Fortunately, the World Economic Forum is obsessed with digitization, so their entire website features linkages and graphics outlining the various networks and how they intersect (for instance, that of COVID-19). This is highly useful for many reasons and shows in stark visual detail how exactly they are trying to shoehorn humanity into programmable “realities.” Strategic planning and war gaming scenarios allow the ruling class to try to predict outcomes, aided in their endeavors by evermore powerful artificial intelligence and algorithms. They then craft a narrative to pre-plan our behavior and focus it where they need it to go.

Consider Vasee Moorthy of the World Health Organization writing for the World Economic Forum in August 2020, “Back-casting is a method to work backwards from alternative future scenarios, and determine actions which can be taken now that influence which scenario comes to pass.” So it is less about “preparedness” and more about trying to fix outcomes. This makes the kabuki theater of “democracy” all the more obvious once you understand that. You don’t have a say, but it is important for the power structure that you believe that you do. These self-styled masters of humanity are, quite literally in fact, trying to play God, from the scripting of reality, to artificial intelligence, to cloning, and even creating chimeras. As Nicoletta Lanese reported in August 2019:

An international team of researchers has created embryos containing both human and monkey cells. … The controversial project was conducted in China, rather than in the US where the project leader is based, “to avoid legal issues,”[1] according to the newspaper [El País], and ultimately aims to grow viable organs for transplantation into humans. Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte of the Salk Institute in San Diego is spearheading the project with scientists from his own lab and those from the Murcia Catholic University in Murcia, Spain. The team wants to develop chimeras—organisms composed of cells from two or more species—capable of growing human organs. … In July, Japanese researchers—including Hiromitsu Nakauchi of the University of Tokyo and Stanford University—first received permission from the government to create human-animal embryos to be transplanted into surrogates.[2]

This is not the stuff of science fiction, this is reality, and the mad scientists are determining the global agenda with us as their guinea pigs. Creating walking abominations is not being done “for the good of humanity.” Is this the future we want for ourselves? It’s certainly what the “elites” want. They are incapable of pausing to consider whether just because something can be done, should it be done? Instead, they are invested in creating a global Panopticon, an artificial intelligence overlord with whom they aim to merge, and untold other hybrids and horrors (such as scientists growing a human ear on a rat).

Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced in December 2019 that it had “reinvented the concept of the periodic table but for artificial atoms.” Already in 2019, MIT researchers announced that they had created an embeddable ink that would be injected along with a vaccine and visible using a smartphone app and filter. The research into this quantum dot tattoo—specifically geared toward children in the promotional press releases—was funded in large part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which in 2010 at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting called for a “decade of vaccines.” Yissum, the Technology Transfer Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and licenser of an extensive quantum dot technology patent portfolio to Nanosys, has partnered with companies such as Google, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Microsoft, and Novartis. Nanosys has hundreds of patents related to quantum dot construction and component and manufacturing design. This quantum dot technology will almost certainly form an integral part of the future vaccination identification program—a “green card” for personal carbon credits or purely digitized finances tied to biometric data.

The World Economic Forum is indicative of the general thrust of the globalist-transhumanist agenda, addressing the totality of its world-shaping project with its all-encompassing Great Reset. Connecting to the various strands of globalism feeding into the rotten center, WEF’s myriad Global Future Councils include those on: Media, Entertainment, and Culture (featuring representatives of ADDO AI, the Media Development Investment Fund, and McKinsey); Cybersecurity (featuring representatives of Human Rights Watch, Credit Suisse, S&P Global, the Netherlands Cyber Security Council, PayPal, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the Cyber Security Programme at the Organization of American States); Development Finance, Digital Economy, and New Value Creation (“Themes include digital stewardship, shaping new value pools and emergent industries, rethinking business models and business fundamentals, building new ecosystems, creating sustainable value from data, investing for digital inclusion and assessing the disruptive impact of new technologies such as 5G and AI.” It includes numerous well-connected individuals, companies, NGOs, and government agencies,[3] as does the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Cities and Urbanization features.[4] The latter includes Mastercard—which has also rolled out a carbon footprint tracker[5] and is partnered with the ID2020 Digital Identity Alliance.

