Ethno-nationalists make a horror movie: Once Upon A Time In Minnesota

Ethno-nationalists make a horror movie: Once Upon A Time In Minnesota

From “The Future Of Right-Wing Cinema“:

“Left-wing academic film culture is very good at judging work on its merits and in context, they are very open to raw, amateurish and outsider art in search for something unique, special and entirely new within it. On these terms the left’s film criticism is quite advanced and adventurous. They have countless film journals, institutions and entire courses dedicated to this.

We need to make sure right-wing critics and audiences are ready for any new wave of cinema our movement produces, and have the sophistication to deal with it properly on zero budget, outsider and embryonic terms.”

Once Upon A Time In Minnesota was in production when I first wrote that piece. Now the movie is finished and has sparked a bit of lively conversation. It’s a supernatural horror film based on Minnesota’s Scandinavian heritage. A young woman escapes a cult to then go on a therapeutic road trip with old friends to a cabin in the wilderness.

Watch the full “Once Upon A Time In Minnesota” movie here:

Martin Lichtmesz has written an interesting review of Minnesota, but I think his piece makes the mistake of looking at the work as conventional cinema. Most of his article is about online twitter arguments he had with others like PhilosophiCat regarding the movie. I’m actually glad this is taking place because it means Minnesota is creating artistic debate. Criticism and discussion often precedes a jolt of creativity like with the French New Wave.

Let’s look at the film on two different levels. On the surface, Minnesota is a largely technically competent low-budget horror film that succeeds in being entertaining on those merits. Rather than going for any kind of lofty aesthetic (i.e iPhones or VHS), Minnesota’s ambition was to look like a Hollywood film, with good use of cameras and nice looking lenses. Various exterior scenes pop with exaggerated colours of nature. Camera movements are smoothly done on gimbals or Steadicam rigs. Dialogue is all clearly recorded and nicely sweetened in post-production. The film came from the White Art Collective, which has mostly focused on music, so they had plenty of emotive soundtrack material.

There are moments where it’s rough around the edges because its ambition to look and sound like a conventional Hollywood film is more risky on a low budget. If this were shot like a documentary, it would be easier to make it seamless. But attempting a big-budget feel will inevitably create moments that don’t quite hit the mark when done on a shoestring. Even when only a few moments, they will stick-out in a largely otherwise professional and glossy aesthetic.

Jenny Bean as Eva in Once Upon A Time In Minnesota

The cast of actors are really good. I think Jenny Bean sells her traumatised state as a former cult member quite well. She has this constantly worried look, reminiscent of Sissy Spacek in Carrie, which creates anticipation of the horror to come. Her romantic interest, a man she left before joining the cult, is a believably earnest corn-fed sort of guy that successfully builds up their romantic tension again. Comic relief on the road trip is delivered by Alma Lahar, who gets all kinds of corny lines that verge into meme-worthy meta-comedy. He made me laugh a few times. It’s an acting troupe that could become well-known performers in a new kind of alternative cinema.

Let’s go beneath all the technical and stylistic surface. What Minnesota offers in substantial uniqueness is an esoteric sub-structure and in-jokes for the dissident right audience. I don’t want to spoil all these revelations and punchlines, but they are threaded through the film to either wink that they are one of us or punctuate with humour. Thematically, the horror is based around European folk mythos and the film is very much rooted in nature, from its well-captured wilderness settings to the interiors of the wood cabin where the film concludes.

Jenny Bean as Eva in Once Upon A Time In Minnesota

The biggest issue with the film is not that it doesn’t succeed on a technical or thematic level. The problem is it’s just too short. At 50 minutes, it sits as a mid-length feature or one episode of a TV show. Things are wrapped up a bit too quickly. I think the second act could have been drawn-out much more and a greater sense of tension created before the ending. But this shows that audiences are left wanting more, so it’s not the worst criticism to have. Things are also left a little open ended, so if there were a sequel or another episode, I would have watched it immediately.

Minnesota largely sidesteps being overtly political, they went rather for artistic passion first than grafting artifice around ideology. It’s a horror film steeped in Hammer and Gialo. Yes, there are nods and winks to our guys. No, there isn’t a diversity quota being adhered to. But they were consciously having fun with the genre first rather than ramming talking-points down our throats. There is more expression of identity here than there are polemics.

Symbolism from Once Upon A Time In Minnesota

What about the bad review and public debate about the film? Well I think some of the negativity has failed to see this film in proper context. Coming from a niche subculture of White nationalism, this film should be seen like early Evangelical Christian cinema. Martin Lichtmesz does draw this comparison in his review, but I think he fails to appreciate how ethno-nationalists are operating cinematically from within a vacuum and he sees the comparison negatively, rather than something of this scale coming from nothing being quite the leap. Other commentary has been more supportive and appreciative of what they see as green shoots and exciting potential.

Evangelicals were well aware that their own movies had problems, but they kept supporting the industry, developing it over time, where it eventually became more sophisticated and viable. With Christians, I think they had a bit more they could have drawn from, like the work of Andrei Tarkovsky and other poetic cinema, not to mention their more solid financial base, but like the right-wing, they have their own issues with a limited or philistine art culture. Christians are largely locked-out of sophisticated film discourse and have hence locked-on to a Hallmark sensibility.

One big exception was Catholic filmmaker Mel Gibson, who tapped into this market with The Passion Of The Christ and showed great grass-roots solidarity with Protestants to break box office records for both independent and R-rated cinema. The Passion was an artistically uncompromising project that transcended the usual TV-movie treatment of the subject matter. Highly cinematic and uncensored in terms of violence around the crucifixion. His film was accused of anti-Semitism with its depiction of Jews conniving to kill Christ. Gibson would be entrapped 18 months later by police as part of an attempted cancellation of the artist by Hollywood.

Interestingly enough, both Evangelical cinema and the White Art Collective come from similar impulses. Both of them have a strong foundation in music first and are essentially trying to carve out separatist artistic space. Music is much closer to cinema than theatre and so it’s a natural progression to start making movies. And creating your own film narratives is important if you want to forge a separate community or zeitgeist outside the mainstream.

Gentile Gentleman as Cedric in Once Upon A Time In Minnesota

Martin Lichtmesz’s review ignores Minnesota’s genuine outsider bona fides and esoteric content. This was always my fear when such work would finally emerge, that we simply couldn’t approach things with the nuance that leftists give obscure cultural artifacts within their milieu. And in this sense, the team that built Minnesota have to some degree led an artistic charge with arrows in their backs. That’s not to say that Minnesota is a masterpiece. But it’s a very successful proof of concept, evidence that our scene can in fact create their own movies to a good technical standard, be entertaining and speak directly to an ethno-nationalist audience.

Now the thing I want to contribute to this discussion the most is what to do with Minnesota. I don’t think it should just exist as a block of time on YouTube or its DVD physical media release. Within the film are various sequences that should be injected into meme culture via TikToks and Youtube shorts. These range from melancholic moments to the more corny punchlines (like the diner scene). Someone has to go in and start slicing and dicing (this may not be the filmmakers themselves). Despite the cinemascope aspect ratio, Minnesota’s imagery can easily be cropped to vertical TikToks because things are usually framed with lots of space in the composition. Some of this material can be clipped as-is or perhaps reprocessed like hype edits or Hyperborean memes with FX and different soundtracks. This is modern film promotion and memes are really our scene’s most successful artform, so I would love to see this film threaded through social media and continue to live as a piece of culture. This has been done successfully with the low-budget films of Jonathan Bowden – teenagers are reediting them into reflexive experimental shorts. Known for his powerful speeches, oratory skills and writing, Jonathan Bowden also left us with two low-budget experimental films. These feature his own expressive central performances. Venus Flytrap (2005) and Grand Guignol (2009) have been given an entirely new life in meme culture where Bowden is an ever-changing and evolving character reflecting upon the modern age. Bowden passed away in 2012.

Minnesota is definitely worth watching. If you are a nationalist with an appetite for culture, this film is for you. It can be found on YouTube or a DVD copy can be purchased directly on eBay. I recommend that Lord Wolfshield basically go and make another film within this genre and build on what he’s just done. If Wolfshield makes something like this again, with all the new experience and knowledge gained, I think he could truly break through and make something talked about beyond our sphere. The film proves the viability of us making our own feature narratives and that such filmmakers are worth investing in.

The release comes at a time when Australian nationalists have dropped a super-successful documentary of their own. If a bit more work is generated, we will have a genuine artistic movement and little industry emerging. Wolfshield has stated his goal is to build a new institution from the ground up completely outside the antiwhite system. Beyond being something cool to watch, Minnesota will hopefully have an interesting afterlife within meme-culture and as a proof of concept that inspires others to tackle a feature film project.

John MacDonald is a film critic and teacher of media in New South Wales.

Rep9sted from  The Noticer with permission.

A Vibrant Vulva: More on Jews and Their Nazi-Adjacent “Natural Allies”

The Mystery of the Missing Monosyllable. That’s what I want to look at today. Except that it isn’t really a mystery. I know perfectly well why the Trotskyist libertarian Tom Slater wasn’t prepared to use one short word in his righteous condemnation of an anti-Israeli musician. But he was prepared to use another short word to describe the musician. The evasive and faux-fierce monosyllable he did use was “cunt.” The honest and relevant monosyllable he didn’t use was “Black.”

