Mozgovoi: The Warlord of Donbass

Part 1: The Ideology of Mozgovism

Translated by Dr. Livci, edited by Rurik; transmitted by Rolo Slavski

Previously, we covered Storm Z.

What I hope to achieve with this essay is to show that the “Russian Spring” of 2014-2016 was a genuine grassroots uprising that was first and foremost anti-oligarchic in its worldview. This is exactly why Moscow and Kiev were so terrified of it and what led to the successful efforts to quash it on both sides. Of course being “anti-oligarchic” isn’t really an ideology, but that is how Alexander Zhuchkova (the author of today’s book) refers to Mozvogoi’s vision for New Russia. The book in question is titled Mozgovoi because it is the story of the famous LDNR militia commander of the Donbass rebellion and his role in the Russian Spring.

Screen Shot 2024-10-17 at 1.46.02 PM.png
The author, Zhuchkovski, met both Mozgovoi and Strelkov in person during the hot phase of round one of the Not-War in Donbass (the first 8 years). His first book (which I still haven’t read) is about Strelkov and his defense of Slavyansk, which was the key initial battle that set the field for the war to come. Zhuchkovski himself was doing volunteer work for the militias as soon as the war started and organised volunteer networks to help civilian initiatives from within Russia to reach Donbass. This was actually much more difficult than it sounds because the FSB actually worked actively to prevent volunteers from reaching Donbass (and suppress the rebellion) unless they were specifically ordered not to and such orders were rare.

Mozgovoi was a larger-than-life figure amongst many larger-than-life figures on the Russian side during the Donbass uprising in 2014. Strelkov, Givi, Motorola, Zarchenko, Dremov and others were all talented and charismatic field commanders. What made Mozgovoi especially relevant and particularly dangerous to the powers that be was that as well as being very charismatic he could actually articulate a vision of what the Russians of Donbass were striving for and point out who was really opposing them during the uprising. When the man spoke, he struck a cord with many normal Russians living in Russia and Ukraine who would nod along and say, “yes, that is exactly what we want and what we are shedding all this blood for”. As a matter of fact, people who were closely following the Russian Spring in those days from all over the world were attracted by Mozgovoi’s personal magnetism. People from as far alway as South America showed up to fight on the side of the rebels in Donbass because they thought Mozgovoi was a kind of Che Guevara reborn.

Now, a reader who still holds on tightly to Cold War-tier anti-communist ideology will probably check out and stop reading right here. Do try and bear with me though if you actually want to learn something about what the Russia Spring was actually about. Yes, volunteers from places like Chile and Argentina showed up in Donbass to help the rebels because they thought Mozgovoi was Che reincarnated. But Mozgovoi was actually anti-Soviet in his worldview. Martyrs almost always become a legend after their deaths (and sometimes during their lives); that resonates with the emotional needs of people in the present and few take the time to figure out what that person actually stood for in reality. In South America, Che is a legend and a symbol of resistance to South Americans who are sick of being dominated by American puppet regimes and spook-sponsored cartels. He is a symbol invoked by those who want more “peasant power” in that part of the world. Whether this whitewashes Che’s actual actions and his own worldview is another matter entirely and is beyond the the scope of this essay. Or take Hitler, who in death became a symbol of racial solidarity to later White Nationalist groups, even though Hitler was simply a German nationalist during his life.

Point being: Mozgovoi channeled that same sentiment and energy in Donbass while dressing up as a White Guard, not a Communist.

To this day, there is a still a White v Red split in FSU politics and society and this split is worth discussing because Westerners are unaware of it and instead try to impose their Dems v Republicans or Labor v Tory paradigms onto Eastern Europe. This approach simply doesn’t work because the divide is very different there. Your attitude towards the USSR and its legacy is what decides where you fit on the socio-political divide. The older generations are overwhelmingly more pro-Soviet in all FSU countries (including Ukraine). The younger generations are overwhelmingly more anti-Soviet. The political punditry shows its loyalties by either signaling support for or counter-signaling the USSR. As an example, Putin and his cronies started out as anti-Soviets, but as they began to rely more and more on the older voter base for support, they began embracing Sovietism even as they pursued neo-liberal economic policies and de-militarization and de-industrialization and de-nationalization of the country.

What makes political debate so frustrating in the FSU is that it always devolves into a debate over the USSR and its legacy.

It is very difficult to just talk about the situation as it is now without getting into a debate about the USSR.

This is important to understand as we talk about the militia populist leaders and the importance of figures like Mozgovoi.

In general, the White camp in FSU politics is very diverse and can include ethnic nationalists as well as SJW Soros types working together at times because of a shared disdain for Soviet legacy politicians and attitudes among the population. Because “Whites” and “Reds” hate each other because of their ideological differences this typically is enough to keep them from uniting against their real enemies in power.

Mozgovoi, despite being personally unsympathetic to the USSR, was able to attract both Communist sympathizers and White Guard/Nationalist types together under his banner because his words and deeds transcended ideology.

In Donbass in 2014-2015 Mozgovoi was able to draw people of all political persuasions (other than big city Liberals of course) to the banner of the “New Russia” cause (Novorussia) because he was taking shots at common enemies and because he was promoting a populist message; he refused to get bogged down in never-ending debates on Soviet history. People found this to be very refreshing. In contrast, no one talks like this in English-language media, not even the most radical bloggers that I’ve heard of or read at some point. By Western standards, Mozgovoi was extremely radical because he was not talking about participating in elections or “Culture Warring” or any of that divisive and pointless nonsense. Mozogovi openly spoke of the need for the peasants to start self-organizing so that one day, given a window to do so, they might seize power by any means necessarily.

This position cost him his life.

Mozgovoi the Man

Mozgovoi came from a middle class background. He genuinely adored his parents and one of his two sisters. After finishing school, he served in the Ukrainian Army for 7 years and during that time he got married and had a daughter. As happens so very, very often, his traditional and wholesome Orthodox Slavic wife was actually an insufferable shrew who drove him away from the family. To escape his wife, Mozgovoi left Kharkov and went off to find work in St. Petersburg, where he became a successful manager of construction crews. In that line of work he made good money and was praised by his workers and bosses alike which anyone who has worked in the trades can confirm is quite the accomplishment. Despite his difficult relationship with his wife, Mozgovoi visited his family in Ukraine often and was able to maintain a close relationship with his daughter for awhile, something that most men are stripped of by the oppressive feminist social legislation in the Slavlands. Predictably, after she divorced him, his now ex-wife turned his daughter against her father and being a typical women she did this despite Mozgovoi doing his best to be a good father.

Our biographer Zhuchkovski describes the situation like this:

One day, Mozgovoi’s ex wife asked him to take on her brother Maxim to work with him. Mozgovoi agreed and Maxim left for St Petersburg. On his birthday, on the 3rd of April 2012 Alexi (Mozgovoi) and Maxim arrived back in Kharkov by train where they were met by Elena and Dasha (ex wife and daughter) who rushed to hug and kiss Maxim. Alexei stood their awkwardly feeling like a total outsider, unneeded and unwanted. They didn’t even greet him at all. Most painful for him was the cold reception from his daughter that he so loved. At that moment, something permanently broke in Alexi. He immediately left for Svatovo and his sister to celebrate his birthday. While his sister was preparing the table, Alexi went out on the balcony to smoke. He stood there for a long time, remembering how he used to dote on his daughter and how she loved spending time with him. Worried about his long absence from the table, his sister’s husband came out to check on him and for the first and only time saw Alexei softly crying.

I promise to get to the really interesting stuff in a second but these sorts of details are important for understanding who Mozgovoi became during the Russian Spring. Betrayed by his ex-wife after helping her out, daughter turned against him, and soon after these events, his parents’ health began to quickly deteriorate as well. The old normie-Alexei was soon dead and the commander of Prizrack (ghost) brigade took his place. As a matter of fact Mozgovoi himself described his life previous to the uprising thus:

A journalist asked the brigade commander what he did before the war and he answered “before these events I did absolutely nothing. I’ve only just now started to actually live”. He answered the same question on a different occasion with “just fooling around”.

Roughly a year before the uprising, Alexei was in a sort of emotional purgatory and it was only when the Russian Spring came that he found his true calling. I bring this all up to highlight just how typical Alexei’s life was for the average Slavic man prior to the rebellion and to give hope to other men in similar positions all over the world

Rurik sometimes jokes that if it weren’t for all the divorced middle-aged men in Ukraine and Russia and Belarus, that there would be no war because there would have been no one volunteering to go to Donbass and die in the rubble and mud simply for a chance to escape their overbearing wives. There is a kernel of truth to this kind of dark humor.

The Beginning of the Rebellion

I don’t want to rehash the whole beginnings of the Russian Spring but Mozgovoi was there at the very start. In Lugansk, he was put in contact with some local Anti-Maidan/pro Russia activists who were preparing to try and separate Lugansk from Ukraine. These guys were a completely grassroots organization and they got no help from Moscow whatsoever. As well as being an excellent biography of Mozgovoi the man, the book is also a very damning condemnation of the Kremlin’s conduct during those decisive years. The leaders of the pro-Russian separatists in Luhansk were a couple of local Soviet army vets that ended up stuck living in Ukraine when the USSR was dismantled (just like General Syrsky). They had almost no resources of their own and received none from Moscow and their plan amounted to seizing power in Lugansk via an armed coup, and then forcing Moscow’s hand to send in peacekeepers once the deed was done. Any casual reader of Slavland Chronicles knows by now that the absolute last thing the Kremlin would have wanted is for a bunch of Donbass proles and peasants to start demanding that Russia send in peacekeeping troops while allowing Donbassians to become Russian citizens.

Mozgovoi’s role was to act as the public face of the rebels up until the time came for the actual leadership to take over which was presumed to be after the success of their pro-Russian coup. Valery Bolotov and Valery Lopin who were the real organizers of the coup in Lugansk saw that Mozgovoi was an extremely charismatic man with persuasive oratory skills. They commissioned Mozgovoi to go around rallying the locals in support of Lugansk seceding from Kiev and joining Russia.

Initially, the rebels demanded that Kiev put Yanokovich back in power, but quickly realized that this wouldn’t happen and that this was an unpopular position because most Russians in Donbass hated Yanokovich at that point. When Kiev inevitably declined to comply with their demands though, the rebels stormed the SBU building in Lugansk and held a referendum on independence which overwhelmingly passed. After that the rebels sat around expecting Russia to send help which never came. Moscows recognition of Lugansk’s independence would not come for the next 8 years.

IMPORTANT: Notice how Mozgovoi and his people didn’t “Culture War” and post essays about how “the Banderaites have really gone bananas!” as part of their resistance strategy. No, they quickly identified the true power structure in Lugansk and took them out with a self-organized and self-armed force of patriots. That is, they targeted the local HQ of the spook state and from there, local resistance to their agenda evaporated. The pro-Kiev politicians and media fled on their own soon after. For dissidents in the West, the entire episode should be very educational, but it will simply be ignored, sadly.

But this is how rebellion, secession and victory are actually achieved.

Sadly, no “dissident” figure in the West speaks like this or seems to understand these concepts. People are told that “the media” run things or “the woke college professors” or some other inanity to keep them confused and directionless in their opposition to the agenda of the powers that be. The truth is that the modern world is built on relatively small numbers of spooks using terror and technology and wide networks of coercion to maintain control over a huge and disparate mass of people. As the Donbass rebellion demonstrated, these central nodes of power can be taken out by nativist rebel leaders.

Of course, we should all morally condemn Mozgovoi and the other military-minded men who effected this coup for their anti-Christian morality and I will be the first and loudest to disavow and denounce such anti-Liberal and anti-Democratic behavior. But we have to admit that what they did was successful. Morally abhorrent and pure Evil, but … well … And perhaps if men of such views and values were to emerge in other parts of the world, well …

*   *   *

Mozgovoi found the rebels’ inaction after the initial successful coup appalling and dangerous so he broke off to make his own brigade — the Ghost (Prizrak) Battalion. Unlike them, he wasn’t content to wait around begging Moscow to step in and take over the reins and protect them from Kiev’s retaliation. Eventually, Mozgovoi joined up with Strelkov and Mozovoi’s Prizrak Brigade took part in heavy fighting around Lichansk and Debaltsev. Famously, Prizrak was the first major formation to break into Debaltsev in strength and set the stage for a UAF defeat in motion during that bloody battle. Naturally, Moscow squandered the opportunity to end the war and the weak and poorly armed and unmotivated UAF then and there. Instead, the war was allowed to fester and the UAF was given almost a decade to prepare and rearm by Putin, who many insist is a geopolitical chess master.

Anyway.

With that brief background out of the way, let’s analyze what “Mozgovoism” actually is because that way we will be able to better understand what was behind the Russian Spring. Hint: it wasn’t Putinism, that’s for sure.

Mozgovism

 

“Today when the Russian people finally see a ray of light in the darkness they try and smother it with political fog. When symbols and ideas arise to unite us they, with great zeal, pour filth on them to denigrate the awakening Russian people”.

Mozgovoi didn’t leave any political will or testament whose authenticity can be confirmed. There was an electronic diary of Mozgovoi’s published but Zhuchkovski doubts its full authenticity. He asked the publisher of the diary where he got it from and the publisher said that he had received it anonymously via email along with one scanned photograph containing the above passage I quoted. Zhuchkovski says the photographed passage is really Mozgovoi as it perfectly matches his handwriting and even contains his signature which matches as well. I wanted to lead off with that passage because it summarises Mozgovois attitude to Moscow in the final year of his life. He wasn’t talking about Kiev and CIA psyops or Navalny. As a matter of fact, despite fighting them, Mozgovoi on more than one occasion did live video calls with Ukrainian soldiers and found common ground with them, which scandalized many media personalities and politicians on both sides. The point is that Mozgovoi didn’t consider “Taras” and “Mykola” (slang for Ukrainian average Joes) as his primary enemy. Mozgovoi’s believed that he was in a war against a global oligarchy. And his hatred for the Kremlin and Kiev as regional operation bases for the globalist empire was a process that took some time to develop.

But for now, let us get into Mozgovoi’s basic political view of the world.

Zhuchkovski:

Every ideological group tries to claim Mozgovoi for their own camp. For example, Communists draw a portrait of Mozgovoi as a leftist leader. At the same time there is not one saying or letter of Mozgovoi’s that expresses sympathy to Communism or the USSR. When I pointed this out to a Communist I was speaking with, he advanced the extravagant thesis that Mozgovoi was a Communist by deed, not by words. Of course with that approach you can claim any person you want for your ideological camp.

Sincere Commies just saw somebody doing the things they wanted done and assumed that he must have been acting out of Communist conviction even if he himself didn’t know it. This is similar to what Christians do when they claim that a certain author or political figure was Christian because he did good things and so much have been motivated by the power of Christianity even if they didn’t know it themselves or even spurned the religion. According to Zhuchkovski, the people closest to Mozgovoi say he never had any clear ideology at all and held an eclectic worldview that drew inspiration from both Monarchism and Socialism. This is very similar to Strelkov’s worldview, who Mozgovoi got along with very well.

In Mozgovoi’s office there were 3 flags, the black 17th Don Cossack regiment banner with the death’s head symbol that is popular with the White Guards, and the Red Army victory banner. But the closest and most meaningful for Mozgovoi was the banner of New Russia which occupied the center. Mozgovoi never supported any kind of autonomous Lugansk or Donestk Republic, he always wanted a united “New Russia” just like Strelkov did. As for the Red Victory banner, Mozgovoi described his relationship to it thusly:

It was an awful war with devastating deprivation. Our predecessors who experienced it are holy. We honor the banner they struggled under. I’m blamed for having a Cossack uniform with silver shoulder boards. Apparently I’m a White Guard representative [traitor] right here next to the red victory banner. The past of our uncles and fathers is our history that we have no right to repeat and we have a duty to remember.

The Cold War style anti-communist/anti Russian who knows absolutely nothing about Russia will see a victory banner and assume that modern Russia is therefore a Trotskyite/Stalinist State or even that the liquidation of the USSR was part of a Russian ploy to trick the West. See the defector Golytsin …

But it is not just Westerners who think like this, Baltic peoples and Poles often claim the same thing. What’s always amused me the most, personally though, are the Americans who think this way. Americans rage about those “damn woke SJW liberals” renaming everything and demolishing monuments. They argue that you don’t have to idealize the Confederacy to simply agree to just leave the flags and monuments alone like was originally agreed to by the North and the South. The truth is that the war was a complicated and grotesque bloodbath and that neither government was on the side of the angels. Putting aside the fate of the outdated farm equipment, the South was run by an international oligarchy as a giant plantation that impoverished the average free man and the subsequent war democided the White population in these territories. This is not to excuse Lincoln, but it is worth pointing out that the monuments were left alone by his government and subsequent Yankee occupation governments for centuries. Normal people instinctively recoil at iconoclast behavior whether it is modern SJW fanatics rampaging on campuses or ISIS fanatics in Syria and Iraq destroying old relics or Mau’s temple-burning cultural pogroms or the early Christian revolutionaries destroying native European learning and culture in the name of their twisted and barbaric superstition.

Normal people are repulsed and revolted by this kind of behavior.

These days, even American right-wingers who hate the federal government get mad when the symbols of the federal government are desecrated by leftist goons. This is exactly how many Russians that otherwise don’t like the USSR feel about many of the symbols of the Red Army or the Soviet state. Many patriotic Russians understand that the Bolsheviks were a hostile ethnic group who seized power and butchered them, but they aren’t going to meekly allow symbols of the USSR to be made illegal and be ashamed of themselves to please a bunch of vicious, Russia-hating Poles, Baltoids, and Western Cold Warrior dinosaurs who will always hate Russia no matter what flags are flying over the Kremlin. It would be pure cuckoldry to burn the flags under which so many millions of peasant died fighting under to please people that will always hate Russia no matter what. That is just how the vast majority of people feel about the issue.

Simple.

Mozgovoi’s ancestors were Don Cossacks and according to relatives that knew him, when he was young he was infatuated with pre-Revolutionary Russia. Like Strelkov, Mozgovoi was a literal LARPer and there are pictures of him dressed up like a White Guard officer.

That might even be part of why they got along so well.

Zhuchkovski notes the irony of the two most iconic field commanders and legends of the Russian Spring being White Guard enthusiasts considering that Donbass is solid Soviet/Commie territory on account of it being the once-beating industrial heartland of the USSR. And the rebel guys who initially recruited Mozgovoi as an agitator to begin with were Communist in their sympathies as well.

