, House of Government, 291.

[109] Lazitch and Drachkovitch, Comintern, 160-61.

[110] Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews, 28

[111] Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (Alfred Knopf, 2004), 234–35. Montefiore is Jewish, like most of the major historians of Soviet Russia. They really seem fascinated by Soviet history for some reason.

[112] Lazitch and Drachkovitch, 239-41; also Wikipedia, “Bela Kun,” Accessed May 12, 2025.

[113] Conquest, The Great Terror, 403.

[114] Clements, 242.

[115] Ibid, 242.

[116] Ibid, 243.

[117] Ibid, 286.

[118] Thomas Sowell says that the tiny German minority in Tsarist Russia accounted for forty percent of the high command of the Army, 57 percent of the Foreign Ministry, and nearly all of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. These numbers would roughly flip in favor of the Jews after the Bolshevik Revolution. In fact, the Jews would drive out or exterminate the ruling German stratum. In Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1996), 57.

[119] Melgunov—at least 50,000. Bruce Lincoln—about 50,000. Courtoi—at least 50,000. Volodikhin—at least 52,000.

The Lesser of Two Evils: Responding to Joel Davis and Keith Woods

1559 Words

Before a hot war begins, when the bullets start flying and the bombs start exploding, political warfare rages. We witness political warfare these days almost every time politicians open their mouths. Before political warfare, however, we have cultural warfare, which is where metapolitics becomes important. This kind of warfare consists of various historical, ideological, or religious narratives which shape the worldview of ordinary (read: non-political) people. These narratives compete to the point where politicians become champions for the dominant narratives of the people who elect them. And if such narratives become anti-White in nature, so be it. In fact, anti-White politics have become the norm among most non-White politicians in America these days (as well among quite a few White ones).

My job as a pro-White dissident writer is to frame or re-frame narratives which will assist ordinary Whites in combating such anti-White narratives. Metapolitics, basically. In metapolitics it is not necessary to surpass or deny a narrative. It is necessary only to match it with a counter-narrative. Victory in such conflicts depends as much upon the spirit of the interlocuters as it does on logic, evidence, and clarity. A side could be dead wrong in the face of the facts, but if they possess greater spirit than their opponents, then they will have greater influence in steering the dominant culture into the future. This is what we see with narratives that favor both Black and Jewish history.

I was reminded of this while reading about the recent debate between Joel Davis and Keith Woods. Davis, an Australian nationalist, finds that rehabilitating Adolf Hitler and National Socialism is crucial for today’s White Nationalism, while Woods, who is from Ireland, feels that the various stripes of White Nationalism do not need either to thrive. It was a fascinating and civil metapolitical exchange, and it greatly benefited the Right. In effect, the men differ on how to counter the prevailing Jewish narrative which claims that A) Hitler and the Nazis were a uniquely odious evil, and B) anyone who professes beliefs even remotely close to Hitler’s is potentially genocidal and should be suppressed.

In basic terms, Davis attempts to surpass the Jewish narrative with a unabashedly pro-Nazi one, while Woods attempts to go around it by not emphasizing Nazism at all. Both sides of the debate possess profound elements of truth and deserve respect from the Dissident Right. Yet, I find both sides a bit wanting. I also think that both men are working too hard, thereby requiring their followers to work too hard as well. For example, ascribing to Davis’ position 85 years after the fall of Nazism would require a lot of reading and documentary viewing as well as the ability to discern good sources from bad. By the same token, ascribing to Woods’ position would require some fairly deft mental gymnastics to articulate a rightist position that does not evoke the Nazis in the minds of a disinterested audience. The bar for entry here is a little too high.

There is a third way, however, one that combines the strengths of both sides of the debate and, in its simplicity and directness, promises the substantial metapolitical victory that has been eluding White people since the end of World War II.

But first, why are both sides wanting? Because Davis’s approach entails too much risk to be successful, and Woods’ approach ultimately leaves the Jewish narrative uncontested. Since in metapolitics truth often plays second fiddle to spirit, it doesn’t really matter how correct either side is, how well-researched or watertight their arguments are, or how persuasive their advocates are. What matters is how well either side can galvanize the spirit—or enthusiasm—of their followers. Unfortunately, neither Davis nor Woods make the most of Rightist spirit. Anyone goosestepping in Davis’ pro-Nazi direction would have to wade into the teeth of the globalist Left, which means giving up on the idea of having a career and children, and accepting a life of constant struggle and danger. For ordinary people, this is a spirit killer. On the other hand, side-stepping along with Woods offers no defense to the Nazi/genocide charge coming from the proponents of the uncontested Jewish narrative. By attempting to go around the narrative rather than face it head on, Woods appears to tacitly concede the truth behind it. He can invoke Irish or Slavic nationalists all he likes, but in the eyes of a disinterested audience, this will come across as a bit of a dodge. This is also a spirit killer.

While neither approach is without merit, each gets us closer to our ultimate goal of White ethnostates only by baby steps—steps which may or may not keep up with the vagaries of history.

The third way I’m promoting entails meeting—but not defeating—the Jewish metapolitical Nazi narrative. This has the advantage of being less risky than Davis’ approach yet more direct than Woods’. It’s also easier to swallow than either counter-narrative, and no less true. Basically, we need to look at Nazism as a defensive wartime ideology, which was preferrable to its alternative: Bolshevism. At its worst, it was evil, sure. But it was the lesser of two evils.

This is it. This is all one needs to rouse the spirit of the Right and stem the odious tide of the Left. For one, it widens the tent to include both Davis and Woods. People in both camps can agree that the swastika, for all its merits and demerits, was morally superior to and less destructive than the hammer and sickle. This history is undeniable. Secondly, by keeping the reasoning so basic and simple, most White people will not need to read lengthy essays or watch obscure documentaries to climb on board. All they need to know is that the Bolsheviks killed more people than the Nazis did, and for less reason. The Nazis at least had the decency to wait until England and France had declared war on them before kicking their atrocities into high gear. The Soviets, on the other hand, had no such qualms and put to death tens of millions between 1924 and 1939, when they were at war with no one. We should also note that England and France had been egged on the entire time by US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had a clear anti-Nazi bias. How do we know this? Because the Allies had declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not on the Soviet Union, which had done the exact same thing. Again, very simple. If the Allies were really on the side of good in 1939, why didn’t they attack the Soviets who had over an order of magnitude more deaths on their heads than the Nazis did? It’s a fair question, and one that the defenders of the prevailing narrative would have a hard time answering without resorting to blatant Jewish chauvinism.

We should also remember this passage from Hitler’s Reichstag speech of January 1939, as channeled through notorious Hitler hater William Shirer in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

If the international Jewish financiers . . . should again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will be . . . the annihilation of the Jewish race throughout Europe.

See that? Hitler was actually being comparatively nice here by warning the Jews what would happen to them if they instigated another world war (which they did, they totally did). Did Stalin offer such consideration before murdering 15 million in the Holodomor and untold millions more in the Great Terror and the Gulag Archipelago during the 1920s and 1930s? Of course not. Hence the Nazis were the lesser of two evils. Does this seem like a weaker claim than what either Joel Davis or Keith Woods is offering? That’s because it is, and that is a good thing. I call it the Weak Claim Paradox.

There’s another reason for this as well. I personally am not a Nazi. However, gun to head, if I had to choose sides during Ragnarök, I would plop for the Nazis over the Bolsheviks. Why? Because as a White, straight, conservative male who is not consumed with guilt and self-hatred, the Nazis are much less likely to shoot me. This is an excellent reason. And given how prone the disproportionately Jewish Soviets were to shooting White people, Whites today should realize that Jews were not the only ones who suffered during the 20th century—nor were they absent among the people inflicting the suffering. In fact, it could be argued that they did more of the latter than the former.