A dismayed and distressed disclosure

And who was the vulval villain? Bobby Vylan, that’s who. He’s the dreadlocked lead-singer of a Black punk-rap duo called Bob Vylan, whose performance at the Glastonbury music festival was broadcast live by the BBC. The vibrant Vylan led the overwhelmingly White and middle-class crowd in chants of “Free Palestine!” and “Death, death to the IDF!” (Israel Defence Forces). Like the stale and stodgy British prime minister Keir Starmer, Tom Slater was dismayed and distressed by these chants. He denounced Mr Vylan at Spiked for inciting “Jew hatred,” then sadly disclosed that “the murderous rantings of that cunt turn my stomach less than the roaring adulation of the crowd.”[1] He also bewailed “blood libels against the world’s only Jewish nation.” But the monosyllable “Black” did not appear anywhere in Tom’s jeremiad, despite the obvious relevance of the vulval villain’s race to his politics — and to the “adulation” he received from that roaring, anti-racist crowd.

Stale Stodgy Starmer versus Vibrant Vulval Villain: Friend of Israel Keir Starmer and Enemy of Israel Bobby Vylan (images from Novara and Guardian)

Nor did the word “Black” appear anywhere in the anti-Vylan jeremiad issued in parallel by Tom’s comrade Brendan O’Neill at the Spectator. Brendan denounced “the lead singer” for inciting a “frenzy of Israelophobia” in his audience, but didn’t add any details about that “lead singer.” But he was able to add details about the audience, which consisted, he said, of “bourgeois youth” and “privileged youths” “issuing mantras of death.” So is Bobby Vylan “bourgeois” and “privileged” too? No, he’s not. He’s an authentically angry, self-righteous and resentment-filled working-class Black who has, like Tom and Brendan, picked a side in the Gaza conflict.[2] Surprise, surprise! Black Bobby hasn’t picked the same side as White Tom and Brendan. No, he sides with the dark-skinned Palestinians who are being blown to bits by bombs rather than with the pale-skinned Israelis who are dropping the bombs. Bobby Vylan’s race is obviously relevant to his pro-Palestinian politics, but that’s precisely why Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill refused to discuss his race. They’re passionate supporters of both Jewish welfare and free speech, you see, so they can’t admit that those two things are completely incompatible with something else they passionately support. Or once supported, anyway. Here’s Brendan issuing a righteous call for open borders in 2015:

We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. … We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (“Let Them In,” Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

Ten years later, having seen how they’ve “fared,” Brendan has had second thoughts about some of those admirably aspirant migrants.[3] Where once he waxed lyrical in support of open borders, he now lists that very support among the three worst examples of the “cranky shite” urged upon sane folk by the “bourgeois [and] privileged youths” of the woke left: “transwomen are women, open the borders, Israel is bad.” Indeed, in 2025 Brendan is loudly proclaiming that a certain class of “migrants” simply “shouldn’t be allowed in Britain.” That’s right: we shouldn’t admire these migrants or celebrate their “guile, gumption and perseverance.” We shouldn’t welcome them as an “antidote” to “sluggish Europe” or “enable” their “aspirations … to realize their potential.” Not at all. Far from enabling, we should exclude.

The group that really matters

And who are the migrants whom Brendan now wants to exclude from Britain? Is it perhaps migrants who threaten women and homosexuals with more rape and murder? Or migrants whose low intelligence, lack of education and chronic diseases mean they will be a permanent burden on the British economy? No, not at all. In 2025 Brendan is still unconcerned about the misogyny, homophobia and economic harmfulness of Third-World migrants. His criterion for exclusion is something quite different: “Migrants who hate Jews shouldn’t be allowed in Britain.” Yes, it’s Jews who matter. Not women, homosexuals or White tax-payers — Jews! But Brendan’s new-found opposition to open borders raises an obvious question. What about the Jew-hating migrants who were allowed into Britain in decades past? What about their Jew-hating descendants? The two Black members of Bob Vylan are among those descendants. So are a vastly disproportionate number of those participating in the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel marches that Brendan O’Neill and Tom Slater have regularly condemned at Spiked and the Spectator. What do we do about those home-grown non-White Jew-haters?

That is a very tricky question for the libertarians Brendan O’Neill and Tom Slater. You see, on the one hand, they’re passionate supporters of Jewish welfare and free speech. And on the other, they are — or used to be — equally passionate supporters of non-White immigration. But imported non-Whites are much more likely to hate Jews and free speech than indigenous Whites are. There’s an obvious contradiction between philosemitic libertarianism and support for non-White immigration. Brendan and Tom can neither admit that contradiction nor resolve it. And that explains the Mystery of the Missing Monosyllable. It explains why Brendan and Tom refused to describe the “Israelophobic” Bobby Vylan as “Black,” despite the obvious relevance of his race to his politics. They were evading reality and refusing to admit the consequences of their own ideology.

A Professor of Puppets

But that missing monosyllable and evasion of reality aren’t the only things that unite the jeremiads of Brendan and Tom. In tone and content their articles were uncannily similar. But you can say that of everything the two of them write, because they don’t have minds of their own. Instead, they handed their minds over long ago to a “Professor of Puppets,” a Jewish sociologist called Frank Furedi. Freedom-fanatic Furedi is an excellent example of a recurring figure identified by Kevin MacDonald in Western history, that of the charismatic Jewish guru who recruits and molds a group of devoted disciples to serve overt or covert Jewish interests. Jews like Furedi have long regarded non-White immigration as very good for Jews. They don’t like standing out as a minority in homogenous White societies, because they fear that their financial predation and cultural subversion will trigger yet another of the persecutions or expulsions they’ve suffered so often in the past. Accordingly, Jews have worked hard to open the borders and import the non-Whites whom many of them have described as “natural allies”:

But oy gevalt! Those “natural allies” have turned out to be Nazi-adjacent. After Hamas murdered, raped and kidnapped hundreds of Israeli Jews in October 2023, Jews in the West watched in dismay as their “natural allies” poured onto the streets of New York, London and Paris not in support of poor persecuted Israel but of murderous and rapist-replete Hamas. That’s why the Jewish libertarian Frank Furedi has changed his mind about open borders. He’s decided that they’re not so good for Jews after all. And when Frank changes his mind, so do Brendan O’Neill, Tom Slater and the rest of Frank’s RoboRoaches. Brendan was proclaiming “Let Them In!” back in 2015 and is now proclaiming that “Migrants who hate Jews shouldn’t be allowed in Britain.” But Brendan still hasn’t admitted his own complicity in supporting non-White immigration for so long. And some Jews still haven’t abandoned their support for open borders. The following plea appeared on 20th June in the Jewish Chronicle:

Schmoozing for refugees in the Jewish Chronicle

The Schmooze: This Refugee Week, let’s open our hearts to those seeking a safe haven

Rabbi David Mason of HIAS-JCORE [Hebrew Immigration Aid Society and Jewish Council for Racial Equality] argues that welcoming refugees is fundamental to the Jewish value of tzedakah — justice

If I were to ask JC readers what makes them proudest of our UK Jewish communities, I’m sure we would hear a few common answers. Perhaps some would say our schools and academic institutions — or maybe our cultural achievements, diversity, or resilience. But for many — like me — it would be the work with tzedakah at its core. This enduring commitment to social justice — our deep sense of responsibility — is surely one of our community’s greatest assets.

That is why this year’s Refugee Week theme — Community as a Superpower — feels especially fitting. And it is a great opportunity to celebrate the many wonderful projects British Jews run alongside displaced people. This is work I have long admired. Even prior to taking over at HIAS+JCORE, I saw involvement with refugee issues as a critical part of my role as a community Rabbi, and something embedded in my Jewish identity.

Today, it’s a continued source of inspiration to me that so many British Jews are passionate about this work. Of course, this is driven by our values and teaching: but our history is just as important. In fact, it’s a rare week where I don’t hear a personal story or connection which drives these efforts — the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who were given sanctuary in the UK.

Then, as now, it hasn’t always been smooth sailing for people who reach this country, seeking that chance to rebuild and start afresh in safety. It is painful to see just how damaging our system is for people seeking asylum here today. But it gives me such strength to see our community empowering refugees, helping them to overcome these barriers, and ensuring that they have a fair chance to integrate and restart. […]

At HIAS+JCORE, we are really proud of our JUMP [JCORE’s Unaccompanied Minors Project] befriending project, a programme supporting asylum seeking and refugee young people, but shaped and led by our beneficiaries.

JUMP often leaves a lasting impression on its volunteers. As Josh Stein, who has been involved with the programme for a number of years, shared with me: “Volunteering with JUMP has been a huge part of my life… [it’s] not just introduced me to a good friend (and a great community), but it has also taught me a lot about other cultures, and about the value of simple companionship and support.”

Josh also reflected on how his identity as a British Jew informs this volunteering. “Being part of a Jewish community in South London proved to me the value of societal acceptance and cohesion… I always felt we had a responsibility to open our communities to others facing discrimination similar to the discrimination we have suffered in our history, and being part of JUMP is a way of doing that.”