As an aside: this is something that even Americans like Russell “Texas” Bentley (RIP) seemed to struggle to understand. Texas was a committed Communist and seemed to take personal offense at the existence of non-Communists in the rebel ranks. Russians are often able to look past ideological difference because they focus more on their shared Russian identity. In contrast, Americans are a very ideological people and they have a hard time understanding the concept of identity as something innate that is immutable and worth identifying around and preserving. They believe that it is immoral to identify along innate identity lines and that only elective ideologies are morally acceptable as a way of self-identification. This is because of their fundamentalist Christianity cultural background, undoubtedly. Thus, even within families, typically a daughter or a wife will routinely denounce her menfolk despite their blood-ties because of some ideological infraction. This attitude has spilled over to men, mostly of the Leftist variety. Initially, Russell was hostile to Rurik because Rurik was not a Communist as well and he called Rurik a Nazi.

Rurik writes:

but as we continued to talk and focused on common enemies, we realized that we had a lot more in common than Russell originally had assumed. Both of us understood that Moscow and Kiev (and Donbass) were run by the same shtetl [small Jewish town of pre-Bolshevik Russia] and that there was a lot of treachery going on in the war. We both believed in a future free of oligarchy and for an end to the systemic predation on the people by the parasite class at the top of the globalist occupation government.

Zhuchkovski recalls an interview where a British journalist asked Mozgovoi who he considers to the great heroes of history:

Practically every White Guard Officer, he said. And I don’t want to offend the Communist Comrade Zhukov.

As a matter of fact according to Mozgovoi, the Soviet period did lots of damage to the Russian psyche:

For 70 years our people learned to be scared of bureaucracy. This servile upbringing has been so thorough that now at the very word bureaucrat, people cower. Then in the last 20 years they taught us to cower before the rich and to stupidly work for them without asking any questions. This combination has created an unthinking organism that can be paid the absolute minimum to work for oligarchs and to also support an army of chinovniks (bureaucrats). 

That is the outcome of 70 years of Soviet and then 23+years of Oligarchic government.

I don’t loath the USSR as much as Mozgovoi did but I absolutely have to agree with his statement 150%.

You see even people sympathetic to the USSR based on the fact that life was generally more stable and safe compared to modern Russia or Ukraine who would still have to admit that the soul-crushing bureaucratic nature of the Soviet system was no virtue and that it left scars on society.

Furthermore, modern Russia and Ukraine retained almost all the bad aspects of the USSR while liquidating all that was admittedly useful and good. It follows from that that the soulless and de-humanising nature of the Soviet bureaucracy was retained but that it is now in the hands of an international oligarchy that lords over the peasants and are arguably even more malevolent than the old Politburo. The Soviet system trained people to just submit and get by so you can go home to your commie block apartment and watch the long sunset with your cat on the balcony (as Rurik once put it). Well, now that same system is in place but with none of the social benefits or social stability because the people running it are even less accountable to the average citizen and you probably will have DIEversity hanging out in the stairwell of your newer, smaller, larger apartment megabloc.

Remember the first quote of Mozgovois that we read? About how “they” throw filth on Russians and denigrate them when they start showing signs of organizing or of political life? Well that’s who “they” are: the bureaucrats and the oligarchs and the spook state (larger now than ever before). Those who keep Russians in a state where they are content to work and die for breadcrumbs. Those who are trying to prevent this unthinking mass of slaves from regaining some collective ethnic consciousness. That’s what the Russian Spring really was to Mozgovoi — a reawakening of this defeated, enslaved super-organism. And Mozgovoi had absolute contempt for those who stubbornly clung to their chains.

In one his very first video recordings as an agitator for the separatists, Mozgovoi said:

I am Mozgovoi Alexi Borisovich. I won’t hide my face and name. I want to appeal to my countrymen in the Eastern Regions. Enough sitting on the couch! Enough thinking that someone will do something for you! Don’t worry about your head, worry about your honor. Our ill-wishers have given us one chance and if we miss it there won’t be another. To miss this opportunity will be easy and making up for it later almost impossible. I choose Russia, I am for Russia!

This was well before Mozgovoi became utterly disillusioned and hostile to Moscow, but the theme of demanding that the peasants get off their asses because nobody else will help them is a key recurring point of his worldview and message. Even before Mozgovoi gave up on Moscow, he berated the locals for thinking Moscow should help them when they weren’t doing much to help themselves.

What has happened with our people? What kind of creature have they been turned into that isn’t willing or able to fight for its own freedom? What kind of society, without principles or honor, without ideals? For what price do you sell your freedom? A pathetic handout from the chinovnik [bureaucrat]? Haven’t we exchanged everything too cheaply just for a full stomach? I often hear accusations against Russia in regards to not sending troops. I also have a question. Who should Russia help in this situation? Most of the population pretends not to notice what is happening right now. People with a slave mentality don’t need anyone besides an owner. As long we fail to understand that, nothing in our lives is going to change.

This is a key point for all dissidents to understand.

The masses can only be awoken through direct action. Nice words and poignant essays have their limits. People respond to power and authority. Seize that first and the masses will follow. Put the cart before the horse and you will always be disappointed by the results.

Mozgovoi’s very harsh berating of the common peasants and their docility never changed. Mozgovoi wasn’t one to engage in the usual political charade of making the peasants promises and pretending that he sympathized with them and was one of them. He was demanding that they stop acting like their typical selves essentially and actually start self-organizing to seize power for themselves. He didn’t make any political promises at all, he simply acted where it was possible for him to act and set an example of seizing the situation.

In the slice of Lugansk oblast that Mozgovoi essentially conquered, he liquidated crime overnight, much as Strelkov did in Slavyansk. This is no small matter, as readers of the Chronicles know, Donbass was and still is, the most corrupt and criminal place in Eastern Europe. But when a power vacuum appeared and Mozgovoi seized control, crime all but disappeared. Furthermore, Mozgovoi accomplished this with no help from Moscow. He refused to subordinate himself to the official LNR [Luhansk People’s Republic] authorities in Luhansk and for this, his Prizrak brigade was cut off from government aid.

Nonetheless, Mozgovoi accomplished more than the official LNR authorities with far less resources. This just made him all the more popular in Lugansk and all the more hated in Moscow and amongst the official LNR government structure.

Why couldn’t Moscow and the LNR satrapy bring Mozgovoi under control? Well, because he quickly became a genuine popular legend in Luhansk, they couldn’t just openly take him down. Despite Mozgovoi’s fairly vicious attacks on the average Donbassian whom he called out for their slave mentality, he was loved by them all the same. Men of action are almost always universally beloved, even if they mete out harsh words to their fans. Actions speak louder than words and are said in a language that is more well-understood by the masses. Many people are unable to understand the language used by political idealists of all stripes about “rights” and “self-determinism” and “justice” or whatever. It finds no purchase in their minds or hearts. But these same people do understand the pageantry of the uniform or the symbol or the flag. Or the simple and informative bark of the gun and the man who wields it.

To Mozgovoi, submitting to the LNR authorities entailed not just the breakup of his brigade, but also the return of the old soul crushing system. It would mean the return of the spook overseers, the corrupt chinovniks, the ethnic mafias and so on. The fact that it would be overseen from Moscow instead of Kiev would be the only difference — a difference that the locals wouldn’t even notice. In short, it would mean that the whole Russian Spring was in vain. And this wasn’t just an ego trip for Mozgovoi, it was about seeing the uprising through to its goals instead of selling out and getting pulled into the system.

Recall that in one of his earliest appeals to the people, he was saying they had a very unique chance to change their lives which was presented to them by the Russian Spring. In the West, it is a cliché by now in dissident circles that everyone has to wait until either Jesus comes back — or Hitler before that — before they can do anything. In the summer of 2014 though, Mozgovoi understood that there was a brief moment of chaos in which Kiev and Moscow both had their grips on power slacken in Donbass and that there wouldn’t be another moment like this to self-organize and seize power. His tirades against the peasants weren’t condescending or a form of elitism like we are accustomed to from our culture curators. They were heartfelt demands that his people not let the chance slip and make a bid for freedom.

Mozgovoi did more than just crush crime in his territory. He set up four cafeterias that fed hundreds of people every day for free. He kept local businesses running to the maximum extent possible and got rid of the predatory spook apparatus that had preyed on them previously. Small businesses needed to pay the FSB or the SBU or the local ethnic mafias protection money to be allowed to operate in many parts of the Slavlands — this is referred to as a krisha. He also kept the maternity words working and the electricity running by attracting volunteer specialists from Russia with his magnetism and charisma. Basically, life was more stable in his slice of Luhansk Oblast than anywhere else in Donbass and at a very hard time in their history.

Most remarkably: he did it all with no help from Moscow or the LNR authorities.

By rights, he should be a symbol for all Libertarians and Anarchists and his little mini-country a kind of modern Catalonia. Somehow, I don’t think they will recognize him as one of their own though. In contrast, the evil “statist” Monarchists and Nationalists and even Communists claim him as their own. This says a lot about actual revealed political preferences, I think. There wasn’t any weed and gay sex allowed under Mozgovoi, so the project has no appeal to the former groups, clearly.

One of Mozgovoi’s most interesting projects that, sadly, he didn’t get to see through due to his assassination was basically the organization of a kind of modern yeoman warrior caste in Luhansk.

Zhuchkovski:

In the spring of 2015 the commander of the Prizrack Brigade focused a lot of attention on the development of agriculture around Alchevske (Mozgovois city). He always repeated that sometime the war would end, and foundations for peacetime agriculture needed to be laid now. Mozgovoi regularly met with rural residents and praised them for their work. Не regularly looked after truck fleets and equipment, and he looked for technical specialists to help increase the tempo of agricultural restoration as well as patrons in Russia to provide modern construction materials and equipment.

Mozgovoi wanted his brigade to feed themselves with their own hands and not live off Russian aid. To this end he planned on a system of military agriculture, for Prizrack to produce their own agricultural products. It was one of Mozgovoi’s main plans, for his brigade to feed itself and not live on the government needle. The last time the brigade commander appeared on the internet it was to report on the progress of his military agriculture plan. 

In a video released by Prizrack on the 20th of May 2015 titled “first step towards military agriculture” Alexi thanks those who materially support the brigade and in a quiet voice says “Dear friends of Prizrack Brigade, you see here a home where 150 baby chicks are resting. Now you understand why I’m talking so quietly and calmly, but with enormous confidence in our future.” 

In three days, the Brigade Commander would be murdered.

This is actually what could be considered a legit “revolt against the modern world”.

This was also Mozgovoi channeling his Cossack roots. What else can we call military agriculture other than a return to Cossackism or something like the Eastern Roman Imperial Theme system? In other words, creating an economic base of self-sufficiency that would be independent of globalist government or international oligarchy. With that base secured, people could self-organize into warbands, essentially. And Mozgovoi was dead serious about going back to this kind of Cossack model.

He tried to establish a war counsel that encompassed all the major field commanders in both the LNR and DNR [Donetsk People’s Republic]. This project, like the military agriculture project, also didn’t come to fruition due to the fact that only mid-level field commanders who hadn’t been bought off yet by either side were interested. The reason that the main field commanders didn’t have the courage to sign on with Mozgovoi’s idea is down to the fact that they all depended on money and support from Russia, unlike Mozgovoi’s brigade. Moscow as well as the official authorities in the LNR/DNR were adamant that Donestk and Luhansk not form any sort of united central government or that they take their independence efforts too far. Moscow was committed to returning these rebellious territories to Ukraine (for some concessions, of course). Mozgovoi, on the other hand only supported a single New Russia. An official military counsel of both LNR/DNR commanders could in theory be a first step in undermining the separate LNR/DNR system. This meant that any commanders signing on to Mozgovoi’s plan would be putting their support from Moscow at risk and incurring the anger of their spook supervisors. Mozgovoi didn’t need to worry about this since he wasn’t receiving any aid, but essentially nobody else had the balls do go it alone like he did.

In any case, here is how Mozgovoi described his reasoning behind the military counsel:

I’m a Don Cossack myself. The Cossacks had a circle of Atamans who collectively decided all major life-impacting decisions. Why not design the military counsel along the same lines as the Cossack circle? Every member should have the right to vote, listen, speak and directly take part in deciding urgent matters. In this way, we share full collective responsibility for what is going on. Perhaps this will speed up the building our republic.

A reporter asked Mozgovoi if such a counsel might be included in the formal government structure of the LNR to which he responded:

I don’t see a contradiction between integrating it into the government as well as it being outside the government and functioning as a control mechanism over the actions of the authorities.

Obviously, Mozgovoi wanted the Military Assembly to simply control everything of major importance. When he said that perhaps the counsel would speed along the creation of the Republic, he was obviously refering to a united New Russia since the LNR and DNR already existed. Mozgovoi wanted a Cossack-modeled military government to be tasked with making the most important decisions. It is a shame that he was the only big commander totally willing to go it alone and not take any pieces of silver from the Kremlin. Many other powerful commanders who did comply with Moscow grudgingly unlike Mozgovoi’s total non-compliance policy still ended up just as dead as Mozgovoi and likely at the hands of the same killers. That’s not to say I think any less of guys like Givi, Dremov, Belzer, or hell even Zarchenko. It is just that the time has proven Mozgovoi’s non-compromising position correct. All those men were no less personally courageous than Mozgovoi, but apparently, they trusted Moscow more than each other. What Mozgovoi wanted was for all these men to come together and manage their war on their own. Sure, they would have had far less resources in this case, but managing what they had collectively without the insane graft and corruption that came as a condition of Moscow’s patronage leaves me with a hunch that the difference wouldn’t have been all that large. After all, it is not like the LNR/DNR militias were especially well-armed in February of 2022 even. Despite eight years of Moscow’s supposed patronage, they were still shockingly under-equipped and under-trained as the subsequent war showed.

A decent example of what Mozgovoi was getting at when he spoke of a People’s Authority was demonstrated on the 25th of October 2014 when he held a sort of People’s Trial over a cop accused of raping a teenage girl and a drug addict neo-Nazi accused of aiding the Ukrainians. The Prizrack Brigade invited the city locals to come and decide what to do with the accused.

Zhuchkovski:

Hello residents of Alchevsk said Shevchencko (Prizrak Brigade’s 2nd in command). We have invited you here today so that on this soil, finally, we can conduct a court of people’s law. We, the peoples militia, ask you to decide the fate of these 2 individuals with covered faces (the accused were at this time blindfolded) who have in our view committed contemptable and filthy crimes. We want for the first time in many years for the law to be served as the people see fit. In accordance with this, all your voices will be considered. In our opinion (the brigade’s) the crimes committed by these individuals call for the highest form of punishment.

I would speak of justice” said Mozgovoi who was sitting nearby. “Yes and most of all justice be served,” added Shevchencko.

After the Prizrak investigators (at this point the Brigade was often fulfilling functions usually associated with the police) ran through the details of the case involving the cop accused of raping the girl, what they had uncovered and what conclusions they had drawn, they recommended that the man be shot. At that point Mozgovoi took the microphone and said:

You have listened to the information and understand the essence of the crime. Now I want you to understand why we have called you here and why we are conducting this court. Even if this court doesn’t accord with official norms of jurisprudence according to lawyers, it does accord with the people’s authority. Today you have the first chance to manifest yourselves as an active civil society whose words and opinions matter. Today you have the first chance to share full collective responsibility for what takes place. Every one of you needs to understand that building a new state doesn’t depend on one or two people. Every one of you needs to make concrete contributions. Before making any decisions here at this court, think hard first of all. All of you have the right to speak here, that is what the microphone is for. We have been forced to stay silent all our lives but now all have the right to speak.

At the higher level, the military counsels would decide major matters of course, but that is not to say that Mozgovoi wanted some caricature military dictatorship that Westerners have been taught to shudder in horror at the prospect of. As matter of fact, Mozgovoi often spoke about having armed soldiers on the streets in civilian affairs distasteful. But getting back to the court, there was indeed a lively back and fourth between the citizens in regards to the cop with most demanding he be shot but a minority blaming the girl for being a whore. Also, the cop was a recent member of the brigade though he had never fought. At one point a women asked the brigade leadership how they could have let such a man join. Shevchencko, Mozgovoi’s number two man replied:

Well, we are asking you, the people to decide his fate and we are the people’s militia. We consider ourselves part of the people. We caught a criminal, gathered evidence, and brought it all before you and hid nothing, unlike the previous authority who covered up everything. We did not hide that he was one of us.

The woman’s question triggered Mozgovoi somewhat who took the microphone after Shevchencko:

You reproach us because he was amongst us but I have a question of my own, where were you when he was living amongst you? When he ended up with us, he was quickly put on trial as you can see. Where were you, dear citizenry, when he was amongst you?

After Mozgovoi one of the Prizrak investigators took the microphone and sarcastically asked:

Could Ananev (the accused cop) have solved his problem and avoided any trial under the previous authorities?

The collective vote of the citizens present ended up against shooting the cop and for shooting the neo-Nazi drug addict. The book doesn’t clarify how long the cop was in jail for and how long before the neo-Nazi was shot, Mozgovoi was murdered and the whole system he was trying to build was dismantled. The whole trial ended up being in vain.

Before the vote was taken on what to do with cop though, Mozgovoi again took the microphone and said:

I want to repeat that you constitute the highest authority that we (the brigade) are fighting for. For a People’s Authority. If you think that in the future some old bureaucratic grandpa will come along and fix everything you are wrong. It is time to take things into your own hands. Everything. Started with the courts and finishing with everything, with all economic and political questions. Your time has come people, wake up!

At this point a woman took the microphone and said she supported shooting the cop like the brigade investigators recommended. Shevchencko responded that a collective vote was required because the Brigade was not the final authority, the people are. After the collective totally non-anonymous public vote, there weren’t enough votes for execution after all, a verdict which I personally agree with. This article is already long so I can’t drop all the details here that the brigade investigators uncovered but it obviously looks like yes, the cop was a scumbag (like all cops are) and the teenage girl (15 years old) was a indeed an unrepentant whore (like …) . My reading of the details of the case indicate to me that she was having sex with the cop in exchange for access to drugs. Many such cases. Now, if the trial had been about a cop dealing drugs to minors, then okay he should be shot. But the brigade investigators framed it as being about the cop raping the girl. That threw the whole process off.

Presumably, they would have drawn conclusions and fine-tuned their approach for future trials. Probably, the brigade investigators were generally supportive of shooting corrupt cops and this guy clearly was one and they just assumed the normal people present would “get” that. But since women were present and had a right to speak, they made it all about the girl which made the men instinctively be like “wait she was obviously a whore”. The thing is women have no business being involved in this kind of stuff and Mozgovoi being a Cossack would known women ran nothing but the house in Cossack days.