None of this means that Joel Davis or Keith Woods should change their beliefs. Davis should continue praising the Nazis, and Woods should continue eschewing them. There is truth on both sides, and it is good they balance themselves out in pro-White circles. However, it couldn’t hurt if both men and their followers were to employ the Weak Claim Paradox from time to time when reaching out to normies. Believe what you want about the Nazis, but they were and still are objectively better than the alternative. And what we’re getting today with unfettered globalism, immigration, crime, and degeneracy is the alternative.

And if anyone hits back with the Nazi smear, simply respond, “At least we’re not Bolsheviks. They were worse.”

Jewish–Hungarian Conflicts and Strategies in the Béla Kun Regime, a Review-Essay of “When Israel is King” (Part 5 of 5)

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.
Go to Part 3.
Go to Part 4.

5118 words.

The casualty figures of dictatorships, political systems, or simply certain policies and views, play a significant role in historiography and mainstream political activism. There is a reason the mere lowering of the number of victims of what we know as the “Jewish Holocaust” is a crime in Hungary and many other countries. While the number of alleged or real victims of the Holocaust is protected by law, the questioning of Jewish responsibility is also “incitement against a community”—according to the Jewish Tett és Védelem Foundation (TEV), as already mentioned. While revisionism of any tragedy is academically legitimate, if the results of research give it foundation, we will see below that in the case of the victims and perpetrators of Bolshevism, a philosemitic slant dominates mainstream historiography.

Returning to the leitmotif of our study, in When Israel is King, the Tharaud brothers inevitably discuss the activities of the Lenin Boys. They mention that Bela Kun “sent [József Cserny] to Moscow to study terrorist organization. Cserny returned in a very short time, having been initiated in the right methods, and bringing with him eighty professional executioners for the further instruction of the Hungarians. A Russian Jew, Boris Grunblatt, and a Serbian burglar, Azeriovitch by name, were told off [sic] to recruit men for him in Budapest” (Tharauds, 2024, 123–124).

Regarding the number of victims of the red terror, publishing in the newspaper Népszava, Péter Csunderlik (2022) cites the official 1923 number of 590, which he claims is “relatively low compared to other countries” (note that we are talking about “only” 133 days), while also claiming that some of the victims were “killed in firefights or [were] common-law criminals executed for committing a crime,” revising the number to “380–365” (he adds that this might still seem high today, but “[i]n 1918–1920, the World War in Central and Eastern Europe was not essentially over yet”).

If they come for you and you let them kill you, this historian will generously consider you a victim—if you fight back, you are not even worth having your death be part of a list of martyrs. You are just a dead militant, apparently. Reasonably, dying while protecting yourself, your family and community, from illegally formed terror groups, would render one a victim—and a hero—but Csunderlik shrugs and lowers the number. That he accepts the claims of executions for crimes, made by a regime that sent terror groups to travel around the country, executing people based merely on suspicions, extrajudicially, might also raise concerns here about the author’s historiographical standards. We might wonder if Csunderlik would apply this kind of rigor to the number of victims of the so-called Jewish Holocaust’s official narrative (which, unlike our topic at hand, is actually protected from critique by law), and whether he would exclude large numbers of Jews from the list of those shot by, for instance, the Einsatzgruppen for partisan activities—or perhaps because they “did not have a Jewish identity” — as partisans, they were likely “internationalists,” after all.

It is worth noting here that, although no longer published by Communists, Népszava back then was the newspaper that published, perhaps with the greatest delight, the writings of Bolshevik leaders of the Kun regime during their reign, along with other propaganda pieces.

A Népszava article glorifies the “heroic” Kun regime (July 18, 1919)

Csunderlik (2023) does not only lower the “relatively low” number of victims—aside from denying the Jewish role—but is also in the habit of dismissing eyewitness reports with a mere wave of his hand—unlikely in the case of Jews claiming to be eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. In yet another piece regurgitating the exact same points we have already familiarized ourselves with earlier (sometimes for extended segments, word-for-word, with only minor additions), he accuses Cécile Tormay of spreading “lots of fake news, scare stories and untrue rumors” (ibid., 22, 23), and claims that her work is “full of verifiably fictional stories” (ibid.), without illustrating his claim with a single example, calling the book a “horror novel.”

As a Holocaust fact-checking revisionist myself, I am acutely aware of the tendency of emotionally involved—and perhaps traumatized—witnesses to be unreliable, and thus I apply that principle to Tormay’s work (or that of the Tharauds), as any reasonable person would. It is possible that some of the stories and details are inaccurate or untrue, and Tormay goes out of her way to underline that some of these things are things that she was told.

Csunderlik then mocks Tormay for thinking that the Galileo Circle was able to influence the war effort, leading to defeat, because of a segment of her book related to the Circle spreading anti-military flyers, calling it “laughable” that this could have had any influence (ignoring the fact that members of the movement were at the forefront of both the Aster Revolution and the Kun regime: their influence was significant). Csunderlik even fabricates a quote from her when he says that for Tormay “the domestic agents of the imagined ’Judeo-Bolshevik world-conspiracy’ were the atheist-materialist student association, the Galileo Circle, which produced anti-war pamphlets” (ibid.). Putting aside that the group did way more than just spreading flyers, nowhere in her work does the quoted text appear; it is presented as a direct quote in the Hungarian. But it is Csunderlik’s fixa idea to debunk this “world-conspiracy” theme by emphasizing how non-religious these Jews were, making anything “Judeo” self-evidently absurd in his presentation, attempting to keep Jewishness within a religious framework, conveniently—something we have already addressed. (That some members of the Circle, incidentally, literally worked with Soviet Bolshevik agents, making themselves “agents,” has also been shown earlier from Russian archival material.)

In Hungary “[p]ublic denial of the crimes of the National Socialist and Communist regimes” is a crime: according to the 1978. IV. law (modified in 2010): “Anyone who denies, doubts or trivializes the fact of genocide and other acts against humanity” in public, committed by these regimes, “commits a crime and is liable to up to three years’ imprisonment” (269/C. §). Note that this crime relates only to “the Holocaust”: if one publicly “violates the dignity of a Holocaust victim in public by denying, casting doubt on, or trivializing” the official story. Applying the extremely low standard for what counts as “Holocaust denial” in the country, Csunderlik might just be “trivializ[ing]” the Kun regime’s “acts against humanity” while violating the dignity of victims he doesn’t even consider victims. Of course, it is well-known that nobody actually gets in trouble in Hungary for trivializing or denying Communist crimes, nor for displaying their symbols publicly (NJSZ, 2023) — another supposedly illegal act (269/B. §). (On the anniversary of the Kun regime’s proclamation, a small group of Bolsheviks publicly commemorated the event, protected by police when a group of Nationalists showed up.)

Of course, the criminalization of research does not advance the truthful analysis of the past; the above is only to illustrate why the mainstream discourse still maintains that the Jewish role is taboo in such a biased system, since—if such regulation exists at all—instead of the author facing legal problems, Csunderlik’s article was funded with a grant from the state-funded Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Given that the young historian does not believe “that ’the truth’ of history can be known” because of the inherent biases of researchers (noting also that “if there is a ’truth’ at all, since postmodern historical theory denies it”), he has no reason to worry within a neoliberal, postmodernist establishment. With this attitude, his career will most likely continue to develop—something he surely knows already.