In 2018, ID2020 Alliance Partners, working in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), drafted a “formal articulation of our perspective on ethical approaches to digital identity,” which includes in its Manifesto the statement that “The ability to prove one’s identity is a fundamental and universal human right,” and that “For some, including refugees, the stateless, and other marginalized groups [who often discard their identity cards before illegally entering Western countries so they won’t be deported], reliance on national identification systems isn’t possible,” once again creating another globalized, trans/supra-national alternative. ID2020, according to its website, “is coordinating funding for identity and channeling those funds toward high-impact projects, enabling diverse stakeholders—UN agencies, NGOs, governments, and enterprises—to pursue a coordinated approach that creates a pathway for efficient and responsible implementation at scale.” In addition to Mastercard, some of its other partners include Microsoft, Accenture, GAVI (“The Vaccine Alliance”), the Rockefeller Foundation, and iRespond.

iRespond, another NGO “dedicated to using biometrics to improve lives through digital identity,” in turn also partners with organizations such as the World Health Organization, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the IOM, the International Rescue Committee (IRC), and the CDC. Whitney Webb notes that iRespond:

has begun piloting a new biometric program for newborns among the predominately Karen refugee population along the Myanmar-Thailand border, a program it soon hopes to “quickly deploy” at a greater scale and make available to the general global population. The pilot program is being conducted as part of the controversial ID2020 alliance. … The pilot program is being conducted at the Mae Tao clinic, which is largely funded by the CIA cut-out USAID as well as the governments of Germany and Taiwan, the Open Society Foundations and the International Rescue Committee (IRC). … Having a “digital identity” would allow refugees “to access improved, consistent healthcare within the camp” with plans for the same system to eventually “electronically document both educational attainment and professional skills to aid with employment opportunities.” … This program is remarkably similar to the World Food Programme’s recently implemented “Building Blocks” initiative, which  is funded by the US, German, Dutch and Luxembourgian governments. … iRespond’s system, not unlike Trust Stamp’s, is also slated to serve as a vaccine record.[6]

Trust Stamp, according to its website, “is an artificial intelligence company that primarily develops proprietary identity solutions to help determine whether an individual is who they say they are and that they can be trusted, including Trust Stamp’s AI-powered facial biometrics.”[7] The Trust Stamp system is a prototype for dispensing with cash altogether and the uniting of all types of credit (including social) in one digital format; as Raul Diego reports, it is

set to be introduced in “low-income, remote communities” in West Africa thanks to a public-private partnership between the Bill Gates-backed GAVI vaccine alliance, Mastercard and the AI-powered “identity authentication” company, Trust Stamp. The program, which was first launched in late 2018, will see Trust Stamp’s digital identity platform integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard’s click-to-play system that powered by its AI and machine learning technology called NuData. Mastercard, in addition to professing its commitment to promoting “centralized record keeping of childhood immunization” also describes itself as a leader toward a “World Beyond Cash,” and its partnership with GAVI marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a payment system into a single cohesive platform. The effort, since its launch nearly two years ago, has been funded via $3.8 million in GAVI donor funds in addition to a matched donation of the same amount by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. … Mastercard announced that Trust Stamp’s biometric identity platform would be integrated into Wellness Pass as Trust Stamp’s system is capable of providing biometric identity in areas of the world lacking internet access or cellular connectivity and also does not require knowledge of an individual’s legal name or identity to function. The Wellness Program … will be coupled with a Covid-19 vaccination program.[8]

There are state efforts along these lines (such as in Lithuania, where they’ve restricted “non-essential services” to only those who possess the grotesquely-named Freedom ID) and supra-state efforts such as the European Union’s Digital COVID Certificate. Meanwhile the media is pushing antidepressants as a COVID-19 treatment and the non-practicing Muslim Sajid Javid has assured us you can have Christmas—if you get vaccinated.

