Exerting Pressure on Migrants in Ireland to Leave

Am suffering a slight shock: for the first time I saw some Africans in one of the local villages. Looks like they are settling in. I made sure to drive slowly and let them see that I had an unwelcoming expression ón my face…If we withdraw the common courtesies of life, the message will be very clear. And when the first Africans came to Dublin 30 years ago, I used to cross the street to greet them and shake their hands in welcome. Lots of us did. But not any more.

No foreigners hurt in Ulster ethnic cleansing. In Dublin Lumpen Proletariat teens are switching to attacking foreigners, possibly including people not actively abducting children or displaying a bad attitude. The media is under-reporting the attacks: they have only specifically mentioned a handful, but the Indians alone claim 50 of their guys have been beaten. Foreigners noticing change in attitude from Irish, and some foreigners talking about leaving. Huge numbers of Irish, including MSM journos, making foreigners feel uncomfortable in non-violent comments ranging from super polite and very friendly to vulgar, abusive and threatening. The pro-refugee crowd are increasing their mentions of Hitler and fascism and trying to ban a local festival celebrating Irish language, heritage and culture.

Ethnic cleansing, Christian style? Tall tales from Ballymena and Moygashel, Dublin and Drumshanbo

Israelis do their ethnic cleansing with hatred, starvation, torture and massive bloodshed. Ulster’s Christians are doing their ethnic cleansing without hurting a hair on any foreigner’s head and without sectarian or racial hatred.

“There’s not one person in Ballymena has a racist bone in their body” announced a cheerful Ulster lassie on Irish radio. She and her family were on their way to a mostly peaceful demonstration, which segued into a carefully targeted and entirely peaceful destruction of possibly several dozen houses of Roma Gypsy rape gang-related properties.

The issue was—yet another!—gang rape of a young teen girl by foreigners: Roma Gypsies in this case. Two are in custody in the North, but rumour has it that some of the gang have found state accommodation in the South..

No foreigners were physically injured in any way. Ulster Prods have a long track record of burning unwelcome Taigs out of their areas but in previous ethnic cleansings, they have killed and injured people. Not this time. Nobody killed, nobody even injured. Practical Christianity. (Dozens of cops were reportedly injured, but this is purely a compensation and extra holidays scam)

The worst thing that MSM showed us was a foreign woman who climbed into the attic with her children while remigration enthusiasts smashed up the ground floor of the house. They made no attempt to go upstairs and did not set the house on fire. Upsetting for her, nó doubt, but not a hair on the foreigner’s head was touched.

The mostly peaceful protests involved beautiful women wearing balaclavas taunting the police. When the cops announced on their loudpseaker that they were going to use force to disperse the crowd, the crowd cheered! When the water cannon opened up, lots of little groups dispersed in all different directions to go to pre-selected houses to encourage the residents to remigrate. A crowd in one place is easy for the cops to handle, but when that crowd splits into a hundred groups and goes in a hundred different directions?

Filipinos avoided trouble by putting up their flag and the bland statement—Filipinos live here. One Filipino house did get damaged, but locals apologised for the misunderstanding and the Filipinos graciously accepted the apology. They haven’t moved back so far. A source said that hundreds of foreigners have left Ballymena.

In Moygashel, the Bonfire Association got global attention for the funniest bonfire topping: a rubber dinghy full of refugees. MSM journalists barely could speak the words: all the refugees depicted were people of colour. Moygashel is a small place and they must enjoy the publicity. They are probably planning next year’s bonfire already.

The Moygashel boys are equal opportunity mockers and clearly do not have a racist or sectarian bone in their bodies either. Last year, they burnt models of a Sinn Fein and a Unionist politician in a police car. What could be more inclusive and non-sectarian than that?

Bonfires are a part of the Pagano-Christian tradition. Before the man from Galilee made fun of the practice of human sacrifice, the Celts, as well as the Israelis, probably used fire for this purpose. Country people still pronounce it the old way—bone-fire. Ulster Prods like to live up to their reputation as being good workers. For the normal resident of anywhere else in Ireland or Britain, a fire a couple of yards wide and high is plenty big enough. Not for the Ulstermen! MSM sources say that the highest bonfire was 68 metres high, but a source in the town of Larne claims their bonfire was “the highest manmade structure in Britain or Ireland” which, if true, would put it at 200 metres or more. … Either way, they are so hot that you must stay hundreds of yards away. Houses have to board up their windows to avoid heat damage, but the residents of these houses are enthusiastic about the “bone-fire”.

One very significant slogan on the Moygashel bone-fire: Veterans before refugees.

Veterans means veterans of the armed forces. Lots of Ulstermen have served. They know lots of other veterans. The Ulstermen have a great track record when it comes to successful mutiny in the British Army: they did it in 1913—the Curragh mutiny. It was all hushed up, of course.

A big mutiny would be difficult to organise. But a temporary mini mutiny of a hundred or so serving British soldiers is surely feasible. Rock up to the local refugee hotel, arrest everyone in a cheerful, friendly way, cuff them together in a long line and march them through the town to a local politician’s house. Return to base and act perfectly normal. If there’s any pushback, the officer commanding simply laughs and says: “Yes sir, that was my mistake. I misread the orders. Must be the PTSD from my time in Afghanistan. But all’s well that ends well. Nobody was hurt, the refugees got to stretch their legs and see the area and the locals loved the parade. Best not to make a fuss about it, sir, don’t you think?” A very British mini-mutiny.

Ulster Orangemen have been the blood-crazed attack dogs of the British deep state for centuries, on and off. But what happens when the attack dogs turn on their master? They love their flags, the union with the neighbouring island and the institution of monarchy. But the current Royal family is widely regarded as gang of degenerate perverts. Prince “Randy Andy’ and his Epstein visits are well known. And let’s not even start on the revoltingly evil—but technically Catholic—Jimmy Saville and his friendship with a certain very prominent Royal. “A nest of vipers” is how one Orangeman described them. The Orangemen are loyal, but they are not loyal to the Windsors. … Is it time for a dynasty change in the UK?

There are some signs that Ulster cops are sympathetic to thevibrant remigration enthusiasts. A couple of rubber bullets were fired, but didn’t kill anyone. In the old days it was quite common for them to kill people in demos. One MSM report says a cop had his hands in his pockets while a bunch of lads set fire to the Derry/Londonderry railway tracks a few yards away.

A few weeks after the protests, the first ever Gay Pride march was scheduled for Ballymena. In the early morning, someone sprayed the parade route with slurry, leaving the streets inches deep in liquified animal manure. Very smelly. The shopkeepers of Ballymena were out early scrubbing the streets clean. Two young lads have been arrested by the police in connection with the slurry. The cops have been arresting people since the protests stopped. If they are going to jail everyone who was on the protests, they will need several large new prisons.

Africans are contributing to the multicultural gaiety by having Union Jack parades in Gormanstown, Co. Meath. Flying the Union Jack is all very popular in loyalist parts of the North, but in the South it is the height of rudeness. (When Trinity College Dublin flew it at the end of WWII, a boisterous crowd tore the flag down.)

Are our Hiberno- Africans so stupid they do not know this? Perhaps they think they are actually in the UK: we all speak English, many worship UK football teams and UK soap operas.

But even ants understand the friend/enemy distinction. The Africans know fine well that flying the British flag in Ireland is an insult to us Irish. They are deliberately insulting us. Who put that idea in their heads?

For those hoping for lots of speedy, cheerful Remigration, the MSM liars at the Journal.ie and Irish radio offer highly amusing quotes from various foreigners. If true, expect to see a gradual and then a sudden flow of foreigners out of the Emerald Isle. Many have acquired Irish passports and will no doubt attempt to flee to other Anglophone countries.

Faisal, from India, is following his Pakistani doctor wife around the world. Ireland is friendlier than Australia, he said on radio, but the Australians don’t administer savage beatings to foreigners on the streets..

Many cited the Dublin Stabbing Riots of 2023 as the turning point when the Irish stopped being friendly.

Women and their teenage daughters began to side-eye me on Dublin streets,”

This is great news! This means that even the feminists have hopped aboard the Remigration train!

Many said that they felt afraid and were considering leaving the country.

A GP from Trinidad and Tobago, who wants to remain anonymous, said that he and his wife, who is also a GP, have lived in Ireland since their early twenties; they are Irish citizens, but he says the couple are now considering leaving Ireland.

It seems that they never felt the need to devote some of their time to helping their compatriots back in poverty-stricken Trinidad. Perhaps now is a good time for them to move home?

The man said the couple were recently racially abused by their neighbours when they asked them to lower the volume of music after 1am on a Sunday.

One couple came to Ireland as they wanted to “experience life in a high trust society. Instead, they feel terrified to leave their home.”

Ah yes. Well, it was a high trust society. But that was before the foreigners came.

It seems like there is a totally leaderless psychological warfare operation against our surplus foreigners. All types of people are putting their shoulder to the wheel, in all sorts of social settings.

A local man browsing in a shop that I sometimes work in told me that I was ‘lucky to be working here’. A man sat down next to me on the bus and began to murmur at me that this was his country, and tried to provoke me to attack him. He followed me around the bus murmuring threats in my ear.”

Notice how delicately the message was delivered: murmured into his ear. Up close and personal, but very relaxed.

Rúairí also said that while having a drink in a bar in Mayo with a friend recently, someone played The Lion Sleeps Tonight on the stereo and men at the bar shouted slurs and laughed.

Great tune. Isn’t it amusing that even whistling a tune with an African reference will be construed as a threat?

It’s noteworthy that even Irish people who are friends with foreigners are joining in the effort:

He says that some of his friends have begun mentioning the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

Isn’t he lucky to have such honest friends?

Foreign women are, of course, more fearful than the men.

Johanna said: “I feel like I constantly go around town with an undercurrent of strong anxiety and paranoia, watching my back, bracing for the worst.”

This month. while walking down O’Connell Street in Dublin with her boyfriend, two men passing muttered “get out of our fucking country”.

That’s probably a slight misquote. The lads probably said ”Get the fuck out of our country”

Another reader, Taz, said the racism he experienced at work and where he lives in Dublin made him feel “scared and powerless”.

I was told to fuck off to my country by an elderly man,” he said.

Again, probable misquote. The old guy would be more likely to say ”Fuck off to your own country”

On public transport, a man stood on his foot and wouldn’t let him move; the man told him he had a problem with the reader’s “chocolate face”.