So, let’s make this year’s Refugee Week a celebration of everything we’re already doing. But my challenge to our communities this week is this: let’s use this moment to go even further. It is clear just how much of a superpower we can be together. With divisive forces rising in UK politics, let’s stay true to our roots and values. Now, more than ever, is the time for us to show today’s refugees that they are welcome and that we stand firmly by their side. (“The Schmooze: This Refugee Week, let’s open our hearts to those seeking a safe haven,” The Jewish Chronicle, 20th June 2025)

Is it true that “welcoming refugees is fundamental to the Jewish value of tzedakah”? No, obviously not. If “Jewish values” genuinely mandated a warm welcome for refugees, then Israel would be one of the most refugee-friendly places on earth. In fact, Israel is one of the most refugee-hostile places on earth, having fortified its borders with high-tech fences to keep out the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” That’s a line from the famous pro-migration poem by the Jewish activist Emma Lazarus (1849–87). But she was addressing gullible goyim in White America and the syrupy sentiments of her poem are not celebrated in Jewish Israel. Nor are the syrupy sentiments expressed by Emma’s co-ethnic Israel Zangwill (1864–1926), who proclaimed that White America should be a “melting pot” for every race and religion on earth.

“Melting pots are good for you, goyim!” The ethnocentric Jews Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill

Emma and Israel prove that there is only one eternal and unshakable “Jewish value.” It can be summed up in this simple question: “What’s best for Jews?” That’s why I was unmoved by the conclusion to Tom Slater’s invective against that vibrant vulval villain:

British Jews have known for some time that they cannot rely on [the woke left] for solidarity. All the more reason for the sane, truly anti-racist majority — those who can see what is going on and are quietly horrified by it — to stand with their Jewish brothers and sisters, loudly and proudly. This really isn’t their problem. It’s ours. (“Bob Vylan, Glastonbury and the banality of Jew hatred,” Spiked Online, 29th June 2025)

Slater is wrong. It is indeed “their problem.” Decade after decade, Jews have been central organizers of both non-White immigration and the vilification of Whites as racist oppressors. Now it turns out that the Jew-imported non-Whites don’t want to accept their Jew-scripted role as “natural allies.” Instead, they regard Jews as supreme exemplars of racist White oppressors. It’s hard to blame them when you see pale-skinned Israelis raining high explosive on dark-skinned Palestinians. And when you see genuine fascists like Itamar Ben-Gvir (born 1976) high in the Israeli government. Ben-Gvir is the current Minister for National Security and heads a party called Otzma Yehudit, “Jewish Power,” which descends directly from the outlawed Judeo-fascist Kach party.

Feisty Judeo-fascist Itamar Ben-Gvir at a Jewish Power rally (the sign says Otzma Yehudit, or “Jewish Power” in Hebrew, with the adjective following the noun)

Until it became too politically embarrassing for him, Ben-Gvir maintained an honored place in his home for a portrait of a Brooklyn-born Israeli doctor called Baruch Goldstein (1956–94), whose early death remains much lamented in Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. Why so? Well, like the murderer-for-Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri in Pakistan, Goldstein was a Martyr with a Machine-Gun. On Purim Day in 1994, when Jews were commemorating a righteous revenge on an ancient anti-Semite, Goldstein was beaten to death by the Arabs who had survived the bullets he sprayed in a crowded mosque, as I described in my article “Fingernails and Fascism.” The title of that article refers to a little-known line in the eulogy delivered by a rabbi called Yaacov Perrin at Goldstein’s funeral. Perrin said: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”

Itamar Ben-Gvir and the rest of Otzma Yehudit undoubtedly believe the same. The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu may well believe it too. Netanyahu is certainly a Jewish supremacist, placing Jewish welfare first and Palestinian welfare nowhere. As I said: Can you blame non-Whites in the West for regarding Jews as supreme exemplars of racist White oppressors? I can’t. But there’s something else I can’t do, namely, regard Jews as my “brothers and sisters” in the way urged by Tom Slater. They’re not my brothers and sisters. I’m White and my ancestral religion is Christianity. For decades, Jews in Britain have been central to a war against Whites and Christianity. They’ve engineered endless non-White immigration and organized endless anti-White legislation. For example, Richard Stone, a Jewish doctor like Baruch Goldstein, labored long and hard in the martyr-cult of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

An over-achieving ethnic enricher

As the “Israelophobic” Bobby Vylan has noted in one of his resentment-filled lyrics, St Stephen was murdered by evil White racists in 1993. His parents were part of the so-called “Windrush Generation,” the group of absurdly apothesized and adulated Black immigrants who poured into Britain from the Caribbean after the Second World War. Doreen Lawrence, the martyr’s mother, now has an honored seat in the House of Lords, whence she regularly and righteously rebukes the White British for their racism and maltreatment of her fellow Blacks. But Dame Doreen will not be commenting on an interesting example of ethnic enrichment by an over-achieving fellow Black who was, to judge by his name and age, also part of the Windrush Generation:

The vibrant villain Ryland Headley, an over-achieving ethnic enricher who raped and murdered an elderly White woman in 1967

A 92-year-old man who evaded justice for almost 60 years has been convicted of raping and murdering a woman in Bristol, after a review by a cold case police team and scientists. A jury at Bristol crown court found Ryland Headley guilty of attacking Louisa Dunne, 75, a stranger to him, at her home in the Easton area of the city in June 1967. Headley was caught after Avon and Somerset police’s major crime review team unearthed DNA links between him and the murder scene in what they codenamed Operation Beatle — a nod to the era in which the crime took place.

Officers believe the 58-year gap between the crime and the conviction may be the biggest in modern English policing history and Headley is thought to be the oldest person convicted of murder in the UK. The force is working with the National Crime Agency to look at whether Headley may be responsible for any other unsolved attacks over the years. […] Senior investigating officer Det Insp Dave Marchant said Headley, who was in his 30s when he killed Mrs Dunne, had left “a legacy of misery and pain”. (“Man, 92, convicted of raping and murdering Bristol woman in 1967,” The Guardian, and “Man, 92, guilty of 1967 rape and murder of woman,” BBC News, 30th Jun 2025)

As I predicted in my article “The Wasteland of Windrushistan,” we now know why Louisa Dunne — who was “5ft 3in tall” (160 cm) and “weighed less than seven stone” (45 kg or 98 lbs) — failed to live out her days in calm and serenity, “watching the world go by.” It was thanks to White traitors at the top and the White-hating Jews who controlled those traitors and supplied them with their ideological script. The traitors and the Jews unleashed the “Windrush Generation” on the unwilling ordinary Whites of the United Kingdom, ensuring that Blacks would commit endless violent crimes against ordinary Whites, drain vast sums of money paid in tax by ordinary Whites, and drive huge numbers of ordinary Whites out of the cities that Blacks were enriching with noise, dirt, crime and chaos.

The mud-flood is a blight, not a blessing

That policeman was perfectly correct to say that Ryland Headley left a “legacy of misery and pain.” But the policeman would be wrong to confine that statement to Ryland Headley, who is merely one vibrant villain among millions. In truth, Whites in the West owe a much bigger legacy of much more misery and pain to non-White migration in general. There are the rape-gangs of Pakistani Muslims too. The suicide-bombers and the cartoonist-killing terrorists. The acid-throwers and the machete-swingers. Non-White migration is a curse, not a blessing. And Jews have played a central role in creating that curse and condemning everyone who opposed it. By doing that, Jews have also played a central role in creating the civil wars that are fast approaching across the West.

That’s why I don’t regard Jews as my “brothers and sisters” and why I don’t shake with shock when I see dreadlocked Blacks like Bobby Vylan shouting “Israelophobic” slogans on the BBC. In one way, it’s very funny that the Jews’ “natural allies” have turned out to be Nazi-adjacent. In another, it’s not funny at all. Jews engineered non-White immigration fully intending that “natural allies” of themselves should be natural enemies of Whites. They got the first part wrong and the second part right. Non-Whites are indeed natural enemies of Whites and Western civilization. Jews have deliberately imposed an incalculably huge legacy of misery and pain on the West. That’s why Remigration has to include Jews. Those who hate Whites and harm Whites have to leave the White West.


[1]  I’d be interested to see Tom Slater call Bobby Vylan a “cunt” to his face. But I doubt that the dweebish Slater would ever do that.

[2]  Bobby Vylan had a Black father and White mother. His Black father seems to have abandoned his child and “baby-momma.”

[3]  Or more accurately, as I note later, Brendan’s second thoughts have been had for him by his Jewish puppet-master Frank Furedi.

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 Legislative Roots of America’s New Indian Overclass

Last December was a mask-off moment for failed presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. At the height of the debate over H-1B visas, Ramaswamy took the side of known H-1B booster Elon Musk and proceeded to criticize American culture for glorifying the prom queen instead of the math olympiad winner, or the star athlete over the top student.