But this whole project was barely off the ground, so solving the modern woman issue hadn’t come up yet.

It remains an amusing anecdote of “people power” and if anything, it justifies Mozgovoi’s harsh words about the quality of the public to some extent.

Nonetheless, a military agrarian caste, a military leadership counsel working on the major issues, and the people being very involved and running day-to-day affairs of justice and local economic and political questions is getting to the essence of what Mozgovoi was all about. No spooks, no bureaucrats, no ethnic criminals. It all seems terribly naïve and utopian I guess, but then again Mozgovoi’s very short-lived experiment was in fact successful right up until his murder. He was a much beloved man.

He was also scary enough that Moscow simply had to kill him.

According to Zhuchkovski, if one analyses Mozgovoi’s appeals to the people, there are three general themes that he hit on very often. The first is the People’s Authority. The second is anti-Fascism (yes I know the irony but please stay with me a little longer) and the third is anti-oligarchy. For the sake of keeping this article at a readable length I’ll not spend to much time on the first because the examples I’ve already given demonstrate what he was getting at. Basically, it is an appeal to stop having a slavish mentality vis-à-vis the government and the oligarchs. In discussions with his close associates in the brigade, Mozgovoi indicated that in practice long term this would involve specialists in their respective fields solving things at the absolute lowest level possible in partnership with the communities. I have heard this concept explained before as “Distributionism”. Given that the Prizrack Brigade wanted corrupt officials shot on principle, this would facilitate the transfer of power downward to specialists in technical fields who are working in tandem with communities they are usually a part of. By “specialists” we are talking about actual engineers, farmers, people who run mines and reactors etc. We obviously aren’t talking about spooks and bureaucrats running things like you had under Communism or the current system.

Let us move on to the much more controversial point of “anti-Fascism” because I know it will trigger some readers and anti-Russians might jump onto this kind of unfortunate and loaded rhetoric. I’ll let our biographer Zhuchkovski lead off here:

Antifascism almost constituted an official ideology at the beginning of the revolt in Luhansk. During the early months of the war the Brigade Commander often spoke of fascism in Ukraine and referred to the militia as antifascist. However, over time his relationship to this theme underwent a definite evolution.

As Mozgovoi became more and more disenchanted with Moscow and their LNR satrapy he stopped talking about Fascism.

Zhuchkovski:

At the beginning of 2015, when Mozgovoi was asked about his contacts with Fascists who had participated on the Ukrainian side of the war he answered “yeah I didn’t see any fascist over there, no Hitlers or Goebbels. In general they are just yesterday’s workers. It is incorrect to accuse the population of Ukraine of being fascist. When we finally understand who is managing our brains maybe we can stop killing each other?

Mozgovoi talking to a journalist about Fascism:

Journalist: I want to tell you about how in Italy there is a real independent anti-fascist movement
Mozgovoi interrupts: My dear there is no real fascism. The anti-fascist movement  you know its like with a computer  there is a virus and anti-virus and one person creates them both.
Journalist: So you don’t think there is any fascism in Ukraine?
Mozgovoi-There is just business, nothing more. Create one movement and another to oppose it. Profit from and control both ends.

Mozgovoi wrote in regards to Fascism:

Everyone is fighting Fascism in all its manifestations. Every side is duty bound to declare that battle exactly, to show the presence of Fascism amongst the opposing side. It is for good reason as well, because for us who survived the war with real fascists during the great patriotic war what can better serve as a fuse to ignite this current suicidal brothers’ slaughter? Yes, a slaughter not a war. Of course! The so-called appearance of Fascism. Fellow citizens, do you want an enemy? You will receive one. Oh and right here, all over the internet and social media we have all those slogans and symbols and propagandistic bells and whistles. There’s the AstroTurfed meetings with crowds of young people dressed up like Nazis growing like yeast. And right there it is necessary to take lots of pictures and post them everywhere. After all, it is necessary not just to form the image of the enemy but also to distribute and promote it. But suddenly it is not so credible. For some reason, all these fascist youngsters are nowhere to be found. Instead, it is mobilized workers, peasants and contract soldiers being taken prisoner who don’t have much to do with fascism. Go off to fight the fascist and run right into people just like yourself. Why are they just like us? Because they pour the same crap into their ears as well. Who are we to them? We are fascist to them too of course.

Respected Stalkers I hope that’s enough to demonstrate that Mozgovoi was by no means some Saker/Zanon-tier anti-fascist or a Kremlin-tier Antifa Multikulti warrior. As far as Mozgovoi was concerned, the whole slaughter was totally AstroTurfed on both ends. Both sides sides were shown images of the other that were meant to cause the most resentment. Yes, there are AstroTurfed neo-Nazis in Ukraine, but that is because someone needed them to be there. And as Rurik has explained, many of the top leaders were Israeli or FSB or SBU assets. In Ukrainian media, the Donetsk rebels were portrayed as a literal invading army from Russia. Mozgovoi said that they were portrayed as fascists but the whole point of the word “fascist” is that it just means something bad that you are duty-bound to oppose. In order to morally justify taking up arms at all nowadays, you have to show the presence of Fascism on the opposing side first and foremost, like Mozgovoi said. This is the same in America, where MAGA believes that they are fighting the Fascist Left and the SJWs believe they are fighting the Fascist Right. So, a literal invading Fascist army was what the Ukrainians were shown because a Ukrainian would be duty bound to oppose that and let himself get conscripted off to die in Donbass. And yes, even to this day, the Russian side is referred to as the fascist menace by Western and Ukrainian propaganda. Mozgovoi saw through this deception.

Zhuchkovski:

When we speak of Fascism in Ukraine very often people marching with torches and Nazi symbols around cities or the use of such symbols by soldiers at the front is presented as proof. However, Fascism is not the ideology of the Ukrainian Government and the leaders of the Ukrainian Government are generally not Ukrainian by Nationality. In Ukraine, an Oligarchic clan system has been built and its members only act in pursuit of power and enrichment. If it is profitable for them to employ radicals or Nazis than they will do so. Even the Jewish members of Ukraine’s government have no compuction against working with those who employ the symbols of Nazi Germany or the ULA. For these reasons, Mozgovoi didn’t consider the primary enemy of New Russia to be abstract Fascism or even the Ukrainian Government but rather the Oligarchic conglomerates that were profiting off the war in Donbass.

Respected Stalkers, I think we are seeing the outlines of why Mozgovoi fell out with Moscow eventually, the details of which I’ll cover in my next article if you find this one interesting.

Mozgovoi declaring the Jewish oligarchs profiting off the war to be the primary villains is a very significant point, but it cuts both ways. Mozgovoi would know damn well that the Russian Spring was being smothered by Moscow while he was still alive on behalf of these same oligarchic clans. The Donbass Jewish mafia, to be precise. He would know Mariupol wasn’t liberated in 2014 or 2015 because doing so would threaten Akhmetov’s personal business interests, for example. Something that outraged Mozgovoi was the failure of the LNR/DNR authorities to purge Donbass of the old bureaucracy. That is, the same chinovniks who were working even under Yanokovich’s reign were still in power. Who did these Chinovniks really work for? As a matter of fact, Kiev purged the bureaucracy more thoroughly than the LNR/DNR. This was done for the benefit of the Dnipropetrovsk oligarchs (Kholomoisky) and at the expense of the Donbass clan. In other words, it was an inter-oligarchic spat. The LNR/DNR governments left the Donbass oligarchic bureaucracy of whom Yanokovich was a member in place but this Donbass oligarchy had absolutely no interest in actually liberating Donbass from Kiev. What they wanted, just like the Kremlin today, is to get their seat at the table in Kiev back. Furthermore, as has already been stated, the people of Donbass hated Yanokovich and all oligarchs in general, the Donbass clan being no exception. Mozgovoi purging the corrupt officials in his corner of Luhansk made his territory the most stable and livable while he was in charge there, and it is one amongst many reasons why he was so loved by the peasants and hated by Moscow and its Lugansk satrapy.

In October of 2014, a Ukrainian journalist set up a video call where a couple of officers who fought on Ukraine’s side during Ukraine’s ATO [Joint Forces Operation]  against Donbass spoke to Mozgovoi. The fact that the journalist wanted the dialogue to be specifically with Mozgovoi speaks of the regard that he was held in. Some fragments of that conversation shed light on the anti-oligarchic core of Mozgovois general philosophy. Also his willingness to speak with Ukrainian military officers publicly and like equals indicates that he didn’t identify them as his true enemy.

Mozgovoi speaking to Ukrainian Officers:

For the most part, troops on both sides here consist of normal people which our oligarchic overlords use as personal home gladiators. That’s how I see it. For the most part, the average people on Maidan wanted to force positive changes. The idea of Maidan doesn’t especially differ from our ideals. Personally, I’ve always stated that we don’t fight against the people of Ukraine. First and foremost, we fight for justice and truth. We fight the removal of the presence of oligarchy within our society and their representatives in positions of power because business and oligarchy is a rattlesnake like (poison) mixture.

Of course, depending on Mozgovoi’s primary audience his rhetoric could shift. For example when his words were meant primarily for Ukrainians, he stressed sympathy with Maidan and that he wasn’t fighting primarily with Ukrainians. When his words were meant for Russian listeners he could talk about storming and bombing Kiev. There is no real contradiction here though in my opinion. Mozgovoi wanted to see the Russian Spring all the way through and taking Kiev would be the physical/geographic expression of that victory. However the one constant theme in his rhetoric that remained no matter who the primary intended audience happened to be was his total opposition to oligarchy. Mozgovoi in another interview:

To this day we still haven’t destroyed our enemies working in our rear. Until we have dealt with them we can’t advance forward.

(I think it’s now obvious who Mozgovoi is referring to by enemies in the rear and it isn’t just SBU spies)

The journalist than asks Mozgovoi what happens when they have dealt with the enemies in the rear.

We go straight to Kiev.

So your goal is Kiev?

Our goal is the liberation of all Ukraine from oligarchs and sell out chinovniks. Maybe enough slaving away for those whose personal assets already exceed the government budget by several times over? Time for them to share a little.

That’s the same goal as those who were at Maidan, I don’t see the difference.

That’s what I don’t get. Those who are fighting us now fight for the interest of the oligarchs. I would gladly reach an agreement with the regular troops and officers, with the regular people who stood on Maidan. We have the same interest as them. They want to be free people. Is it really worth it for us to fight? Ever since the days of the Teutonic Knights it has been becoming clear that it is better not to become tangled up with the Slavs. Those that come with a sword will be killed. Therefore it’s better to place the sword in the hand of a another Slav and force them to kill each other. Our task is to make our brothers understand that we are the same, with the same goals as them.

But you intend on storming Kiev?

Why not? They are allowed to storm to Lugansk and Donetsk. Kiev is better than those cities?

And after Kiev what? Further West?

Lets see what happens. If the soldiers on the other side understand finally that they are fighting themselves then this can all end tomorrow.

What are your most urgent plans?

To receive a Toychka U system from Europe and strike Kiev. Let them answer for the blood of Donbass.

The Ukrainian Army employed Toychka U’s against you?

Literally a few days ago they struck the town of Rovenki in Luhansk Oblast. If the enemy wants to fight with those methods why should we not answer in kind?

Zhuchkovski thinks Mozgovoi was displaying more blood thirst than usual there due to the audience he was speaking to, a liberal European journalist and he knew his words would be heard by local Russians. Local Russians needed to hear that Mozgovoi knew of the recent missile attack on a town in Luhansk and he wasn’t indifferent to this crime. Unlike Moscow, Mozgovoi would not pretend nothing happened and that everything was fine; hence his saying that he would be fine with hitting the Ukrainians back in kind. Nonetheless, in that exchange, Mozgovoi hammered what he always hammered away at, the real enemy being the oligarchy. He is showing a natural intuitive understanding of how to present himself as a leader and how to get people to respond.

In a different interview, Mozgovoi gives more detail about what constitutes victory:

Victory isn’t only the end of military action. It also a includes a changing of the world views and reasoning of mankind. It is a moment of cardinal change. Will man continue to live within the framework in which he has been herded or will he liberate himself from this framework? We have a chance now to start thinking on our own. If we don’t begin thinking independently and deciding our own affairs then we can’t declare victory. All the sacrifices will have been in vain.

The journalist asks him if he plans on achieving these changes through the barrel of a gun (gotta hate these smarmy culture-warrior journalists).

No. Both sides have already gone at each other with rifles. It doesn’t take much to understand that you are fighting with your image in the mirror. On one side, there is a taxi driver and there is another one on the other side. Who is he fighting and what for? Against oligarchy and for a better life? Well they tell one “you are fighting for your land the Russians have occupied” and they tell the other “you are fighting Fascism”.

The reporter replies that by Mozgovoi’s logic victory will be when everyone throws down their weapons to which he replies:

If they throw down their weapons just like that they can always pick them up again. Victory will be when everyone understands for what and why.

Mozgovoi obviously thought big as befits an absolutely larger-than-life figure. How often do we ourselves rage at NPCs preferring pretty lies and BS? Mozgovoi is speaking about nothing less than revoking the right to be an NPC from the population forcefully. A kind of forced mass red-pilling. With the people’s court, he was outright demanding people start taking their fate into their own hands. For people to literally understand “for what and why” requires overthrowing the entire ideological complex of post-World War II civilization (at least). Mozgovoi is speaking of outright existential issues in regards to the nature of our entire political and economic systems. And people took him very seriously. Probably because he had an army, not just a Substack blog.

In my humble opinion, a leader of Mozgovoi’s caliber, who can speak not just of the local problems and civil war but also of outright existential issues in regards to mankind itself can only arise in Russia. I say this as a Westerner that Westerners are so jaded, so cynical, so materialistic and so … bourgeois, that this kind of talk either goes straight over their heads because they don’t understand it or they just brush it off as unimportant because they don’t see how it relates to flipping houses and crying to their shrink about how they don’t have any friends. After all, to a clever calculating Westerner, everything revolves around competition and getting people to like you by acquiring fame, connections and money in a never-ending dog-eat-dog rat race to the top of the dung heap. I don’t mean to include all Westerners in this critique but to point out that this is indeed the dominant culture there. The cult of the extrovert and the soothsayer and the fast-talking self-empowerment guru or PowerPoint salesman is what dominates the American psyche. Mozgovoi isn’t talking about networking hacks or retirement fund investment opportunities, therefore he would be considered to be spouting silly and childish nonsense by most.

Of course, there were also those from all around the world who were moved by Mozgovoi’s ruminating. None from North America, but still. Furthermore, as all Stalkers should know, Strelkov has a deserved reputation for being perhaps the most difficult and sometimes impossible commander to get along with despite his incorruptibility and competence. Nonetheless, Mozgovoi is literally the only major Russian Spring figure whom he has never said a bad word about. I’m including that observation to drive home that the existential nature of Mozgovoi’s philosophy was not mocked or belittled by any of his contemporaries. The cultural code of Eastern Europe is still different enough that this sort of thing isn’t mocked or stigmatized as “incel-talk” or something similarly flippant and pejorative.

Another example of Mozgovoi demonstrating his skill as a leader who understands the anger of his countrymen and channels it to identify the real enemy was on display in another video call with Ukrainian journalists and soldiers. He starts out by demanding to know why the Ukrainians are dropping Toychka U missiles on Donestk.

Can you please explain why a few Toychka Us hit Donestk today?

The Ukrainians respond that they wonder the same thing and if there is a “3rd party’s” hand at work. Mozgovoi jumps right on that and says:

-I’ll tell you. Here we are talking about a 3rd party. That 3rd party is working to sow division, to divide and conquer. This 3rd party is none other than the special services. That same SBU and FSB [security services of Ukraine and Russia respectively], the descendants of the KGB. They have one teacher and now we are seeing the results of their work. As long as we don’t sort out that out, as long we keep sitting around drinking vodka, this is all going to be of no use.

Mozgovoi speaking of the FSB right along with the  SBU speaks for itself.

As far as Zanon would be concerned, he just declared himself a traitor to multipolarity. The idea that the SBU and FSB (and the other spook agencies) work together and run a transnational spook state (set up by Andropov) is an idea that should be familiar to readers of the Chronicles though.

Here is what one of the Ukrainians said during the conversation:

Well as it ends up, we are sitting here helpless and can’t do a damn thing, like a dog who understands what is happening but can’t speak.

Zhuchkovski commented the following on that exchange:

Those taking part in the discussion really couldn’t do anything. The helplessness of the Ukrainians is amply shown when one of them compares them all to dogs. Not only because the power of the 3rd party was far greater than theirs but because there were few in Ukraine willing to voice the same kind of thoughts.

I think we can all relate to that.

This is precisely why Mozogovoi was so adamant about the need to seize the chance that the Russian Spring was offering. During the next call Mozgovoi participated in with the Ukrainian, there was a then-unknown but now fairly famous journalist in Russia and Ukraine named Tatiana Montian present. Tatiana went on to become a close associate of Murz (now dead, suicide) and Vladimir Grubnick (Donbass vet harassed by the FSB). During their discussion Montian commented:

These oligarchs have set us all against each other and use us as meat and bargaining chips to gain concessions from each other. What is the point in killing each other for the sake of those assholes?

Mozgovoi enthusiastically replied that it was pleasant to speak with an intelligent women (how rare they are!) and that he had no desire to fight pointlessly, but that he also couldn’t live in the same country as with the oligarchy. From there Mozgovoi and the Ukrainians commiserated that it was so difficult to unite and overthrow the real common enemy.

Within a few months, Mozogovoi was forbidden from further discussions with the Ukrainians. Whether he would have complied with the LNR authorities’ decrees is unknown seeing as how he was murdered not long after being told he couldn’t do any more video calls. However to demonstrate the hypocrisy involved on the LNR’s end, Yuri Shevchencko, the man who became Prizrak Brigades commander after Mozgovois murder and whom we met during the peoples trial was told by the head of the Lugansk satrapy government that “there will never be New Russia”. So the same government which told Mozgovoi he couldn’t do video calls with the Ukrainians also was adamant that there would also never be a New Russia, which was ostensibly the cause that thousands of Donbassians were fighting for. This means Luhansk’s and Moscow’s opposition to Mozgovois calls wasn’t about Mozgovoi warming up to the so-called Anal-Satano-Nazis.

It was actually about something else entirely.

*  *  *

Well guys, this translation is already way too long so I’ll have to wrap up for today.