Our beloved Garda Siochana are, to their eternal shame and disgrace, following orders to enforce the Plantation, but they are also encouraging foreigners to remigrate.

He said he does not feel supported by Irish officials: “I feel they are not doing anything. I’ve never felt like they can help me at all.”

Another reader who lives in Dublin said he is constantly harassed by groups of teenagers, something he feels the authorities do not take seriously.

This writer has made numerous formal complaints to the Gardai about various crimes. Believe it or not, the response from the cops included: smirking, insults, threats of arrest and death, open boasts of the cops’ involvement in illegal activities, including murdering other cops and drug dealing and, of course, almost total inaction on the crime reported. It is wonderful to hear that many cops are responding in a similar fashion when foreigners complain that someone insulted them or hit them a few slaps. The cops cannot be accused of being racist: they are treating the foreigners with the same contempt they show us natives. In fairness to them, as many as ten percent of Irish cops will respond in a professional manner to a report of a crime.

The Lumpen Proletariat youth, mothered by feminists, trained by the sacred screens of phone and TV, motivated by easily available vodka, cocaine and mind bending vapes, are also doing their part to encourage remigration. This highlights the only advantage mass immigration has brought to Ireland. In the old days the Lumpen Prole teens would launch savage unprovoked attacks on peaceful people like you and me. The leftists would make excuses for them. Now the Lumpen Proles are starting to target foreigners and the leftists are terrified.

Kids using electric scooters at high speed throwing bottles and stones on people of colour is frustrating,

A reader who lives in the midlands said that every day before leaving his home, he prepares himself to expect the worst from Irish people.

I no longer smile nor am I friendly, I am always on the edge ready to defend myself, this has affected my mental health and I no longer want to live in this hostile unfriendly country,” he said.

Sounds like someone has taken the hint...

Some Dubliners are taking things to the next level: Two Indian chaps were very badly beaten — nearly killed — in the last two weeks. The first beating made national and international headlines and much criticism. (An Irishman suffering a similar beating would typically be almost completely ignored by the MSM). The second beating of an Indian was given much less publicity. The Indians say 50 of their people have been beaten recently, but most of these attacks are unreported by the MSM.

The publicised incident involved a prosperous looking crowd of middle-aged Irish people urging on a bunch of teenagers who were bashing the unfortunate chap’s head into a convenient lamppost. They had stripped him naked from the waist down. They emphatically told a do gooder lady who asked whether the man had been behaving badly near a playground. MSM repeatedly said that the man was “totally innocent” but they admitted that his walk from his home to the Hindu temple happened to pass by a playground.

Some might argue that this action is in some way unChristian. But the man from Galillee was very specific about what to do with people who interfere with children: tie a millstone around their necks and throw them into deep water. He and his crew also reportedly entered a Jewish temple and whipped everyone they could get their hands on. Executions and whippings are punishments that Jesus encouraged.

Dr Santosh Yadda, a data scientist, described another attack: The teens came from behind, stole his glasses, asked if he wanted the glasses back, broke the glasses in front of him and then started hitting him, resulting in fractured bones, cuts and three or four painkillers a day.

This seems to have been an unprovoked attack on a man minding his own business on an evening stroll. Such attacks are wrong, unChristian and possibly even counterproductive.

Despite the beating, Dr Yadda still loves us and wants to stay: “I love the Irish people. Irish people are the best.” The journo specifically asked him if he is he going to stay in Ireland. “Definitely. ..I have concern only about these teenagers.” He says that the supportive attitude of his ethnic Irish co-workers is the reason he intends to stay. He predicts that the teens who attacked him will get off scot free, even if the cops bother to find them. “They know they will not be punished…” He advises Indians to always go out in groups and avoid eye contact with people.

The liberals created laws to give special privileges to anyone doing crimes before their 18th birthday. They have their identities hidden permanently, for example.

On RTE’s Morning Ireland news show, journalist Shane McIlhatten is clearly mocking the suffering of the brown man. He reports on Lakhmir Singh, a taxi driver who was beaten up at night by two passengers, presumably ethnic Irish, though it is not stated. Singh states that he will definitely never drive a taxi at night again. McIlhatten then says in an amused tone of voice: “Another person with a newfound fear of the dark is Dr Tymur Salman.” Only women and children have a fear of the dark.

Dr Salman was born and bred in the town of Navan, Co. Meath. His father was also a doctor there. The other day, while buying groceries at night, a ten-year-old boy shouted “Mr. Curryman” at him. Another boy did impressions of Apu, the unpleasant Indian from the Simpsons.

As a result, Dr Salman feels that it is too dangerous for him to walk the streets at night. A delicate flower indeed. Might remigration be a solution for him?

Priyanka Borpujari is a journalist and PhD student who has decided to “make Ireland her home”. She sounds like she has access to some good research on racial differences, not just at skin level but at cellular level. Is she a reader of TOO? She admits that she didn’t get worked up when the Lumpen Teens killed a Croatian chap or when the cops supposedly attacked some Africans, but only when one of hers was hurt.

So perhaps in a way, we are all tribal in our bones, that our cells wake up only when “one of us” is attacked.” You don’t say. Maybe she should apply for a research grant to study the topic.

The same lady accuses the Lumpen Teens: “For non-Irish and non-White people like me who have made Ireland our home, there is nothing we fear more than teenagers, who can get away with any form of racist attack.”

In fairness, the Lumpen Teens have been getting away with savage — but non-racist — attacks on ethnic Irish for decades. It’s only very recently that they have started attacking foreigners. For twenty years since the darkies started trickling in, there has been a loose Lumpen Prole/Foreigner alliance. The Nigerian, Pakistani and East European have often provided drugs, prostitution and hitman services to ethnic Irish criminals. Some well-organised Irish criminals have benefitted directly from the billion Euro refugee accommodation scam. If the Lumpen Prol/Organised crime/Foreigner coalition is falling apart, this can only be a good thing.

A Bombay homosexual (“15 years living in Ireland”) was possibly exaggerating when he claimed on radio that in Dublin’s Heuston train station, “everybody” was staring at him with hate in their eyes. Significantly, they were also making their hands into fists. It sounds like the commuters were trying to make him afraid, which is technically a criminal offence. Perhaps he should report it to the cops?

He also claimed that a drunk woman wielding a knife chased after him when he was walking through Kilmainham. Kilmainham is where the Brits shot the leaders of the 1916 Rebellion. Indians are making maps of unsafe areas in Ireland. They should add Kilmainham to the list.

Indians are pretending to be surprised and outraged, of course. The MSM are stressing attacks on Indians, but surely the Pakistanis and Nigerians are also getting beaten? Perhaps the explanation is that while the Indians are happy to play the victim card, the manly Pakistanis and Nigerians reject this tactic. If you are the boss of the local Paki rape gang and the local teens and pre-teens launch a humiliating, but non-fatal, attack on your family, publicising the attack would lower your status and expose you as a father unable to protect his family.

Indians have colonised several parts of the world: Mauritius, Natal province in South Africa, Fiji They know that the locals will object. They already have their plans in place. They are lobbying our politicians to include extra compulsory education on the many benefits that foreigners have brought to Ireland. Other Indians are boasting on Reddit forums about how their new housing estate in Dublin is 95% or even 100% Indian. Our useless fat politicians issue 2,000 legal work visas every month to Indians and the same again to Brazilians. And who knows how many UK Pakistanis drive across the open border unnoticed and find sanctuary with the Kebab Shop Brotherhood? Every village in Ireland has a Paki fast food place.

On Telegram channels, a guy boasts that they were expecting some foreigner to break into their flat. They were prepared. They gave him a “Dublin hello”, which seemed to involve hitting him on the head with a stout stick until he stopped moving, judging from the photo of a dead-looking African man. Not a word about the incident on the MSM. Possibly a disinfo fake: who would incriminate themselves by posting this online? But possibly true. In Ireland you can kill someone legally, as long as you held the belief that they were a threat to your life or to someone else’s life, even if that belief is obviously false and no reasonable person would believe that you were threatened. Perhaps the guy is very sure of the legality of his actions?

Attacks on foreigners can be divided into two types. Type A: A foreigner caught in some despicable act and suffering injury while resisting a perfectly legal citizen’s arrest, after a proper investigation of the facts, in a civilised and Christian fashion in accordance with Irish law, Gaelic custom and the 1937 Irish constitution.

Type B: A foreigner minding his own business attacked because Lumpen Prole teens want some cheap thrills and a soft target.

It is to be expected that the MSM will minimise mention of the former and maximise the publicity given to unprovoked Lumpen Teen attacks. There were frontpage headlines when a six-year-old Indian girl was hit in the face and told to go back to India by a group of five 11-year-old boys. This story, which is quite possibly not true at all, comes from the girl’s mother, Anupa Achuthan, a nurse in Waterford.

Meanwhile, the pro-refugee crowd are desperately flogging the fascist Hitler horse. In Sligo, 100 people, including an evil English feminist well known to this writer and a deranged US Jewess carried insulting signs saying “The only good fascist is a dead fascist” and so on. This was in reaction to a Sligo Says No rally of 200 or so, whose bland purpose was simply against Government policy.

Not one black or brown person was at the “anti-fascist” rally. Numerous Africans and brown Asians observed the Sligo Says No rally with a relaxed and friendly attitude. A slim, elegant young African woman with her equally pretty Filipina friend watched the speeches with interest from a riverside cafe. No doubt they miss the sunshine and customs of their home countries, and our rally has encouraged them to think of remigration. The Christian flavour of some speeches probably resonated with them. A middle-aged lady spoke of constant sexual propositions and harassment from brown men. This possibly also resonated with them. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Perhaps brown woman jealousy of brown man lusting over our (much more beautiful) White women could be a powerful force for remigration?

The Sligo Says No rally went up to the gates of the massive new development of refugee apartments (200 car spaces) that overlooks the Abbeyquarter residential area. The refugees will be able to observe the habits of the locals from their high-rise windows. The locals were happy to see the march.

Fascists and Jews mingled happily at the Remigration rally. Perhaps they weren’t actually real fascists or real Jews: One handsome, stylishly dressed youngster flipped a Roman salute to the terrified anti-fascists. His goodlooking girl cooed approval. (Roman salutes are not illegal here, and there are great photos of Catholic bishops and Irish politicians doing it in the 1930s.) A burly, tanned and confident looking chap wore a sports shirt with the words ISRAEL and an image of a howling wolf. There was no blood on the wolf’s fangs, so perhaps we can deduce that he is one of the many Israelis who want an immediate ceasefire and peace with their Palestinian neighbours?