Péter Csunderlik (source: hirklikk.hu)

It can be added to the above, that according to Csunderlik, for example, we cannot even speak of a Hungarian nation from the period before the French Revolution (including the Árpád era), because modern nations were created only after the Revolution—which, in the light of the above, I believe, is a typical act of logical manipulation, and again, deriving from a predictable worldview. Of course, our ancestors are our ancestors, and how much we have to do with them is not changed by the French Revolution in any way. The understanding of nationhood does change somewhat over a thousand years, but our ancient codex-type gesta books, both the twelfth-century Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, emphasize the importance of common ancestry, which is the basis of the natio; i.e., the same stock of blood. These works are, in fact, national epics. (Hungarians are genetically related to their ancestors, see my earlier study introducing some of the genetic research on this topic: Csonthegyi, 2023). Gyula Kristó (1990, 430–431), a researcher of the Árpád-era Hungarians, states that “from the turn of the 11th–12th centuries onwards, the Hungarian [national] consciousness was—we can conclude with great certainty—established, based on the common (Hungarian) language and the tradition of common origin,” and then he mentions measures aimed at the protection of the “Hungarian” ethnic group, separate from others.

So we have learned from the above that the Jewish group is not a Jewish group because it is atheistic, and the history of Hungarians is not Hungarian because the modern concept of nation was developed at a later point in time. And if another interpretation becomes dominant next year, we may also learn that Hungarians were not Hungarians this year, either. Whether the historian will also explain to the Jews that they have nothing to do with their own past is unlikely—such semantic misrepresentation is presumably used for other purposes. According to Pew Research (2013, 54–55), for the vast majority of Jews today, “remembering the Holocaust is an essential part of what being Jewish means”—that is, modern Jewish identity is a post-Holocaust identity that Jews before the Holocaust could not have had: can we even talk about “Jewish” victims if the Jewish self-image today is somewhat different from that back then, following strictly Csunderlik’s logic? In any case, if this historian is in the habit of reducing victim numbers, and if atheism and internationalism, or the lack of professed Jewish identity, mean that a Jew is not a Jew, his task could be to subtract those from the magical “six million” number—based on the principles of ethics and logical consistency.

Victims and Perpetrators

In a desperate attempt to downplay the role of the Jews, Géza Komoróczy also manipulates the data in the usual, infantile way (e.g., Jewish Communists were not Jews because they were Communists, etc.); for example, he emphatically notes that the “not (!) Jewish” József Cserny was the commander of the Lenin Boys (Komoróczy, 2012, 361), presumably because of his Hungarian origin, so apparently no sealed and notarized proof stating ethnic identity is required, and mere origin is sufficient to classify persons as part of ethnic groups—unless the Jewishness of Jews is to be obfuscated.

As for commanders: it is well known that—while he may have had some autonomy—it was Béla Kun, Béla Vágó, Ernő Seidler, Ottó Korvin, and Tibor Szamuely, who were in command of the Cserny squad, as well as Ede Chlepkó; see for example: “Ede Chlepkó Hantos called József Cserny on the same day and ordered him to arrest and execute those named”—we read in the work of Péter Donáth (2012, 153), where we find several similar statements, including Cserny himself and others claiming that they received orders mostly from Chlepkó (ibid., 166ff). Péter Konok (2010, 77) also states that the forces led by Korvin and Szamuely “also used the Cserny group against the counter-revolutionary forces in the interior”—indicating that they were in command. The commanders named here are all Jews (Korvin was later executed for this reason).
And did the non-Jew Cserny hate Hungary and its culture? Was he a psychopath? Note that the original Cheka was made up largely of non-Russians, and the Russians in the Cheka tended to be sadistic psychopaths and criminals (Werth, 1999, 62; Wolin & Slusser, 1957, 6)—people who are unlikely to have any allegiance to or identification with their people. Indeed, that is the picture the thorough study from Donáth (2012) on the Cserny group paints of them, quoting extensively from their trials. Vilmos Böhm (1923, 382) himself commented: “Cserny’s character is illustrated by the fact that after the fall of the revolution he betrayed his comrades in prison with sadistic lust, and even led innumerable innocent people to the gallows by denouncing them.”

Komoróczy (2012, 363) then attempts to emphasize Jewish victimhood, by presenting two sets of data: the first set is the more well-known 590 number, of which 44 are considered Jewish; the second set is the number 626, of which 32 were supposedly Jewish. Additionally, he mentions a monument, erected in 1936 on Kossuth Square (Budapest), and the 497 names featured on it, of which 32 are Jewish. If we take the data presented by this philosemitic, Hebraist author as our foundation, then the Jewish victims of the Bolsheviks can be concluded as being 7.4 percent, 5.1 percent, and 6.4 percent, respectively. This is proportionate to their share in society at the time; as is known, in 1910, Jews constituted 5 percent of the total population. However, since Jews had a heavy overrepresentation among the bourgeoisie, the researcher would expect that a dictatorship of the proletariat would produce more victims from this demographic. But according to this, that was not the case (instead, the regime primarily targeted poor rural Hungarians). In contrast to this, for the dictatorship itself, Jews were overwhelmingly responsible, thus, downplaying their role by pointing the finger at their victims, is a rather shameful tactic.

In his thorough study on Jews in Hungary—their numbers, influence, and prospects—Zoltán Bosnyák (1905–1952), one of the most prominent scholars of the Jewish question at the time, presented demographic data in general, but also of only “Torn-Hungary” (Csonka-Magyarország, i.e., present-day Hungary, after territorial losses) where Jews consisted 6.2 percent of the population in 1910 (Bosnyák, 1937, 10). The Kun regime mainly focused on this territory, making this number the most relevant for us. His data on the “upper ten thousand,” which is to say, in contemporary language, “the 1%” of society (supposedly the main enemy of the “proletarian” dictatorship) is heavily Jewish. In Bosnyák’s estimation “[o]ne third of the top ten thousand are Jews (plutocracy), the second third are related to Jews by blood (aristocracy), and the last third are pro-Jewish because they are dependent on and indebted to Jews (intellectual aristocracy)” (ibid., 80). According to this, we see again, that Jews were proportionately represented among the victims—until we take their share in the upper classes into account, which will render this proportion actually underrepresented. Bosnyák concluded that “one of the most important prerequisites for the final solution of the Jewish Question is the formation of a new, self-confident, racially conscious, Jew-free, leadership-oriented Hungarian middle and upper class” (ibid.). It is deeply tragic that the same Jewry, whose acquisition of power Bosnyák so passionately warned about, returned to power after 1945—and this Jewry sentenced him to death for that very warning. He was executed on October 4, 1952, by the newer Jewish dictatorship of Rákosi-Rosenfeld Mátyás, Farkas-Lőwy Mihály, Gerő-Singer Ernő, Révai-Lederer József, and their associates…

Zoltán Bosnyák

If we look at data about the Lenin Boys, we find what we could predict at this point: according to the research of historian Gergely Bödők (2018, 134): “Catholics, approaching 58 percent, are close to the national average (67 percent) for the whole population, making them the largest religious group. In ’second place,’ the Jewish denomination accounted for 21 percent, while 5–6 percent of the total population, and among the ’Lenin Boys’ they were nearly four times as much, making them the most over-represented. However, this is still far below the proportion of People’s Commissars of Jewish origin, which is estimated at 60–70%.” This tells us that Catholics were underrepresented (his Table 1 actually says 57 percent, not 58), but compared to victims, Jews were at least four times as likely to be the murderers, and 12–14 times as likely to be Commissars who were running the regime (not to mention that the Lenin Boys were commanded exclusively by Jews, as noted above). There were also 13 percent Reformed, 4 percent Evangelicals, 3 percent Greek Catholics, and 1 percent Orthodox and Unitarians, respectively, while 129 had no religion registered. This is only based on religious data, however, which is not the best, considering how, generally speaking, these young men tended to be atheists, and we must also remember that many Jews officially converted to Christianity in those decades, which helped them with social mobility. In other words, the ratio is likely higher still.