I feel like I still haven’t done Mozgovoi justice and actually demonstrated how central he was to the Russian Spring. Mozgovoi never created any manifesto or political program, but nonetheless his deeds and ideas were the most concrete manifestations of what the Russian Spring was or could have been. Strelkov, of course, is no less iconic than Mozgovoi, but Mozgovoi was simply there longer than Strelkov and ran his own slice of Donbass longer than Strelkov. Furthermore, Mozgovoi had a willingness to speak with Ukrainians which is something Strelkov would have never even considered mostly on account of personality differences. And when Mozgovoi spoke with the Ukrainians, everyone watched and listened. It was unheard of and unthinkable and yet he did it. Mozgovoi wasn’t simply about liberating Donbass from Kiev, Mozgovoi was about forcing men in general to re-evaluate their relations with themselves and their government and even to change their very understanding of what it means to be a human. Yes, I know. As I said, such a figure could only arise in Russia where people still allow themselves to wonder aloud about these things from time to time, and that is precisely what makes this “Spring” a Russian one in addition to where it took place.

But more on that next time.

If you, the Readers of the People, actually found this interesting I will do a part II covering Mozgovois falling out with Moscow and the conspiracy theories surrounding his murder. If you would appreciate such an article let us know. Conversely, if it generates cries of outrage from the typical NAFO or PutinAnon types that will only bolster my resolve to finish part II faster.

Until next time. Stay frosty out there, fellow Multipolar Antifa BRICS Warriors;).

Johann von Leers (1942): Antagonisme Judéo-Islamique des Origines

Johann von Leers (1942): Antagonisme Judéo-Islamique des Origines

Judentum und Islam als Gegensätze”[1], apporte un éclairage intéressant sur les débuts de l’islam dans la péninsule Arabique, laquelle, selon Johann von Leers, n’aura échappé à l’emprise du judaïsme que grâce à la foi de Mahomet – qui déplace des montagnes – et à l’efficacité de son action militaire.

Un des intérêts de l’article est de montrer que l’antagonisme judéo-musulman ne date pas d’hier, qu’il remonte aux origines de l’islam, et que ce n’est pas la première fois que les Juifs essaient de nous y entraîner à leurs côtés: c’était déjà le cas au moment de la première croisade.

* * *

Il n’est pas inintéressant de lire parfois des historiens juifs – non parce qu’on pourrait y trouver une quelconque vérité, mais pour en tirer un aperçu de leur psychologie. Or, ici, ce qui saute immédiatement aux yeux du lecteur, c’est que chaque fois qu’ils en viennent à présenter Mahomet et l’Islam, les Juifs se font violemment hostiles, voire haineux. Ainsi, Simon Dubnow, évoquant Mahomet dans sa Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes[2], ne manque pas de faire remarquer qu’il était analphabète et d’ajouter :

C’est ainsi que grandit dans l’âme de ce demi-Bédouin, sous la forme d’une passion dévastatrice qui lui fait concevoir une « guerre sainte » dans  laquelle tous les moyens seraient bons, l’idée du monothéisme. La connaissance de Dieu n’est nullement associée, dans l’esprit de Mahomet,  à cette noble conscience morale qui rend si séduisant le monothéisme des prophètes bibliques ou même de la doctrine évangélique. De sa personnalité, telle que l’histoire de sa vie nous la révèle, n’émane aucune aura de sainteté si propre à captiver l’imagination du fidèle rétif aux abstractions de la révélation. L’histoire de la vie du « messager d’Allah », ainsi que celle du Coran lui-même, est pleine d’exemples de manières de parler et d’agir indignes de qui prétend fonder une religion. Derrière le masque du prophète se cache trop souvent le visage du demi-sauvage : l’illumination le dispute à la passion brute du bédouin qui à la guerre assassine sans pitié et ne se gêne pas d’ajouter à son harem la femme ou la fille de l’homme assassiné. Tous ces traits de caractère de Mahomet s’expriment dans sa conduite à l’égard des Juifs d’Arabie.

 

Il ne s’agit pas là d’historiographie, mais de diatribe vindicative et de calomnie. Tout d’abord, Mahomet n’était pas un Bédouin, ou un demi-Bédouin, mais un membre de la vieille noblesse Quraish établie à La Mecque; ensuite, à la manière dont il le présente, il est clair que Dubnow n’a jamais lu une page du Coran. Mais ce que ce passage expose au grand jour, c’est cette haine inexpiable que vouent les  Juifs, même après 1400 ans, à l’homme qui a créé la religion la plus jeune et la plus répandue dans le monde.

Le conflit entre Mahomet et les Juifs n’est pas très connu, mais est  particulièrement intéressant. Dès avant la destruction de Jérusalem par l’empereur Titus (70 après J.-C.), il y avait des Juifs présents dans la péninsule arabique; mais ensuite, ils sont arrivés par tribus entières s’établir dans les villes arabes et se sont aussitôt activé à y établir la domination du judaïsme. Il y avait en particulier les trois tribus, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir et Banu Qurayza[3] principalement établies dans la ville de Yathrib. [4] C’est de là que l’agitation juive irradiait, de là que les Juifs ont commencé à prendre l’ascendant sur les deux grandes tribus arabes, les Aws et les Khazraj, [5] en les montant l’une contre l’autre, de sorte à se rendre maîtres de la ville. Il s’agissait d’une pénétration coloniale et commerciale, mais surtout d’une pénétration intellectuelle. Bien sûr, des influences chrétiennes se sont également faites sentir en provenance de Byzance et d’Abyssinie, mais de toutes les religions étrangères, c’est le judaïsme qui a été le plus en vue.

 

Par la suite, les Juifs ont tenté de démontrer combien l’Islam avait emprunté au Judaïsme. C’est typique de la vantardise juive de se considérer toujours à l’origine de toutes les innovations. En réalité, de nombreux points sur lesquelles l’islam et le judaïsme sont superficiellement en accord ne sont pas empruntées au judaïsme, mais à d’anciennes coutumes orientales. L’interdiction de la viande de porc, par exemple, est une pratique ancestrale qui relève en Orient de l’hygiène, car, compte tenu du climat, cette viande grasse est malsaine et présente en outre le danger de la trichinose. Si le Coran fait référence ici ou là à des éléments de la culture juive, ce n’est pas que Mahomet aurait cherché à copier les Juifs, c’est que, de par le prosélytisme juif, un certain nombre de leurs légendes et visions du monde avaient infusées dans le monde arabe. Si cette pénétration s’étaient poursuivie sans entrave, il est bien possible qu’une grande partie de la population de la péninsule se serait judaïsée, tout comme par la suite elle a accepté l’islam. Les Juifs auraient alors été en mesure de déchaîner à leur profit toutes les forces militaires et politiques du peuple arabe, grâce auxquelles les premiers califes ont établi leur puissant empire. Les troupes de cavalerie qui, plus tard, sous Omar, [6]  ont conquis l’Égypte et la Perse, puis poussé vers l’Espagne et l’Inde, aurait bataillé pour le Talmud. La catastrophe pour l’ensemble de l’humanité aurait été effroyable.

 

Les Arabes de la période préislamique n’avaient pas grand-chose à opposer aux Juifs. La croyance en leurs anciens dieux des cités et du désert s’était évaporée, ne correspondant plus aux exigences intellectuelles du temps. On sait qu’à cette époque, des hommes exploraient des voies, les « hanifs »[7], ces sages à la recherche d’une ascèse et d’une règle de vie conforme à la volonté de Dieu. Le peuple vivait une crise religieuse et cherchait une issue.

 

Mohammed ibn Abdallah, encore enfant, aurait croisé un moine (catholique) qui aurait vu en lui le futur porteur de la foi et qui aurait encouragé ses compagnons à le protéger des Juifs qui, prévenait-il, tout au long de sa vie, lui mettraient des bâtons dans les roues. Il est très possible que le jeune Mohammed ait été capable, déjà à l’époque, de porter des jugements sur les Juifs de nature à impressionner ce moine si fin psychologue. Mais ce n’est que vers la quarantaine, après une vie commercialement couronnée de succès, que Mahomet a été ébranlé et happé par la question religieuse. L’illumination lui est venue dans la solitude des grottes montagneuses autour de La Mecque. Müller dit à juste titre[8] – et cette déclaration d’un spécialiste Allemand diffère singulièrement des éclats d’un Dubnow :

 

Les quolibets n’auront pas manqué, on l’aura traité de fou, d’affabulateur, d’escroc – mais la rectitude sans faille de sa conduite, la régularité constante  de sa vie, n’ont jamais été remises en cause et transparaissent  clairement encore aujourd’hui dans le Coran. … La totale sincérité de sa foi durant la période mecquoise peut encore moins être mise en question. L’angoisse poignante qui a précédé la vision décisive, la ténacité avec laquelle cet homme a poursuivi son prêche durant plus d’une décennie, au milieu des persécutions les plus sévères, allant jusqu’aux menaces directes pour sa vie, et ce, sans la moindre garantie de succès, sont autant d’éléments qui témoignent de la puissance de l’inspiration qui l’avait saisi et amené, presque indépendamment de sa volonté, à la conviction ferme qui s’imposait à lui que c’est Dieu lui-même qui lui parlait: c’est là l’image d’un authentique prophète.

 

Pendant des années, il a inlassablement martelé à La Mecque son sermon selon lequel il n’y a qu’un seul Dieu, l’unique, le miséricordieux, le roi au jour du Jugement. À la Trinité des chrétiens, il opposa l’unicité de Dieu, écarta la doctrine chrétienne du péché originel et du salut et donna à chaque croyant comme principe directeur l’accomplissement complet des commandements du Bien, donnés par un Dieu miséricordieux et juste devant lequel chaque homme devra rendre compte de ses actes. La caste dirigeante restant accrochée au culte idolâtre, il ne parvenait pas à élargir son cercle de fidèles au-delà de sa famille. C’est alors qu’il entra en contact avec la tribu des Yathrib, des Arabes qui avaient eux aussi entendu parler de la prophétie juive du Messie. Il parvint à les rallier à l’islam. Le 20 septembre 622, il quitte la Mecque pour Médine. Là, par des tractations très habiles, il réussit à réconcilier les deux tribus arabes rivales, les Aws et les Khasraj, se constituant un socle politique solide.

Mais à Médine, il entrait aussi pour la première fois en contact avec le problème juif. Il croyait au triomphe du Bien sur Terre, il était fermement convaincu que la religion du Dieu unique, avec ses principes simples et faciles à mettre en pratique, était la religion originelle. Il voulait sortir les hommes de la confusion qui régnait et les mener à la claire vision originelle de Dieu et, puisqu’il avait affaire à des gens sous influence du christianisme et du judaïsme, il leur disait que c’était la religion qu’Abraham (Ibrahim) avait déjà eue, que le Christ et Moïse avaient annoncée, sauf que les hommes l’avaient à chaque fois défigurée. Cela lui avait été révélé à nouveau par Dieu. Il voulait faciliter le chemin aux chrétiens comme aux juifs; c’est pourquoi il avait demandé au départ que les prières se fassent en s’orientant vers Jérusalem. Il soulignait en permanence qu’il ne souhaitait que purifier les religions existantes et perpétuer la religion révélée, la religion originelle.

En même temps, c’était un homme d’État avisé. Avec l’unification des deux tribus arabes, les Juifs devenaient minoritaires à Médine. Mahomet leur octroya une sorte de concordat [9]; ils pouvaient conserver leur hiérarchie et leur religion, en échange, ils devaient participer à la défense de la cité, ne pas s’allier aux ennemis de Mahomet et s’acquitter d’une taxe pour le djihad. Les Juifs auraient pu se satisfaire du compromis. Au lieu de cela, ils ont tenté de rameuter la population et de la monter contre l’islam, coupable d’oublier la promesse de domination du monde faite aux Juifs par Yahvé. Les Juifs n’avaient de cesse de pousser Mahomet dans ses retranchements. Par le mépris, les questions retords, toutes les ressources de la dialectique talmudique, ils tentaient de réduire à néant sa révélation. Ils se déchaînaient contre lui ouvertement et secrètement. La patience de Mahomet était à bout:

 

Ceux auxquels Nous avons confié les Écritures se réjouissent de ce qui t’a été révélé, tandis que certains, parmi les impies qui se sont ligués contre toi, en renient une partie. (Coran, sourate 13,36)

 

Il modifiait alors la direction des prières vers la Mecque, annulait les fêtes des jours d’expiation qui coïncidaient avec des fêtes juives et introduisait à la place le jeûne du Ramadan; il opposait l’appel à la prière du muezzin à celui du shofar, la corne de la synagogue juive. Lorsque les Mecquois l’ont attaqué et que, lors de la bataille de Badr [10] – au cours de laquelle retentit pour la première fois l’appel triomphal de la victoire « Il n’y a pas d’autre Dieu que Dieu » – il les a défaits, les Juifs ont commencé à ruminer une profonde rancœur à l’égard de l’islam. Le juif Ibn al Ashraf [11] composait un poème élégiaque pour les Mecquois déchus où il déclarait préférer les anciennes idoles des Arabes à la religion de Mahomet. Le juif Abu ‘Afak[12] demandait aux Arabes de Médine, dans un infâme poème satirique, de chasser Mahomet. Il était évident que les Juifs cherchaient à combattre l’unification des peuples arabes par l’islam. Le prophète répliquait:

 

Les pires animaux devant Dieu sont ceux qui ne croient pas, ceux qui ne reviennent pas à la foi, ceux avec qui vous avez conclu un contrat, mais qui le rompent sans vergogne dès qu’ils en ont l’occasion. Ô Messager, si tu affrontes au combat ces gens, inflige-leur le pire des châtiments afin que cela dissuade ceux qui leur ressemblent de te combattre et de monter tes ennemis contre toi; Dieu n’aime pas les traîtres. (Coran, sourate 8,57)

 

Lorsque les Juifs de la tribu des Banu Qaynuqa ont violé une musulmane, il a mis le siège devant leur quartier et les a forcés à rendre les armes. Seule l’intercession de l’influent Abdallah ibn Ubayy [13] les a sauvés et leur a permis de sortir, mais même sur son lit de mort, il a dit à Abdallah : « Ô Abdallah, ne t’ai-je pas dissuadé de ton amour pour les Juifs ? Mais tu ne m’as pas écouté ».

 

Mais les autres tribus juives ne valaient pas mieux. Un Juif qui avait composé des vers satiriques, Kaab ibn al Ashraf[14], était tué par un musulman pour avoir publiquement critiqué Mahomet. Les Banu Nadir, avec lesquels un nouveau concordat avait été conclu, profitèrent d’une défaite des musulmans à la bataille d’Uhud [15] pour redevenir immédiatement hostiles. De cette période, Son Éminence le Grand Mufti de Jérusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini[16], rapporte les faits suivants[17] :

 

Alors que Mahomet  vivait en bonne entente avec les  Juifs, certains se préparaient à attenter à sa vie. Ils persuadèrent un homme  de jeter un lourd bloc de pierre sur la tête de Mahomet. Une voix intérieure l’avertit de quitter la place, et les traîtres  ne purent ainsi mettre leur plan à exécution. Mahomet envoya l’un de ses procureurs auprès des Juifs et leur fit dire qu’ils devaient quitter la ville dans les dix jours. Ils avaient rompu  le contrat qu’ils avaient passé avec lui puisqu’ils en voulaient à sa vie. Tout juif qui serait trouvé dans la ville après dix jours serait puni de mort.

 

Dès qu’il eut repoussé l’attaque des Mecquois, Mahomet les poursuivit et les expulsa. Malgré leurs puissantes fortifications, les Juifs durent partir. Mahomet en a consigné le souvenir dans la sourate 59:

Tout ce qui se trouve dans les cieux et sur la terre célèbre la gloire d’Allah, le Tout-Puissant, l’infiniment Sage. C’est Lui qui, lors de leur premier exil, a chassé de leurs foyers ceux des gens du Livre qui ont rejeté la foi [1404]. Vous ne pensiez pas qu’ils partiraient et eux-mêmes s’imaginaient que leurs forteresses les protégeraient d’Allah. Mais Allah leur a infligé un châtiment auquel ils ne s’attendaient pas, remplissant leurs cœurs d’effroi, si bien qu’ils se sont mis à démolir leurs maisons de leurs propres mains [1405], aidés par les croyants qui les assiégeaient. Tirez-en des leçons, vous qui êtes doués de raison ! . … Ils se sont en effet opposés à Allah et Son Messager. Que celui qui ose s’opposer à Allah sache qu’Il le châtiera avec la plus grande sévérité.

 

Mais même la dernière tribu juive, les Banu Qurayza, avait trahi le pacte. Ils s’associèrent au chef des Banu Nadir exilés, le Juif Huyayy ibn Akhtab. Ils levèrent une grande armée contre Mahomet et exigèrent de lui qu’il leur livra la Mecque. Mais Mahomet réussit à forcer la retraite des assiégeants en utilisant un stratagème très habile – une grande fosse qu’il avait fait creuser empêchait les attaques de la cavalerie ennemie. Il pourchassa les Banu Qurayza, encercla leur quartier dans la ville et les obligea à se rendre. Les Juifs pensaient peut-être qu’ils s’en sortiraient avec une simple expulsion, mais Mahomet remit la décision concernant leur destin au cheikh de la tribu d’Aws, Saad ibn Muadh [18], qu’ils avaient blessé: celui-ci exigea l’exécution des Juifs. Les 600 hommes de la tribu furent ainsi tués. C’est la seule exécution de masse que le doux Mahomet ait jamais autorisée et elle était, selon la loi martiale, tout à fait permise puisque les Juifs avaient commis une trahison en tant qu’alliés armés. Les Banu Qurayza furent ainsi exterminés, mais les survivants s’enfuirent à Khaybar[19]. Mahomet assiégea cette ville à son tour. En 628, il les obligea à se rendre. Une vieille légende islamique rapporte que la Juive Zaynab [20] invita Mahomet à un repas pour fêter la conclusion d’une capitulation honorable. Elle lui proposa un ragoût épicé. Le porteur d’armure de Mahomet, Bashir ibn al Baraa, s’empressa d’en manger un morceau, mais Mahomet n’avala pas sa première bouchée tant elle lui parut immangeable, et déclara immédiatement que la viande devait être empoisonnée. Le porteur d’armure mourut des suites de l’empoisonnement. Mais c’est depuis, dit-on, que Mohammed avait souffert d’une mauvaise santé.