Local politicians repeated the fascist allegation. One leftie (Pat Fallon, Sligo Leitrim Congress of Trades Unions) even complained about anti-Muslim blasphemy referring to the chant: Allah, Allah, Who the fuck is Allah? Some years ago, we voted in a referendum to remove the offence of blasphemy from the constitution. We can be almost certain that Fallon supported this. But now he is offended by it…

In the town of Drumshanbo, there is a gang of three lunatics: A trans person, a non-Gaelic speaking pagan witch and a leftie. The footsoldiers of globalism. They have busied themselves putting up posters with a Hitler theme. They claim that an upcoming nationalist festival will be a opportunity to celebrate the well-known Austrian artist, vegetarian and Zionist collaborator. They got hundreds of musicians to sign a petition calling for the festival to be banned. Prominent signers include Christy Moore and the notorious Kneecap. The campaign worked: the Drumshanbo venue cancelled. This was slightly surprising — the same venue held an illegal Covid gathering, back in the day.

Luckily, another venue is available, somewhere near Castlebar. Details available at the last minute, to avoid problems. The publicity of the cancel campaign has no doubt worked to increase ticket sales…

The Mise Éire festival is to celebrate the Irish language, culture and heritage. It will, God willing, take place on August 23rd. It features a host of Remigration enthusiasts, writers, artists, musicians and speakers of the dear old Gaelic. It’s priced at an eyewatering 50 euros with over half the 750 places already sold. (50 x 750 makes 37,500 bucks. Who knew there was that much money in nationalism?)

Will it be banned? Or will it be the best free speech gathering ever? Watch this space. See you there. Beir bua!

 

Professor Griff, Public Enemy, and the Precarious Black–Jewish Partnership

When Kanye West, more popularly known as “Ye,” recently released a song titled “Heil Hitler,” it was not the first time a hip-hop artist’s rhetoric strained Black-Jewish relations. In 1989, Professor Griff of Public Enemy made antisemitic claims in an interview that set off a media firestorm and reopened deep, historical tensions between the two communities.

Born in 1960, Richard Duane Griffin, known as Professor Griff, rose to prominence as a key member of Public Enemy, one of the most influential rap groups of all time. As the group’s self-proclaimed “Minister of Information,” he fused a commanding stage presence with pointed political commentary, helping to make Public Enemy both critically acclaimed and socially disruptive.

Griff’s role extended far beyond lyrical contributions. He developed the group’s stage routines, managed its armed-guard “Security of the First World” (S1W) dance unit, and infused its message with Afrocentric themes. Public Enemy’s sound and style were unapologetically abrasive and confrontational, quickly becoming the soundtrack for a generation of Black political protest. Albums like Yo! Bum Rush the Show (1987), It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back (1988), and Fear of a Black Planet (1990) revolutionized hip-hop’s sound and challenged its audience to think politically. Songs such as “Fight the Power” became early hip-hop anthems, embedding Public Enemy’s defiant style into the very fabric of the genre.

While Griff was less visible than frontmen Chuck D and Flavor Flav, his creative input was indispensable. His spoken-word interludes, authoritative stage presence, and conceptual vision for S1W gave Public Enemy one of the most distinctive performance identities in the hip-hop genre. But as the group’s influence grew, Griff’s offstage rhetoric would spark one of hip-hop’s most damaging controversies.

The fallout began on May 22, 1989, during an interview with The Washington Times reporter David Mills. Griff asserted that “Jews are responsible for the majority of the wickedness in the world” and claimed he could “prove” their wickedness. He accused Jews of controlling American institutions, pointed to their dominance in the jewelry business, and went so far as to say that “if the Palestinians took up arms, went into Israel and killed all the Jews, it’d be all right.”

These remarks did not appear in a vacuum. Griff’s views were heavily shaped by the Nation of Islam’s ideology, particularly the teachings of Louis Farrakhan, and by material circulated by the NOI’s historical research department. He drew directly from The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which argued that Jews dominated the Atlantic slave trade, and from Henry Ford’s The International Jew.

The backlash was immediate. Jewish organizations, mainstream media outlets, and music critics condemned his remarks. Public Enemy’s once-radical posture was now a liability. Chuck D initially tried to defend Griff but eventually relented to mounting pressure. On June 19, 1989, he announced Griff’s removal as Minister of Information for failing to represent Public Enemy’s program. Less than two weeks later, under unrelenting public and industry scrutiny, Chuck D announced the group’s temporary disbandment.

By August of that year, Public Enemy had reformed and reinstated Griff in a reduced role as “Supreme Allied Chief of Community Relations,” but the arrangement was short-lived. The mounting public pressure on the group proved overwhelming. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith lodged protests with CBS/Columbia Records, which distributed Public Enemy’s albums.

Walter Yetnikoff, head of CBS, sent a memo to his executives urging them to “pay more attention to what their acts were saying with regard to matters of ethnicity.” Jewish leaders across the country condemned Griff’s remarks, the national media erupted, and even longtime allies distanced themselves. Russell Simmons, co-founder of Public Enemy’s label, reportedly dismissed Griff as “a racist stage prop.” By the end of 1989, Griff was permanently kicked out of Public Enemy.

Despite the damage to his reputation, Griff re-emerged in later years, continuing to champion Black empowerment while rarely retracting his earlier views. In June 2020, he appeared on Nick Cannon’s “Cannon’s Class” podcast, where both men engaged in a discussion about Jewish power and Semitic identity. Cannon endorsed Griff’s claims concerning Jewish power, calling him a “legend” and proclaiming, “you’re speaking facts.” Cannon’s conversation triggered the predictable backlash from the usual suspects, with groups like the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the American Jewish Committee, and regional Jewish federations denouncing his remarks, ultimately pressuring ViacomCBS to cut ties with him.

In 2025, Griff remains active through lectures, interviews, and social media, appearing on programs such as “The Carl Nelson Show” to discuss Black music and history. While his recent rhetoric has been less inflammatory than in 1989 or 2020, his continued association with controversial ideas keeps him relevant in debates about antisemitism in hip-hop.

The fallout from Griff’s remarks cannot be understood without examining the broader history of Black-Jewish relations in America. Historically, these communities forged important alliances, particularly during the Civil Rights movement, when Jewish leaders and organizations lent significant support to Black activists. Yet beneath the surface, the relationship has always been precarious.

As this author has previously mentioned, Black-Jewish relations in modern America have been marked by repeated clashes despite earlier civil rights solidarity. From the 1968 Ocean Hill–Brownsville school crisis to the 1991 Crown Heights riots, from the Nation of Islam’s rhetoric on Jewish influence to high-profile disputes over Israel and Palestine involving figures like Tamika Mallory, Marc Lamont Hill, and Black Lives Matter, these episodes have exposed deep and persistent fault lines in this presumed alliance.

At some point, as political priorities realign, Black Americans may find themselves overlooked while other potential golems—Indian migrants in particular—are cultivated to serve the agendas of those in power. As new minority groups rise to prominence, Professor Griff’s legacy stands as proof that the Black-Jewish alliance has always been tenuous, and its future may lie in obsolescence rather than renewal.

Israel’s Man Inside the CIA Betrayed the US, New Files Show

Israel’s Man Inside the CIA Betrayed the US, New Files Show

 and 

CIA spymaster James Angleton shaped the US-Israeli relationship in secrecy. Newly unredacted files shed light on his wanton betrayal of his country to assist Israel’s theft of US nuclear material and global spying operations.

Veteran CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton secretly oversaw a top-level spy ring involving Jewish émigrés and Israeli operatives without “any clearances” from Congress or Langley itself, according to recently declassified documents published as part of the Trump administration’s pledge to disclose all available information on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The files provide a fresh and often disturbing look at a spy described by historian Jefferson Morley as “a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel,” detailing Angleton’s role in transforming the Mossad into a fearsome agency with global reach, while assisting Israel’s theft of US nuclear material and protecting Zionist terrorists.

Angleton established the Jewish emigre spying network in the aftermath of WWII, with the apparent goal of infiltrating the Soviet Union. But as the files show, the spymaster considered his “most important” task to be maintaining the supply of Jewish immigrants flowing from the Soviet Union towards the burgeoning Israeli state.

According to Angelton, his Jewish assets were responsible for 22,000 reports on the USSR, generating several intelligence masterstrokes. Chief among them was the publication of Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Kruschev’s famous 1956 secret speech denouncing Stalin, which the spymaster boasted “practically created revolutions in Hungary and Poland.” Elsewhere, Angleton bragged that his arrangement with Israel had produced “500 Polish intelligence officers who were Jewish” who “knew more about Polish intelligence than the Poles.”

Other passages appear to show Angleton taking credit for securing the “release” of several Zionist terrorists affiliated with the Irgun militia before they could be convicted for bombing the British embassy in Rome. Though the group had been captured by Italian authorities, the newly-disclosed files indicate the terror cell was freed on the orders of the CIA.

The information was originally divulged in 1975 to senators serving on the Church Committee, which probed widespread abuses by US intelligence in the decades prior. Congress was particularly interested in claims by New York Times foreign correspondent Tad Szulc, who testified under oath that Angleton had personally informed him that the US provided technical information on nuclear devices to Israel in the late 1950s. The new documents show that Angleton was deceptive under questioning, and evaded questions on Israel’s nuclear espionage efforts on the record.

Additional unsealed FBI documents, which refer to Israel’s Mossad as Angleton’s “primary source” of information, confirm that the CIA’s head of counterintelligence relied heavily on Tel Aviv to solidify his position within the Agency – and also add to the growing body of evidence that Angleton may not have been operating with US interests in mind throughout his 21-year tenure.

Other newly declassified files from the FBI have shown that Angleton maintained a wildly lopsided relationship with the Bureau, which saw federal agents deferring to the CIA counterintelligence chief after they caught him surveilling the correspondence of huge numbers of Americans. The files show Angleton openly admitting he would have been fired if Langley caught wind of his leaks to the Bureau.

A side-by-side analysis of the now-unredacted Church Committee files compared with their previously-released versions from 2018 demonstrates that even after 70 years, Washington felt compelled to conceal details of its real relationship with Israel’s founders. Over a dozen references to “Israel,” “Tel Aviv,” or descriptions of figures as “Jewish,” which were scrubbed from the 2018 release, can now be viewed on the National Archives site.