Mastercard is  also intersecting with the climate change agenda. Jo Ann Stonier, Chief Data Officer of Mastercard and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Consumption writes for the WEF’s website that “responsible data use can accelerate a sustainable society.” In a July 27, 2020 piece for the WEF website entitled “We need to talk about big data and genomics. Here’s why—and how,” the authors write:

DNA (genomic data) is sometimes seen as the purest and most personal kind of data, fundamental to our identity and existence. As part of the global endeavour to understand human health and address suffering, we would be right to expect our scientists, clinicians and academic institutions to be gathering, storing, analysing, and to some extent sharing, our DNA and medical information. … Whilst data might be de-identified — that is, with names and addresses removed — an issue people should be aware of is that anonymity cannot be absolutely guaranteed. Health information, for instance, can always be linked to other personal information that is also available on the web – and in our increasingly data-connected world, it becomes entirely feasible that people could, in theory, be identified from their DNA alone. Do people mind? What could happen?[9]

These are the exact questions I am also asking, and though the authors state that this DNA/data should be shared “within the context of research and discovery,” at this point, it is fair to ask if even that is something we are comfortable with, especially given the outcomes of this “research and discovery.” If you know your Ted Kaczynski, your Doctor Faustus, or your scripture, you know where this is going and, indeed, where it is originating from, particularly in the case of the latter two.

In late 2020, Turkey announced the launch of its Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network, becoming the latest member of the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR) Network of the World Economic Forum (WEF). With centers in thirteen countries, “the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network works with governments, leading companies, civil society, innovators and experts from around the world to pilot new approaches to technology adoption and governance.”[10]

With the apparent need for a global final solution to the human problem, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF), “With countries experiencing unprecedented challenges and impact under the COVID-19 pandemic, the Forum has launched the COVID Action Platform in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO)” to further their agenda by using the man-made COVID-19 to continue to turn the world into a giant laboratory.[11]

Particularly germane in the modern context and especially as prelude to the measures imposed to ostensibly combat coronavirus—plus the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset “green” hogwash—is the research of one John B. Calhoun. Calhoun, it should be noted, worked on the Rodent Ecology Project at none other than Johns Hopkins University, that incubator of transgenderism and a vital institution in the genesis of the COVID-19-related tyrannies (see: Event 201, a pandemic simulation in October 2019 in conjunction with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation),[12] among many other extremely critical aspects of the ruling class’s agenda. Calhoun also spent a year at the Stanford University Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

In a nutshell, Calhoun’s research essentially showed what would happen to a mouse population if all of its needs except one were provided for. This lack of one critical ingredient—space—had catastrophic consequences; in his most famous experiment begun in July 1968 under the auspices of the National Institute of Mental Health, the “mouse universe” had all of the population’s needs provided for and a lack of natural predators. Soon, the mouse population began exploding exponentially, but eventually the population growth slowed down and peaked before a precipitous decline, a decline that was preceded by an extended period of social breakdown and a proliferation of aberrant behaviors including the abandonment of their young by mothers and the attacking and abuse of their offspring, odd outbursts of aggression often of a predatory nature coupled with a lack of will by many males to defend their territory, self-isolation defined by psychological withdrawal, and deviant sexuality.

With all of their needs met, the rodents never learned resource-procurement and survival skills, instead turning to what Ted Kaczynski would define as surrogate activities, mostly those pertaining to self-gratification and extensive (excessive) self-grooming. These “beautiful ones” stopped reproducing, and eventually the utopia turned dystopic, corpses clogging the living quarters and the demise of the population despite there still remaining an abundance of resources and, indeed, more space.