 

On sait que les Juifs se vantent encore aujourd’hui d’avoir empoisonné Mahomet. Dubnow [21] écrit avec une joie non dissimulée:

 

Aujourd’hui encore, les Juifs se réjouissent de ce crime ! Ils aiment se rappeler comme  même  à Médine, ils avaient de nouveau cherché à diviser les tribus arabes et à les détourner de l’islam, comme de nouveau  ils avaient récité  les vieux chants de guerre des batailles que les Arabes avaient  livrées entre eux, et comme Mahomet  lui-même  avait dû se rendre à Médine pour y remettre  bon ordre. Dans les dernières années de sa vie, Mahomet combattit systématiquement  les Juifs, les chassa de Tayma [22]  et de Wadi al Qura [23],  leur permettant  à la rigueur de rester dans certains endroits moyennant le paiement d’une taxe. Le Coran est plein d’avertissements concernant les Juifs, qui sont appelés simplement « Satans ». Mahomet avait également observé que de nombreuses personnes se laissent régulièrement corrompre par les Juifs :

Certes, ce sont eux les véritables corrupteurs, mais ils ne s’en rendent pas compte.  Et quand on leur dit: “Croyez comme les gens ont cru”, ils disent: “Croirons-nous comme ont cru les faibles d’esprit?” Certes, ce sont eux les véritables faibles d’esprit, mais ils ne le savent pas. (Koran II, Sura 12,13)

 

Abu Hurayra [24] rapporte la déclaration suivante du grand homme de Dieu : « Le jour du Jugement ne viendra que lorsque les musulmans auront vaincu les Juifs en les exterminant, lorsque chaque pierre et chaque arbre derrière lesquels un Juif s’est caché dira aux fidèles : “Derrière moi se tient un Juif, tuez-le”. Même sur son lit de mort, Mahomet aurait dit : « Il ne doit pas y avoir deux religions en Arabie ». Un de ses successeurs, le calife Omar, a définitivement chassé les Juifs d’Arabie. Dans tous les pays de loi islamique, les Juifs étaient soumis à des contraintes très strictes qui les empêchaient de nuire. Les chroniqueurs de l’époque s’accordent à dire que les Juifs étaient l’objet d’une méfiance constante. Il est vrai que de leur côté, les Juifs haïssaient l’islam du plus profond de leur âme.

 

Il convient ici de remarquer que les croisades ne sont pas parties de rien, à l’origine, on trouve une « Réfutation » de l’islam rédigée par le Juif baptisé Petrus Alfonsi [25]; cette réfutation est littéralement la seule source polémique de la première croisade de 1096 à 1099. La déformation des doctrines et la critique de la personnalité de Mahomet que ce juif avait concoctées sont ensuite passées dans la littérature de l’Église contre l’islam et se retrouvent chez les moines Petrus Reverendus, Gualterus de Sens, Guibert de Nogent Sous-Coucy [26], l’évêque Hildebert du Mans[27] et d’autres, principalement des écrivains français, qui, en déformant délibérément l’islam – mais toujours sur la base de l’œuvre empoisonnée de Petrus Alfonsi – ont déclenché la fièvre de la croisade en Europe.

 

L’hostilité de Mahomet à l’égard des Juifs ne sera pas restée sans effet: l’islam a complètement paralysé les Juifs d’Orient, il leur a brisé les reins. Les Juifs d’Orient n’ont joué qu’un rôle minime, voire nul, dans la montée en puissance de la juiverie au cours des deux derniers siècles. Méprisés, les Juifs végétaient dans les ruelles sales des mellahs [28], vivaient sous une loi spéciale qui ne leur permettait pas, comme en Europe, l’usure ou le commerce de biens volés, mais les maintenait sous la pression de la peur. Si le reste du monde avait procédé de la même manière, la question juive n’existerait pas aujourd’hui. Il convient toutefois d’ajouter qu’il y a également eu des dirigeants islamiques – dont les califes espagnols de la maison de Muawiya[29] – qui n’ont pas adhéré à la haine atavique de l’islam envers les Juifs – à leur détriment. […]

 

Traduction Francis Goumain

Source

Johann von Leers: ‘Judaism and Islam as Opposites’ (1942) – The Occidental Observer

 

[1] Published in Die Judenfrage, VII, pp. 275-278, 15 December 1942.

[2] Berlin, Vol. III, pp. 282ff.

[3] [The Jewish tribes seem to have moved from Judaea to the western coast of Arabia particularly after the Jewish-Roman wars of 66–135.] [All notes in box-brackets are by the translator.]

[4] [The old name of Medina]

[5] [These tribes had arrived in Arabia from Yemen. Mohammed’s great-grandmother belonged to the Khazraj.]

[6] [Omar ibn al Khattab (ca.583–644) was, after Abu Bakr, the second caliph and father-in-law of Mohammed.]

[7] [Hanifs are pre-Islamic Arabs who were Abrahamic monotheists though they were neither Jewish nor Christian.]

[8] August Müller, Der Islam im Morgen- und Abendlande, Vol.1, 57.

[9] [In the so-called ‘Constitution of Medina’ dated around 622.]

[10] [The Battle of Badr was fought in 624 near the present-day city of Badr in Saudi Arabia. It was won by Mohammed against the Meccan tribe of Qureshi led by Amr ibn Hisham. The Hashim clan to which Mohammed belonged was also part of the Qureshi, who were polytheists.]

[11] [Ka’ab ibn al Ashraf (d.ca.624) was a Jewish contemporary of Mohammed.]

[12] [Abu Afak (d. ca.624) was a Jewish poet who was killed on Mohammed’s orders.]

[13] [Abdallah ibn Ubayy (d.631) was a Khazraj chieftain in Medina.]

[14] [Kaab ibn al Ashraf (d.ca.624) was a Jewish leader and poet.]

[15] [The Battle of Uhud was fought after the Battle of Badr, where the Quraysh were defeated. At Uhud the latter succeeded in encircling the Muslims and stopping their advance.]

[16] [Amin al Husseini (1897-1974) was the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1948. He also composed a tract in 1943 called Islam i Židovstvo (Islam and Judaism) for the SS Handschar, which was constituted mainly of Bosnian Muslims.]

[17] In the excellent work of Mohammed Sabry, Islam, Judentum und Bolschewismus [Berlin, 1938].

[18] [Saad ibn Muadh (ca.590-627) was a companion of Mohammed.]

[19] [Khaybar is an oasis near Medina that had been inhabited by Jewish tribes until the Battle of Khaybar in 628.]

[20] [Zaynab bint al Harith (d.629) was a Jewish woman who attempted to assassinate Mohammed after the Battle of Khaybar.]

[21] Op.cit., Vol.III, p.403.

[22] [An oasis in northwestern Arabia.]

[23] [A river bed north of Medina.]

[24] [Abu Hurayra was a companion of Mohammed who authored several hadiths, or narrations relating to the life of Mohammed.]

[25] [Petrus Alfonsi (d. ca.1116) was a converted Jew whose Dialogi contra Judaeos (1110) included refutations of Islam.]

[26] [Guibert de Nogent (ca.1055-1124) was a Benedictine historian and theologian who wrote a history of the First Crusade called Dei gesta per Francos (God’s deeds through the Franks, 1108).]

[27] [Hildebert de Lavardin (ca.1055-1133) was Bishop of Le Mans and, from 1125, Archbishop of Tours.]

[28] [A mellah is a fortified Jewish quarter in mediaeval Morocco.]

[29] [Muawiya (ca.500-680) was the first caliph of the Syrian Umayyad dynasty. An offshoot of the Umayyad dynasty ruled the Caliphate of Cordoba in Al Andalus.]

 

 

 

 

 

Boris Johnson, Unleashed, London: William Collins, 2024.

Although he was found guilty of lying, albeit by a manifestly biased parliamentary enquiry based on a report by a civil servant who went on to work for the Labour Party, there is an extent to which you know where you are with former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I’ve had a soft spot for him since 2003 when I submitted an article to The Spectator, which he edited. Rather than ignore it or send out a standard rejection letter, Boris took the trouble to the write back, explaining why he liked the piece but why it was not quite suitable for his magazine. For that is what Boris is about; the Shakespearian jester-type who makes other people feel good and who, through this comedy persona, is able to get away with things which would finish off ordinary politicians.

Charisma is often a response to profound sadness and it buoys up the charismatic as much as it does his audience. This is clear in Boris’ long-awaited brick of a memoir Unleashed, which, in my view, vies with John Major: The Autobiography as the most readable Prime Ministerial memoir ever penned. The key difference is that Major is extremely self-aware, sometimes disarmingly honest, and shares with us the many poignant moments from his early life that have made him who he is. Boris doesn’t dream of doing anything like that, and, let’s face it, you wouldn’t expect him to. There is nothing about his extremely unhappy and difficult childhood in which he was part deaf and lived in an isolated farm house with parents who violently despised each other. To the extent he looks at his childhood at all, it’s jolly memories of his brief time at a state primary school.

As I’ve said, the point is to take us on a jolly jape. Boris is particular good at this, due his comedic brilliance. The Supreme Court judge who tried to scupper Brexit, and who wore a silver spider-shaped brooch is referred to as “the curse of Spiderwoman,” while the UK’s anti-Brexit Establishment are “prune-lipped Pharisees.” Boris is self-aware enough to concede that he is “gaffe-prone,” but, then, he would concede this; it is part of his comic charm and of his cunning: Appear a tad helpless and people will love you. The women will want to mother you, the men won’t see you as a real threat and so will underestimate you, or they’ll believe that they can obtain true power with you as the comic frontman. And before you know it, you’re Conservative Mayor of London (a Labour city), and then Prime Minister, winning a large majority, including numerous seats in safe Labour areas, breaking the deadlock and finally bringing Brexit about.

Boris admits, though, that, secretly, he’s worked hard to get there, but even here there is comic camouflage and poetic skill: “Some people have a knack for being in the right place at the right time. They just happen to be under the tree when the apple plops into their lap. Some people have to bash and butt at the base of the tree for an awfully long time until the exhausted apple stalk can bear the weight no longer. I am definitely in the second category.” In many ways, these sentences encapsulate Boris’ rhetorical brilliance. There are so many layers to this. We are invited to imagine a genius – Isaac Newton – sitting beneath the apple tree, yet this is contrasted with the onomatopoeic “plop,” and the comedically scatological dimensions of this word. We then imagine someone like Newton, perhaps Boris in a late-seventeenth wig, bashing at the tree of UK politics and its apple of being the UK’s premier – with a self-deprecating nod to his being overweight – until it just gives up and, exhausted, says, “Okay, Boris, old bean, you can be Prime Minister.” It is this kind of skill with which he ascended so high and did so relatively quickly.

Boris also wants to transport us to an idealised old England in which he was our Shakespearian Fool leader. He achieves this, for example, by frequently quoting canonical poetry, such as Thomas Gray’s “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,” about dead peasants and the talents they wasted confined to a tiny village. Johnson, apparently deeply moved by this poem, uses it to explain why he wanted to “level up” the British education system, so he manages to boast about a supposed achievement of his premiership. But he’s managed to make it not seem like bragging, because he’s beguiled us into being in an idyllic English country churchyard with him in which he is a shaman, into which the spirit of Englishness has somehow entered; his recent Turkish ancestry not with-standing.

I could give many other examples of this skill, but it also means that we are intellectually disarmed. He justifies his ludicrous green policies on the basis of Pascal’s Wager. We should be fervent environmentalists just in case the climate change alarmists are correct. This is an absurd comparison. He is suggesting that we should make life less enjoyable, more expensive and more difficult just in case Woke fanatics are right. By the same “just in case” logic, Boris should have shut the borders the moment there was the slightest hint of Covid-19. By the same logic, there is evidence that multiculturalism leads to inter-group violence and the collapse of society, so it’s quite obvious what he should have done “just in case.” The problem is that he is so bumblingly likeable and persuasive that he makes you actively not want to seriously scrutinise him, which is part of his political genius. As I motorist, I cannot stand cyclists, yet he is an avid cyclist and he almost makes me sympathise with them with his Romantic portrayal of their vocation.                

All of this, though, permits him to smuggle in the fact that, on many issues, he is secretly rather based, and he can do this because of the way he has charmed people. For example, in Chapter Two he dares to look at intelligence and the extent to which it is genetic. Politicians have been fired for saying as much. “As I close my eyes and wait for the judgment of the examiners on myself, I feel I am in the presence of some ineluctable biological-process. I have read somewhere that intelligence like other human qualities reverts to the mean (Was it H.J. Eysenck that gave me that idea? Eysenck it was.).” To those “in the know” he is making it clear that he understands the biological realities, he is scientifically literate and he is based. For the more purple-pilled, pathetic conservative reader, there is the pun to soften the blow and to permit Boris to pretend he was joking all along. He even explores, indirectly, the issue of Incels and their causes (women are more educated than men but want to marry hypergamously in terms of education), though Boris makes out that someone far cleverer than he has explained this to him and he is just blithely accepting it: “In his view, there are complex reasons for the drying up of social mobility, not least the habit of ‘assortative mating’, by which female graduates tend to only marry men who are themselves graduates. . . . The only way to break the cycle of assortative mating . . . is for more female graduates to be encouraged to marry hod-carriers and dustbin men . . .”

And he also traffics in some seriously interesting stuff, such as that the Queen did not die of “old age” but rather of bone cancer. She’d known she was dying for a year and, of course, it’s all been covered up. A friend of mine, a consultant geriatrician, told me at the time that the state of the Queen’s hands strongly implied treatment for some kind of cancer, so I am inclined to believe Boris on this one.

But the problem is, his rhetorical skill and charisma mean that I’m inclined to believe him on most things, even though I know, deep down, that I have been manipulated by this self-serving autobiography wherein he never displays genuine weakness and never looks honestly, or at all, at his painful and rogue-ish, womanising personal life. Instead, you sit down in a pub with him and have a laugh, forgetting that he needlessly closed those pubs for the best part of two years, backing down to shrill, manipulative voices opposing the very sensible policy of herd immunity. Such is Boris’ skill and charisma, on such evident display in 700-plus pages of Unleashed.

 

The Demonic Crimethink of Dominic Cummings: Thoughts on the Most Interesting Man in British Politics

“If there is hope, it lies in the proles.” That’s what the protagonist Winston Smith thinks in George Orwell’s dystopian satire Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Winston thinks that the proles — the oppressed and exploited workers — could shake off the tyranny of the ruling party like a “horse shaking off flies.” All they needed to do was become aware of the tyranny and of how it was oppressing them.

Reality is King

But Winston was wrong: they never would become aware and never would exert their strength. There was no hope in the proles. According to O’Brien, the high-IQ inquisitor who tortures Winston at the Ministry of Love, there is no hope at all. “The rule of the Party is for ever,” he tells Winston. Yet O’Brien too is wrong. The Party’s rule is based on the denial of objective reality and on the claim that “Nothing exists except through human consciousness.” But that claim isn’t right and sooner or later objective reality would intrude on the Party’s dreams of eternal omnipotence. In the final part of the novel, O’Brien scoffs at Winston’s belief that the stars are beyond the Party’s reach and control:

“What are the stars?” said O’Brien indifferently. “They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.” (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part Three, chapter 3)

In reply to that, Winston could simply have said: “Tunguska.” It’s the earth that goes round the sun. So do lots of other things, like the space-rocks that periodically strike the earth’s surface or explode in the earth’s atmosphere. A space-rock exploded like that over the Siberian region of Tunguska in 1908. It was a very large and very powerful explosion, but the only casualties were pine-trees and reindeer. If the same explosion had happened over Moscow or London or Paris, the city would have been destroyed, millions of people would have died, and history would have taken an entirely different course. Sooner or later, in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, another space-rock would have ended the rule of the Party. It might have done so by destroying the human race, of course, but the point remains the same: human consciousness does not control external reality.

Neo-clown lunacy threatens us all

But did the human race get lucky with Tunguska? Perhaps not. Perhaps we got unlucky. If Moscow or London or Paris had been destroyed by that space-rock, we would have had a very sharp lesson in how dangerous the solar system is. And we would have begun working to avert the dangers decades earlier and with much more energy. So we might have had bases on the moon and Mars by now, and a fully working SpaceGuard program to detect and destroy incoming disasteroids. As it is, we don’t have those things and the next big space-rock could arrive tomorrow and wipe out an entire country or continent. Or it could end the human race.

And what about the dangers of nuclear war? Neo-clown lunacy over Ukraine and Taiwan may end in missiles flying and mankind falling back into the abyss of barbarism with no off-earth bases to save us. But how many people in Western politics care about asteroid-strikes and nuclear war? Far too few. Countless politicians and bureaucrats in Westminster or Washington would be able to tell you all about George Floyd and systemic racism, but very few would be able to tell you anything about the Tunguska event or about Vasili Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov, the two lowly Russian individuals who saved the world from nuclear armageddon. Among the few who know and care about such things is a man who may be the most interesting British political figure of the past century or more. He may be the most important figure in British politics too.

An evil genius loathed by leftists

Who is he? He’s called Dominic Cummings (born 1971) and he’s highly intelligent, highly competent, and highly knowledgeable about important things. To British leftists, he’s the evil genius behind Brexit. Leftists loathe him, which is a very good sign that he’s on the side of the angels. Reading him has suggested to me a variant on that failed formula above. Winston Smith was wrong when he looked at the workers and the tyranny of the Party, then thought: “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.” But I may be right when I look at Dominic Cummings and the tyranny of Clown World, then think: “If there is hope, it lies in the paladins.”

The crammed crania of Dominic Cummings and his super-villain alter-ego The Mekon (images from The Guardian and a comic-book site)

A paladin is literally a “knight of the palace,” that is, a paragon of martial virtue and valor. But you can use “paladins” in an extended sense to mean a group with superior intellects and insights, a genuine and deserving elite who can take on and defeat the undeserving and oppressive elite that currently rules the West. In that sense, Dominic Cummings is a paladin who wants to recruit other paladins for what he calls the Startup Party. He wants to destroy the Conservative and Labour uniparty and Make Albion Great Again. And also sane again. Cummings has a superior intellect and doesn’t draw his insights from Marx or Freud or Foucault or any of the other word-web-spinners who dominate the dreams and direct the deeds of Clown World. No, he draws his insights from science and mathematics and from genuine achievers like Otto Bismarck and George Mueller, the engineer who reformed NASA and was central to putting man on the moon. Clown World is run by insane adolescents, but Cummings is a sane adult.

That’s why he learned to have such contempt for the bureaucrats and systems he encountered when he worked in government under Boris Johnson and the education minister Michael Gove. He’s put it like this at his fascinating and insightful Substack account: “One of the most fundamental things I’ve learned in 24 years’ involvement [in politics] is that almost nobody has any interest in general principles underlying success and failure, nor interest in execution/management, and although political people read a lot of history books it’s hard to see any learning.”