Ramaswamy suggested that glorifying superficial social archetypes like Chads and Stacys has undermined the U.S.’s capacity to develop top-tier engineering talent. He was rightfully criticized by the more nationalist elements of the America First movement for his initial support of H1-B visas, which allow tech firms to bring in foreign workers for specialized roles, with the possibility of transitioning to permanent residency (green card).

This internal fight within the Trump movement is relevant due to the uncomfortable realities of this visa program. It’s no secret that Indian nationals dominate the United States H-1B visa program. Indian nationals received 279,386 H-1B visa approvals in fiscal year 2023, representing 72.3% of all H-1B visas issued during that period.

Despite the backlash he encountered last year, Ramaswamy sees momentum on his side, underscored by his recent gubernatorial bid in Ohio. Ramaswamy’s story reflects the rise of a powerful Indian overclass in America, one that increasingly sees the country as theirs for the taking. In most major American cities today, it’s become commonplace to encounter individuals hailing from the Indian subcontinent. Standing at around 5.2 million people, Indians are one of the fastest growing foreign nationalities in the United States. For perspective, the Indian population was hovering at around 1.8 million in 2020.

This contemporary reality of a surging Indian population didn’t emerge overnight but represents the culmination of a carefully orchestrated legislative evolution that began with a modest but revolutionary piece of legislation: the Luce-Celler Act of 1946, introduced by Rep. Clare Boothe Luce (R-CT) and Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).

Prior to 1946, Indian nationals faced stiff barriers to both immigration and citizenship. The 1917 Immigration Act had established an “Asiatic Barred Zone” that effectively prevented most Asian immigration to the United States, while the landmark 1923 Supreme Court case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind ruled that Indians, despite being classified as “Caucasian,” could not be considered White under naturalization laws and were therefore ineligible for citizenship.

The Luce-Celler Act of 1946, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on July 2, 1946, represented the first crack in the immigration wall. Though modest in scope—allowing only 100 Indians annually to immigrate and granting them the right to naturalize as American citizens—the act was revolutionary in principle. For the first time since the early 20th century, Indians could legally immigrate to the United States and, crucially, own property and petition for their immediate family members to join them.

The geopolitical landscape of the Cold War would later provide the ideal backdrop for expanding Indian immigration. As the United States sought to position itself as a beacon of capitalism and liberal democracy against Soviet communism, restrictive immigration policies were viewed with increasing skepticism by policymakers in Washington. To convince the world of the perceived superiority of the American capitalist model, U.S. political leaders felt it necessary to open the immigration floodgates and allow for non-Whites of all stripes to reap the fruits of American capitalism.

Emanuel Celler, a tireless champion of Jewish causes, would strike again by teaming up with Sen. Philip Hart (D-MI) to introduce the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965—also known as the Hart-Celler Act. This legislation abolished the national-origins quota system that had governed American immigration policy since the 1920s.

From there, this legislation fundamentally transformed the demographic composition of American immigration. Prior to the Hart-Celler Act, the United States was 85% White. However, by removing racial and ethnic barriers, it opened the door for unprecedented immigration from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The act created a seven-category preference system that prioritized family reunification and “skilled” workers—categories that would prove particularly beneficial to Indian immigrants.

The impact was immediate and dramatic. From fewer than 1,000 Indians in the United States by 1900, the population began to surge. Educational exchange programs and new temporary visas for so-called “skilled” workers created pathways for educated Indian immigrants, many of whom brought their families. From 1980 to 2019, the Indian immigrant population increased thirteen-fold.

The Immigration Act of 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush, further accelerated Indian immigration by increasing overall immigration limits and creating new employment-based visa categories. The act allowed 700,000 immigrants annually for fiscal years 1992–94 and 675,000 thereafter, while establishing five distinct employment-based visa categories and expanding the H-1B visa program for “highly-skilled” workers.

This legislation coincided with the technology boom that would define the 1990s and 2000s. Indian immigrants, particularly those with rudimentary technical skills who were willing to work for substantially lower wages, found themselves perfectly positioned to take advantage of America’s growing demand for software engineers, computer programmers, and IT professionals.

Perhaps no aspect of Indians’ economic takeover of the United States is as visible as their dominance in certain business sectors. Indians, primarily from the Indian state of Gujarat, are estimated to own between 80% and 90% of motels in small towns across America. According to the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Indians operate 34,000 of the approximately 50,000 hotels in the United States, with 89% of all hotels in Texas owned by Indians.

Indians’ entrepreneurial inroads have extended to convenience stores, where South Asians own an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 stores—between 34% and 48% of all convenience stores in the country. The National Coalition of Associations of 7-Eleven Franchisees reports that South Asians own over 50% of the chain’s franchised stores. In California alone, 600 to 700 of the 1,200 7-Eleven stores are owned by South Asians.

The 2010s witnessed Indians ascend into a veritable overclass in the technology sector. Having drawn Indian software talent since the 1970s and 1980s, Silicon Valley eventually experienced a remarkable rise of Indians heading top companies. From Vinod Khosla co-founding Sun Microsystems to Sabeer Bhatia establishing Hotmail, to the current generation including Sundar Pichai as CEO of Google and Satya Nadella as CEO of Microsoft, Indian immigrants have fundamentally re-shaped American technology.

The H-1B visa program has played a key role in this transformation. In 2024, Indian tech companies accounted for 20% of all H-1B visas granted by the United States, with Infosys leading with 8,140 visa recipients, followed by Tata Consultancy Services with 5,274. These companies, along with others like HCL America, Cognizant, Wipro, and Tech Mahindra, have consistently ranked among the top employers of H-1B visa holders.

The transformation of Indian immigration to the United States exemplifies how incremental legislative changes can generate dramatic demographic outcomes. What began with the modest Luce-Celler Act’s quota of 100 immigrants per year has evolved into a community of over five million that are gradually displacing White Europeans in America’s business, technological, and cultural sectors.

This does not augur well for White America. As striver class Indians such as Vivek Ramaswamy gain more prominence in American public life, Whites will become increasingly pushed out of elite institutions. In time, Indians and other “skilled” migrant groups will function as frontmen for a Jewish oligarchy looking for new golems to unleash against Whites. As this author has previously noted, Indians appear to be forging an unholy alliance with world Jewry in a newfound attempt to disempower the state-forming peoples of Europe and the New World.

The depth of this alliance remains uncertain. But when it comes to undermining White political power, groups like Indians have proven strategically useful to organized Jewish interests. We should not forget that the “browning” of America’s elite didn’t happen by accident—this outcome was driven by policy, the product of Jewish zealots like Emanuel Celler who reshaped the nation’s demographic destiny.

As Vladimir Lenin asked, “Who, whom?” This question about who truly wields power must be answered in the decades to come. Until we identify the actors behind multiracialism—the proverbial “who”—we’re just chasing shadows.

Without that clarity, we can’t draw a meaningful friend-enemy distinction. Instead, we’re left with a failed system where ambitious non-Whites like Indians continue to gorge on the remains of a dying nation, while Jewish oligarchs sip cocktails in their gated resorts, watching the collapse they helped orchestrate—with zero fear of consequence.

Jewish ethics in the real world: Foreign Affairs on Gaza without Gazans

https://gab.com/PCleburne/posts/114758548703126524

The NYC election victory of Muslim Zohran Mamdani has led to speculation that Israel has lost its grip on Democrat voters in the city, particularly young leftists. This is probably true.
But equally important is the apparent loss of control over the liberal US Foreign Policy Establishment. Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the prestigious Committee on Foreign Relations, has broken ranks in its current issue with “Gaza Without Gazans,” subtitled “Only American Pressure Can Stop Israel’s New Endgame”
archive.is/awLsM#selection-1491.669-1491.909 (open link). This reads like a break with Israel is being considered.

“The Israeli government appears to be seeking… not only long-term military occupation of Gaza but also the large-scale displacement—or even expulsion—of its civilian population…Under the Geneva Conventions, a forced exodus from an occupied territory would be considered a war crime

Israel has now taken extraordinary action to limit the flow of civilian aid into Gaza…The so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)…in practice functions as an arm of Israeli military operations….During its first month of operations [GHF distribution points saw] more than 500 Palestinians shot dead by Israeli forces as they tried to reach them—killings that seem inexplicable and unprecedented in an aid-delivery context, even in a war zone…The IDF itself has announced that it intends to displace “most of the population of Gaza.”
(My emphases. Pic: Foreign Affairs)

See below for entire Foreign Affairs article

Alfred Baeumler on Global Democracy and National Socialism: Extracts from ‘Weltdemokratie und Nationalsozialismus’ (1943)

Translated and with an Introduction by Alexander Jacob

Introduction

Alfred Baeumler (1887–1968) was an Austrian German philosopher who was considered one of the major National Socialist ideologues. He received his doctorate at the University of Munich in 1914 with a dissertation on Kant’s aesthetics and taught at the Technical University of Dresden from 1924. Already in the thirties he was associated with National Socialist circles including Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg. In 1930 he joined Rosenberg’s anti-Semitic organization, ‘Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur’. And in 1933 he was nominated to the chair of philosophy and political pedagogy at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin. His inaugural address on this occasion was followed by his march, along with his students, to the book burning in the square at which Goebbels spoke.