A well-known symbol of the so-called Jewish Holocaust in Hungary is the monument “Shoes on the Danube Bank,” and the story of the “Danube shootings.” It is less well-known that the method of execution using the Danube was first used by the Lenin Boys. The Tharaud brothers also describe the story of Sándor Hollán (1846–1919) and his son, Sándor Hollán, Jr. (1873–1919):

1. Hollan and his son, the one a former undersecretary for state, the other a railway director, were denounced by their concierge as being suspected of anti-Bolshevist tendencies, and their names appeared on the list of hostages drawn up by the sinister Otto Klein-Corvin. One night a motor lorry, driven by Red Guards, drew up at their door. “I am going to make it hot for these two,” declared a certain Andre Lazar, who was directing the expedition, and for whom the elder Hollan had once refused to sign a request asking that he should be dispensed from military service. The terrorists went into the Hollans’ house, arrested them, and forced them into the motor. (Tharauds, 2024, 126).

Then they were taken to the Széchenyi Chain Bridge, where they were shot from the back, into the Danube, or at least shot and then their bodies were thrown into it by the red terrorists. (There is no information on whether they resisted, so even Csunderlik-types are forced to count them among the victims.)

The sentencing and execution of József Papp by the Lenin Boys in Sátoraljaújhely (a city in the North-East of Hungary), April 22, 1919 (Hungarian National Museum)

Blinkens, Böhm, and the Bolsheviks

The narratives outlined earlier are, of course, propagated by the Open Society Archive (OSA), part of the Jewish George Soros-affiliated Central European University, which has been renamed the Vera and Donald Blinken Open Society Archive after a major donation—the donors here being the father (and his wife, both Jewish), of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. According to the OSA, the over-representation of Jews can also be explained by the fact that at the time there was a “rigid political system that effectively excluded them from the political sphere,” so Jews were attracted to a new system (which is itself a Jewish motivation, but this may not be obvious to the OSA). The concept of Judeo-Bolshevism is sought to be debunked by claiming that the system had Jewish victims (just as German National Socialists had German victims, yet no one disputes that they were driven by German interests and identity), and by arguing that there were patriots among the Jews who, for example, opposed the loss of territories. They mention Vilmos Böhm, the Berinkey government’s Minister of War, as an example of this, but fail to add that Böhm, among others, was one of the facilitators of the Bolshevik takeover by collaborating with them, and he later became commander-in-chief of the Red Army. In this role, to portray him as patriotic, while part of the Bolshevik transformation of the country, is disgraceful.

As far as Böhm’s seemingly patriotic statements are concerned, it is worth recalling that in his 1923 book Két forradalom tüzében (In the Fire of Two Revolutions) he clearly states how the new regime feared the thousands of Szekler (Transylvanian Hungarian) troops, and therefore, instead of accepting losses of territory, they wanted to push the Hungarians closer to the Soviets, by agitating against the Western powers. After realizing that “the adoption of the [Vix] Note will create a storm in the country which will destroy any government which complies with the demands of the Note,” they decided that “the whole country must be called to armed defense, the Western orientation must be replaced by an Eastern orientation towards Russia,” and the Social Democrats “must agree with the Communist Party to establish an alliance with the Russian Soviet troops on the northern border of old Austria” (Böhm, 1923, 240–241, emphasis in the original).

As the reports made it clear that “the Szekler troops and officers would not leave their positions without a fight under any circumstances, would not retreat” (ibid.), Böhm says: “We had to take into consideration the mood and determination of these troops. If the government, without consulting them, simply orders them back from the frontier, thus sealing their fate and foregoing the possibility of liberating their country, in that case, this desperate armed force, under the influence of nationalist agitation, will undoubtedly turn against the government and the revolution, and its victory will lead to the victory of a bloody counter-revolution.” (Ibid.) Böhm’s Hungarian Wikipedia article even quotes from his patriotic speech to the Szeklers, but the above motivation is not explained there either. It is also noted in the article that “from the excessive pacifism of the Aster Revolution, by March 1919, he had come to the idea of armed defense of the homeland”—in words, at least, but then he handed the levers of power over to the Bolsheviks only days later, and instead of protecting the borders of the homeland, he turned the armed forces—under the red flag this time—against Hungarians themselves. Nevertheless, he is the positive example of Jewish patriotism in the Jewish Blinken OSA Archive.

As for the so-called northern campaign, it was also aimed at spreading Bolshevism, rather than regaining territory, which soon became clear indeed. As a result, the soldiers’ enthusiasm waned, and the forces collapsed—the Slovak Soviet Republic did not even last a month. The Jewish Zoltán Szántó, regimental commander of the Red Army, in his article The Role of the 1st International Red Army Regiment in the Northern Campaign, describes the titular event as “the sacrifice made by internationalists for the survival of Hungarian Soviet power…”—so not for territorial defense (quoted in Chishova & Józsa, 1973, 274).

Counter-Revolution and Red Collapse

While we are on the subject of victims, it is worth pointing out that the Hungarians did not just passively tolerate the Bolshevik terror but resisted it time and again. Relevant literature is the book of Lénárd Endre Magyar (2020) on the history of the counter-revolutionary events in Szentendre and the collection of notes by Pál Prónay’s (1963)—perhaps the most prominent counter-revolutionary. When Bolshevik power collapsed with the advance of the Romanian troops, this counter-revolutionary momentum was no longer contained by the hordes of Lenin Boys. This is how Lajos Marschalkó recalled the mobilization of the Hungarian resistance:

By the time the train of the People’s Commissars, loaded with treasures, left Hungary, the nucleus of the Hungarian National Army, which had been formed in Szeged under French occupation, mainly through the organizational work of Captain General Gyula Gömbös, was ready three months earlier to call Rear Admiral Miklós Horthy to lead it. When he arrives in Szeged at the end of April 1919, Gyula Gömbös prophesies of a new world. (Marschalkó, 1975, 193)

According to the Tharauds (2024, 154), Béla Kun “also firmly believed that a general revolution would break out simultaneously on the same day, July 20th, in Germany, England, Italy, and France. So he chose that date to launch his offensive. But that catastrophic day, July 20th, 1919, was a most peaceable one throughout Europe. The world revolution in which Bela Kun believed as naively as Karolyi had done a short time before did not take place. And to crown his humiliation he was very soon made to realize that his soldiers were useless.” Some of the leaders then fled to Russia, others, like Ottó Korvin, were captured and executed, while Tibor Szamuely did not wait his turn: he committed suicide at the Austrian border. As Dávid Ligeti (2019, 35) reminds us, “[t]he majority of politicians who then lived in the Soviet Union in the 1930s were victims of Stalinist purges, i.e. they were executed on the orders of the Bolshevik dictator—besides Béla Kun, we can also mention the cases of József Pogány and Béla Vágó.”