Today, the global human population is still exploding in much of the Third World, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, artificially subsidized by Western “elites,” while the populations in the Occident and to a lesser extent the Orient are maintained by immigration of outsiders—which we are told we “need.” Although the lies are increasingly wearing thin, the rhetoric generally revolves around compassion and the acceptance of refugees from conflict and “climate change” refugees. All birth rates in the First World with the exception of Israel are now below replacement-level.

It is the perception of over-crowding, however, that leads to humans’ crowding in vast metropoles and the resultant deviant and destructive behaviors that inevitably proliferate. This is the legacy of neo-liberalism as we embark on this new era of social and biological engineering. Perhaps we are not witnessing city streets clogged with corpses, but certainly the desire to propagate and live meaningful lives has collapsed. “Social distancing” measures do not undermine the phenomenon, but rather exacerbate the total alienation needed to break down the population completely and mold them into new shapes. This is obviously by design, as the “elites” not only understand this research but have actively funded it themselves. This includes the efforts to create Hive cities with their pods and bug burgers as ostensibly combatting climate change. There remains plenty of space and resources on our planet provided there is proper management and stewardship, but some real factors—drought and poor yields—have conjoined with intentional mismanagement and an artificial scarcity that has gripped the globe, with crops being left to rot in fields and an intentional move to all things “green” in the global Green New Deal/Great Reset/Agenda 2030 in tandem with COVID-19 lockdowns and other gross over-extensions by the powerful. Labor issues that dovetail neatly with coronavirus restrictions and mandates are another major factor. It is both manipulation and coercion on multiple fronts in order to produce the desired result.

The “elites” have turned the entire globe into one of Calhoun’s rodent universes and we are now living in a downward trajectory as top-down measures are implemented to maneuver the collapsed and demoralized populations into their new post-human existence, a new world where they reign not just like gods but as God. As Calhoun wrote in “Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population”:

I shall largely speak of mice, but my thoughts are on man, on healing, on life and its evolution. Threatening life and evolution are the two deaths, death of the spirit and death of the body. Evolution, in terms of ancient wisdom, is the acquisition of access to the tree of life. This takes us back to the white first horse of the Apocalypse which with its rider set out to conquer the forces that threaten the spirit with death. Further in Revelation (ii.7) we note: ‘To him who conquers I will grant to eat the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God’ and further on (Rev. xxii.2): ‘The leaves of the tree were for the healing of nations.’ This takes us to the fourth horse of the Apocalypse (Rev. vi.7): ‘I saw … a pale horse, and its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him; and they were given power over a fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.’ … This second death has gradually become the predominant concern of modern medicine. … Perhaps we might do well to reflect upon another of John’s transcriptions (Rev. ii. 1): ‘He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death.’[13]

As we have seen in the words and deeds of the transhumanists, they want to live forever. In order for this to occur, there must be a “global software upgrade” as Tom Kaczynski calls it is. And how will this upgrade be accomplished?

This ceaseless desire for “upgrading” the race has been a major preoccupation of at least one faction of the “elites” for quite some time, Whitney Webb and Jeremy Loffredo report, “One particular Operation Warp Speed vaccine…has not only had a host of safety issues but was also developed by researchers with deep ties to the British Eugenics Society, which changed its name in 1989 to the Galton Institute.”[14] The transhumanist Julian Huxley was a President of the British Eugenics Society (1959–1962). Arthur Balfour, of the infamous Balfour Declaration, was also a member. There are deep ties between the Galton Institute, the Wellcome Trust, and the developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 “vaccine.” So the desire to “upgrade” humanity via eugenics is the through-line, but it has adapted as technology has developed and medicine has advanced.

The American counterpart of the British Eugenics Society/the Galton Institute, which is now called the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology, is currently helmed by Hans-Peter Kohler; his University of Pennsylvania biographical description, where he is the Frederick J. Warren Professor of Demography, Professor of Sociology, and Co-Director of the Population Aging Research Center, states:

Hans-Peter Kohler’s primary research focuses on fertility and health in developing and developed countries. A key characteristic of this research is the attempt to integrate demographic, economic, sociological and biological approaches in empirical and theoretical models of demographic behavior. For example, Kohler has been investigating the bio-social determinants of fertility,…the importance of social interaction processes for fertility and AIDS-related behaviors, and demographic methods for measuring and forecasting fertility trends.