In short, British government is designed to fail. What matters to politicians and bureaucrats is their own power and prestige, not the efficient and effective performance of their duties to the British people. Cummings has frequently excoriated “Whitehall” — the official government bureaucracy — at his Substack. He knows that British democracy is a farce, because the parties are “all so similar they can’t imagine a political world where taxpayers’ money is treated with respect.” Here’s another devastating line: “HMT [Her/His Majesty’s Treasury] officials are interested in their control over Whitehall — not saving taxpayers’ money.” And another: “Many officials across Whitehall care far more about not being CCd in to an email than they do about millions of pounds being wasted or thousands of people’s lives being inconvenienced — the former is an insult to their status, while the latter is normal daily life.”

Clown World ♥ Open Borders

The same officials also care far more about “systemic racism” and “transgender rights” than they do about performing their duties and saving taxpayers’ money. That’s all part of why an advanced First-World nation like Britain can’t stop low-IQ non-Whites from primitive Third-World nations pouring across the English Channel in small boats. But I need to correct myself: it isn’t “can’t stop” the boats but “won’t stop” the boats. Clown World doesn’t want to stop the Third World invading the First World, because Clowns like Kamala Harris and Keir Starmer prefer parasitic non-Whites to productive Whites. Parasitic non-Whites don’t threaten the power of Clown World. On the contrary, they enhance it.

Dominic Cummings is very careful to avoid the topic of race in his public statements, but there’s no doubt that he knows and recognizes racial reality. During his second stint in government, he recruited as one of his advisors a highly intelligent and insightful White male called Andrew Sabisky. Then it emerged that Sabisky is a thought-criminal. He holds “repulsive” and “totally unacceptable” views on race. For example, he thinks that “politicians should pay attention to ‘very real racial differences in intelligence’ when designing the immigration system.” Sabisky is right in all his views, of course, but that’s precisely why he was driven out of government by what the Guardian described as “fierce criticism across [the] political spectrum.”

“The old system will go crazy with hate”

In fact, he was criticized only by leftists and their cuckservative allies. He certainly wasn’t criticized by Dominic Cummings, who wanted to keep him as an advisor and must have been fully aware of Sabisky’s heretical views on race. Indeed, Cummings must share them. He’s just been more discreet than Sabisky about expressing those views. But Cummings isn’t discreet about criticizing the Conservatives for betraying voters on immigration:

We promised to take back control of the borders and LOWER the insane legal + illegal immigration rate while we built infrastructure — then the Tories sided with the Confederation of British Sex Criminal Rentiers (formerly known as the CBI [Confederation of British Industry]), opened the floodgates and refused to change the complex of laws that stops us building infrastructure ’cos immigration = GrOwTh’. (“#4 The Startup Party: Time to Build from September [2024] and replace the Tories?,” Dominic Cummings’ Substack, 11th August 2023)

Having seen the farce of British politics from the inside, Cummings has decided that reform is impossible and replacement inevitable. That’s why he wants to start what he has provisionally called the Startup Party to replace the Conservatives and Labour. Instead of insane adolescents wrecking the country, he wants sane adults repairing the country. And he thinks that the insane adolescents will work for their own replacement:

Imagine a party that a) mobilises some of the most talented people in the country and b) takes the voters’ side against the old parties and other old power structures operating on principles roughly like the above.

The old system will go crazy with hate. Tory-Labour rivalries will be mostly forgotten. They will unite in attacking this appalling new force. Danny Finkelstein and Owen Jones will sing a similar song!

Populist! FASCIST!!

This highly visible conflict will give us a powerful surge of energy. With some luck, the stronger the Insiders’ resistance and hate, the stronger and faster our energy and growth… (“#4 The Startup Party: Time to Build from September [2024] and replace the Tories?,” Dominic Cummings’ Substack, 11th August 2023)

Owen Jones is a self-righteous woke homosexual who writes for the Guardian. “Danny Finkelstein” is the little-known but highly important Daniel Finkelstein, a Vice President of the Jewish Leadership Council. He’s one of the Jews who controlled the previous Conservative government and ensured that it betrayed White voters on immigration. Finkelstein’s sister, Tamara Finkelstein, is a high-flying bureaucrat who is the “Joint Senior Sponsor of the Civil Service Jewish Network,” has supported Black Lives Matter (BLM) on an official government Twitter account, and has issued a stirring call to “fight racism.”

Two Jews with anti-White views: Daniel Finkelstein and his sister Tamara Finkelstein (images from St Annes Hebrew Congregation and the Union of Jewish Students)

Tammy Finkelstein is definitely woke; Danny Finkelstein is supposedly conservative. In reality, Danny is just as anti-White and anti-Western as Tammy. Dominic Cummings will criticize Daniel Finkelstein only by name, not by race, but he must know about the central role of Jews in Clown World. It’s just that he can’t mention Jews or Jewish power. Doing that would turn the Startup Party into the Stillborn Party.

Cummings may never achieve his admirable ambitions, of course, but he isn’t the only stale pale male who wants to end the reign of Clown World. Elon Musk is another highly intelligent and highly competent White man who shares Cummings’ ambitions and antipathies. Musk wants to put men on Mars; Clown World wants to put men in women’s bathrooms. If there is hope, it lies in the paladins like Cummings and Musk. Not only in the paladins, of course, but all sane adults who read Cummings’ substack should be energized and inspired by what they find there.

Appendix: More Demonic Crimethink from Dominic Cummings

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that officials often prefer a process involving months of meetings and a long implementation timetable as this provides easy, no-pressure work long into the future. […]

Further, nobody is incentivised to solve problems fast. Ministers acquire a reputation for ‘wisdom’ simply by saying about everything ‘sounds very risky let’s not do that’ or ‘let’s add another two years to the timetable’. This limits the chances of embarrassment for the civil service but also means the problem is not solved. Officials are adept at psychologically reinforcing this, by praising ministers as ‘very wise’ whenever they demand delays and ‘very brave’ whenever they demand an aggressive timetable. The cost of going quickly is harder work by, and potential embarrassment for, officials; the costs of going slowly fall on the public. Who do you think weighs more in decisions taken confidentially in Whitehall, without the tradeoffs ever having to be crassly articulated?

The fundamental reason for Whitehall’s failure is management, not a lack of bureaucrats or money. As Colonel Boyd [the American military strategist] used to shout, ‘People, ideas, machines — in that order!’ In the DfE [Department of Education], we cut the department’s headcount by more than a third and halved running costs. We more than halved the press office, and cut 95 percent of the communication budget. Performance improved rapidly. It would improve further if the DfE were halved again. The fact that the former head of the civil service could unintentionally reveal such deep misunderstandings about the problems with Whitehall and the nature of management shows how serious the problems are.

The Hollow Men II: Some reflections on Westminster and Whitehall dysfunction,” 30th October 2014

Whatever happens in the [2024 British general] election, 99.99% of the same people will stay running the country as now, Starmer will have the same attitude to the civil service actually running the country as Cameron and Sunak, and the situation since 2010 will largely continue: The government does not control the government, doesn’t want to, and couldn’t if it tried… Cf. Francis Crick’s plea as Whitehall wrecked Intelligence 1946: ‘It’s no use reorganising with just the same old gang’. He was ignored and he left for Cambridge.

I urge subscribers to ignore the election. It will be almost entirely clowns jabbering things not-even-wrong interpreted by hacks who’ve never built anything valuable in their lives and are anti-expert on how power works, how communication works, and how high performance organisations are created. Noise about noise. All the budget numbers will be fake because of the massive black budget horror shows and corruption of the MOD. Starmer will be given these on yellow paper soon after he goes to No10 and he and others will say to themselves ‘un-fucking-believable’. Then, probably, punt-and-classify like Brown, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, and Sunak. I’ve been talking to various people about what should be built after the 2010-24 clown show is over and the new clown show begins. […]

  1. Recruit Ministers from outside parliament. I’ve done market research since 2004 on this. It’s very popular and an open goal. It’s also unarguably necessary if you’re trying to recruit the best people who, by definition, are almost all outside Parliament. The old parties won’t do this because their MPs would go insane (as Boris said to me in summer 2020 when I said we should do this to replace Hancock et al).
  2. Open up the civil service so appointments are open to outside candidates by default with almost zero exceptions. This is also unarguably necessary if you’re trying to recruit the best people who, by definition, are almost all outside Whitehall. The permanent closed caste civil service as it now works is one of our greatest sources of fragility and failure.
  3. We believe in controlling the borders, we will stop the ludicrous boats, we will cut illegal immigration to a tiny and irrelevant problem, we will ensure we actually know who enters/leaves our country

The people who think of themselves as the smart people in SW1 [the postcode that covers central government in London] regard it as literally impossible to ‘stop the boats’. This is, obviously, laughable. Many countries including us have dealt with 1000X harder problems — Pompei [i.e., Pompey the Great] famously cleared the sea of pirates in weeks, over 2,000 years before radio! I am 100% confident that the British state could stop the boats and it wouldn’t even be a serious test for a serious government — the problem is none of the old parties want to and would rather lose every election than really try (as Sunak is demonstrating). And because everybody in SW1 shares the view ‘it’s basically intractable’ and no other player will show anybody else up, they’ve all felt safe in not taking it seriously.

This problem is going to get worse and worse as environmental and political problems send more and more people, especially young men, from Africa and Asia into Europe. The EU is already knackered in dealing with this issue. It can’t handle it legally, operationally or politically. It already has serious problems with extreme/fascist parties. This will grow and grow. (NB. As I’ve said many times this was one of the core reasons for doing the referendum.) The sooner we grip this problem, the less force and disruption the solution will need — which is best for everyone. If we continue with the Tory-Labour approach, we will have millions more immigrants, many illegal, and it will get harder and harder to deal with and require more force and disruption.

Even if the old parties did suddenly try to take it seriously they couldn’t actually control our borders because they all believe in the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. As Sunak has unwittingly demonstrated. He let himself be persuaded of nonsense on boats. He chose to ignore those who pointed out that even if the Courts accepted his Bill (his best case scenario), his Bill did not give him the powers to actually stop the boats. No10 remains deluded on this and those who know it won’t tell Sunak he’s bogged it.

If you have any trust in the old system, it seems amazing that a smart PM could repeat what Cameron, May and Boris did — simultaneously a) promise to solve a problem, b) sort of choose to believe rubbish, sort of deep down know it’s rubbish, c) raise the salience of an issue they can’t solve because of their own laws, lawyers and courts, d) when the whole thing inevitably fails and the public is angry, start spinning that really it was a clever strategy to ‘set the issue up for the next election’. But when you understand Tory world is rotten it’s all natural, not ‘amazing’. […]

If you don’t care about controlling the borders you can already vote Tory or Labour.

The market opportunity is for a party that does care and can credibly act. You can only be credible if you are prepared to repeal the HRA [Human Rights Act] and end the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court, [which together:]

  • Make tough surveillance of terrorists impossible. I’ve had personal experience of Kafka-esque meetings after a terrorist incident when the police and intelligence services admit they could not keep convicted terrorists (never mind suspects) under surveillance because of the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights] / HRA [Human Rights Act]. There are many, many ludicrous ways in which security is undermined. Most of these are classified in order to stop MPs and public knowing. Officials know some of these stories are so insane that publicity would undermine support for the ECHR/HRA.
  • Create such Kafka-esque absurdities we sometimes have special forces call in drone strikes to whack people instead of arresting them because it weirdly makes more legal ‘sense’, given legal advice. Such cases are, obviously, kept very quiet like many other ways the intelligence services are affected. There are some truly jaw dropping examples that Sunak should make public but won’t — those of you who read the yellow paper on terrorists bringing legal action in London while on the run from JSOC will know the sort of thing I mean. Good for some rich human rights lawyers (some of whom should be disbarred), humiliating for any serious country. […]

Starmer will be confronted with a symbol of this [nuclear rot] on his first day as PM when he talks to the deep state about the submarines and his letter. And the Cabinet Secretary will say something like: PM, not for now but we will have to discuss some important aspects of this subject soon… And Starmer will read (on yellow paper above Strap 3) the detail of these horrific budgets. And he will face the same choice Boris and Sunak faced: go public, blame his predecessor and face openly the vast financial (and other implications) or classify, punt and continue the charade that means the continuing cannibalising of the open budgets by the broken black budgets and their black holes. (An interesting question that will signal power will be: is Sue Gray [a powerful woke bureaucrat] allowed in the room for the submarine chat or not?)

People, ideas, machines VII_ ‘The Wizard War’ — lessons on technology, intelligence & organisation from World War II,” 23rd February 2024

The original VL [Vote Leave campaign for Brexit] plan to transform the Tory Party is kaput. It would have been a different story if Boris-Carrie [Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie] had enjoyed themselves smashing champagne bottles off boats while VL ran No10 and used the 80 seat majority to do the VL plan. The country and party would look profoundly different. No HS2 [High-Speed Rail Link], no £35B down the toilet this Parliament alone, and so many things happening instead. The argument would be about the winners and losers rather than ‘why bother with Brexit then change nothing?’. Starmer would have been smashed to bits. Many MPs would have ‘retired’, new MPs recruited, and CCHQ [Conservative Central Head-Quarters] closed with an effectively new party reopening in the Midlands with an edge-of-the-art political machine. Such a transformation — using four years occupying No10 with an 80 majority, changing facts on the ground and demonstrating things rather than arguing about things — is not possible in Opposition using the rotten old Tory institution. Dramatically cutting taxes for working people is extremely different to promising to cut taxes after 14 years of putting them up. So our old plan is kaput. And it was a once-in-decades opportunity — election victory on a the biggest issue in politics for decades, the biggest government crisis since 1945, clear mandate and need for huge change in economy and government, a team with a plan, a civil service willing to do a deal on massive change instead of fighting it, a PM with very strong personal incentives to change a lot (objectively speaking, but it turned out he disagreed!), opposition in chaos. This combination is highly unlikely to recur ‘naturally’ for many decades.

Fundamental to our politics is the shift of talented people out of politics/government and the asymmetrical effects on those who oppose the Left/‘progressivism’. There is a vicious circle across the west that keeps almost all the most able people out of politics/government/public service. But the ‘progressive’ Left attracts a lot of smart people who believe in more centralised state power and want to exercise this power over others. People with the same IQ who strongly disagree with them are much less inclined to spend their time navigating low quality political hierarchies to capture centralised institutions (per above).

The old parties focus on the old SW1 game and the old media but can’t even get to 1968-America levels of sophistication in handling TV (cf. The Selling of the President), never mind advanced technologies. They’re so addicted to the 24/7 cycle of chaos (‘news’) they can never focus on anything that isn’t leading the news therefore they cannot drive hard changes or communicate effectively. […] And they demonstrably have no interest in building a government that can maintain focus and build fast while the leader is inevitably focused to some extent on the news — when we started building such a machine in summer 2020 (including a new communication machine) the Tories freaked out and couldn’t discuss it intelligently (though parts of the deep state supported us).

The market opportunity is for a party that optimises for voters.

The lack of Tory interest in economic policy and the fundamental long-term stagnation of productivity is prima facie baffling given … they are politicians supposedly trying to win elections! What’s the explanation? It’s a product of a more general problem — their focus is always on today’s media and their position in Insider coalition networks, NOT winning. This more general issue also explains other otherwise baffling things, like their total lack of interest in the MOD for 14 years, their total lack of interest in actual border control and so on. They still call themselves ‘the party of business’ and ‘the party of the national interest’ and ‘the party of the armed forces’, echoing the 1980s, but they aren’t actually interested any more in any of these things.

Both Labour and Tory are locked into a media ecosystem and legal ecosystem that supports a combination of, to simplify crudely, *ESG + DEI + nutty green + nutty progressivism + technology hate*. Apart from the awful political and cultural effects, this combination is also a disaster for productivity growth and a market opportunity for TSP.

  1. Contra-Insiders, ‘not normal politicians’: on the side of taxpayers against the old parties, with voters against unions and the CBI, the local against Whitehall, with mothers against the violent, for women’s safety against the men-pretending-to-be-women.

#4 The Startup Party: Time to Build from September [2024] and replace the Tories?,” Dominic Cummings’ Substack, 11th August 2023

A Strange Pandemic: Dictatorship of Well-Being as a Method of Political Surveillance

 

Honoré Daumier (18081879), The Imaginary Invalid

 Below is my speech delivered at the international round table on post-pandemic health issues. Sarajevo, Bosnia -Herzegovina, Oct. 11–13, 2024.

Contagious diseases are a fact of life, even in an era of advanced medicine and modern sanitation. Any one of these diseases is susceptible to receive the label of pandemic should a political strongman or a supranational institution decide to label it as such. Just as we have by now become accustomed to academic self-censorship and the covert thought police scrutinizing our online language or our offline lectures, we are also observing the surge of health squads policing our daily life, lecturing us on what to eat, how to have safe sex, how to stay eternally young and how to beat old age. Failing to conform to such therapeutic rules and hygienic regulations means to be labeled as a heretic unworthy of participating in what is pompously called civil society.

Purveyors of the recent covid pandemic and its fear-mongering WHO commissars, including their political acolytes in the US and EU, seem to have retreated temporarily from the radar screen. The new brand of their world-improving progeny, however, along with multiple self-proclaimed health benefactors, let alone social justice warriors, may pop up on the horizon any time soon, should political circumstances so require.

Who encouraged the lockdowns in 2020 instead of sticking to the moderate confinement measures during the spread of the Covid disease?  Who was the person in the WHO tasked to explain in simple language the etiology of this viral illness? Leak from a Chinese gain-of-function research facility? We still know little of the main movers and shakers who ordered the massive Covid clampdown, causing irreparable physical and psychological damage for the life of millions of people, especially schoolchildren and small businesses. Once the pandemic lockdown was lifted in 2021, Covid fear-mongers wisely made sure to not go viral.

Surely, medical doctors, biomedical scientists, biologists and geneticists can proudly claim that their fields of research, unlike the field of social science, are empirical in nature, and can often be scientifically fact-checked with ease. Well, how is it that there was a significant number of their dissenting colleagues who rejected the apocalyptic narrative about the putative world’s deadliest disease? Many behavioral geneticists and sociobiologists in academia face a far worse predicament. When questioning the inborn hereditary or racial traits that determine behavior of our politicians and opinion makers, they almost certainly run the risk of facing not just demonizing lawfare, but even a prison term. Based on their widely ignored empirical evidence about our hereditary defects or strengths, we may take an educated guess as to how “criminal chromosomes” are thriving among many of our elected politicians and opinion makers.