“Our worker brothers, you are being deceived again!! Watch out, brother!! Don’t let them!!”—poster of the Awakening Hungarians (Ébredő Magyarok) group warning after the fall of the Kun regime that Jewish influence did not disappear

Towards the end of their work as chroniclers, the Tharaud brothers sum up the depressing mood after the storm, with poignant sympathy:

These brutal scenes no longer take place today, but the Jewish question remains. All Hungary has risen up to suppress the Jews. They wish to expel the five hundred thousand Galician Jews who arrived in the country during the war. The number of Jews admitted to the university has been limited so as to diminish their position in the liberal professions; the Masonic lodges, which had become almost completely Jewish, have been closed; everywhere Christian banks and cooperative societies are being established to replace the Hebrew middleman. Publishing houses and newspapers are being created whose mission it is to defend the national intellectuality. A violent struggle has been entered upon between two spirits and two races. (Tharauds, 2024, 160)

It was treachery, or—if we insist on being polite—a mistake on the part of those who were responsible for the Hungarian nation in the decades, or rather, centuries, preceding all this, to allow this group conflict to reach this point. The new Hungarian State of 1849, which had already planned the emancipation of the Jews, and the disastrous emancipation of 1867—the law, which was introduced by Prime Minister Gyula Andrássy (1823–1890) and was widely accepted by both the House of Representatives and the House of Lords—had already set the stage. There could be no excuse for not foreseeing where all this would lead—Győző Istóczy saw it clearly, as did those who helped him into Parliament, to represent this growing concern. The evisceration of rural Hungarians, the cultural and intellectual corrosion, and then the bloody mass murders, were all attributable to this—but only after a lost war, to be followed by yet another Jewish regime, from which Hungarians rebelled against again in 1956, for a few days at least. And the cycle continues to this day, with taxpayer-funded sectarian Jews filing criminal reports on Hungarians, for daring to ask for self-reflection over their past sins, or forcing Hungarians into hiding under pseudonyms in their own homeland, if they dare to question their mythical role as victims—since only Jews can be victims in this dynamic, and the perpetrators are Hungarians whose “identity” no philosemite sets extreme standards for by saying thay they don’t know whether Hungarians are Hungarians just because they were born one. If these ancestors had no excuse a century and a half ago, we really have none at all today. Istóczy tried to spur his compatriots to action just a decade before the Jewish terror:

And let those who can, do something for the cause, if for no other reason, then because we, the present generation, will somehow manage to get along with the issue as long as we live; but what fate awaits our children and grandchildren if things continue to go on as they have been going on, is another matter. (Istóczy, 1906, 20.)

It would, therefore, be worth listening to those, who foresaw where things were going: the Istóczys, the Bosnyáks, the Tormays, the Marschalkós, and many other truth-telling Hungarians who feared for their nation—or Frenchmen, like the Tharaud brothers, in this case. It’s been going on for thousands of years, time to draw the obvious conclusion, pleasant or not. The work of the French brothers is an old-new addition to this process.


Bibliography

Bosnyák Zoltán. Magyarország elzsidósodása. Budapest, 1937.

Bödők Gergely. Vörös- és fehérterror Magyarországon (1919–1921). Doktori értekezés, Eszterházy Károly Egyetem. Eger, 2018.

Böhm Vilmos. Két forradalom tüzében: Októberi forradalom, proletárdiktatúra, ellenforradalom. Munich: Verlag für Kulturpolitik, 1923.

Chishova, Lyudmila; Józsa Antal (eds.). Orosz internacionalisták a magyar Tanácsköztársaságért. Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1973.

Csonthegyi Szilárd. Konzervatív nemzetárulás a „vendégmunkás” migránsbetelepítés fényében (III. rész): genetikai érdekeink számokban. [Conservative Treason of the Nation in the Light of “Guestworker” Resettlement (Part 3): Our Genetic Interests in Numbers.] Kuruc.info, August 26, 2023. https://kuruc.info/r/9/263576/ (Accessed April 10, 2024)

Csunderlik Péter. A 133 napos „vörös farsang” – Mi volt a Tanácsköztársaság? Népszava, 2022. március 27.

Csunderlik Péter. “A Tanácsköztársaság és a »judeobolsevik összeesküvés« mítosza.” BBC History: A Világtörténelmi Magazin 2023.10 (2023): 19–23.

Donáth Péter. A Cserny-különítmény rémtettei „Mozdony-utcai laktanyájukban” 1919 júliusában. Fery Oszkár és tiszttársai halálának körülményei, következményei, utóélete. Donáth Péter szerk.: Sorsfordító mozzanatok a magyarországi kisgyermekkori nevelőképzés, a Budapesti Tanítóképző Főiskola, az ELTE TÓK és épülete történetéből. Budapest, Trezor Kiadó (2012): 144–254.

Istóczy Győző. A magyar antiszemitapárt megsemmisitése s ennek következményei. 2. bőv. kiad. Budapest, 1906.

Jérôme Tharaud, Jean Tharaud. When Israel is King. Antelope Hill Publishing, 2024.

Komoróczy Géza. A zsidók története Magyarországon. II1849-től a jelenkorig. Pozsony: Kalligram, 2012.

Konok Péter. “Az erőszak kérdései 1919–1920-ban. Vörösterror–fehérterror.” Múltunk – Politikatörténeti Folyóirat 55.3 (2010): 72–91.

Kristó Gyula. “Magyar öntudat és idegenellenesség az Árpád-kori Magyarországon. L’idée de la Pureté et de L’antagonisme Ethniques dans la Mentalité Hongroise Médiévale.” Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények. A magyar tudományos akadémia irodalomtudományi intézetének folyóirata 94.4 (1990): 425–443.

Ligeti Dávid. “Hazánk első totális diktatúrája: a Tanácsköztársaság a centenárium fényében.” Somogy 47.2 (2019): 30–35.

Magyar Endre Lénárd. „A rémuralom készséges szolgája kívánt lenni”? Perjessy Sándor és a Tanácsköztársaság elleni felkelés Szentendrén (1919. június 24–25.). Budapest, Clio Intézet, 2020.

Marschalkó Lajos. Országhódítók. Munich: Mikes Kelemen Kör, 1975.

NJSZ: Határozott, kettős mércétől mentes és törvényes rendőri fellépést az 1945-ös budavári kitörésre megemlékezőkre támadó vörös csillagos, egyre agresszívabb antifák ellen! Nemzeti Jogvédő Szolgálat közleménye, 2023. február 11., www.njsz.hu.

Pew Research Center. “A portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center (2013).

Prónay Pál;  Szabó Ágnes, Pamlényi Ervin (eds.). “A határban a halál kaszál: fejezetek Prónay Pál feljegyzéseiből.” Budapest: Kossuth, 1963.

Werth, N. (1999). “A State against Its People: Violence, Repression, and Terror in the Soviet Union.” In Courtois, S., Werth, N., Panné, J., Paczkowski, A., Bartosek K., & Margolin, J. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, trans. J. Murphy & M. Kramer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wolin, S., & Slusser, R. M. (1957). The Soviet Secret Police. New York: Praeger.

 

How to Survive Communism in the USA?

Communist Flag Protest

Editor’s Note: This is Tom Sunic’s article in one piece. Still having technical problems, but we’ll survive!

The fundamental mistake made by most American conservatives, both old and new, is to think of communism solely as a violent ideology designed to abolish private property. During the so-called Cold War, they imagined that by mimicking some communist practices they could tone down the very real communist threat and elicit some Soviet sympathy. They should have been more careful what they wished for. The reason why communism fell apart in the early 1990s in the communist East was due to the fact that communist ideologemes, such as the idea of progress, economic equality, and the instauration of a borderless and multiracial society, had been more successfully put into practice in the capitalist West than in the communist East — albeit under a less abrasive name and without resorting to a large scale state terror.