The documents on that page reveal that Angleton repeatedly lied to multiple Congressional bodies, including the Church Committee, which investigated CIA abuses, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which probed the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Angleton was similarly evasive when interrogated over Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and about CIA knowledge or complicity in the scheme.

Those documents also reveal that Angleton’s CIA counterintelligence staff ordered Lee Harvey Oswald’s removal from federal watchlists six weeks before Kennedy’s assassination, despite his classification as a high security risk. The surveillance of Oswald was personally overseen by a member of Angleton’s intelligence network of Jewish emigres, Reuben Efron, a CIA spy from Lithuania. Angleton had placed Efron in charge of an Agency program called HT/Lingual which intercepted and read correspondences between Oswald and his family.

Numerous historians have questioned why the CIA counterintelligence chief insisted for decades on personally overseeing what he described as the “Israeli account.” Though several off-the-record interactions remain impossible to parse, the documents show that when grilled about his “unusually close” connections to the Israeli Mossad, Angleton acknowledged forming an “arrangement” in which, “in most simplistic terms, [the Israelis] were informed that we would not work with them against the Arabs, [but] that we would work with them on Soviet bloc Intelligence and communism.”

Freeing Zionist terrorists

One of the earliest instances of Angleton’s cooperation with Zionist elements came as Zionist militants embarked on a terrorist campaign to pressure the British colonial authorities to leave Mandate Palestine.

In October 1946, three months after they bombed the British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, members of the right-wing Irgun militia planted explosives in the British embassy in Rome in a failed bid to assassinate the UK’s ambassador to Italy.

According to Angleton, after the Irgun “blew up the British embassy in Rome” in 1946, the CIA intervened to ensure they escaped Italy without prosecution.

“We had the members of the group, and then we had the dilemma again as to whether we turned them over to the British authorities,” noted Angleton, who had served as counterintelligence chief for the Italian branch of the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA’s predecessor. “And we were in a position to make the decision one way or the other. And eventually we came down on the side of releasing them.”

A secret deal with the Mossad

As Washington sought to manage the political ruptures caused by the creation of Israel, and monitor the wave of Soviet migrants pouring into the self-proclaimed Jewish state, Angleton framed his takeover of “the Israeli account” as a convenient way for US intelligence to kill two birds with one stone.

“The other side of the Israeli problem was that you had thousands coming from the Soviet Union and you had the Soviets making use of the immigration for the purpose of sending illegal agents into the West and breaking down all the travel control, identifications and so on. And so there was both a security problem and a political problem.”

To manage these “problems,” the US and Israelis brokered a deal involving the secret exchange of “papers and signals, communications intelligence, [and] the other products of intelligence action,” Angleton stated. The spy chief claimed the only records of the 1951 arrangement held by the US side would be in the possession of the Agency, and admitted US Congress had been left in the dark, telling senators, “I don’t think there were any clearances obtained from the Hill.”

Asked by one legislator how it was “possible for succeeding directors of the intelligence agency to understand what the agreements were between” US and Israeli intelligence, Angleton responded: “Very simple. They saw the production to begin with. And they met with directors or the head of Israeli intelligence. And they met with Ambassadors and prime ministers. And they were very much involved.”

Grooming Zionist spies “outside the structure” of the CIA

Angleton was especially protective of what he called “the fiduciary relationship” with Tel Aviv, assembling a close-knit clique of Jewish Americans with dubious loyalties to manage it as World War Two drew to a close. “I started from the south side with two Jewish men who worked with me during the war,” he explained. Having “sent them over as ordinary people under cover” to get their bearings in newly-formed Israel, Angleton “brought over six others and put them through some months of training, outside of the structure” of the CIA.

“To break down the fiduciary relationship – which is after all a personal business – all the men I have had, were men who stayed in it and came back to headquarters and went back to Tel Aviv, they went to the National Security Council, and went back to Tel Aviv, et cetera.”

“It was probably the most economical operation that has ever been devised in the U.S. Government,” Angleton crowed. “I don’t think there was [sic] more than 10 people that were hired in the same process.”

Having trained these spies “outside of the structure” of the CIA, it’s unclear how Angleton ensured they remained faithful to US national security objectives, or whether he ever intended to.

Enabling Israeli theft of US nuclear material, spying on America

Angleton’s role in enabling Israel’s wanton theft of nuclear material from an American facility is one of the more shocking episodes in the US-Israeli relationship. The scene of the crime was the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, a uranium processing facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania owned by a Zionist financier named David Lowenthal. In 1965, Zalman Shapiro, a fellow Zionist hired by Lowenthal to run the plant, illegally diverted hundreds of kilograms of nuclear fissile material to Israel. Posing as a scientist, the notorious Mossad spy Rafi Eitan visited NUMEC three years later to continue the heist.

As Jefferson Morley documented in his biography of Angleton, “The Ghost,” the late CIA counterintelligence chief made sure the CIA looked the other way as Israel constructed its first nuclear weapon out of the stolen fissile material. According to Morley, “Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than U.S. non-proliferation policy.”

1977 investigation by the US Government Accountability Office found that the CIA withheld information about the NUMEC nuclear theft from the FBI and Department of Energy, and “found that certain key individuals had not been contacted by the FBI almost 2 years into the FBI’s current investigation.”

The latest batch of Church Committee files add new detail about Angleton’s compromising of US national security to benefit Israel, and his attempts to cover up his betrayal.

During his testimony before the Committee, Angleton was pressed about media reports alleging that he and his counterintelligence unit provided Israel with technical support for constructing nuclear weapons. He strenuously denied the charges, insisting the CIA had never played any role in providing Tel Aviv with nuclear materials. However, when questioned about whether “Israeli intelligence efforts” were ever conducted in the US “aimed at acquiring… nuclear technology,” Angleton equivocated.

First, he blustered, “there have been many efforts by many countries to acquire technical knowledge in this country, and that doesn’t exclude the Israelis.” Asked if CIA counterintelligence had “certain knowledge” of Israeli agents “trying to acquire nuclear secrets in the US,” Angleton pleaded, “Do I have to respond to that?”

The Committee then went “off record” at the senators’ request, making Angleton’s responses impossible to scrutinize.

In a secret 1975 memorandum to the FBI, the ousted CIA counterintelligence chief disclosed that he had “avoided any direct answers” during his Senate testimony on Israel’s spies carrying out “intelligence collection” to gather “nuclear information” in the United States.

Just days later, a Bureau report on “Israeli intelligence collection capabilities” revealed Angleton entertained “frequent personal liaison contacts” with Mossad representatives at Israel’s Washington DC embassy between February 1969 and October 1972. This “special relationship” involved “the exchange of extremely sensitive information.”

Further, the 1975 FBI memo on Angleton disclosed the Israeli embassy’s establishment of a “technical intelligence network” seven years earlier which was directed by an Israel scientist who worked on Tel Aviv’s nuclear program. This may explain why Angleton was so cagey under Senate questioning.

“Israeli matters” trigger Angleton’s downfall

The Church Committee files show Angleton bristled at then-CIA Director William Colby’s efforts to apply a modicum of transparency to the Agency’s activities, especially as they related to Israel. The spymaster warned that if the USSR ever caught wind of Langley’s use of the self-proclaimed Jewish state as a de facto halfway house for communist turncoats, they would almost certainly end their policy of encouraging Eastern European Jews to migrate to Israel:

“This idea of opening the doors and letting the light in, and breaking down compartmentation, and breaking down the need to know, would inevitably put in jeopardy the immigration, if the Soviets should learn the extent of the activities,” Angleton stated.

Colby fired Angleton in 1974 after the New York Times revealed that he devised an illegal program of domestic spying targeting antiwar American dissidents. In his testimony, Angleton framed their clash as an interpersonal conflict, describing Colby as “not my cup of tea professionally or in any other way.”

Yet Angleton also acknowledged to the Senate that a “dispute in connection with these Israeli matters” between himself and Colby contributed to his departure from the Agency. Was this a reference to the former spook’s involvement in Israeli theft of US nuclear secrets, enabling Israel to acquire the bomb?

Whatever the case, it was clear why Angleton would be remembered more fondly in Israel than inside the country he ostensibly served.

On December 4, 1987, the director of Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet intelligence services gathered in secret on a hillside in Jerusalem to plant a tree in honor of Angleton. They were joined there by five former Israeli spy chiefs and three former military intelligence officers.

Despite attempts to keep the ceremony under wraps, two local reporters managed to evade the cordon to record the ceremony for the former CIA counter-intelligence director, who had died seven months prior. Together, the Israeli spooks laid a memorial stone that read, “In memory of a dear friend, James (Jim) Angleton.”

Spencer j. Quinn reviews K. M. Breakey’s “Britain on the Brink”

K.M. Breakey
Britain on the Brink
Independently published

“They say I’m radicalized,” said Ozzie, as if reading Jack’s mind. “Bollocks. I’m de-programmed, that’s all. I see the world as it is. I’m no bloody criminal. I’m a patriot who’s had enough.”

***

Serial fiction has always been a great way to preserve not just characters and storylines, but also the real-life cultures and milieus surrounding them. In many cases, it uses what’s known in television as the law of the expanding middle. In classic Aristotelian fashion, there’s a beginning, of course, but once you reach the middle, you never seem to reach the end of it. The middle expands. The whole point was to keep Gilligan on that island at the end of every episode, despite how hard he and his friends had just tried to escape. Each installment is not quite a sequel; rather it’s an opportunity to place familiar characters with familiar goals into unique circumstance with unique challenges. For some reason, the formula works well with pairs: Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Holmes and Watson, Bertie and Jeeves, just to name a few.

Thanks to K.M. Breakey’s 2025 novel Britain on the Brink, the Dissident Right now has its dynamic duo of serial fiction, which will hopefully one day rival the above pantheon. Jack Campbell, a corporate banker and family man, has taken the red pill, but keeps quiet about it for the sake of his self-made fortune and domestic bliss. But he’s not above drinking a pint or two with the lads down at the pub. There he invariably finds his best mate Oswald “Ozzie” Fletcher holding court over the decay of his beloved England. Ozzie says he doesn’t care about football (a.k.a. soccer), but holds court over that as well. He’s just annoyed that so many of the players in English kits are really foreigners. Quickly the reader realizes that these men are beyond conservative, beyond reactionary. They are dissidents who pine for the day in the not-so-distant past when England was truly, ethnically, English. They resent mass immigration into their country, and they have contempt for their traitorous government who allowed it to happen. When lathered up with enough beer, they can get pretty vociferous about it.