In his pedagogical lectures and in his 1934 work Männerbund und Wissenschaft he encouraged students to follow a manly, soldierly model that would exclude feminine democratic elements. In 1934, Baeumler was appointed Head of Science in Rosenberg’s Office for the supervision of intellectual training of the NSDAP and, in 1941, he became head of the service, serving as the liaison between Rosenberg and the universities. Heidegger, who was, from 1933, Rector at the University of Freiburg, was a friend of Baeumler’s but did not support the racialist emphases of the latter.

In his 1943 work, Weltdemokratie und National Sozialismus – an essay in six sections, of which I present here the last three — Baeumler promoted racial states based on the creative ‘force’, or energy, of the members of a national community rather than on the acquisitive ‘power’ of their financial elites. He decried the false power of capitalistic democracies that aim at conquering the world through money while disregarding the racial forces that originally formed and consolidated the individual nations of the world. His conflation of the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘space’ are also evidently a justification of the ‘Lebensraum’ doctrine that considered the Germans as endowed with greater racial strengths and therefore suited to rule over the new anti-democratic Europe that National Socialism was determined to develop.

*   *   *

Section 4

One of the few things that democracy is adept at is the exploitation of intellectual laziness to promote an anti-German propaganda. It is so easy to declare to the world that National Socialism refuses peace (because it recognizes the law of war), that it is an opponent of reconciliation (because it finds the idea of a world-order sustained by police force ridiculous). Nobody can do it so easily as one who appeals to old ways of thought. It is considered a weakness of National Socialism that it demands that men think. Men — whom we not accidentally call animals of custom — prefer to do everything else but think. because thinking means detaching oneself from habits.

The pleasant habit of considering all concrete peace as a mere preparation for eternal peace, of thinking that there is above every condition of power yet another by which it is held in check, the fantasy that a power can be brought by ideologies to set limits for itself, all that is forever cancelled by National Socialism. Our worldview demands of everybody the abandonment of all prejudices and an intellect that is capable of recognizing the world as it is. When we say ‘race’ we think not only of the multiplicity of racial types that experience presents to us but, above all, of a general law of life: the law that similar things are brought forth only by similar things and that the vital forces [of each race] are constant.

In the humanities, through the discovery of races, a situation has been removed that recalled the alchemy of the Middle Ages. So long as one did not recognize the constancy of forces it was possible for one to adhere to fantastic ideas on the development and transformation of natural forces, ideas that resembled those of alchemists. One day, they thought, we must even succeed in producing gold, one day, the philosophers thought and the politicians pretended to think, the condition of eternal peace must indeed be realized. The recognition of racial forces as of that which is lasting and creative in every ethnic community places the thought of modern science on the same level as mediaeval dreams. This recognition removes all errors and gives to thought a new and fruitful impulse. Human history now appears no longer as a heap of errors and violence; even in its most frightful errors we recognize the ruling law. By recognizing the activity of human forces in their regularity our eyes are opened for a realistic observation of historical realities in general. Along with the conditions of race there enter into our field of vision the conditions of space [i.e., lebensraum; see Introduction]. In a field where up to now secret natures roamed about, the phenomena are with one stroke ordered into clearly knowable entities grasping the nexus of which presents new challenges to the understanding.

The picture of history that is determined by the realities of race and space is dynamic. Wherever men enter into relation with one another we see forces striving with one another. History is not the evolution of some uniform substance but a vital opposition and collaboration of substantial forces — forces that construct the power structures the recording of whose rise, spread, fall or self-maintenance is the task of the historical writer. A philosophy of history enriched by the idea of race has recognized how many confusions have been produced by not holding the categories of force [i.e., racial vitality] and power [of financial elites] separate and by repeatedly transferring the conditions of one reality to the other. In this way the law of ‘power’ of maintaining itself through expansion was always equated with the striving of ‘force’ towards action. Thereby the right estimation of both realities was made impossible. To the derivative entity of power, a value was attributed that it does not possess. On the other hand, the burden of everything that totally unrestricted power had always caused was placed on the natural creative forces [of race]. The destruction that was caused by this misunderstanding reached to the depths of being. Power was increased with everything that belongs to force and then cursed; the sphere of innocence in which vital forces freely move was thrown into the darkness of this curse and became contemptible. Thereby all the conditions were destroyed on the basis of which alone a human and realistic treatment of political problems is possible.

Power has its own law. Precisely because it is not a force but a reality with its own structure, it displays that characteristic for which it is constantly blamed, pleonexia [i.e., the avarice of financial elites].[1] A condition of power can exist for a long time independent of the forces that have brought it forth and it can rise above itself. In the latter case, power detaches itself from the vital forces, becomes abstract and begins to proliferate. When a rule has achieved recognizable and useful forms, these forms continue to exist through their own authority as it were — often against all vital forces that stir in the community. That is the phenomenal form of power that has, through the ages, exposed this entity, which in itself is so human and necessary, to hatred.

Section 5

It is not a question of suppressing power but of giving it a human form. Is it then so dangerous that every power freely expands itself but never restricts itself freely? This would indeed be disastrous only if there were nothing that sets limits to expansion. So long as one must wait until another power arises to hold the expanding power within limits we will not emerge from a condition of war. It is precisely the characteristic of the modern world that pays homage to the idea of peace that it does not have anything to oppose to the pleonexia [of financial elites]. Under the disguise of humanitarian slogans is hidden the most unrestricted adulation of violence that the world has ever seen. ‘Battle’ and ‘war’ are proscribed concepts, the soldier is considered as a relic from backward times, the peasant is scorned. To the democratic bourgeois society only trade and financial business are sacred; the stock exchange and civilization are here inseparable ideas, the spell of money overpowers minds. Economics is destiny. An open secret that cannot be touched by anybody is the key to all the phenomena of the democratic system: power cannot become visible anywhere. The leadership principle is hidden behind parliamentarism. Rule is permitted only in the most dishonest, cruellest and most deplorable of all forms — as the rule of money. Power assumes the form of exploitation. There are only rich men, who possess everything, and poor, who possess nothing. Democratic ‘freedom’ consists in maintaining the unpropertied in the belief that through free acquisition they can one day rise to the ranks of the propertied. The ideology of this society declares that everybody can do what he likes; climbing up or starving is a choice given to everybody. In fact, a small stratum of immeasurably rich men about whom nothing can be publicly discussed hold rule in their merciless hands. One who has money participates in ruling, one who does not belongs to the million slaves of the plutocratic system.

Since the principle of economic ‘freedom’ (everybody can buy and sell as much as he ‘wants’) rules, the system of naked violence is at the same time the system of freedom. This cunning hypocrisy is possible only because rule has assumed the form of economic exploitation and become invisible as it were. No genuine representation takes place  — the parliaments are indeed there only to hinder all representation. Thus modern democracy is in every aspect the system of absolute mendacity — pressure, surrounded by the fine appearance of ‘freedom’.

The same principle of exploitation also rules in foreign policy, which is essentially colonial policy. The colonies are ruthlessly exploited — they have to provide raw materials and soldiers; what happens to the peoples who inhabit the conquered territories in other continents is a matter of indifference. Equally indifferent is whether the raw material sources are properly exhausted or not and whether the acquired products satisfy the needs that exist in other parts of the earth. Only the present profit is decisive. Plutocratic society is insatiable in its hunger for money: nations die, regions become deserted, but the paper notes rise. The increase in wealth, the security of affluence and luxury that is guaranteed with it, that one may permit oneself is the only thing that interests one.

A state of democratic form consists of a small number of immoderately rich men who consider it their sole political task to make others work for them. Here it makes no difference if the other citizens of the nation are colonial slaves or allies. The net of guarantee-contracts with which Great Britain recently sought to bind the nations is a characteristic expression of the parasitical thought of plutocracy. Its power,  corresponding to the nature of capital, seeks constantly to surpass itself and spills into the unlimited. A guarantee-contract has a meaning only when some real forces stand behind it. The contracts that Great Britain recently offered to every state that could be reached operated without any disguise of realities. They gave the power of Great Britain an appearance of prolonged benefit, while to the contracted powers they meant destruction. It did not bother the democratic politicians one moment what living forces were dragged into this political destruction and whether thereby valuable nations were destroyed. The coldest will to rule made its calculations in the icy room of empty power.

An Englishman can objectively say: We do not possess a square metre outside our own borders; what we have is  merely the friendship of those to whom the land belongs. He just forgets to add a detail: the friendship — and the control — of money, that is, of the work of those to whom we have left the land for the purpose of cultivation. One does not speak of the power of money. Of course, one admits that trade follows the flag, but not that friendship as a political phenomenon has as its precondition the soft pressure of capital without which it would probably have been subjected to all too strong fluctuations.