For many Americans, surviving communism is therefore a contradiction in terms given that they have already fully aligned themselves to the System, i.e., “the deep state”, oblivious to its repressive crypto-communistic principles. Unsurviving communism, by contrast, is a destiny of a hapless few who are prepared to live a life of dissent — and also pay a heavy price for their non-conformist views.

Modern day neo-communist BLM and antifascist activists in the US know well that parading with the name of communism could backfire. Their self-ascribed title “antifa” resonates far better in the ears and eyes of the modern media. Many of them, including many of their Democratic party overlords are heirs to a now defunct Homo sovieticus species who once thrived in communist countries of Eastern Europe. The twin brotherhood between former Homo sovieticus and the present Homo americanus has had a very long history irrespective of their often feigned feuds and fake semantic posturing. [i] Given that the US, since its inception, has also been involved in a large number of world-improving projects, not least its century-long messianic virtue-signaling adventures aimed at elevating foreign peoples world-wide to a global City on the Hill, it was to be expected that at some point the communist temptation would gain in popularity in a new garb and hit home in the US. For example, US campuses continue to be the main breeding ground of antifa activists, having now more of their adepts than campuses in Western Europe where, over the last decade, there has been a noticeable recycling to populism and nationalism by many former leftist, but also Jewish authors (Michel Onfray, Alain Soral, Eric Zemmour). In post-communist Eastern Europe, organized antifa groups and their LGBT sidekicks are virtually non-existent, except when temporarily hired and exported by EU or State Department-sponsored NGOs in order to unseat some local populist and anti-globalist ruler. Hatred against antifas in all segments of East European society is understandable given that for many the term antifascism rings the bell of communism. Worth recalling is that words and locutions containing nouns or modifiers related to the word “antifascism” were in surplus in all official communist documents in Eastern Europe, even on marriage certificates, lasting well into the late 1950s. During the Cold War, and without any exception, all East European dissidents were squarely depicted in communist court proceedings as fascist agents.

The brainwashing of young American masses by the word antifascism owes much to the early Bolshevik agitator Leo Trotsky and his collection of essays under the title What is Fascism and how to Fight it,[ii] in which he depicts fascism as the ultimate stage of capitalism and showing how communists in the USA must smash it:

The backwardness of the United State working class is only a relative term. In very many important respects, it is the most progressive working class of the world, technically and in its standard of living…The next historic wave in the United States will be the wave of radicalism of the masses, not fascism. Of course, the war can hinder the radicalization for some time, but then it will give to the radicalization a more tremendous tempo and swing.[iii]

The recent antifa riots in many large cities in USA are also a belated follow-up on riots carried out by antifa “sixty-eigthers” half a century ago all over the West. [iv] They were successful in imposing communist cultural hegemony in higher education and in paving the way, a decade later, for the political takeover by the Left. Sixty-eighters spawned the modern-day antifa. However, neither the psychology of sixty-eighters, nor their modern antifa offshoots can be fully grasped if one loses sight of the world order created jointly by the capitalist US and the communist Soviet Union in 1945, both being part of the common antifascist block. In the final analysis, the entire West, with America at the helm, is unable to repudiate modern antifa activists, let alone declare them a terrorist organisation, unless it first revises its own writing of the history of World War II and overhauls its own system of liberal governance.

The antifa mindset

Apart from the Gulag system and the topography of its countless killing fields, Communism must first and foremost be analysed as an anthropology, or better yet as a widespread social pathology, albeit savored and craved subconsciously by a very large number of its future victims. The obsession with the idea of equality and equal redistribution of goods and capital is as old as humanity itself irrespective of the name this obsession may carry in different countries and epochs. Several undeservedly forgotten authors such as Claude Polin and Alexander Zinoviev, already quoted in TOO on several occasions, long ago noted that it is a deadly mistake to view communism as the terror of the few against many; rather, “it is the terror of all against all at every moment.”

As the flower and crowning glory of communality, communism represents a type of society which is nearest and dearest to the masses no matter how dreadful the potential consequences for them might be.[v]

Long ago I wrote, based on the analyses of these and other authors dealing with the communist anthropology, that the faith in communism presupposes first and foremost a peculiar mindset whose historical realization has been made possible by primordial egalitarian impulses followed by negative socio-biological selection. Throughout man’s biocultural evolution egalitarian instincts have been held in check by cultural institutions and racial in-group constraints. With the advent of the mass multiracial system, deceptively called democracy, resistance to these animalistic and inborn instincts is becoming virtually impossible.

The contemporary USA is a good place to study the proto-communist mindset. The very abstract eighteenth-century Enlightenment-egalitarian-inspired statement in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” was bound to open up a Pandora box of wishful thinking all over Europe, also opening, two hundred years later, the floodgates of non-European immigration. Those do-good romantic Jeffersonian words had a specific meaning in his epoch and for his fellow travellers; today they are being differently interpreted by US lawyers of Mexican, Asian or African ancestry, let alone by their illiterate or semi-literate, lowe-IQ clients arriving in droves to America from Asia, Africa, or Latin America.

It is also a great self-delusion common to many American conservatives, both old and new, to imagine that they can avert the rise of communism by preaching the capitalist gospel of permanent economic growth. Contrary to a well-entrenched communist-Trotskyite dogma, communism can very well thrive in and within a capitalist free market economy. In view of the coming shortages of resources and the surge in the surplus of uprooted people, the communist experiment seems to be the only functional and viable system for the future of the world. Unlike any system hitherto in the history of mankind communism offers an effortless society, psychological predictability and economic security, however meager, bleak or frugal they may all be. Worse, communism increases the basest human instincts, which can best be seen in the violent behavior of US antifa rioters. Communism is the ideal system for any multiracial state composed of gregarious masses, consumer-minded citizens and lower-IQ individuals.

It is another well-spread hoax doctored up by Leon Trotsky that communists are archenemies of capitalism. The case of modern China, a country the size of the US, bears witness that in an overpopulated society facing scarce resources, the communist ruling oligarchy can work hand in hand with liberal free marketeers, creating large differences in wealth. Similar to Germany’s numerous antifa organisations, including the powerful and well-funded German Amadeu Antonio Stiftung , the activities of modern day antifa in America are also profusely funded by wealthy financiers, international corporations, and individuals, with a billionaire George Soros being the best known. Finally, from the geopolitical perspective it must not be forgotten that antifascist guerillas during World War II in Europe would have not lasted a week had they not been supported by the US and UK massive financial and military aid handed out to their sponsor in the Soviet Union.

Most American conservatives are supportive of communistic legal practices such as affirmative action, forgetting that the same “positive” racial discrimination legislation, albeit differently worded, was part and parcel of the Soviet system whose goal was to strike a balance between 16 former Soviet republics containing dozens of competing and feuding nationalities and ethnic groups. The passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was quite in line with the American Cold War wish to neutralize the Soviet threat by doubling down on the same Soviet legal practices, that is, the re-enactment of the multiracial system already laid down in the Soviet constitution of 1936. But, unlike in the Soviet Union — the dogma of multiculturalism and legal provisions on affirmative action are still alive and kicking in America.