In their entertaining exchanges, Ozzie plays the id to Jack’s ego, and there really is no super ego holding them back. Yet Ozzie has a soul. There’s just almost no space between love and hate with him. One moment, he’s as loyal and true as a puppy dog, and the next he is an enraged rottweiler chomping at the bit. It’s all instinct and action with Ozzie, and he’s got the scars from countless brawls to prove it. He’s a working class bloke who knows what’s right and is willing to fight for it. With Jack however, we have forethought and urbanity doused with a healthy appreciation of danger. He’s not averse to taking risks, as long as they are calculated risks. He didn’t climb up the corporate ladder and make a big success out of himself for nothing. Unlike Ozzie, however, Jack also has something more than just his career to lose: namely, his wife and two young children.

With Jack and Ozzie, Breakey has given us a great team, one that’s ready-made for adventure. And since both men are at heart English identitarians in an age when English identitarians are openly suppressed in their homeland, there’s plenty of adventure awaiting them.

By chapter three, we learn that the central conceit of Britain on the Brink is time travel. Jack discovers quite out of the blue that he has the ability to produce visions which allow him to will himself back in time. His first stop is the 1966 World Cup, which Breakey describes in loving detail. Jack witnesses not only the crowning achievement of British football, its 4-2 victory over West Germany, but how unified, peaceful, and natural England was back when all of its inhabitants were white. He’s mesmerized because prior to this, he had experienced only multicultural, multiracial England with all its crime, terrorism, and corruption. The past, as he just learned, was something else indeed:

The reality of England in 1966 – of London – had penetrated his soul with a mighty blast of ancestral recognition. Jack struggled to put language to his feelings. Finally, a suitable phrase dawned. It was as if he’d been home. A profound sense of being home. Of being whole. Of relaxing – truly relaxing – for what may have been the first time in his life.

This stark dichotomy becomes one of the main themes of Britain on the Brink, and as it unfolds we learn that Jack Campbell is quite the dissident in disguise. He has voided all civic nationalism from his worldview and replaced it with blood and soil. He appears like a normie to his employer and even at times to his wife, but at heart he knows that Ozzie is pretty much right about everything—even if the poor tosser is almost always wrong about what to do about it.

As Jack gets a handle on his time traveling abilities, his knowledge of English history comes to the fore. Most notable is his interview with Enoch Powell in 1974, six years past the statesman’s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech. Jack attempts to persuade the old patriot to refocus on immigration, and focus less on distractions such as the Irish Question. He also tries to wean him off the good war myth of the Second World War. He gains the man’s trust by showing him his cell phone, with all its apps and cached news items of 2025. More impressed by the degeneration of his nation than by the dazzling technology, Enoch ultimately believes that Jack is from the future. If Jack can change Enoch Powell’s mind, could he possibly change history?

It takes Jack several trips back in time to even begin answering this question. Time travel, apparently, is complicated. Meanwhile, another atrocity rocks England as the press slowly and reluctantly reveals that knife-wielding Muslim terrorists had just slaughtered a number of children in Jack’s hometown of Newfordshire. With the recent stabbings in Southport on everyone’s mind, anger is brimming in Jack’s circle. Ozzie in particular is outraged and heads down to the quaint little hamlet with a carful of his mates in order to protest.

“Hey, we’re Englishmen,” he tells Jack. “We’re civilized. We’re not gonna riot. But we are gonna make our voices heard. We’re gonna stand our ground – because it is our ground. It’s our country damnit.” And since “civilized” is not exactly the first word one would use to describe a beautiful thug like Ozzie, it won’t take a prescient reader to get a feeling that something else really bad is going to happen in Newfordshire. Can Jack’s still-shaky time traveling techniques save the day? And will he be able to navigate through all the ominous sci-fi paradoxes that surprise him at every turn?

Britain on the Brink has a lot of things going for it. It’s an easy breezy read, the plot never lets up, and the two main characters never stop developing. Suspense and action balance nicely with introspection and emotion. Breakey has a knack for history, and believably reconstructs England from the past—the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s, mostly, but with references that go way back before that. He peppers his dialogue with cockney rhyming slang as well as a good deal of English wisecrackery. When Ozzie delivers it, it can be downright funny. My favorite:

Jack went straight to the point. “This is gonna sound crazy, but we’re going back in time, Ozzie.”

Scoff. “Pull the other one, mate. It’s got bells on.”

Breakey also has a sharp dissident mind, and places the right talking points in his dialogue and narration. It’s all there, from justifying British colonialism to highlighting British exceptionalism, from underscoring the savagery of non-whites to condemning the cowardice of the cucked British elite. Clearly, Breakey has kept up with dissident literature. The story is very British as well, with references galore to that island’s history. And it is relevant history, such as the HMT Empire Windrush or the 7/7 bombings, which the non-native reader might have to learn further about online. It must be said that Breakey for the most part skirts the Jewish Question, but he does address it at one point, albeit obliquely. This might work in his favor after all since Britain on the Brink will also serve very well as young adult literature—and we all know that the JQ may not the best thing to lead with when reaching out to young readers. And yes, there is a lot of swearing, but it’s not the tasteless, gratuitous kind; rather it’s just men being men, sounding off while their people and their nation are in peril. When the inveterately unfiltered Ozzie does it, you have to laugh:

Jack shook his head. He was accustomed to his posh life with Lily and the kids – nice house, fancy car, creature comforts. “I choose to remain a member of polite society. Associating with you is dangerous enough.” It was a small joke, but there was truth to it.

“There won’t be polite society in ten years.” said Ozzie, as if reading Jack’s mind.

“The media’s already talking about—”

Fook the media, the bastards. They’re not reporters, they’re propagandists. Regime whores. Call ’em what they are.”

Britain on the Brink is part one in Breakey’s First World Adventures in Time and Space series, and if the title is any indication, time travel will play a large role in it—as well as, I hope, the sparkling interplay between Jack and Ozzie as they team up to save England and the West. One of the best things about the series, however, is that Breakey does not attempt to explain how Jack got his time travel powers to begin with. Instead, he describes it as a God-given gift. It’s as if the Almighty is looking out for the Brits because they’re on some kind of special path. No ethnic group, no race can thrive without the rock solid belief that they are loved by their Creator and are on some kind of special path. Fittingly, Breakey starts his novel with the following quote from the great colonialist Cecil Rhodes: “Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.”

Jack may not feel this way in 2025, but in 1966 he cannot help but feel this way when his team of native-born Britons defeats West Germany in the World Cup, and 85,000 of his delirious countrymen join together in a rendition of “Rule, Britannia.”

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.

If Britain on the Brink imparts anything, it’s that the English—and indeed white people everywhere—can achieve this level of unity and identity once again.

Reposted from Counter-Currents, with permission.

Les Judéo-Bolcheviks dans les exécutions de masses : le cas de Rozalia Zemliachka en Crimée en 1920

Accueil

Les Judéo-Bolcheviks dans les exécutions de masses :

le cas de Rozalia Zemliachka en Crimée en 1920

Karl Nemmersdorf

Introduction

Il est bien connu dans notre mouvance que les Juifs sont à l’origine d’une liste effroyable d’atrocités en Union soviétique. Sa seule échelle dépasse l’entendement. De 1917 à 1953, des millions de Russes ont été victimes d’arrestations, de torture, d’exécutions, des millions sont morts dans les Goulags, et d’autres encore sont morts par millions de famines d’État. Au sommet de l’appareil, des Juifs, on le sait, mais qui, lequel ou laquelle précisément s’est occupé de telle ou telle répression, de telle ou telle campagne de massacre? Ça reste souvent vague [1]. Le but du présent article est justement d’établir un lien précis entre un certain noyau de Juifs et un massacre resté célèbre, celui de Crimée fin 1920. Nous aurons pour fil rouge, c’est le cas de le dire, la trajectoire d’une communiste particulièrement  enragée : Rozalia Zemliachka. Tout du long, une carrière sans faille, sans écart, sans faiblesse: elle entre au mouvement en 1896, participe à la révolution de 1905 et de 1917, est nommée commissaire politique des armées durant la guerre civile, puis a fidèlement servi le régime stalinien qui lui allait comme un gant. Elle aura reçu les plus hautes distinctions et s’éteindra naturellement, c’était plutôt rare à l’époque, en 1947. Elle est inhumée sur la place Rouge, comme une grande figure du Parti qu’elle était. C’est elle que Lénine enverra en Crimée à la fin de la guerre civile pour liquider les derniers éléments hostiles à l’établissement sur Terre du communisme. On pense parmi les historiens, que le bilan des massacres s’est élevé en quelques mois à 50 000.

Rozalia Zemlichka

Jeunesse. Rozalia Samoilovna Zalkind, dont le nom de clandestinité était Zemliachka (« compatriote »), est née en 1876 dans une famille juive.[2] Son père, Samuel Markovich Zalkind, était un riche marchand de Kiev, ce qui n’a pas empêché toute la famille, filles et garçons, de se joindre, sans égards pour l’esprit de classe, à un mouvement révolutionnaire décidément très juif dès le départ [3] [4]. Il y avait une Juive parmi les conjurés auteur de l’attentat dont a été victime, en 1881, le Tsar Alexandre II.[5] Non seulement les Zalkind approuvaient l’assassinat, mais il n’est pas exclu que la famille entretenait des liens avec les régicides. Leur maison a en tout cas été perquisitionnée par la police à la recherche de brochures illégales [6] et la petite Rozalia aura vu deux de ses frères se faire embarquer pour activités révolutionnaires.[7]

Rozalia a fait ses études secondaires à Kiev, en sortant diplômée à 15 ans. Déjà révolutionnaire, elle se rattachait à l’époque, sous l’influence de ses frères aînés, au mouvement populiste. Mais elle a vite bifurqué, le populisme se rattachait trop à la culture russe et à la paysannerie. En tant que Juive, elle se sentait un net penchant pour le marxisme, affranchi des nationalismes et des traditions, foncièrement internationaliste et tellement plus “scientifique”. Elle avait aussi vite remarqué que la classe ouvrière était plus à même de provoquer l’effondrement de l’ordre existant que la classe paysanne. [8] Comme Marx et beaucoup d’autres, ce n’est qu’en vertu des impératifs révolutionnaires qu’elle en est venue à s’intéresser au sort de la classe ouvrière et non l’inverse. [9]