One of the co-founders of the American Eugenics Society and a British Eugenics Society member to boot, Frederick Osborn, concluded that their particular vision would have to take place under a different name because eugenics is routinely seen as Nazi by the left. Osborn ended up becoming the president of the Population Council, succeeding founder and eugenics enthusiast John D. Rockefeller III. The Population Council is still active; it is funded by a host of establishment organizations.[15] Showing the interconnectedness of the global system, Aga Khan Foundation, affiliated with the Population Council, is in turn, for example, partnered with a wide range of organizations and governments.[16]

Returning to the motives of men like Rockefeller and Osborn, they clearly understood that overpopulation hysteria would certainly sell better than forceful sterilization, and eugenics had become a dirty word after World War II. As an interesting side note, Pfizer and BioNTech finalized the Phase 2/3 study protocol of their COVID-19 “vaccine” in response to feedback from global regulators, including the FDA and the German Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. Though this institute is not named for the same Paul Ehrlich, it is an intriguing coincidence (if you want to call it that) that the Jewish Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 book The Population Bomb and Bing Professor Emeritus of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and President of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology, is one of the primary popularizers of the over-population hysteria coinciding with not just the first significant public concerns about climate change. (Ehrlich actually mentioned global warming from greenhouse gases as an antidote to the feared cooling effect of aerosols in 1968. Uh oh!).

The Rockefeller Foundation was, along with the Ford Foundation, integral—and continues to be integral—to the engineered globalist vision, including the “Green Revolution” that contributed to the population boom in the first place and pushed so many small-scale agrarian farmers off their farms and into the factories and cities, replete with mass use of pesticides, pollutants, and bio-engineered (genetically-modified/GMO) crops. Though over-population remains an occasionally-voiced concern, its morphing into general climate hysteria in the latter third of the 20th century has certainly borne fruit as justification for a variety of measures associated with the present agenda. The Rockefeller Foundation has made climate change one of their central issues (and note the ubiquitous but ill-defined connection to the pandemic):

Mike Muldoon, Managing Director of Innovative Finance at The Rockefeller Foundation added, “The private sector is needed now more than ever to tackle the growing divergence between the developed world where vaccines and economic stimulus are bountiful, and the developing world where they are not. … These recommendations provide a clear path towards increased private sector mobilization as we collectively seek to respond to the pandemic and drive a green and equitable recovery.”

What do vaccines have to do with climate change?

This is the same Rockefeller Foundation that simulated the Lock Step lock-down pandemic scenario in their May 2010 report with the Global Business Network and now wants to sell us the pre-planned solution. In fact, they had one ready-made in 2020 with its COVID-19 National Testing and Tracing Action Plan, which will, naturally, expand the use of data and surveillance and which incorporates “racial equity” data as rhetoric of transhumanism becomes inextricably intertwined with that of neo-liberalism:

• Speed integration of testing and tracing data systems.
• Consistently collect and act on racial equity data.
• Plan for the arrival of home and employer testing. We’ll need these technologies to get to 30 million tests per week, but many states do not have a robust approach to integrating these results into their public health surveillance systems.
• Moving from descriptive analytics to predictive analytics and policy modeling.