The good news is that even if American communists, under the banner of Antifascism or Democratism, or Liberalism come to power in the US they will soon start eliminating each other. This would be fully in accordance with the iron law of egalitarian entropy, a fact often overlooked by many analysts of communism. The still-strong myth that communists and antifas only enjoyed killing anti-communists and fascists during and after World War II must be dismissed. In fact, ever since their coming to power communists and antifas in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, in 1917 and 1945 respectively, were involved in the orgy of mutual purges and killings. It must be expected that American antifas or liberals, or whatever they may name themselves in the near future, will start, once in power, with similar mutual killings. Virtually all big masterminds of communist mass killings during the pre-WWII and the post-WWII Soviet era, heads of powerful Soviet secret police agencies ( Genrikh Yagoda, Lavrentiy Beria, Nikolai Yezhov, Lev Kamenev ) were at some point demoted or ended up themselves on the gallows erected by their former communist comrades. A fresh example of latent communist entropy transpiring in incessant intra-communist warfare could be observed on the eve of the violent break-up of multicultural communist Yugoslavia in 1991, falsely ascribed by the foreign media to local nationalists. However, a closer look at the profile of major decision makers in seceding ex-Yugoslav republics points to their common communist past. Similarly, on a positive side, if one carefully looks at the pedigree, or reads the early works of some of the best and brightest anti-Communist analysts and writers (Boris Souvarine, Arthur Koestler, George Orwell, Ante Ciliga), one can notice that they were at some point in their life ardent supporters of antifascism and communism.

Reductio ad hitlerum; reductio ad iudaeorom

The language arsenal of modern American antifa activists is another field of study that merits closer psycholinguistic attention. Antifa rioters and their college mentors, along with pro-communist US main media outlets, including a large number of their Democratic party coaches are using a revised communist jargon borrowed from the defunct Soviet Union. The Soviet talk was once the daily menu of the communist propaganda in Eastern Europe, its goal being to dehumanize, demonize and criminalize political opponents. The language processing was simple — it consisted in reversing the meaning of words and redefining political concepts. Similar practice can be observed today in the US amongst modern antifa activists and main media outlets who resort to the principles of reductio ad absurdum, that is, they posit propositions that elicit contradictory yet self-serving conclusions. Along these reductionist lines of verbal sophistry, the process of vilifying Whites as fascists is being facilitated by the methodological tool of reductio ad hitlerum. By now this equation, i.e., Whites = Fascists has become a standard practice in social science studies and in the media in the US. For modern antifa rioters in the US, the word fascism is a pivotal killer-shut-up word. Once uttered it disables any communication. This word, however, has completely lost its original political designation, standing now instead for a synonym of the absolute cosmic evil.

The same verbal demonizing wordings apply to another killer-word i.e. “Nazism,” a derogatory hyperbolic abbreviation of the word in usage since 1945. The word ‘Nazi’, however, was never used in the official National-Socialist documents or academic journals in Germany from 1933–45. Ironically, it first appeared in the late 1920s as a deriding title of the book Der Nazi-Sozi [vi] written as a short lampooning manifesto against Jews, Communists and capitalists by Joseph Goebbels, who was to become in 1933 the main figure of the NS German propaganda war.

Using the pejorative word ‘Nazi’ today is the equivalent of the pejorative word “commie”, the difference being, however, that in a polite academic company in the US, or in academic journals nobody would ever use the word ‘commie’ in the description of communists. The whole array of new euphemisms, as well as torrents of killer-words have been manufactured over the last fifty years in the US , such as “white supremacism,” “ hate speech,” “affirmative action,” “Afro-Americans” instead of Negroes, the modifying adjective “Jewish” instead of a more piercing noun ‘Jew’, with most of these words being taken now as a commonplace either when criminalizing political opponents or when praising non-Europeans to the skies. When inspecting the prose of many leftist or Jewish-run journals or pro-Jewish news agencies in the USA, such as the SPLC or ADL, it becomes obvious that they function primarily as antifa educational loudspeakers when blaring on all frequencies the demonizing labels neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or fascists.

Historical amicability of a large number of Jewish-American intellectuals for antifascist projects have been amply documented by Kevin MacDonald. Most Jewish-American authors, for obvious reasons, are pretty tacit when it comes to analyzing the high percentage of leading Communists officials of Jewish origin in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and their role in early communist-antifa movements, as well as their role in the establishment of repressive communist regimes. The very large overrepresentation of liberal-leftist Jews in the major media and elite academic institutions, as well as in financial contributions to political causes of the left, has also been critical in creating the culture of White guilt and fanning the flames of the communist temptation in contemporary America.

However, reducing the birth and the spread of communism, including its modern version of antifascism to Jewish intellectuals and activists is not the whole story; it means ignoring the all-encompassing, indeed democratic reality of the communist temptation. Gentile communist auxiliaries, reared in the culture of White guilt, operate as willing executioners; they fear being suspected of a lax attitude toward non-communist foes, or harboring themselves latent anti-Semitic feelings, and they often outperform their Jewish-communist comrades. It is no accident that the frontmen in modern antifa riots in US cities today are mostly troubled White individuals who have lost the sense of identity and who, driven by feelings of historical guilt (as is the case with most academics in Germany), look for atonement by becoming the loudest sympathizers or standard-bearers of antifascism.

Removing the communist temptation presupposes cleaning up the swamp, first in American higher education and then in defunding departments of humanities in all colleges. In order to do that, the fallacy of multiculturalism needs to be discarded; it has never worked anywhere in the world. It has always been a recipe for disaster and civil wars all over the world. Abandoned policies of racial segregation must be reconsidered as a viable option for a functional society. It is better to have fences than cohabiting with an alien partner in a fake marriage. Prior to that, however, the whole idea of progress, still strongly embedded in the American dream, needs to be re-examined. Of course, this may all sound like wishful thinking because, as we have seen thousands of times in history, it is the size of someone’s sword which only makes the difference between good and evil.

Notes:

[i] T. Sunic, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, Homo americanus; Child of the Postmodern Age (Arktos, 2018), pp. 34-70.

[ii] Leon Trotsky (Pathfinder, 1969).

[iii] Ibid. „The Perspective in the United States,“ published first in Fourth International, October 1940.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

[iv] T. Sunic, „Sixty-Eighters“, Chronicles of American Culture, March 1999.

[v] Alexander Zinoviev, The Reality of Communism (London: Victor Gollancz), p.28.

[vi] Joseph Goebbels, Der Nazi-Sozi; Fragen und Antworten für den Nationalsozialisten, (Elberfeld, 1926). In Egnlsih trans.: https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/nazi-sozi.htm

 

How to Survive Communism in the USA? Part 4

Editor’s note: I can only post very short pieces, so this very interesting article is posted in four parts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2.
Go to Part 3.

Historical amicability of a large number of Jewish-American intellectuals for antifascist projects have been amply documented by Kevin MacDonald. Most Jewish-American authors, for obvious reasons, are pretty tacit when it comes to analyzing the high percentage of leading Communists officials of Jewish origin in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and their role in early communist-antifa movements, as well as their role in the establishment of repressive communist regimes. The very large overrepresentation of liberal-leftist Jews in the major media and elite academic institutions, as well as in financial contributions to political causes of the left, has also been critical in creating the culture of White guilt and fanning the flames of the communist temptation in contemporary America.

However, reducing the birth and the spread of communism, including its modern version of antifascism to Jewish intellectuals and activists is not the whole story; it means ignoring the all-encompassing, indeed democratic reality of the communist temptation. Gentile communist auxiliaries, reared in the culture of White guilt, operate as willing executioners; they fear being suspected of a lax attitude toward non-communist foes, or harboring themselves latent anti-Semitic feelings, and they often outperform their Jewish-communist comrades. It is no accident that the frontmen in modern antifa riots in US cities today are mostly troubled White individuals who have lost the sense of identity and who, driven by feelings of historical guilt (as is the case with most academics in Germany), look for atonement by becoming the loudest sympathizers or standard-bearers of antifascism.