Every power is simultaneously affirmative and negative; it can build up only by rejecting or fighting against that which stands in its way. The power of capital differs from every other form of power in the fact that it, of course, achieves blinding momentary successes but never has a constructive effect. Its chief instrument is credit, which disguises itself as aid that is provided through sheer ‘objectivity’ and pure ‘understanding’. In fact, it is the rope that is laid around the neck of the ‘economically weaker man’. It needs only a light tug — the use of violence is of course forbidden — and the victim flounders on the ground. A democratic great power is characterized by the fact that it can grant credit. So long as men are so foolish to believe in money, they can also be ruled by withdrawals of credit — that is the formula of the Jewish democratic world rule. When everything is money and money is everything, the world cannot be anything but the field of activity of economic corporations and stock-exchange speculators. To the financial empires a human interest in land and people is unknown. Capital wishes constantly only to multiply itself; it goes ruthlessly on its way over all factual bindings. Preservation of living forces, whether it is the forces of a people or of the soil, respect for Nature, consideration for the desire for the life of others are ridiculous concepts from its viewpoint. Pure financial interests accomplish success after success and draw all destructive men into its circle — one day, however, to bump into the realities denied by it. The most abstract form of power that we know, whose striving for more can apparently be halted by nothing, finally collapses at the reality of the living forces that it has denied.

Properly speaking, one cannot speak of ‘states’ of democratic type at all. There is a state only when an organic political order is related to a living nation. There are no democratic states, there is only a democratic society that, with the help of the banks, supervises the so-called states. This society is single; it has its representatives everywhere in the world, in Europe as well as in Africa, in America as well as in Australia. Considered historically it is the successor of the supranational feudal stratum of earlier times. The supranational knightly society corresponded to the religious universalism of the Middle Ages; to the no longer religious pseudo-universalism of modern times corresponds the plutocratic elite that, up until recently, possessed or controlled the production of raw materials and trade all over the world. The centre of this money-possessing elite has been up to today London. In time a second centre developed in America that was viewed until recently from London with hardly concealed contempt. The ideal of the ‘rich man’ is the same in both places. The stratum of rich men sets the tone — how they think, how they live, how they dress is decisive for everybody who wishes to be worth something in this world. By ‘rich man’ one should hereby not imagine in the European fashion just a millionaire. There is no question here of poor people. One understands what wealth is only by understanding where the plutocracy has its origins. Men who have no idea of what it means to exploit Egypt and India cannot imagine the wealth of an English lord. And much less can they know what a magical influence emanates from this wealth. The world has not been conquered in the last centuries by Liberal ‘ideas’ or by English lifestyles (all of that merely follows) — it was conquered by rich men. Freemasonry is indeed one, but not the only, form in which the rich men exercise influence on states. Only when the idol of gold no longer enchants the world will there be an end of the rule of that small class who allow their representatives, their banknotes and much else to circulate in every capital. The end of plutocracy is the birthday of national states. After the disempowerment of the monied international elite, men to whom peace means something else than a moralistic catchword for the camouflage of businesses can take over rulership everywhere. These men are the leaders of their nations. They vouch with their lives that with peace the honour and security of the nation is preserved. Aeroplanes to which they can entrust their precious lives when it becomes dangerous do not stand in readiness for them. Such a thing belongs to the lifestyle of that international group of politicians who, from everywhere and at any time, can withdraw into the centre of global democracy as into their true homeland.

Section 6

Even politics is bound by laws; it cannot deny its own natural law if it wishes not just to have successes but to succeed.  True power is oriented to duration. If it proceeds against the law of its own nature, it is condemned to collapse. What we experience today is not only the collapse of some democratic states, it is the collapse of the democratic system. A political genius has, through tremendous work, gathered together all the forces that have been scorned by democracy. In the first place stands the force of the living national community. National Socialism does not criticize the mistakes of democracy but realizes a principle of construction that is opposed to the plutocratic one. In the centre of its thought there stands the creative man. He cannot be dissuaded by the fake power of the banks and colonial possessions from the conviction that it is finally men — their natural dispostions, their work, their industry, and their spirit — that decide on the worth and the existence of a state. It depends not on the accumulated instruments of power but on the force of men whether a state has duration. States are only changing organizational forms  that nations give themselves. The core of every nation is constituted by the natural force of procreation through which a deeply hidden, secret life-will is expressed. Thus what is decisive is what direction this life-will takes and what its accomplishments are. Every living force has a definite character and is qualitatively defined. Force is not a quantitative but a qualitative concept. A numerically small nation that is infused with a strong life-will and brings forth men of higher quality and a will to extraordinary accomplishments can be superior in force to a quantitatively stronger nation. The disposition to technology, to art and science is of striking significance for the total quality of a nation. In the native speech and customs, in the feeling for justice, in the inherited lifestyles and education, in the national poetry and the consciousness that a nation has of itself, is rooted the energy with which it can establish itself.

The living force of a nation does not appear equally at all times. The movement of life pulls also the national forces into the rhythm of ebb and flow, and times of courage and greatness alternate with times of low entrepreneurial spirit. But in the depths persists the indomitable, live creative force. It is the indestructible reality from which the national mythos derives its force, it gives to the great individuals who emerge as representatives before their people in order to lead them the impetus of faith that pulls everything along with it and is necessary to wake the world out of its ‘sleep’ in order to bring the power relations that have got bogged down once again in harmony with the demands of life.

Among the forces with which a genuine power has to reckon is the space that a nation inhabits, the land that it cultivates, and the treasures of raw materials that slumber in the depths. Of course, the space is never determinative, for only men are determinative, but a favourable system of communication, suitable borders, fruitful land, and rich raw materials add the force of the elements to the human force that is able to make use of it. In this way arises from blood and soil, race and space, those great energies of the national communities whose separation and cooperation constitute the content of world history.

Politics that leaves these energies out of consideration or denies them — whether it is conducted by Freemasons, Jewish financiers, stock-exchange speculators, shipping magnates or lords — can perhaps accumulate wealth for some generations in individual houses; but it bears within itself the kernel of destruction because it has no connection to the creative forces. National Socialism is combated by democracy and by international capital (which is identical to it) because it is determined to conduct the new construction of Europe with those forces that are present in every nation to make an end of the false rule of money and to establish a new political order on the basis of nationalities.

The decisive characteristic of the political system that already begins to take shape in this war is the new significance that it lends to power. National Socialism puts an end to the confusing and destructive theory that power is always power and it does not matter how a power is constituted. It teaches one to distinguish between different powers. Through its own preconditions and principles it affirms every condition of power that supports itself on the natural forces of a healthy nation and bases itself on the necessities of the living spaces of nations. It thereby does not open up a new age of imperialism but ends forever the age of artificial power structures in order to prepare a new age of power that is bound by force [racial vitality].

Only the vital forces are capable of holding power within the limits that are appropriate to it. Left to itself. power stretches into the limitless; on the other hand, forces indeed demand activation but can never succumb to the pleonexia that is characteristic of power. Power is a creation of men, forces on the other hand are a gift of Nature and bear within themselves the moderation of their origin. Man cannot soar above either his  own force or the forces of the land into the limitless. It is life itself that advises him not to exploit or overstretch the natural forces but to cohabit with them. When man learns to listen to the voice of life he becomes measured because he strives only for that which is natural and healthy. The mistake of the past was to mistrust forces and to attribute to them a striving for infinity that they do not have. Just as a man as a personality fulfils himself most purely when he conducts his existence trusting in life, politics also needs this trust to avoid cramping and overreaching. By constantly keeping in view the living realities, the politician binds power to force. He does not go beyond what the living forces permit, he takes care not to overstretch power and strive for momentary successes. The binding of power by force means the limitation of power — not by itself, since that is impossible, but by the measure that lies within reality itself.

The politics of the binding of power by force is the politics of National Socialism. Even this politics cannot be spared conflicts. But it is something different if conflicts are dealt with from the standpoint of naked power and, left to themselves, if they proceed to some violent solution or if they are mastered in light of a great and true principle.

When at a suitable time a nation was able to acquire colonies for itself and to establish on this basis a financial power that did not correspond to its natural forces that was a process that people up to now, trapped in shortsighted ideas of the welfare of individuals, considered as very gratifying or at least harmless. A way of thinking that considers the nations as realities and not only as backdrops for powers alien to blood and soil, and recognizing a danger for all in the process of this sort of wealth acquisition. For, an artificial power that is maintained not by the force of its national community but by a monied stratum will naturally seek connection and security with other powers that have the same structure. In this way arise cross-connections, pacts, systems of pacts — in short, an enterprise of financial powers that follows its own interests and hinders all efforts at practical solutions of ethnic or geopolitical problems because finance imperialism does not tolerate any other points of view alongside it. Relations between the states are reduced to financial relations, in all decisive questions capital becomes authoritative, the condition of international politics becomes fully corrupt.

It is a poisoning of the political atmosphere in every respect when the sheer power legitimized by force becomes authoritative in international relations. What a small capital has to suggest to a larger one is well-known — nothing. The relations between capitalist powers are as unequivocal as they are empty since they are relations of sheer power. A game between one quantity and another is always tedious. Only when power is borne by a unique, irreplaceable, indissoluble force does the game of relations between the individual powers receive a human character. For, a power relationship that is based on a natural hierarchical order of forces that cannot be derived from anything else lacks any irritating element. Whereas a small quantity has no respectability in the presence of greater quantities, a natural force always maintains its dignity. Even the weaker force is a manifestation of unfathomable life. Reich leader Alfred Rosenberg declared in a speech of 13 March 1940 in Vienna that a small nation reluctantly, or never, subjects itself to a relatively large nation; but it does not renounce any of its self-respect if it places itself within the great space of a large nation and binds its destiny to the latter. ‘This nation then has the political and moral duty not to transform the spirit and culture of the smaller nation living in its living space. It must respect and be considerate of this nation — if it shows that it is creative — as a natural and historical formation.’