Basically, the Covid scare, when it started several years back, paved the way in the EU and US for the reenactment of the Soviet era when Stalin’s scientist Trofim Lysenko laid out his theory of how to grow oranges in the Arctic circle and how to turn a low IQ Homo sovieticus into a rocket scientist. The same surreal communist ukases are alive and kicking today in the US affirmative action regulated higher education and political arena where DEI mandated decision-making is mostly carried out by half-wits who hate the idea of a meritocracy.

We don’t need to enter into the dangerous woke field of Freudo-Marxism or CRT scholasticism which has for decades rejected the study of racial differences; we may quote instead the 17th-century. dissident French satirist Molière, whose plays satirize itinerant quacks posturing as medical supermen able to cure all physiological and political ailments. Given the divergences among top scientists on the usefulness of the past Covid pandemic lockdown, one may justifiably wonder whether we should now turn again to medieval homeopaths or snake oil merchants for more effective curative powers. Trust in the medical establishment is gone.

It is always the dominant political dogma, the political myth and the prevailing zeitgeist that determines the approach to natural science, never the other way around. Social science scholars and lawyers are even in a worse position; if they want to stay in the educational or legal business, they must obey the current dogma of that environmental influences are the whole ballgame and reject the role of genes in the study of political behavior of their clients or defendants. Should they focus too much on the role of criminal chromosomes in political behavior, they won’t get tenured and might be smeared as incorrigible racists or proverbial White supremacists.

The war of looks and outlooks

Back to the body. Or rather, back to the body language which has become a new religion in our enlarged “therapeutic and maternal state”. This expression was used by the late American author Christopher Lasch and a few other dissident philosophers such as the late French author Jean Baudrillard and Alain de Benoist. In place of the Orwellian Big Brother, the Big Mother is emerging with her transgender ordinances postulating the dogma that biological identities are fleeting social constructs that can be changed or replaced at will. Moreover, we have witnessed over recent decades the growth of a dangerous new pandemic, a cultural pandemic of the “war of looks” among politicians and celebrities, each claiming that their own color, height, motoric skills and phenotypic traits make them clearly superior to their adversaries. Once upon a time, a Black obese person was considered sick and in need of hospital treatment or a radical weight loss regimen. According to voguish-woke social construct dogma, however, obesity is now viewed as a matter of lifestyle that can tentatively help a person gain the overweight of celebrity status in a motion picture audition. Moreover, an aspiring white politician in the US or EU, if he was to enter favorably into the political lime light must endorse victimhood stories of his targeted non-White constituencies while adorning his cheering staff with individuals of diverse sexual, racial and physical looks and outlooks.

The same viral mimicry can be observed during a TV duel between presidential candidates with spectators being forced to focus more on the proper dentures of their preferred candidates and less on their respective policies. Under the guise of scientism, a new totalitarianism is in the making, resorting to far more elegant and fatal methods of political surveillance than the bygone communist system. In the description of the “covidification” process in the modern therapeutic state, self-censorship and self-abnegation among scientists and political leaders becomes the unwritten rule. Alain de Benoist sees it this way:

The dominant human type of today is the immature narcissist ignoring all realities other than his own, and who, above all, wishes to satisfy all his cravings. This infantile type of human being, predictably of liberal-libertarian orientation, is perfectly in line with the System. … What follows is a therapeutic civilization centered on the “Me” only. … A statesman makes decisions, gives orders and requisitions. Macron, however, relies on the advice of “experts” who, as a rule, never agree with each other.

The doomsday predictions about tens of millions of Covid deaths have not come true. Official Covid body counts are still a tale of obscurity, a tale more reminiscent of the Book of Revelation than the exact tally from coroner findings. It is a general truism that social scientists hardly ever agree on their respective grandstanding world-improvement theories. One would expect that natural scientists are better positioned. This is not true. Multiple much-acclaimed Covid experts, or would-be experts have not agreed on the origin, let alone on the cure of the Coronavirus, while upstaging each other on TV with their egos the size of the Zagreb Cathedral. This brings again to mind Molière and his description of the imaginary physician talking to his imaginary patient, both projecting their false Double and both assuming that their mendacity will not be detected by the other party.

A character from Moliere’s play describes the physician Purgon (whose name could well be posted today on the internet as a poster child meme for Pfizer Inc. in purgatory) with these words: “He (Purgon) must have killed off an awful lot of patients to have made all that money.” Or another character from the same play who retorts: “Most people die of the cure, not the disease.” One wonders whether thousands of Covid experts have taken the Hypocritical Oath instead of the Hippocratic Oath.

Cases of self-deception abound, not just in the social sciences but also in the fields of natural science. The study of behavioral genetics, when combined with social sciences, could help us better grasp the human drama, especially when observing the psyche of decision makers in a state of emergency. This approach, however, is strictly avoided in the social science departments, both in the US and EU, where the prevailing idea runs rampant that all people are equal — and hence expendable at will. Not long ago the communist multiethnic, multicultural, and egalitarian obsession had this fictitious Lalaland on display every day in Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia — with catastrophic results.

When transposed into the political arena, the master plan of covidification, while invoking surreal and fictitious pandemics, or the now popular myth of the alleged rising pandemic of right-wing fascism, can always be tempting for a politician. It can come in handy in order to clamp down on any form of political heresy. With the Age of Covid we are no longer in the purview of science, but in the department of demonology.

White Nationalists Should Still Support Russia Despite Putin’s Perfidy 

Authors: Dr. Livsci and Rurik

The Russian question is probably second only to the Christianity question when it comes dividing J-woke right-wingers.

Back in the early days, blogger Rolo/Rurik of the Slavland Chronicles stated that as far as he was concerned that there were only two political camps that mattered to him: the anti-Russia and pro-Russia camps that his side was the pro-Russian one. Because of his skepticism of ideology as a concept—claiming that it was infinitely malleable—he said that it didn’t matter to him what reasoning led someone to take up the pro-Russia position, misguided or malicious, so long as at the end of the theorizing they were pointing their guns away from Russia, not at Russia. He said that this was the only thing that mattered in the final count.

But is this still a valid criteria for evaluating geopolitics 2+ years later?

With the ongoing Not-War nightmare, can pro-White right-wingers anywhere in the world still maintain a pro Russian stance? I think they can, but that this still requires a serious re-evaluation of what being pro-Russian means in the context of what we have learned about the Kremlin and Putin based on how they have conducted themselves during this Not-War.

Before the start of the SMO, being pro-Russian was strongly linked with being pro-Putin, especially for Westerners.

More than that, the perennial position on leadership taken by most people throughout history in various guises is that the Tsar is always good but that the boyars/ministers directly below him are misleading or sabotaging the Tsar. If the Tsar only knew what his officials got up to in his name! Once he finds out, he will clean house and save his people! And actually, prior to the SMO ripping the curtain back on the MO and true face of the Kremlin, this was not an unreasonable position to take.

Despite all the nastiness revealed to us about the Kremlin’s true MO, I believe that I can still make a case for why nationalists should still support Russia, despite the fact that “the Tsar” clearly does not support them back.

Let’s start by examining the argument put forward by a vocal and infamous Russian Nationalist fighting in the Donbass against the UAF. His real name is Aleksei Milchakov, but he went by the call sign “Fritz” during round one of the war in Donetsk (the first 8 years). He also had an ID number on his militia identity card that was literally “1488”. He has openly threatened to return to Russia and kill Azeri migrant gangsters who were caught beating random Russian children on playgrounds over social media. Finally, he has also previously stated in interviews that he is an open and proud National-Socialist, although he has been forced to distance himself from that in recent years. I’m referring, of course, to Rusich Battalion’s famous/infamous leader, who goes by the call-sign “Serb” nowadays.

Serb stated in his interview (that Rurik bullet-point translated some months back) that either Russia will win this war or Russia will perish. Because of this view, on his Telegram channel he openly applauds Kiev’s escalations against Russia because he wants to get the Kremlin’s back firmly pressed up against the wall.

When Ukraine drone-striked one of Russias early warning radars meant to detect incoming nuclear attacks, Serb wrote something along the lines of: “Fine by me, anything that makes goodwill gestures and cuckoldry to the West more difficult is good for Russia”. The situation is literal “do or die” for Russia in his mind.

And now let us examine the claims of the other camp, made by anti-Russian nationalists fighting on the side of Kiev and NATO in Donbass (and now Kursk). Of course, everyone knows that the West is a satrap of Israel in hard right wing circles and has known so for decades now. Furthermore, the occupied governments of the West do everything in their power to destroy White people. And so, being a 1488er that supports Kiev and NATO seems rather contradictory and many people have brought this contradiction up.

The reply to this claim by Azov (a famous Neo-Nazi battalion) is that they will overthrow ZOG, but only after they have destroyed Russia first. After defeating Russia, the Neo-Nazis in Ukraine claim that they will turn their attention to Kiev and then the EU and all of NATO. What makes this more interesting is that some of their more public personalities are at least partially Jewish and have close connections to the IDF. The most egregious example of this is “White Rex” or Denis Kapustin, who used to be an FSB officer/asset working to undermine Russian Nationalist groups in Russia as an agent provocateur.

In 2016, Kapustin and his mother received the status of Jewish refugees in Germany. And Kapustin now runs the RVF (Russian Volunteer Force) which claims to be a Russian Nationalist organization fighting against the tyranny of Moscow on the side of Kiev. Before Kiev invaded Kursk and took over the town of Sudzha (without any resistance offered by Putin), the RVF was supposedly the group organizing cross-border raids into Belgorod and other surrounding provinces. They work closely with Azov and there is significant overlap between the two organizations.

Just to reiterate: the ideological leader of the Russian nationalist volunteers sent in to take hostages in Russia by Kiev is himself Jewish.

Meanwhile, when Slavs were in charge of Azov more than a decade ago, the organization was pan-Slavic and saw Russians and Ukrainians as one people. After their buy-out by Jewish oligarchs (like Kholomoisky most famously), the organization adopted a new, genocidal rhetoric towards Russians and was taken over by literal IDF commanders.

Azov began to accuse Russians of being mixed-race Finnic mongrels and different on a genetic level to Ukrainians. This, despite the fact that the vast majority of the organization was Russian-speaking and hailed from Ukraine’s eastern regions. They then “elected” an actual Finn to run their organization just to make the whole situation more Kafkaesque.

Now, these same anti-Russian nationalists will claim that they will create an Eastern European Empire which will be just like the 4th Reich in the near future. But for now though, they tell their supporters that they’ve got to play it cool and to play it smart. That they’ve got to use NATO and the US and to allow themselves to be used by them. Finally, one day in the future, they will reveal their true agenda and outplay the US, Brussels and Tel Aviv. I am not misconstruing their positions, mind you. This is what they post on their social media to their followers.

It is quite similar to QAnon in the way that their supporters are strung along with promises of a day of reckoning to come when all of their enemies are outsmarted and defeated. In the meantime, they have to play along though, see? This is the same line used by many modern political charlatans and their PR teams, including Trump and Putin as well. Their supporters are told that at some future date, their man will suddenly reveal his secret patriotism and deliver on all of his promises to his followers. Between that point and now though, well, the game has to be played of course, and their followers have to be patient and understanding of all the backsliding and apparent setbacks.

And of course no one asks why the game is being revealed in public posts that the enemy can read thereby spoiling the whole plan because people prefer pleasant fantasies to the hard truth of how they are being lied to and screwed.

So now we compare and contrast the two camps and their claims.

Is Serb’s pro-Russian position less or more sane than the Azov/RVF anti-Russian right-winger position? In some ways, they are equally insane because Ukraine and Russia both have no viable future as sovereign states if things continue as they are now. However, it is clear that someone like Serb is fighting for simple bare bones survival. All of Putin’s faults or treachery or anti-nationalism notwithstanding, NATO really is now at Russia’s doorstep and now we are having an armed referendum on whether Russia will continue as a state or become another failed, carved-up rump state post-Soviet satrapy similar to … well, Ukraine.

But wait, isn’t Ukraine also fighting for survival?

Well no, Ukrainian SS LARPers aren’t fighting for their survival in any meaningful way and we have ample proof for this that has come out over the last couple of years. Most importantly, Minsk I and II and Istanbul were very generous (downright treasonous even!) peace deals offered by Moscow to Kiev. And the Kremlin in no way threatened the survival of Ukrainian statehood with these treaties. They all called for the reintegration of Donbass into Ukraine and a release of Crimea to boot.

I write all of this not as a Putin-apologist or an SMO-defender, but quite the opposite. What Putin signed onto with these peace deals was treasonous to Russia. Even now, Putin does not want to conquer Ukraine; he clearly wants a ceasefire that will allow him to save face and save the head that his face sits on and to return to some semblance of the status quo pre-SMO.

The original SMO objectives were, at best, related to regime change or getting Putin’s oligarch buddies restored to their positions of economic and political privilege in Ukraine, not the conquest of Ukraine. Russia was also fine with Ukraine joining EU. All of the escalation has been on Moscow’s side, not on Kiev’s. Putin doesn’t cross any redlines, nor does Putin enforce the red lines that he himself has drawn. Furthermore, Russia has been on the back foot since 2014. Putin and his FSB were caught with their pants down at the Sochi Olympics as the Maidan coup occurred. They lost Ukraine and most of Donbass in the next eight years.

Initiating the SMO was the one anomaly to the policy of steady retreat and surrender to the West Putin has pursued since being appointed to succeed Yeltsin by Kissinger and Finkelstein (Primakov). However, the SMO went south only weeks after being launched, forcing retreats across all of Ukraine. On the political side of things, what has Moscow been doing this whole time? They’ve been begging for negotiations and involved in secret talks that were deliberately spiked by Kiev with their Kursk invasion.

So no, no and no.

It is Russia that is fighting for survival (even though the Putin regime is clearly not interested in fighting seriously), not Ukraine. To be more precise, right-wingers like Serb, Pitbull, the Strelkovists, the Nazbols and all the other types are fighting for Russia’s survival while the Kremlin is fighting for better surrender terms. Kiev is fighting for Washington’s interests, and Ukrainian Neo-Nazis are fighting for, in theory, some future 4th Reich after they destroy Russia and overthrow ZOG while in practice they are fighting for Washington’s interests. The relative sizes of these countries on the world map are enough to make people instinctively see Ukraine as the underdog though when nothing could be further from the truth.

Of course, Serb and all the other anti-Putin right-wing types in Russia do call for the destruction of Ukrainian statehood. However this isn’t a relevant point to bring up really, because Moscow doesn’t care what they say and has arrested half of the Russian nationalist movement at this point. Russian right-wingers are not running this war or the country of Russia for that matter — someone very different is.

Furthermore, the proposition that Ukraine in its current format is a mortal threat to Russia is reasonable given that it has become a very dangerous, very well-armed NATO golem that has already literally invaded and claimed territory from Russia (Kursk). That is, for Russian right-wingers to take the position that this golem ought to be permanently removed from the chessboard is reasonable from their point of view.

Sadly, Putin does not agree with Russian right-wingers on this in the slightest.

And this is the biggest stumbling block that right wingers in the West face when trying to make sense of the conflict. The rhetoric from the Kremlin is clearly as anti-nationalist as Kiev’s or the West’s (if not more) and Putin is clearly no friend to nationalists (or Russians for that matter) if one takes the time to investigate his policies as ruler of Russia for more than 20 years. It makes sense then to knee-jerk support the people who are ostensibly fighting the man at the head of a self-styled “Antifa Multinational Values State” that seeks to spread this system Westward.

But the answer to the question “who to support?” is quite clear.

We can easily conclude that Kiev is run by a hostile and foreign junta of Jews because of how visibly Jewish the entire government is. From the President to his second-in-command Chief of Staff, to the Der Sturmer caricature of a Defense Minister and pretty much every single minister in between really, Ukraine is completely run by Jews. And while the Kremlin is much more opaque, it is largely the same. Putin’s top bankers, his top oligarch friends, his ex-defense minsters, his chief of staff, his prime minister and so on are not Russians. Then we can look at the kinds of right-wingers fighting for each side and notice that the Ukrainian side is filled with the same rogue’s gallery of villains. We can also notice just how much good press and international funding and government support that Ukraine’s anti-Russian nationalists get. In contrast, when we look at the plight of Russia’s nationalists, we see a very marginalized and set upon group. They are targeted by both Washington-Kiev and Moscow.

So using a simple heuristic, we just have to ask ourselves, which group of right-wingers are probably the good guys?

Could it be the ones that Moscow harasses, jails and murders and whom NATO also wants to kill … or is it the ones that NATO arms, funds, does PR for, Israel treats in its hospitals (yes Azov members have literally been treated in Israel) and whom Moscow’s top oligarch (Abramovich) takes on private jet tours where they are fed tiramisu and given free iPhones after they surrender?

Which ones are probably more likely to be our guys?

It is a real head-scratcher, for sure!

Perhaps the most common position for the Western right-winger at this point is to believe that the sooner the war ends the better. Slavs are being sent to slaughter each other while their cities are being flooded with invaders from Central Asia and Africa. I would be lying if I said I didn’t at least partially feel that way myself and sympathize with the reasoning behind such a position.

But the lingering question is this: is it truly reasonable to assume that Russia will be allowed to surrender at all?

After all, Japan wanted to surrender to America, but they were fire-bombed into submission anyway. And once the revolutionaries toppled the Tsar, they stopped fighting the Germans, but that didn’t stop the Germans from advancing eastward. Also, we know from history that sometimes unjust peace deals are worse than terrible wars. See Germany for proof of that again.

So, will Russia be given peace terms by NATO which will allow her to remain intact long-term?

What if Russian right-wingers like Serb and Strelkov are right and Washington will stop at nothing short of Russia’s disintegration and collapse?

What if new negotiations and a Minsk 3 kind of peace deal will be a prelude to Russia’s total dissolution?

What if fighting on in a horrible, pointless, grinding war of attrition for oligarchs’ interests is worse than the alternative — Weimar Russia?

If Serb and Strelkov and other Russian right-wingers are correct then the bloodletting going on now is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to what is to come. We are talking about the 90s returning with a vengeance and probably another war down the line on even worse terms for Russia. Maybe multiple wars even, with secessions happening all over the territory of the current Russian Federation. This is how NATO plans to carve up Russia and this is the doomsday scenario that Russian right-wingers are looking at.

Compare this to the doomsday scenario for Ukrainian right-wingers.

The worst that they get is the Istanbul Accords where even Crimea is re-leased from them, even if Kiev doesn’t necessarily get all of Donbass back immediately. This is hardly comparable or existential.

It feels dirty at this point to be writing what seems like a pro-war apologetic after everything we have found out together about the true nature and MO of the Kremlin over the last 2+ years. Russian right-wingers were warning about Putin’s perfidy since 2014 and many simply weren’t ready to listen. Now though, they warn that a bad peace will be worse than the continuation of this grotesque war.