The document also states that “human behavior will increasingly become the limiting factor in the efficacy of these systems.” Thus we see here hints of the transhumanist religion of Dataism where the systems themselves and especially the algorithms driving them become sovereign and humans as they once were become—should they not find themselves committed to the Singularity—superfluous.[17]

Also of significance is the fact that WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s Chief Advisor Senait Fisseha was appointed as the director of International Programs at the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, described by Influence Watch as having been “founded in 1964 by investor Warren Buffett, reportedly to address Buffett’s ‘Malthusian dread’ of population growth among the global poor.” Its president is Buffett’s daughter’s ex-husband Allen Greenberg, a former legal aide to Chuck Schumer. The organization has donated millions of dollars to the World Health Organization and John D. Rockefeller III’s Population Council, a partner with the Ford Foundation (a major donor itself to the Population Council) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) “on large-scale IUD programs throughout the 1960s in India, Pakistan, South Korea, and Taiwan.” Additionally, Buffett announced in 2006 a “philanthropic merger” with the Gates Foundation. As Joseph D’Agostino writes:

Gates has put his money where his mouth is. His foundation gave $2.25 million to Johns Hopkins to train Third World experts in population control in 1997. In 1998, his foundation–which is controlled by Gates, his wife, and his father–gave $1.7 million to a United Nations Population Fund program for controlling population growth. Buffett has given millions to pro-abortion and population control efforts over the years…How much of a priority is it for him? Reported the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nov. 13, 1997, about his wife’s foundation, “One of the foundation’s directors, Mr. Buffett’s daughter, Susie, told The Chronicle that she did expect that population control would be the foundation’s top priority. ‘That’s what my father has always believed was the biggest and most important issue, so that will be the focus,’ she said. ‘I feel as his child that it’s important to carry out his wishes. It’s his money.’”

It should be readily apparent by now that the ruling class is beyond redemption in its lunatic designs to fundamentally re-shape humanity and, indeed, the very fabric of reality. While not uniform in its ultimate aims (we should certainly applaud efforts to control the Third World population), as competing factions of slightly competing visions appear to exist, in orientation all endeavor to subjugate the mass of humanity and/or re-engineer it beyond recognition. As regards the “vaccines” in particular, there is some discussion that they may in fact be the delivery system for the necessary material for humans to become integrated with Klaus Schwab’s Internet of Things/Internet of Bodies, with humans and their devices no longer fully separate entities. I must stipulate here that this is at present conjecture and should be treated as a hypothesis. It is, however, a compelling one that bears further research and consideration. Certainly, at minimum, we are right to question the heavy push for injecting the totality of the population where such a scheme is logically and medically unwarranted for a relatively benign virus, one that, despite promises of Christmas for good behavior, is being positioned to forever be the boot stomping on humanity’s face—provided humanity doesn’t merge with its machines.

What is clearly not benign are the designs of the “elites.” The “vaccines” are already known to have awful side effects and may well represent a “poison death shot” and “potentially the biggest genocide in the history of humanity”—especially given this background of eugenics we’ve discussed. It is the working hypothesis of this author, however, that the immunosuppressive qualities of the “vaccines” are a by-product of needing a weakened immune system so as to not reject what’s being carried within the injection. The connections to HIV/AIDS research and the figures involved (such as Anthony Fauci) raise major alarms (should the reader want additional context I cover the HIV/AIDS aspect as it connects to transgenderism and other aspects of the globalist/transhumanist agenda at length in my book The Transgender-Industrial Complex—which one “reviewer” who didn’t read the book called “dangerous to trans and Jewish people,” so you can be sure I was on the mark). It may well not be an either/or proposition, as it may be a calculated risk that some large percentage of people will surely die on the way to “upgrading” humanity. It may also be “just” that COVID-19 is the best opportunity for direct control the “elites” have been presented with, and they are running with it to create their very own hybrid of 1984 and Brave New World. The time, for whatever reason, has been decided is now, and the acceleration is on. If you value liberty and human sovereignty, then it is incumbent upon you to resist this agenda with all your might. We all must.

[1] Well that sounds awfully familiar…

[2] Lanese, Nicoletta, “First Human-Monkey Chimeras Developed in China,” August 5, 2019. The Scientist.