In the rule of democracies it is forbidden to speak of power in general. The power relations of the democratic age were also of such a sort that it was better not to speak of them. Such a brutal power as capital is — the age of imperialism is at the same time the age of capital — must do its work silently. The power relations that are produced by the natural and historically conditioned relations of effective forces do not need to be spoken of in whispers by anybody. There exists no occasion to suppress the consciousness of the presence of dependencies when these dependencies are based on the nature of things and never lead to the infringement of a natural worth and character. That a nation in which enormous spiritual and intellectual energies slumber can constitute a power that exceeds others cannot confuse one who recognizes the laws of life. If smaller nations give themselves up to the protection of larger ones they do not thereby become tributaries — like the weaker capital powers in relation to the stronger — but they maintain themselves within the limits that Nature has placed on them in an order that creates political will without damaging the respect for Nature.

Democracy claimed to be the embodiment of eternal justice. National Socialism despises false slogans. It trusts in the justice of life that teaches us to never discard or devalue battle but also never to consider it as a goal in itself. War is conducted so that a more just order can enter in the place of an empty false order. Every war has peace as its goal and purpose. Not peace at any price, and not ‘eternal’ peace, but the peace that guarantees every nation its life and its sphere of activity.

A thousand-year old epoch is coming to an end, Europe lies in the light of dawn of a new day. It no longer requires the Western ‘unity’ that resulted in such frightful wars. From a geographical concept Europe has become a political concept. The younger nations have gathered around under a new sign. The mindless movement hither and thither of power positions is forever at an end, a new order is announced. It is the idea of the nation that produces this order from itself. The living forces of the national community that up to now could develop politically only with restrictions and fragmentations through the Western universalist ideology obtain freedom of movement for the first time. The new order is not based on a new ‘ideology’ but on the recognition of those realities through which the nations were created. New political structures will arise on a firm ground that is common to all. They are quickened through the idea of the nation that is as superior to every mere ideology as reality is to imagination; they  are limited by the principle that every genuine power must correspond to the vital forces that bear them. The new order bears its  principle within itself; its inner measure is allied to the equity of life.


[1] Avarice, desire for more than one’s share, is discussed by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics as the root of injustice.

 

Our People or ‘America’?: Looking Beyond Trump

Adapted from an address given on May 31, 2025, at a conference organized and hosted by James Edwards in Greenville, South Carolina.

Our host has brought us together this weekend to do more than diagnose and explain what’s gone wrong, or to call out those who are responsible. The focus of this conference, he explains, is “on how to effectively leverage the opportunities created by Donald Trump’s re-election,” and to “capitalize on the changing political climate.” Well, doing that demands an honest and realistic assessment of Trump’s career, the MAGA movement that grew from it, and the Trump presidency.

Donald Trump’s astonishing rise to power has been, above all, an expression of deep and growing unhappiness among Americans with what’s become of our country. The Trump-MAGA movement has given voice to the pent-up rage of millions — above all, White middle class and working Americans — who have been ignored and belittled by their political leaders, and who have been made to feel like strangers in their own country.

His success is the result of the mounting disappointment and anger at the ever more obvious failure of the establishment political parties and their leaders, who have held power for decades, and of those who have supported them in the mass media, in Hollywood, in business, and in school and college classrooms. Trump’s ascent to the White House is both a symptom and an accelerator of the breakdown of the liberal democratic order — and the ideology on which it is based — that has prevailed in our country and in western Europe since the end of World War II.

Trump has performed a great service by shaking things up. He has pushed Americans to acknowledge uncomfortable realities that those in power have wanted everyone to ignore. He has pressed Americans to re-consider such important issues as birthright citizenship, and “affirmative action” policies and other programs that discriminate against White citizens — issues that those in power had long regarded as “settled” and not open to question.

While acknowledging positive features of the Trump-MAGA movement, honesty compels us to also frankly acknowledge the very real limits of what that movement and the Trump administration can actually accomplish.

Donald Trump and MAGA movement leaders claim that America is no longer the great country it was and should be because it has been wrecked by evil people. To “Make America Great Again,” they believe, does not require a revolution. It requires only getting rid of those bad people who have done so much to wreck the country. In keeping with its character as a reactionary protest movement, Trump and MAGA Republicans focus on identifying their enemies and removing them from power and influence.

Trump and his colleagues and supporters are clear about who and what they do not like, and want to sweep away. They seem certain, for example, about what books they believe Americans should not read. Accordingly, the Trump administration has been busy removing from libraries books that foster anti-White attitudes, and notably those that promote “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.” However, Trump and the MAGA movement seem to have no idea of just what books should be in libraries, or that Americans should be reading.

That’s because Trump and the MAGA movement has no coherent, self-consistent worldview or historical outlook of its own to replace the ideology that has prevailed in the U.S. for the past 80 years, and which has inexorably brought us to where we are today. As a result, the Trump-MAGA movement has no clear concept of the future other than a vague vision of an America that, once again, is “great” and “winning.”

So often we have heard Republican politicians and commentators tell us that the miserable conditions in U.S. cities — the decay, crime and disorder of Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and so on — are all because … the mayors of those cities are Democrats. Do they — does anyone — actually believe such nonsense? So often MAGA Republicans tell us that the Democrats are the “real racists,” and insist that, “we” should all think of ourselves simply as human beings and “Americans” — and that our goal is, or should be, a color-blind, non-racial America.

MAGA Republicans complain about “identity politics,” calling it “divisive” and “racist.” It’s difficult to believe that those who make such claims are sincere, given that Trump’s own campaign routinely practiced “identity politics,” with election appeals to Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews that promise benefits to members of those racial or ethnic groups.

As part of his effort to win support from Black voters in the 2020 election campaign, Donald Trump issued his so-called “Platinum Plan,” which promised that a second Trump administration would make “Juneteenth” a national holiday, and would set up a range of new federal programs that, he claimed, would “increase access to capital in Black communities by almost 500 billion dollars,” thereby “creating 500,000 new Black-owned businesses.” When President Biden later made Juneteenth an official federal holiday, Trump claimed credit for it because, he said, he was the one who made the idea “very famous.” During the 2024 presidential election cycle, both the Trump and Harris campaigns made “identity politics” appeals to Jews, running television ads that explained why each candidate was best for Jewish interests.

Although Trump and MAGA Republicans reject anti-White policies, and the outlook on which those polices are based, they do not have an explicitly pro-White outlook. Instead, they believe, or pretend to believe, that race does not matter — that America is so “exceptional” that this country is somehow immune from the realities of biology, of history, and of life itself.

Those who are serious about our country and our future, though, cannot afford to close their eyes to things as they really are. Work and sacrifice based on anything other than a frank and realistic understanding of the great challenges we face is a waste of time and effort. When we carefully consider just what can and should be done, we must be clear-eyed and honest about how profoundly the drastic racial-cultural transformation of our country over the past 80 years has changed everything. To be blunt, the Trump-MAGA diagnosis of what’s wrong with America, and therefore what’s to be done, is woefully inadequate.

In the years just after the end of World War II, the U.S. population was some 90 percent European American. Whites were even a majority in every large U.S. city. Today, only a handful of large U.S. cities still have a majority White population. As everyone here is very aware, the U.S. population is, or very soon will be, a majority non-White. MAGA Americans believe, or at least hope, that in spite of the radical cultural-racial change in the U.S. population since the 1950s, President Trump will somehow restore the united, purposeful U.S.A. of a bygone era.

Some of us here this weekend are old enough to remember how many millions of White Americans and so-called conservatives put great hope in Ronald Reagan, another Republican leader whose slogan in the 1980 presidential election campaign was “Let’s Make America Great Again.” In his acceptance speech at the Republican Party national convention that year, Reagan spoke about welcoming Haitians to the U.S., because — he explained — America is a providentially chosen country for people everywhere who yearn for freedom. “Can we doubt,” he said, “that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and of Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and our own countrymen held in savage captivity.”

I remember the joy of victory shared by millions of White Americans when Reagan was elected president a few months later, and their happiness during the eight years he was in the White House — lifting spirits with inspiring, patriotic rhetoric about American greatness and exceptionalism. Like Trump, Ronald Reagan ignored race — and, not surprisingly, the country’s demographic and cultural de-Europeanization continued during the Reagan years at a brisk pace.

However thrilling election victories by politicians who promise a “great America” may make many of us feel, that is not what really matters. What’s important is not victory for a candidate or a party, but solid, purposeful policies for our people based on a coherent worldview grounded in reality.