Rozalia Zemlichka, comme toujours, l’âge accentue les caractéristiques éthniques

 

Carrière révolutionnaire

Son père l’avait envoyée à Lyon (!) pour faire médecine, mais en 1896, elle était déjà de retour en Russie, les sources divergent au sujet de savoir si elle est revenue avec un diplôme ou non, mais quoi qu’il en soit, dès lors, elle se consacre corps et âme à la révolution. Pour ses débuts elle prononce lors d’un meeting clandestin un discours sur « le mouvement ouvrier en Europe de l’ouest », ce qui lui vaut d’être arrêtée et jetée en prison.  Elle en profite pour se plonger dans la littérature marxiste. La carrière de Zemliachka au sein du Parti Social Démocrate était lancée. [10] (Attention, pas de contresens, le Parti Ouvrier Social Démocrate Russe, c’est le parti qui engendrera, à la suite d’une scission au congrès de Bruxelles, le Parti Bolchevik). Elle fait deux ans de prison (1899–1901), en sort en s’étant forgé une âme de communiste indéfectible, prend un pseudonyme à la mesure de sa personnalité implacable :Tverdokamennaia, « dure comme le roc ». Mais elle ne dédaigne pas non plus de se fait aussi appeler « Démon », ce qui laisse songeur quant à la véritable nature de son affiliation. [11]

Lev Bronshtein, Trotsky pour les intimes, ne tardait pas à signaler Rozalia, son amie, à l’attention de Nadezhda Krupskaya, la femme de Lénine, lui adressant un rapport dithyrambique, y louant son tempérament révolutionnaire et son énergie, sans toutefois manquer de prévenir sur son autoritarisme et un certain manque de tact. Sur ce, Krupskaya, qui assistait son mari dans la direction des opérations du Parti depuis leur exil parisien, envoyait Rozalia prendre la tête de l’antenne clandestine d’Odessa. Rapidement,

Zemliachka s’est imposée dans le rôle. Dès mars 1903, la cellule d’Odessa était fermement aux mains des léninistes qui la désignaient comme déléguée au second congrès du Parti qui approchait. Zemliachka avait fait la preuve de son aptitude à commander, de son énergie et de sa capacité de travail. [12]


L’ami de Zemliachka Lev Bronshtein-Trotsky

Le 30 juillet 1903, Zemliachka assiste à Bruxelles au fatidique Deuxième Congrès du Parti Ouvrier Social Démocrate de Russie. (Le congrès fondateur s’était tenu en 1898 à Minsk, essentiellement sous les auspices du Bund ouvrier juif, de loin la plus grande organisation socialiste en Russie : quatre des neuf délégués de ce congrès étaient juifs.) Des quarante-trois délégués présents au deuxième congrès, vingt étaient juifs. [13] Du moins jusqu’à ce que la police belge ne l’expulse, Zemliachka a pu faire connaissance de Lénine et de Krupskaya, prendre part aux débats à leurs côtés en défendant l’idée – résolument non marxiste – d’un noyau dur devant amener les masses à venir s’abreuver aux sources de la révolution violente. L’intransigeance de Lénine sur ce point conduisait à une rupture avec les Marxistes modérés, plus respectueux de la démocratie, et qu’on allait désormais connaître sous le nom de Mensheviks « les minoritaires ». [14] Lénine profitait du vote pour proclamer sa faction «bolchevik», la majorité. La scission s’avérera définitive et  Zemliachka se rangera aux côtés de Lénine, tout comme Joseph Staline, Yakov Sverdlov (Yankel Solomon), et Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld), trois futures figures majeures. Trotsky s’éloignera un temps du côté des mencheviks, puis fera cavalier seul (il était notoirement arrogant), avant de rejoindre Lénine juste avant la révolution bolchevique de novembre 1917.

À  l’issue du congrès, Zemliachka était cooptée par le Comité Central, marquant ainsi la reconnaissance de sa nouvelle prééminence. Elle était l’un des agents les plus actifs de Lénine en Russie. Elle était sur tous les points chauds, à Saint-Pétersbourg, aux meetings en Suisse et à Londres, partout elle s’affirmait avec force dans les débats, prônant les mesures les plus radicales pour renforcer le Parti et accélérer la Révolution, n’hésitant pas à remettre à leur place ses détracteurs. [15]

Pendant ce temps, la révolution de 1905 montait en pression. Après des frictions avec des membres de la cellule de Saint-Pétersbourg, Rozalia s’installe à Moscou et devient la secrétaire du Parti de l’antenne. Elle était contre le soulèvement qu’elle estimait voué à l’échec, mais lorsqu’une grève a dégénéré en émeute en décembre, elle était sur les barricades, tentant d’utiliser les wagons de tramway contre les forces de l’ordre. [16] (Les sources sur l’épisode sont minces et divergentes). [17]

Lors de la répression qui s’en est suivie, Zemliachka a été arrêtée et emprisonnée à Saint-Pétersbourg. Elle y contracte une tuberculose (son mari, Schmuel Berlin, en était mort en 1902) et souffre d’une maladie de cœur ; elle bénéficie d’une libération pour raison médicale. Elle part à l’étranger (1909) jusqu’au déclenchement de la Première Guerre mondiale, séjournant principalement en Suisse. Barbara Evans Clements affirme qu’elle a évité tout contact avec les émigrés révolutionnaires (Ils étaient des milliers en Europe de l’Ouest), mais une autre source affirme qu’elle était en étroite collaboration avec Lénine [18] « L’échec du soulèvement de 1905 l’avait profondément affectée, elle en rejetait la responsabilité sur les camarades, qui, selon elle, avaient laissé passer les opportunités qui s’étaient offertes . . .» [19] Elle ne rentre à Moscou qu’en 1914, reprenant discrètement ses activités militantes.

Après le renversement du Tsar par la révolution de février 1917 (qui n’est pas la révolution Bolechevik de novembre 1917 = Octobre rouge), elle soutient les exigences de Lénine d’un retrait immédiat de la guerre et d’une remise des pleins pouvoirs aux Soviets. À ce moment-là, virtuellement tous les socialistes, y compris une majorité de Bolcheviques, estimaient qu’il s’agissait de soutenir le gouvernement provisoire en attendant la réunion d’une Assemblée Constituante en vue d’une république constitutionnelle. Dans le cadre de la théorie marxiste, cela aurait représenté l’étape obligée de la « révolution bourgeoise» et du développement concomitant du système capitaliste, préalable à l’instauration du communisme suite à la lutte dialectique entre les travailleurs opprimés et les patrons.  Cela pouvait durer des dizaines d’années, et Lénine n’était pas disposé à patienter, Trotsky et  Zemliachka non plus. Ils se rendaient compte que le gouvernement provisoire était faible et qu’il suffisait de se baisser pour ramasser le pouvoir. La perspective du pouvoir a fait s’évaporer le primat des dogmes marxistes qu’ils avaient eux-mêmes soutenus dans leurs écrits. Au milieu de l’été, Rozalia demandait au comité du parti de Moscou de s’armer en vue de la prise de pouvoir. [20] Lénine et Trotsky tentaient également de convaincre les  Bolcheviks réticents de Petrograd à faire de même. Avec succès puisque c’est à Petrograd que Trotsky fait tomber le pouvoir le premier, en novembre, Moscou suit en créant un Comité militaro-révolutionnaire sur le modèle de Petrograd. Le secrétaire du Comité est un certain Arkady Rozengolts, bien sûr un Juif, c’est lui qui joue le rôle prépondérant dans le soulèvement. [21] Zemliachka prend la tête des opérations dans l’un des districts de la ville (à nouveau, on manque de détails). Après quelques jours de combat, les maigres détachements du gouvernement provisoire sont vaincus, et les deux principales villes de Russie tombent aux mains des bolcheviks, en grande partie à l’initiative des Juifs.

Zemliachka dans la Révolution

Durant une grande partie de l’année suivante, Zemliachka continue de travailler pour le comité du Parti à Moscou, c’est une position cardinale puisque Lénine avait transféré la capitale de Petrograd à Moscou en mars, et tout le pouvoir s’y trouvait concentré. Toute l’année était marquée par des défis énormes : la guerre civile couvait sur plusieurs fronts, l’économie était quasiment à l’arrêt, et des troubles éclataient partout. Le peuple avait faim, le peuple était au chômage, le peuple grondait parce qu’il subissait les brimades et les spoliations des commissaires et des Juifs et qu’il n’avait pas peur de le dire. Les plus téméraires criaient à bas Zinoviev (Apfelbaum) lors des meetings de Petrograd dont il était le responsable. [22] Il ne s’agissait pas d’incidents isolés, même Lénine qui tentait d’amadouer la foule a été hué et a dû quitter l’estrade avec Zinoviev aux cris de « à bas les Juifs et les commissaires ». [23] Même des unités de l’Armée rouge se mutinaient, se livraient à des pogroms et exigeaient le départ des Juifs du gouvernement. [24] Les Bolcheviks se sentaient en état de siège, ils n’ont pas tardé, dès l’été, à avoir recours aux exécutions de masse et aux camps de concentration. Plusieurs assassinats d’officiels, souvent Juifs, et une tentative contre Lénine ont poussé le régime à déclencher le bain de sang de la Terreur Rouge à partir de septembre. [25] C’est précisément cette terreur qui sera à l’origine de la guerre civile qui va durer jusqu’à fin 1920.


Zinoviev-Radomyslsky (Apfelbaum), le patron de Petrograd

C’est dans cette atmosphère d’urgence pour le régime que Zemliachka décide de s’engager pour sauver le paradis communiste. Elle exige une affectation au front contre les Armées Blanches. Mais à 42 ans, il n’était pas question qu’elle mène les hommes au combat, et quel rôle pouvait-on confier à une femme ? Celui de commissaire politique, bien sûr. Là, elle pourrait haranguer les soldats, être derrière le dos des officiers, ordonner l’exécution de tous ceux qui ne sont pas contents des commissaires politiques Juifs.