[3] For example: Titi Akinsanmi (Government Affairs and Public Policy for West- and Francophone Africa for Google in Nigeria); Energy Technologies; Europe (includes Karen Donfried, President of the German Marshall Fund of the US and  Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations; their website includes a mention of “contagious ideas”); Financial and Monetary Systems (includes representatives of the IMF, Facebook, Infosys, Visa, Citi, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the China National Gold Group); Geopolitics (includes representatives of the RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, Chatham House, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs- Harvard Kennedy School of Government, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a pair of UAE government officials, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq and Head of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the Blavatnik School of Government-University of Oxford, and the Center for International Political Economy-Peking University); Global Public Goods in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (includes representatives of the UNDP, Mozilla, and Alphabet); Health and Healthcare (includes representatives of Lazard, Harvard Medical School, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, IBM, Kaiser Permanente); Mobility; the New Economic Agenda (features representatives of the Omidyar Network, BlackRock, Salesforce, Novartis, and the Artificial and Natural Intelligence Toulouse Institute); the New Education and Work Agenda; the New Equality and Inclusion Agenda; Space Technology (includes representatives of Airbus, Virgin Galactic, MIT, and the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs); and Longevity (includes representatives of the National Academy of Medicine, AARP, the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, the Harvard School of Public Health, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences in the United Arab Emirates, The Financial Times Group, the World Bank, and the World Health Organization).

[4] The SENSEable City Laboratory at MIT, HSBC Holdings, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Development Research Center of the State Council (DRC)-People’s Republic of China, UN Habitat, the OECD, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Housing and Urban Development of the Inter-American Development Bank, and various “global cities” like Dubai, Melbourne, New York City, and Amsterdam. Miguel Gamiño of Mastercard is also on the Council.

[5] A key part of this initiative with co-developers Doconomy—“an impact-tech start up investing in new measures to help tackle climate change” in Sweden also partnered with the Finnish Ålandsbanken and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—is the Priceless Planet Coalition, which includes partners such as: Barclays, American Airlines, the Shanghai Commercial and Savings Bank, BMO Financial Group (“Inspired by the UN Sustainable Development goals and grounded in its values of integrity, empathy, diversity and responsibility”), Expo 2020 Dubai, Eurobank, Hellenic Bank, GLS Bank (“sustainability is in our DNA”), JetBlue, LL Bean, HSBC, the London Transport Museum, the PGA Tour, Major League Baseball, the MTA, Saks Fifth Avenue, and A1 Telekom Austria AG, among many others.

[6] Webb, Whitney, “‘Charity’ Accused of Sex Abuse Coordinating ID2020’s Pilot Program For Refugee Newborns,” July 29, 2020. Unlimited Hangout.

[7] Their Advisory Board includes individuals such as: James Gaughran (Department of Defense; a Special Agent with the US Secret Service; Deputy Assistant Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security), Sarah-Jill Lennard (a former UK Diplomat and former Chief Security Officer & Chief Information Security Officer for Deloitte), Buffy Christie (JPMorgan Chase), and Sam Guttman (formerly served as Inspector in Charge with the US Postal Inspection Service where he led the agency’s first initiatives to use forensic computer analysis of data in investigative work).

[8] Diego, Raul, “Africa to Become Testing Ground for ‘Trust Stamp’ Vaccine Record and Payment System,” July 10, 2020. Mint Press News.

[9] Middleton, Anna, Mavis Machiori, Jenniffer Mabuka-Maroa, and Tiffany Boughtwood, “We need to talk about big data and genomics. Here’s why – and how,” July 27, 2020. World Economic Forum.

[10] Founding partners of this network include Palantir, Salesforce, Facebook, Huawei, IBM, Visa, Microsoft, Mitsubishi Chemical, the Inter-American Development Bank, Saudi Aramco, the Bahrain Economic Development Board, Takeda, Netflix, Splunk: The Data-to-Everything Platform Built for the Cloud, Cyberdyne, and GAVI—the Vaccine Alliance (whose founding partners are the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation, and UNICEF). GAVI’s major funders include Mastercard, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Coca-Cola Foundation, the Government of China, the European Commission, the US Government, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Visa Foundation, TikTok, Unilever, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Wholesalers, the Government of Australia, the Government of Canada, UPS, Salesforce, Google, and more.