Removing the communist temptation presupposes cleaning up the swamp, first in American higher education and then in defunding departments of humanities in all colleges. In order to do that, the fallacy of multiculturalism needs to be discarded; it has never worked anywhere in the world. It has always been a recipe for disaster and civil wars all over the world. Abandoned policies of racial segregation must be reconsidered as a viable option for a functional society. It is better to have fences than cohabiting with an alien partner in a fake marriage. Prior to that, however, the whole idea of progress, still strongly embedded in the American dream, needs to be re-examined. Of course, this may all sound like wishful thinking because, as we have seen thousands of times in history, it is the size of someone’s sword which only makes the difference between good and evil.

How to Survive Communism in the USA? Part 3

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2.

The good news is that even if American communists, under the banner of Antifascism or Democratism, or Liberalism come to power in the US they will soon start eliminating each other. This would be fully in accordance with the iron law of egalitarian entropy, a fact often overlooked by many analysts of communism. The still-strong myth that communists and antifas only enjoyed killing anti-communists and fascists during and after World War II must be dismissed. In fact, ever since their coming to power communists and antifas in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, in 1917 and 1945 respectively, were involved in the orgy of mutual purges and killings. It must be expected that American antifas or liberals, or whatever they may name themselves in the near future, will start, once in power, with similar mutual killings. Virtually all big masterminds of communist mass killings during the pre-WWII and the post-WWII Soviet era, heads of powerful Soviet secret police agencies ( Genrikh Yagoda, Lavrentiy Beria, Nikolai Yezhov, Lev Kamenev ) were at some point demoted or ended up themselves on the gallows erected by their former communist comrades. A fresh example of latent communist entropy transpiring in incessant intra-communist warfare could be observed on the eve of the violent break-up of multicultural communist Yugoslavia in 1991, falsely ascribed by the foreign media to local nationalists. However, a closer look at the profile of major decision makers in seceding ex-Yugoslav republics points to their common communist past. Similarly, on a positive side, if one carefully looks at the pedigree, or reads the early works of some of the best and brightest anti-Communist analysts and writers (Boris Souvarine, Arthur Koestler, George Orwell, Ante Ciliga), one can notice that they were at some point in their life ardent supporters of antifascism and communism.

Reductio ad hitlerum; reductio ad iudaeorom

The language arsenal of modern American antifa activists is another field of study that merits closer psycholinguistic attention. Antifa rioters and their college mentors, along with pro-communist US main media outlets, including a large number of their Democratic party coaches are using a revised communist jargon borrowed from the defunct Soviet Union. The Soviet talk was once the daily menu of the communist propaganda in Eastern Europe, its goal being to dehumanize, demonize and criminalize political opponents. The language processing was simple — it consisted in reversing the meaning of words and redefining political concepts. Similar practice can be observed today in the US amongst modern antifa activists and main media outlets who resort to the principles of reductio ad absurdum, that is, they posit propositions that elicit contradictory yet self-serving conclusions. Along these reductionist lines of verbal sophistry, the process of vilifying Whites as fascists is being facilitated by the methodological tool of reductio ad hitlerum. By now this equation, i.e., Whites = Fascists has become a standard practice in social science studies and in the media in the US. For modern antifa rioters in the US, the word fascism is a pivotal killer-shut-up word. Once uttered it disables any communication. This word, however, has completely lost its original political designation, standing now instead for a synonym of the absolute cosmic evil.

The same verbal demonizing wordings apply to another killer-word i.e. “Nazism,” a derogatory hyperbolic abbreviation of the word in usage since 1945. The word ‘Nazi’, however, was never used in the official National-Socialist documents or academic journals in Germany from 1933–45. Ironically, it first appeared in the late 1920s as a deriding title of the book Der Nazi-Sozi [i] written as a short lampooning manifesto against Jews, Communists and capitalists by Joseph Goebbels, who was to become in 1933 the main figure of the NS German propaganda war.

Using the pejorative word ‘Nazi’ today is the equivalent of the pejorative word “commie”, the difference being, however, that in a polite academic company in the US, or in academic journals nobody would ever use the word ‘commie’ in the description of communists. The whole array of new euphemisms, as well as torrents of killer-words have been manufactured over the last fifty years in the US , such as “white supremacism,” “ hate speech,” “affirmative action,” “Afro-Americans” instead of Negroes, the modifying adjective “Jewish” instead of a more piercing noun ‘Jew’, with most of these words being taken now as a commonplace either when criminalizing political opponents or when praising non-Europeans to the skies. When inspecting the prose of many leftist or Jewish-run journals or pro-Jewish news agencies in the USA, such as the SPLC or ADL, it becomes obvious that they function primarily as antifa educational loudspeakers when blaring on all frequencies the demonizing labels neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or fascists.

Go to Part 4

 

Bitter Harvest: A Brilliant Film on the Ukrainian Holodomor

“This particular film was extremely important to me, and it felt almost like a mission. I wanted to bring knowledge about the famine genocide, the Holodomor, to the Western world, and that’s why I did it.”
        Ian Ihnatowycz, Bitter Harvest Producer

Bitter Harvest (2017) is a film inspired by the love and rediscovery of the writer Richard Bachynsky Hoover’s ethnic heritage. On a trip to the homeland of his Slavic ancestors he began to ruminate on how to capture the story of the Holodomor on film. With small acting parts in a variety of television series Bachynsky Hoover was learning the ropes of the film and entertainment industry. He went again to Kiev, investigating his family history. It was 2004 and the Orange Revolution was in full swing — he saw firsthand a Ukraine in the midst of upheaval. He learned that Western audiences had never seen the Holodomor dramatized on film — a dramatically different situation compared to that other genocide that has become a touchstone of Western Civilization and both a sword and a shield for Jewish and Israeli interests through endless promotion in the media.  In 2008 he would return with a script, seeking financing for an English language period piece set during the Holodomor. He met with officials from the Ukrainian Government as well as various oligarchs. All of them turned him down. It was not until 2011 that the dream to make his movie finally caught a glimmer of hope when fellow Ukrainian Canadian investor Ian Ihnatowycz committed $21 million to the film.

British actors Max Irons and Samantha Barks star as Yuri and Natalka, two childhood sweethearts from the same village. They marry young and soon their lives are thrown into the whirlwind of revolution and resistance that comes with annexation of the Ukraine by the Soviet Union and eventual famine by way of grain confiscation. Barry Pepper and Terence Stamp are crucial to the supporting cast as Yuri’s family. Pepper sports the classic Cossack khokol (also called oseledets in the Ukraine) haircut — a long lock of hair on the top or front of an otherwise completely shaven head. Tamer Hassan, an English actor of Turkish Cypriot descent, takes the role of the real life villain Sergei, a Soviet officer who enforced Stalin’s will with relentless brutality. Hassan is the only non-White cast member, and may in fact be the only non-White member of the film crew. With the exception of a few stunts the entirety of the film was shot in Ukraine with Ukrainian extras and crew — some of whom took part in the Euromaidan protests during their off hours while shooting from late 2013 to early 2014. In several interviews and promotional appearances for the film much of the cast — but most significantly Max Irons — expressed a slight sense of shame over their prior ignorance of the Holodomor and the need to raise awareness of this historical tragedy. Read more