Les commissaires politiques ont été créés pour ça : assurer le contrôle politique de tous ces paysans récalcitrants et de tous ces anciens officiers tsaristes suspects qui composaient l’essentiel de l’Armée Rouge. [26]

Ces commissaires, des hommes de confiance du régime, étaient ainsi incorporés dans toutes les grandes unités pour assurer l’endoctrinement des troupes et le contrôle  des officiers. En fait, les opérations ne pouvaient se dérouler qu’avec l’aval des commissaires, qui avaient un rang égal à celui des officiers supérieurs et tous les ordres étaient contresignés d’eux. Est-il besoin de préciser que la plupart étaient Juifs ? [27]

De 1918 à fin 1920, Zemliachka aura ainsi été affectée à la tête, successivement, de la 8e et de la 13e armée, les deux opérant dans le sud de l’Ukraine. À la tête de son escouade politique (une douzaine d’éléments), elle couvrait environ un effectif de 80 000 hommes, pratiquement à l’égal du commandant en chef de l’unité. Elle aura pleinement eu l’occasion d’étaler son fanatisme et son énergie sur ce théâtre d’opération crucial, portant des vêtements d’hommes et une veste en cuir : « maintenant bien dans la quarantaine, le seul vestige de son passé bourgeois, c’était ce ridicule pince-nez qui jurait avec ses cheveux courts, ses bottes, son pantalon et sa veste en cuir ». [28] Travailleuse et efficace, elle avait l’œil à tout, de la rédaction des discours à l’hygiène personnelle. [29] Elle n’avait de cesse que l’annihilation des ennemis du règne rouge. « Nous devons être sans pité, combattre sans relâche les serpents qui se cachent … Nous devons les anéantir avec un balai de fer ». [30] Ce qui faisait écho au tristement célèbre appel de Zinoviev dans son discours public de septembre 1918 : « Sur les cent millions d’habitants que compte la Russie soviétique, nous devons en entraîner derrière nous quatre-vingt-dix millions. Quant au reste, nous n’avons rien à leur dire. Ils doivent être réduits à néant ». [31]

Zemliachka durant la Révolution

Dieu seul sait combien sont morts sur ordre de Zemliachka durant ces deux années au paroxysme de la Terreur Rouge et de la Guerre Civile. La phase véritablement apocalyptique aura été l’entrée en Crimée en 1920, après son évacuation par les Armées Blanches. Alors le monde a eu sous les yeux un exemple sanglant, sanguinaire, de ce qu’il en coûte à une population civile sans défense de refuser la domination juive.

Le Massacre de Crimée

Le Baron Wrangel et l’Évacuation de la Crimée.

À l’automne de 1920, les bolcheviks avaient affermi leur pouvoir; la Guerre Civile était pour ainsi dire gagnée. Seul le Baron Wrangel résistait encore dans son enclave en Crimée. Descendant d’une grande famille de la noblesse germano-balte qui avait servi à la fois la Prusse et la Russie, Peter Wrangel était une figure dominante de l’armée tsariste, un homme capable au caractère bien trempé. [32] Sa petite armée n’avait pas pour ambition de renverser le régime de Moscou, mais de tenir un territoire qui serait à la fois un refuge pour les anti-bolcheviks et un modèle de ce que pourrait être une Russie non communiste. Ils étaient des centaines de milliers, fuyant la Terreur rouge, à venir chercher sa protection en Crimée. Les Bolcheviks, naturellement, n’avaient nullement l’intention de laisser Wrangel créer sa petite république. Profitant de ce que la Guerre Civile s’achevait ailleurs et qu’il était mis un terme à la guerre en Pologne (grâce à l’intervention militaire française), les Rouges tournaient leurs forces contre ce dernier noyau de résistance.

Peter Wrangel, le Baron Noir

C’est le Général Mikhail Frunze, commandant du front sud, qui est chargé de nettoyer la poche de Crimée. Il était lui-même sous la coupe directe de Trotsky, Commissaire à la Guerre depuis mars 1918 et créateur de l’Armée Rouge. À ses côtés, un trio militaro – révolutionnaire dans lequel on retrouve deux Juifs, Béla Kun (Béla Kohn) et Sergei Gusev (Yakov Davidovich Drabkin). (Nous reviendrons plus bas sur ces deux derniers, ce sont eux qui sont à l’origine du bain de sang qui est l’objet de cet article). Frunze aligne  300,000 hommes face aux 70,000 de Wrangel. Les Blancs étaient néanmoins confiants parce que l’entrée en Crimée se fait par un isthme étroit qu’ils avaient lourdement fortifié. Mais c’est la loi du nombre qui allait prévaloir, et, après les deux offensives du 28 octobre et du 7 novembre, les Rouges débouchent dans la péninsule. [33]

Wrangel avait déjà soigneusement planifié l’évacuation, et, via une retraite parsemée de combats de retardement, il dirigeait son armée vers divers ports d’où la plupart, en compagnie de milliers de réfugiés, ont pu être évacués vers Istanbul à bord de tout ce qui pouvait flotter. « C’était la démonstration brillante de la capacité de Wrangel à tenir en main les troupes et les civils que cette évacuation qui s’est déroulée, sous la pression des Rouges, avec un minimum de panique et de heurts ». [34] Près de 150 000 personnes ont pu s’échapper, mais malheureusement — tragiquement — des dizaines de milliers sont restées bloquées. Des scènes navrantes se sont déroulées sur les quais alors que leur dernier espoir disparaissait à l’horizon et que les troupes rouges approchaient.

Bela Kun (à gauche), Trotsky (au centre), Frunze (en arrière plan) et Sergei Gusev (à droite)

Les visages de la terreur juive. Pour comprendre le rôle des Juifs à la tête de la Terreur rouge en Crimée, il nous faut examiner les organes de contrôle politique et militaire mis en place par les bolcheviks. L’organe suprême, c’était le Conseil Révolutionnaire-Militaire de la République, dirigé par Trotsky, avec pour adjoint un médecin juif de 27 ans, efficace et fumeur à la chaîne, Ephraim Sklyansky. Bolchevique à partir de 1913, Sklyansky a participé au coup d’État de novembre à Pétrograd où il a attiré l’attention de Trotsky. Trotsky lui déléguait son autorité, lui laissant toute latitude au centre, tandis que lui-même  partait en campagne pour conduire la guerre civile. Quand il ne restait plus que la Crimée, Trotsky et Sklyansky ont suivi ensemble cette dernière bataille. Directement subordonné à ce Conseil, on trouvait le Conseil révolutionnaire-militaire (CRM) du Front Sud, c’est lui qui chapeautait l’Armée rouge en Crimée. Sergei Gusev en a été membre sur toute la durée de l’épisode, tandis que Béla Kun en a démissionné pour jouer un rôle plus direct.

Ephraim Sklyansky

Encore en dessous du CMR, on trouvait l’un de ces Comités Révolutionnaires provisoires mis en place pour assurer la transition entre une administration militaire (sur les arrières immédiats du front) et une administration civile. [35] Béla Kun, justement, avait quitté le CMR du Front Sud pour présider le Comité de Crimée, ce qui en faisait l’homme le plus puissant de la péninsule. Il avait pour adjoint un autre Juif,Samuel Davydovich Vulfson. Certaines sources mentionnent Zemliachka comme membre, mais les plus autorisées, non : je suis ces dernières. Le Comité comptait encore quatre membres – non Juifs.

Il y avait deux autres branches du régime actives en Crimée : le Comité du Parti bolchevique de la Crimée et divers détachements de la Tchéka, la très redoutée police secrète. Des cellules spéciales de la Tchéka étaient directement rattachées à l’Armée rouge, on en trouvait jusqu’à l’échelon divisionnaire. Ces cellules avaient des missions de contre-espionnages  et de larges prérogatives en matière de répression des activités contre révolutionnaires : elles seront pour une bonne part dans les massacres à venir. Zemliachka était nommée par Lénine à la tête du Comité de Crimée, ce qui en faisait la plus haute responsable politique. Côté Tchéka on trouvait quelques Juifs, dont Semyon Dukelsky et Ivan Danishevsky, mais ils n’étaient finalement pas les plus nombreux.

Jetons un œil à ces hommes.

Béla Kun. C’est la figure que la plupart des sources s’accordent à désigner comme le principal acteur, avec Zemliachka, de ce sinistre épisode. En 1919, sa prestation à la tête de l’éphémère République Soviétique de Hongrie, une dictature juive, lui avait déjà assuré pour l’histoire une postérité d’infamie. [36] Né en 1886 en Transylvanie dans une famille juive de la classe moyenne inférieure, il rejoint le Parti social-démocrate hongrois avant ses dix-sept ans et commence à écrire pour la presse socialiste. Il poursuit des études de droit, mais sans obtenir de diplôme. Durant la guerre, il est lieutenant dans l’armée austro-hongroise, il est fait prisonnier par les Russes en 1916. Dans les camps, il s’abreuve à la propagande bolchevique, se rend à Moscou, rencontre Lénine et fonde la section hongroise du Parti Bolchevique. Il commande une brigade de l’Armée rouge au début de la Guerre Civile avant que Lénine ne l’envoie avec une centaine de « camarades» en Hongrie où il déclenche la révolution de novembre 1918. Le bacille du communisme juif ayant proliféré en Russie, commençait à se propager à l’étranger. À Budapest, il fonde et dirige le Parti Communiste Hongrois, et, en mars 1919, il intègre une coalition de gouvernement Social-Démocrate /Communiste, qu’il dirige de facto si ce n’est de jure. Commissaire aux Affaires Militaires, il impose une collectivisation à marche forcée, nationalisant tous les biens, tentant de créer des fermes collectives … instaurant un régime de terreur rouge et envahissant la Slovaquie. [37] Cette terreur, qui a fait 500 victimes en quelques semaines, était le fait des « Lénine Boys » avec à leur tête l’inévitable Juif de service : Tibor Szamuely. Le gouvernement perdait rapidement tout support domestique et tombe devant une invasion roumaine le 1er août 1919.  Kun réussit à s’enfuir en Russie où il devient commissaire politique de division avant de rejoindre le Comité Militaire Révolutionnaire du Front Sud dont nous parlions plus haut. L’envoyé de Lénine allait pouvoir évacuer sa frustration de Hongrie sur le dos de pauvres Gentils sans défense en Crimée.

Bela Kun-Kohn

Il parvenait à inspirer un dégoût viscéral à  Angelica Balabanoff, pourtant elle-même une révolutionnaire juive de classe internationale.