During the 2024 election campaign, many MAGA voters were encouraged by the prospect that a second Trump administration would deport one or two or even ten million illegal immigrants. Most Trump supporters today still hope that sweeping policies and measures by the new administration might somehow turn back the clock, and restore an America that once was. The sober truth, though, is that even if all illegal immigration to the U.S. stops tomorrow, and every illegal immigrant is deported or leaves the country, the racial “third-worldization” of the U.S. — the de-Europeanization of the country — will continue, even if at a slower pace.

In his inaugural address in January, and in similar remarks on election night in November, Trump made a point of expressing thanks for the support he had gotten from “African Americans, Hispanic Americans, [and] Asian Americans.” He made no mention of the much more important, indeed, decisive support he received from White Americans. The reason for this “oversight,” if you will, is not ignorance.

To talk explicitly about White American voters, or White American heritage, or White American history, is somehow to detract from the comfortable but delusional assumption of so many of our people that White America is America, and that Blacks, Hispanics, and so forth, are more or less adjunct or peripheral population groups that “we” should either ignore or try to uplift and fit in to “our” great country. Until the middle of the twentieth century, nearly all Americans understood and acknowledged the obvious reality that race matters. Today that’s no longer true. For more than 80 years, White Americans have been subjected to a systematic, organized campaign of social conditioning that promotes a poisonously distorted portrayal of life and history, through television and Hollywood movies, in newspapers and magazines, and in school and college classrooms, all bolstered with reassuring but toxic platitudes by compliant politicians. This well-organized campaign has succeeded in persuading most White Americans — including millions of MAGA-Trump supporters — that race does not or should not matter.

In his inaugural address of January, Donald Trump promised, “America will soon be greater, stronger, and far more exceptional than ever before.” His administration, he said, will “bring back hope, prosperity, safety, and peace for citizens of every race, religion, color and creed.” He promised not only that “we will bring prices down,” but that “the American Dream will soon be back and thriving like never before.” If Trump’s vision of the future is valid, then we — that is, all those who understand that race is not merely a social construct — have been wrong.

It’s possible to ignore reality — but it is not possible to ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. What that means is that the real-life consequences of what the U.S. has become — racially, culturally and socially — impose unequivocal limits on the actual, lasting achievements of a Trump government. Within ten years, and most likely before the end of this second Trump administration, it will be obvious, even to most of his supporters, that the MAGA vision of a “Golden Age” for America is delusional.

In coming years, demographic reality will dispel what’s left of the naïve hopes of a Trumpian restoration, and the foolish view that the realities of biology, history, and life can be ignored. The consequences of this process will also inevitably force a shift in attitudes by White Americans about themselves and their country, especially among younger men and women who have no memory of a time when the U.S. was still an overwhelmingly White nation.

As White Americans become an ever smaller part of the U.S. population, our people will be increasingly forced to acknowledge their declining influence and status, and will be compelled to face the consequences of living as a dwindling minority in the country that was once theirs. Only then will large numbers of White Americans begin to organize in earnest to battle for the rights and interests of our people.

A great change in attitudes among White Americans is coming. As history shows, such a change can happen quickly when the new outlook is in line with sensibilities that already exist, but which have been dormant and unexpressed. Where conditions like those in today’s America existed in the past, similar shifts have taken place quickly.

The history of our own country provides an instructive example. When prominent Americans from the 13 colonies met together in late 1774 as the “Continental Congress,” they still regarded themselves as loyal to Britain and the English king. Their identity was still first and foremost that of British subjects. At that time, George Washington — a delegate at that assembly — was “well satisfied’ that independence from Britain was not “desired by any thinking man in all North America.” As late as July 1775, that is, even after the bloody clashes between colonial militiamen and British soldiers in Massachusetts at Lexington and Concord, as well as at Bunker Hill near Boston, the Continental Congress denied “any designs of separation from Great Britian and establishing independent states.”

But attitudes about identity were changing. By the summer of 1776, a view that just a year earlier had been considered unthinkable was now acceptable, at least to a determined minority of White Americans. In July 1776, the Continental Congress delegates ratified and signed the Declaration of Independence, and thereby proclaimed a new identity for the White people of the former 13 colonies. It was only after five years of suffering and privation in a bloody struggle that often seemed hopeless, and in which support from a foreign country proved decisive, that British military power was broken, thereby securing the future of the new republic.

More importantly, all those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, or who debated and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, unanimously regarded the new country as a White people’s republic. This new identity took hold quickly because it fit well with changed conditions, and because it expressed a latent but suppressed sensibility.

In spite of decades of egalitarian propaganda and social conditioning, most White Americans today still have an instinctive sense of “Whiteness.” On a certain level, most White Americans already realize, however unclearly, that there is no secure and hopeful future for themselves and their children and grand-children in a non-White, Third-World society. That dim awareness is manifest in how we live and act. For decades, White Americans have shown in their behavior that they prefer to live among, and associate with, people who are like themselves. Even those who claim to love “diversity” move away from neighborhoods that become too non-White.

All the same, most White Americans today are still loyal to the U.S.A., and hope that somehow this increasingly diverse and divided entity can still be held together. For most of our people, a future without the U.S.A. is simply unimaginable. That’s understandable, of course. After all, for most of the nearly 250 years that the U.S. has existed, this country’s saga has been a historically unparalleled one of prosperity, innovation, expansion, hegemony, and success.

For reasons already mentioned, only a minority of White Americans today are more concerned about the future of our people than they are about the future of the United States. Because most White Americans today more or less accept that forthrightly affirming our heritage and identity is somehow shameful or embarrassing, they are not yet ready to support candidates who openly defend White interests. As a result, not a single openly, unapologetically pro-White public figure holds elected office right now — at least on the federal level — anywhere in the country.

When we give serious consideration to just what can or should be done in political life, obviously we must take into consideration the actual feelings and attitudes of White voters. The confusion of most White Americans about what it even means to be “American,” together with their ambivalent feelings about race and identity, impose constraints on just what is possible, and not possible, for pro-White candidates. For the foreseeable future, pro-White candidates must be careful about how they express themselves, making sure not to be so explicit that they alarm voters who are afraid of “racism,” but not so timid that they betray our communitarian interests. All the same, the election record of the Trump-MAGA movement shows that millions of White Americans will vote for candidates who openly reject anti-White egalitarian policies, and thereby defend, at least implicitly, White community interests.

As the demographic trends of the past half-century continue, and as ever more White Americans better understand the consequences of those trends, they will be steadily more willing to support candidates who appeal for votes with a White version of “identity politics.” Ever more White voters will be motivated to support candidates who not only highlight and call out the deceit and hypocrisy of the politicians, educators, media masters, and business leaders promoting DEI, “affirmative action” and similar policies, but who also explain just how such policies, and the outlook behind them, harm the interests and future of White Americans.

The outreach of pro-White candidates should be cogent and reasonable, and appeal to a sense of justice and fair play. Such candidates will be all the more effective when they appeal to voters not merely with negative messaging about their opponents, but when they also present positive imagery of our own people, and messaging that inspires hope for a better future for our children. Successful pro-White candidates and activists must learn to be flexible and adaptive in tactics, while always firm and steadfast in principle. That’s not easy to do. It requires patience, self-control, and discernment — virtues that normally come only with experience and age.

In this time of accelerating change and looming challenge, our most pressing task must be to awaken the suppressed but slumbering self-awareness, confidence, and latent strength of our people. Our hopes and efforts must be directed, first and foremost, not to propping up and trying to save the multi-cultural, multi-racial U.S.A. Instead, our focus should be on the well-being and future of our people. In this struggle there will be no easy, “quick fix” victory. In fact, the battle will become more intense after Trump is gone, and the MAGA movement is history.

Happily, there are already encouraging reasons for hope and confidence.

On the intellectual front, we are already prevailing, even if that’s not yet widely understood or acknowledged. Our most formidable adversaries in the battle for ideas are not neo-Marxists or dreamy utopians, but rather the neo-conservative and neo-liberal apologists for the prevailing democratic-capitalist order. Although they defend a System that is still powerful and entrenched, they are very much on the defensive because that order is ever more obviously failing.

These defenders of what they call “democracy” want to suppress and ban popular political parties that they say are not “really” democratic. These champions of “free speech” and “tolerance” ban books, websites, and podcasts that they regard as offensive or hateful. They denounce ethno-nationalism in Hungary and Poland, but defend it in Israel. Their slogans, arguments and ideas are lackluster and uninteresting. No wonder they are increasingly regarded — especially by younger men and women — as ineffectual hypocrites.

In this struggle, we can also take heart from the important work that’s being done to lay a foundation for ultimate victory. Especially encouraging is the rise in recent years of an ever-growing number of capable, smart, and articulate younger White activists, publicists, writers, and organizers. With each passing year, these younger men and women — in our country and overseas — are turning out ever more — and ever better-quality videos — podcasts, websites, essays and books.

In this great, existential struggle of our age, our guiding spirit must not be loathing or hatred of others, but an abiding loyalty, love and devotion for the heritage and future of our own people, sustained by our vision of a secure, hopeful and durable future for our children and for generations of our people not yet born.

Mark Weber, Director of the Institute for Historical Review, is a historian, lecturer, and current affairs analyst. Mr. Weber was educated in both the United States and Europe and holds a master’s degree in modern European history.