So, perhaps we ought to listen this time?

I mean, what if Putin is actually right when he says that the US really is the “Empire of Lies” and therefore incapable of honoring agreements made with Moscow? Bizarrely, Putin will say this and then ask for more negotiations and agreements and will sign off on them right after warning that they are worthless only to exclaim that he has been fooled and led by the nose when it blows up in his face again. Perhaps the sensible thing for the Western right winger is simply to conclude that this all has nothing to do with him anyway and there are no good guys in either Moscow or Kiev and the nationalists on both sides are just fools for wanting to keep feeding the blood god with their daily offerings.

Fair enough, perhaps.

But put yourself in the shoes of the Russian Nationalist who now has NATO tanks on his soil (Kursk) and who has been warning about exactly this happening thanks to Putin’s perfidy since 2014. The NAFO refrain that there are now NATO tanks on Russian soil because Putin was the one who launched an SMO invasion of Ukraine to begin with is actually true. But the implication is that Putin is to blame for this current state of affairs, which is exactly what a Russian right-winger would say as well. This is indeed all Putin’s fault — it certainly isn’t the fault of Russian right-wingers! They would also add that this bizarre mess is all because of Putin refusing to fight a real war and insisting on fighting a disastrous “special anti-Nazi policing operation in fraternal socialist Ukraine nation” and on following the so-called “gentleman’s rules” that they’ve agreed to beforehand with Washington.

The Russian Nationalists have been saying since 2014 that the NATO tanks are coming and now they are saying “I told you so”. They aren’t saying “how did this happen?” while tearing out their hair and gnashing their teeth. They know exactly how it happened and who is to blame. Putin’s government spent the years up to the conflict in Ukraine privatizing and gutting the military. They then squashed the Russian Spring (populist Russian movement in favor of integrating Donbass into Russia) and tried to push Donbass back against its will back into the arms of Kiev. Only after the arrest of Putin’s close friend Viktor Medvedchuk did Putin ask Washington for permission to do his SMO and then walked straight into a trap.

Thus, the Kremlin blundered into a war after years of trying to avoid one and there is no way out now as far as the Russian Nationalists are concerned.

Prior to February of 22, I was a bit skeptical of the Rusich guys, Strelkov and Kvachkov because I thought their predictions of doom and NATO tanks on Russian soil where absurd and that actually Putin had things under control. Well I was wrong and they were right. The presence of NATO armor on Russian soil now is part of the process of the curtain being thrown back on Putin and his Kremlin.

Also, to the Russian right-winger mind, Russia was already headed for dissolution well prior to the SMO anyway. To them, any return to the prior status quo is impossible —there is only total defeat and the long term dissolution of Russia or victory that leads to Ukraine’s reintegration into Russia.

Now, how likely is such a victory?

In the military sense it is now totally impossible, of course. But that is OK because Putin and his people are more concerned with “moral victories” than securing the interests of the Russian state. In all seriousness though, the likelihood of victory shouldn’t be the measure of who you are supporting should it? In practice though, people want to support the winning team and most analysis is geared at proving that their side is winning. The idea that someone might support a cause or a team or a side even though they believe them to be losing is very difficult for most people to even conceptualize. I support Russia despite the fact that Putin might well end up in the Hague and lead Russia to total destruction and that the odds of this occurring are more likely than Russia winning the war against Kiev. In fact, the gloomy prospects don’t dissuade me in the slightest.

For me, the reasoning is simple.

I support the cause of the Russian Nationalists because the entire Putin Occupation Government in Moscow is against them, Washington is against them, Kiev is trying to kill them in Ukraine and no one in the West even knows about these guys because of a total informational blackout created by pro-Putin Z-bloggers pretending that these guys either don’t exist or are all traitors to multipolarity. Others should support them if for no other reason than the fact that they are hated by all of the worst people. Maybe it is totally ridiculous of them to hold out hope that Russia will be dragged into fighting a war of survival for real instead of this bizarre SMO, but this is nowhere near as fantastical a hope as the creation of an Eastern European Azov Reich.

Think of it like this.

In all likelihood Iran is a satrapy of the West just like Russia. Hezbollah is probably doomed and was sold out by the mullahs in Tehran to Israel. There is still, nonetheless, the mid-level Hezbollah leadership and the grunts beneath them that survived the pager-bomb massacre and the subsequent bombing/assassination. They are still out there, fighting the IDF and giving them a bloody nose.

Personally I find these mid-level Hezbollah commanders’ and grunts’ refusal to die faster appalling in light of Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, but if I were an immoral person who didn’t use the Holocaust as a heuristic for good and bad, I would be tempted to support and admire these Hezbollah guys who fight on regardless of the fact that their long-term prospects are grim and despite the fact that they probably have knives poised above their own backs from their compromised leadership, Israeli bombs dropping down on them from overhead and bullets coming whistling at them from the front. Are they stupid for resisting? I am not sure.

What I do feel sure about though is that it doesn’t take much courage at all to simply roll over or refuse to even start fighting. That is what the average Westerner does: absolutely nothing. And maybe he is “correct” to do so. Either way, I bring up Hezbollah because it is roughly analogous to where Russian right-wingers are — between a rock and a hard place.

Respected readers, you don’t have to be “Zigger” or a Kremlinite to support the motley crew of arrested debtors, convicted zeks, football hooligans and genuine political idealists fighting for Russia on the Donbass front. Like the Hezbollah grunts, the Russian guys in the line of fire could very well be making a last stand and going down fighting against incredible odds. Perhaps other Russians will even envy their quick end in the struggles of the decades to come. The only even remotely valid criticism that can be leveled against Russian right-wingers is that they need to find a way to save Russia by getting rid of Putin first and foremost. That is, that they should sign a kind of temporary Brest-Litovsk peace deal to end the war with major territorial concessions and to focus on seizing power like the Bolsheviks did, only without the support of the international ethnic banking, media and spook state mafia behind their backs.

Or maybe they should do more podcasts and focus on their blogging?

Jokes aside, I’m genuinely sympathetic to those who are appalled by this Slavic bloodbath. My conclusion though is that this is a kind of last stand for Russia and not not a war of choice. To say that it is time to throw in towel or that the Russian Nationalists are just gullible fools willingly going to the slaughter presupposes that Russia can actually surrender on good terms and get back to a kind of status quo. Most Russian Nationalists go to fight despite their government and have nothing but contempt for Putin. They simply don’t see a future for Russia if the war is lost, regardless of who is at the helm.

This is a case that I’ve not seen anyone make to the English-speaking world before.

Hopefully you found it convincing.

Interview with Diana Panchenko

What follows is an interview with Ukrainian journalist and TV host Diana Panchenko. Panchenko graduated from Kiev Polytechnic Institute with a degree in publishing and editing, and then from Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev with a law degree. She has been nominated for the UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize for her contributions to the cause of press freedom. Conversely, sanctions, including asset confiscation, have been imposed against Panchenko by President Volodymyr Zelensky. Several criminal cases have also been initiated against her, including a charge of treason for reporting honestly on the devastation inside Ukraine. For this, she faces a potential life sentence. This interview was conducted and translated by Sascha Roßmüller for the German print magazine Deutsche Stimme. An English version was edited for length by James Edwards for the American Free Press.

American Free Press: How have developments since 2022 impacted your career as a Ukrainian journalist?

Diana Panchenko: Being a journalist in Ukraine is a thankless job. Over my 15 years in the trade, I’ve been assaulted three times. Every day, I receive threats. [Volodymyr] Zelensky has imposed personal sanctions on me. I have a criminal trial launched against me and a life sentence is in the cards—all for a post on “Telegram” saying we need peace talks to save Ukraine. This is not a joke; it’s all in my case files.

When I hear them say Ukraine is fighting for its freedom in this war, it hurts. I know there’s no freedom there. My shows used to have the highest ratings of all Ukrainian news media. I won a Journalist of the Year award. When the war began, I was in Kiev. I’ve been to the demarcation line. I know what I’m talking about.

But let’s start from the beginning. During the Maidan events of 2014, I was a reporter. Every day, I went there. I saw the mob throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the police. I saw people getting paid for provocations. You won’t hear this in the Western media.

After the success of the Maidan “uprising,” the government introduced strict censorship. The minority took over the majority. It was a death sentence to say that you were against Maidan and didn’t support the coup. Several high-profile journalist assassinations happened at that time in Ukraine, including the murder of Oles Buzina.

After Maidan, I worked at the News One channel. Our stance was honest and unbiased. We covered Zelensky and his team’s corruption. We provided a platform to the proponents of the Minsk Agreements and Ukraine’s neutral status. We advocated for peace.

For that, in February 2021, Zelensky closed our channel and two others for violation of the Ukrainian constitution. This happened a year before the war, another indication that back then, he already knew what was coming and tried to cancel all alternative information sources. I was immediately declared a public enemy, and the hunt started. There were several assaults against me.

Since the war began, the dictatorship in Ukraine has hardened. Now, all TV channels have been closed. There’s only one left, and it’s under Zelensky’s control. All popular journalists received visits from members of the SBU, Ukraine’s secret intelligence service. They threatened the safety of my loved ones.

Any criticism of the authorities is considered treason. Since the war began, the SBU has initiated over 2,500 criminal trials on political charges. Some of my colleagues have gone missing. Others were tortured. Many of them are in jail. Only thanks to my high profile did I survive and manage to leave the country and to stay in journalism. I kept my moral integrity.

For eight years, the government in Ukraine has manipulated public opinion claiming it planned to return Donbass. But nobody was going to do that. So I went to Donbass to talk to people there and made a documentary about that visit.

Today, my YouTube channel is the most popular Russian-language political channel. I have more than 70 million monthly views. But the government is doing everything in its power to cancel me.

AFP: Before 2014, Ukrainians and Russians were mostly considered as brethren people, not enemies. Due to the particular differences between Western and Eastern Ukraine, do you think the escalating development could have been avoided if Ukraine had been a less centralist and rather a more federalist structured state? Or did overwhelming non-governmental organizations influence the launch an inescapable direction of the development?

Panchenko: I had to write a book to answer that question. It’s called The Inevitable. It’s been translated into English and will soon be available in Europe. The Russia-Ukraine war was not a coincidence. They were preparing to sacrifice Ukraine—not just for the past 30 years, but since the end of World War II.

To understand where Ukraine’s path could lead, just take a look at the map. We only had to stay neutral—not pro-Russian, just neutral and away from trouble. Instead, NATO was building its infrastructure in Ukraine. There’s no secret about it. It’s all out there. They were building bases, bringing instructors, and portraying Russia as the enemy.

It all started even before 1991. Even before World War II ended, UK and U.S. intelligence services were working with Ukrainian nationalists against the USSR. In the spring of 1945, the Galicia Division signed an agreement with British intelligence.

In 1951, the U.S. military command and OUN, a nationalist organization, held talks about inciting an uprising on the Soviet home front.

Ukrainian nationalists have been a traditional tool for the West to undermine the USSR. In 1950, Ukrainian nationalist ideologue Petr Poltava published an article titled “Preparation for World War III and the Objectives of the Ukrainian People.”

This might sound pretentious, but mark my words: Ukraine’s hostility toward Russia is enough to ignite a war in Eurasia by definition. I don’t think the world truly understands that yet.

Ukraine had two options. Option one: neutrality and good relations with Russia. Option two: a buffer zone and war—war to the last man. Ukraine chose the second. Or rather, it was chosen for Ukraine. I’m not going to list the funds the West spent to turn Ukrainians against Russians. Enough has been said on this topic already.

But, as someone as old as modern Ukraine, I have to say that we are part of a grand experiment. Through propaganda, they turned kin people into enemies. This all starts in school. In literature and history classes, they keep saying Russia is the cause of all our problems. All who called for peace and warned us have been canceled, killed, or jailed.

The example of my homeland, Ukraine, teaches us that war always catches us by surprise. One day, you wake up to sirens and your life will never be the same.

AFP: How do you assess the Minsk Agreements?

Panchenko: Panchenko: Even if we don’t question whether anyone actually intended to implement them, it’s a matter of Ukraine and NATO. It’s a matter of life and death for Russia; a matter of turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia.” Truth be told, the Ukrainian government never cared about Donbass or Crimea, for that matter. Neither Zelensky nor Petro Poroshenko [Ukraine’s fifth president, 2014-2019] wanted to reclaim the unloyal population that would never vote for them. The Minsk Agreements allowed Ukraine to reclaim Donbass, and the government had a chance to do what it took to return it. But they didn’t want to. The issue with modern Ukraine is that we’re not allowed to call a spade a spade.

Everybody knew that Donbass and Crimea were gone for good, yet they still bombarded the audience with propaganda slogans, and continue to do so, even now. Neither Zelensky nor the people believe in returning to the 1991 borders, but it’s forbidden to say it out loud.

Recently, Ukrainian influencers recorded a call for negotiations. And the SBU summoned them for interrogation. It’s hard to build a state on lies. Ukraine doesn’t even have a political language to describe the reality around us.

AFP: What is your perspective on Zelensky personally, his regime in general, and the overall situation in Ukraine regarding the accusation of corruption?

Panchenko: I know Zelensky a little. I know his team. He’s addicted to glory and hates criticism, first and foremost. This isn’t necessarily bad for an actor, but absolutely unacceptable for a politician, let alone a president.

Presently, Zelensky isn’t making any decisions. The U.S. State Department is making them for him, with Jake Sullivan as his supervisor. In Ukraine, power is executed by the head of the President’s Office Andrei Yermak. And my sources say he’s ready to dump Zelensky.

Ukraine has always been fertile soil for corruption, and today, it’s in full bloom. A few weeks before the war, ex- Zelensky advisor Sergei Shefir was moving enormous sums of cash out of the country and transferring funds to offshore accounts.

Ex-Minister of Defense Reznikov transferred $1 billion to offshore accounts. But that is just a drop in the ocean. Recently, I released a video on “X” about some embezzlement cases known to the media. The total amount in these cases reaches $60 billion. That’s why people aren’t eager to go to the frontlines. They don’t want to die only to make Zelensky and his team even richer. Does the White House know this? Certainly. They’re covering up for each other.

For years, the West has been hooking Ukrainian elites. Corrupted officials are easier to control; it’s leverage. When the United States decides to dump Zelensky, you’ll see it immediately by the number of reports about his corruption in the global media.

AFP: The ongoing geopolitical proxy war in Ukraine is a terrible meat grinder where young men are being sacrificed for primarily non-continental interests. What‘s your knowledge regarding the failed peace negotiations back in March 2022?

Panchenko: First of all, this is a senseless war. At each stage, Ukraine could’ve stopped it. And the longer it rages, the more Ukraine loses. I met Zelensky’s advisor after the Istanbul talks. He was there and he boasted, “We played the Russians.” He said the Ukrainian army was going to enter Crimea, there would be a revolt in Russia, and they’d overthrow President Putin.

So I asked: “OK, but what if Russia retaliates with nuclear weapons?”

“Well, 60,000 people will die, but that’s the price we’re willing to pay,” he replied.

Zelensky’s entire “winning tactic” was based on a coup in Russia. Pretty short-sighted if you ask me, because Russians would rather go to the draft office than to protest in the streets.

Zelensky’s reputation in the first year of the war hung by the myth that Ukraine “repelled the attack on Kiev.” Except there was no fighting for Kiev. It’s Zelensky’s propaganda myth that presented Russia’s pullback as part of negotiations as a victory.

Not a single Russian official publicly mentioned plans to take Kiev. Instead, early on, Russia gained access to the Azov Sea in Mariupol and established a strategically important land corridor to Crimea.

AFP: Of what relevance is the question of who is sitting in the White House?

Panchenko: I’d be happy to be mistaken, but I think it’s a big over simplification to say Donald Trump is going to stop the war. Ukrainian politicians don’t shy away from brazen criticism and even insults toward him. My sources indicate Zelensky’s team has compromising information on both contenders. The release will depend on the political situation. This is going to be the third time Ukraine has interfered in the U.S. elections.

AFP: Are you concerned the increasing tension in multiple areas could escalate into a larger catastrophe, or do you also see some developments that could potentially contain the dangerous trends?

Panchenko: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don’t see any prospects for de-escalation. We’re living in a world where you cannot tell the truth. To put it simply—the warmongers won’t let it happen. The world is ruled by an aggressive minority. They oppress, cancel, or kill anyone who disagrees, and cover their crimes with nice-sounding progressive ideas and “democracy.” The Maidan events have basically spread across the world.

Three centuries ago, in his philosophical essay “Toward Perpetual Peace,” Immanuel Kant declared that humanity could achieve universal peace either through universal enlightenment or a devastating conflict. Sadly, it looks like only something terrible will make people give it some thought. That means more people are going to die.

I’d love to be wrong, but it looks like the next phase of escalation is an all-out war between Russia and NATO—in both Ukraine and throughout Europe.

AFP: What is the future of Ukraine and Europe?

Panchenko: Ukraine’s sovereignty is lost. Its economy has halted. The nation is living on a credit line. Ten million people have left, and more will follow the moment Ukraine opens its borders. Society is divided and full of hatred, which is now the official policy. The United Nations forecasts Ukraine’s population to shrink to 15 million by 2100. According to my sources, it’s already around just 20 million. In 1991, it was 52 million. So, who’s launched a genocide of Ukrainians, the Russians or our present government? Zelensky’s team is holding our people hostage and turning down any negotiation proposals, so the war will continue. And Ukraine will keep losing ground.

It pains me to say this, but today, Europe is following in Ukraine’s footsteps by making decisions that hurt its people.

AFP: How about your future?

Panchenko: My main goal is to help people understand one another. The root of all evil is ignorance. For years, they’ve been building a wall between Russians and Ukrainians, so they know close to nothing about each other. Now they’re building a similar wall between Russia and Europe. Today, I’m focusing on telling people the truth about the war in Ukraine to prevent an even bigger conflict. I’m publishing videos on my “X” account. My book will soon be published in Europe and the United States, and I’m also planning to adapt it for the screen.

I pray for peace for all of us, and hope that reason will prevail.

Sascha Roßmüller is a German journalist and author. He has held numerous offices in the party formerly known as NPD, now called Die Heimat. A popular speaker and media guest, Roßmüller writes for the German print magazine Deutsche Stimme.

James Edwards is the outspoken host of The Political Cesspool, one of America’s most potent talk radio programs. He has made numerous television guest appearances and his work as a political commentator over the past two decades has been the subject of articles in hundreds of print publications and media broadcasts around the world.