[11] Some of the platform projects include (with descriptions from the WEF website):

• COVID-19 Financial Services Response Network: Project by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
• Pandemic Supply Chain Network (PSCN): Engagement from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Bank Group, and World Health Organization (WHO)
• Managing Epidemics with Consumer Wearables (helmed by the WEF): Policymakers from Estonia and Rwanda as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) have participated in the project community and provided regular input via interviews and workshop participation, along with private companies such as Amazon Web Services, Apple, Facebook, IBM and Xiaomi.
• The Epidemic Big Data Resource and Analytics Innovation Network (helmed by the WHO): (EPI-BRAIN) is an innovative global platform that allows experts in data and public health to analyze large data-sets for emergency preparedness and response. Through big data and artificial intelligence, the network aims to improve the prediction towards the outbreak as well as strengthen the response to the pandemic. Currently, the Ministry of Health from Bangladesh, Finland, Germany, Singapore and the United States, and the International Air Transport Association have joined the project community together with…private organizations to reduce the impact of outbreaks through forecasting and predictive analytics.

Partner organizations for EPI-BRAIN include the Gates Foundation, GAVI (“The Vaccine Alliance”), the World Bank, Harvard University, the United Nations Foundation, the US HHS, USAID, Novo Nordisk, the Nigerian CDC, Nielsen, the Korean CDC, Médecins Sans Frontières, Johnson & Johnson, PATH, and CEPI.

[12] More fun from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health includes five researchers in conjunction with one each from the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and the Department of Anthropology at Texas State University on “The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication,” published in the University of Central Florida’s Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research.

[13] Calhoun, John B., “Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population,” January 1973. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 66(1 Pt 2): 80–88.

[14] Loffredo, Jeremy and Whitney Webb, “Palantir’s Tiberius, Race, and the Public Health Panopticon,” December 7, 2020. Unlimited Hangout.

[15] The UK’s DFID, USAID, the CDC, the NIH, Zambia’s National HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Council, the World Bank Group, the World Health Organization, several UN branches, the University of California-San Francisco, the Sackler Institute for Nutrition Science (yes, those Sacklers), Stanford University, the American Jewish World Service, the London School of Economics and Political Science, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the UK’s ODI, Johns Hopkins University, the Tides Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the WK Kellogg Foundation, the Microsoft Matching Gifts Program, the AmazonSmile Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Pfizer Workplace Giving, and the Aga Khan Foundation, among others.

[16] The Government of New Zealand (where Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently admitted will become a two-tiered society between vaccinated and unvaccinated), the Government of Japan, Microsoft, the Government of India, the Unilever Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, BNP Paribas, the Government of Egypt, Global Affairs Canada, the European Commission and the European Union, Cargill, the Mastercard Foundation, the African Development Bank, UN Food and Agriculture, the World Bank, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN World Food Programme, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Health Organization, the EPA, USAID, the US State Department, the Smithsonian Institution, the US Department of Agriculture, the MacArthur Foundation, Harvard University, the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, MIT, Johns Hopkins University, and the Rockefeller Foundation

[17] For reference, the contributors to the updated report from July 2020 included a number of individuals with the Rockefeller Foundation as well as those tied to the furtherance of this agenda, such as such as the University of Minnesota, Duke University, Harvard University (Harvard Global Health Institute, etc.), the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins (Raymond Pearl of Johns Hopkins University was the first president of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, formed in 1927), plus Deloitte, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Scripps Translational Research Institute (in 1922, the Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems was founded in 1922; it would later be renamed the Scripps Gerontology Center in 1972).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish Issues

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

Parallels to the Present

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Hundred Years Together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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