J’avais tellement entendu parler de ses antécédents personnels et politiques douteux, que j’ai été surprise . . . d’apprendre qu’il avait été envoyé en Hongrie pour y faire la révolution. Le simple fait qu’il avait une réputation de drogué me paraissait suffisant pour lui barrer toute responsabilité révolutionnaire. Cette première rencontre avait confirmé mes pires appréhensions. Son apparence même était repoussante. [38]

Victor Serge, autre vétéran de la révolution à avoir beaucoup écrit sur le mouvement, disait de lui qu’il était une personnalité particulièrement odieuse, le type même de l’intellectuellement inapte, irrémédiablement affecté d’un manque de clairvoyance militant, mêlé à un autoritarisme de détraqué mental. [39] Serge rapporte une réunion au cours de laquelle un Lénine furieux de la révolution avortée de 1921, en Allemagne, en rendait responsable Kun, le traitant à plusieurs reprises d’imbécile devant tout le monde. [40] Un imbécile, semble-t-il, bien utile dans les massacres.

Samuel Vulfson. Né en 1879 dans la province de Vilna, il a une formation d’ingénieur chimiste. Au tournant du siècle, il rejoint le mouvement révolutionnaire et adhère presque aussitôt à l’aile léniniste. En Russie, il travaille des années durant dans la clandestinité, écrit, organise, subit l’arrestation et l’exil. Il se met un temps en retrait, mais la révolution de février le galvanise et il reprend du service à Moscou où il aurait collaboré avec Zemliachka. Il sévit en Crimée dès la première phase de l’occupation communiste, réquisitionnant la nourriture en tant que commissaire régional de l’alimentation et du commerce (1919), avant que les Blancs n’expulsent les bolcheviks. Avec la chute de Wrangel, il revient aux côtés de Kun au Comité révolutionnaire et de Zemliachka au Comité du Parti. [41]

Sergei Gusev.  Né Yakov Davidovich Drabkin en 1874, c’était une figure bolchevique de premier plan. Il rejoint le mouvement en 1896 à Saint-Pétersbourg, c’est un proche de Lénine. Il croise souvent la route de Zemliachka, la première fois lors du Second Congrès du POSDR  en 1903, puis, pour une collaboration régulière à Saint-Pétersbourg et Moscou. Lors de la prise du pouvoir, il était secrétaire du premier comité militaire révolutionnaire de Petrograd, celui à l’origine du coup d’État de novembre. [42] Sa fille Elizaveta était la secrétaire de l’éminent Yakov Sverdlov (Yankel Solomon), Président du Comité Exécutif Central (chef de l’État) jusqu’à sa mort en mars 1919. [43] Un historien hongrois, Georgy Borsanyi, porte sur Gusev un avis favorable : « un intellectuel bolchevik qui avait visité les bibliothèques et les musées d’Europe occidentale, parlait plusieurs langues et avait sa propre opinion sur les questions théoriques et pratiques de la révolution. Il était un chef militaire né, tout comme Kun ». [44] Victor Serge, à l’inverse, écrit: « J’ai entendu Gusev s’exprimer dans les meetings. Grand, légèrement chauve et bien bâti, il tentait d’accaparer l’audience en exerçant sur elle l’hypnotisme un peu vil et facile de la violence systématique. Mais pour faire ça, il faut avoir le charisme et être prêt à ne reculer devant rien … Pas un mot de ses propres convictions ». [45] À l’été 1920, Gusev est nommé au Conseil révolutionnaire-militaire de la République aux côtés de Trotsky et de Sklianski, puis il rejoint le Conseil révolutionnaire-militaire du front du sud, poste à partir duquel il jouerait un rôle dans la tragédie de Crimée, dirigeant l’Armée Rouge dans la conquête et l’occupation de la péninsule. [46]

Sergei Gusev-Drabkin

Semyon Dukelsky. Né en 1892 dans la province de Kherson, il est un membre proéminent de la Tchéka en Crimée à l’automne 1920. Il étudie la musique et joue du piano dans les salles de diverses villes ukrainiennes. Il sert dans l’armée tsariste pendant la Première Guerre mondiale, apparemment en tant que musicien, et rejoint les bolcheviks après la Révolution de février. [47] Malgré un manque de compétences militaires, ses supérieurs l’avaient affecté à l’administration de l’Armée rouge ; Sklyansky, écœuré, n’a pas tardé à s’en débarrasser. D’après certaines sources, il aurait été parachuté, «chef de la Tchéka » en Crimée, mais les diverses cellules de la péninsule n’ont été centralisées qu’au printemps 1921. Une source plus détaillée indique qu’il a servi comme chef ou chef adjoint du département spécial du Front Sud. [48] Ce poste était de nature à lui permettre de contrôler les opérations spéciales de toute la Crimée, mais je n’ai trouvé aucun rapport sur ses activités de l’époque.

Semyon Dukelsky

Ivan Danishevsky. Né en 1897, c’était encore un tchékiste juif haut gradé. Il rejoint le Parti  Socialiste Révolutionnaire en 1916. Il se jette dans l’action au moment de la Révolution de février, participant à la création d’une section de Gardes Rouges à Kharkov et combattant à divers titres en Ukraine. Il intègre le Parti bolchevique et la Tchéka en octobre 1919, jouant divers rôles dans le gouvernement communiste d’Ukraine. En septembre 1920, il devient chef du département spécial de la treizième armée, celle qui occupe la Crimée après l’évacuation de l’Armée Blanche. Il était donc le chef de l’une des principales forces responsables des exécutions, et cette fois, nous avons des détails sur le rôle qu’il a joué. Il n’avait que vingt-trois ans. [49]

Donald Rayfield, auteur de Stalin and His Hangmen, cite encore deux Juifs impliqués dans les massacres : Lev Mekhlis, commissaire politique dans l’Armée rouge et ami de Zemliachka, et le Tchékiste de seize ans, Alexander Radzivilovski (prénom Israël), qui est né en 1904 à Simferopol, la capitale de la Crimée. Rayfield ne détaille pas leurs actions, disant simplement que Radvasilovski y a commencé sa carrière et que Mekhlis « a aidé Rozalia Zemliachka à l’exécution des officiers blancs faits prisonniers en Crimée ». [50]

Lev Zakharovich Mekhlis Né en 1889 à Odessa, il a travaillé jeune homme comme enseignant et commis. Après une éruption de violence antisémite à Odessa en octobre 1905, il incorpore une unité d’autodéfense, puis le Poale Zion, un parti révolutionnaire sioniste. Durant la Première Guerre, il est enrôlé dans l’armée tsariste. Après la Révolution, il déserte et rejoint les Bolcheviks; il devient commissaire politique de l’Armée Rouge – une bonne place quand on peut l’avoir — c’est là qu’il travaille avec Kun. [51]

En passant, Donald Rayfield déclare que Zemliachka était la maîtresse de Kun à l’époque, sans donner de source. [52] Kun avait épousé en 1913 une hongroise, Iren Gal, le couple avait deux enfants, le deuxième né au début de 1920.[53 ]Cependant, après sa fuite lors de l’effondrement de sa « République soviétique de Hongrie», il a été séparé de sa famille, qui ne l’a rejoint en Russie qu’à l’automne 1921. [54]

D’autres Juifs ont joué un rôle dans ces événements – la plupart oubliés de l’Histoire ou cachés dans des archives – mais quelques-uns ont fait surface : Moisey Lisovsky, N. Margolin et Israël Dagin. Nous avons quelques informations sur les actions de Lisovsky et Margolin, mais rien pour Dagin. Pour Mekhlis, Radzilovski et Dagin, je n’ai rien trouvé de plus que des déclarations selon lesquelles ils étaient « impliqués ». De deux autres, Dukelsky et Vulfson, nous connaissons les postes qu’ils ont occupés mais n’avons aucun détail relatifs à leurs actions. Voici une liste des Juifs qui ont joué un certain rôle, approximativement classés par ordre d’importance :

Trotsky : Commissaire à la guerre, chef de toutes les forces armées
Sklyansky : Le puissant adjoint de Trotsky
Gusev : membre du CMR Front Sud, supervise l’Armée Rouge en Crimée
Kun : Président du Comité révolutionnaire de Crimée, plus haut fonctionnaire de la région
Vulfson : membre du Comité révolutionnaire de Crimée et du Comité du Parti
Zemliachka : chef du Comité du Parti bolchevique en Crimée
Dukelsky : figure majeure dans la Tchéka
Danishevsky : figure majeure de la Tchéka, des milliers d’exécutions à son compte
Mekhlis : commissaire politique ; actions spécifiques inconnues
Lisovsky : commissaire politique 9e division de fusiliers ; organise des exécutions.
Dagin : Officier de la Tchéka ; actions spécifiques inconnues
Radzivilovski : Officier de la Tchéka ; actions spécifiques inconnues
Margolin : commissaire, a menacé les Blancs de « l’épée impitoyable de la Terreur rouge »

Ce noyau est auréolé d’une réputation méritée de brutalité immonde. Les qualificatifs qui  lui sont appliqués  par les historiens ou ceux qui ont connu ses membres varient de « atroce », « odieux », « scorpion vicieux », « légendaire par sa cruauté », « sadique », « arrogant », « crétin » à « monstre». Et ce groupe n’était qu’un  parmi des douzaines – voire des centaines –  similairement composés d’une direction exclusivement ou majoritairement juive, qui ont écumé la Russie de long en large pendant plus de tente ans.

 

Israël Radzilovski Tchékiste

Lev Mekhlis, sioniste converti bourreau stalinien

Traîtrise Juive: La Fausse Promesse d’Amnistie Avant que Wrangel n’ait achevé son évacuation, Sklyansky avait tendu un piège aux officiers blancs, leur offrant une fausse amnistie afin d’en capturer et d’en tuer le plus possible. Il s’est servi du prestige du général Alexei Brusilov comme appât. Brusilov, l’un des meilleurs généraux russes de la Première Guerre mondiale, était passé chez les bolcheviks, convaincu qu’il était que le régime de Lénine ne tiendrait pas longtemps. Brusilov

avait été approché par Sklyansky . . . qui avançait l’idée qu’un grand nombre d’officiers ne voulaient pas quitter la Russie et pourraient être persuadés de faire défection si Brusilov apposait son nom au bas d’une déclaration leur offrant une amnistie. Sklyansky lui faisait miroiter le commandement d’une nouvelle armée de Crimée formée à partir des restes des forces de Wrangel. Brusilov était séduit par l’idée d’une armée purement russe composée d’officiers patriotes … qui lui permettrait éventuellement de … le moment voulu … disons, dans premier temps, de sauver la vie de beaucoup. Il accepta d’entrer dans ce jeu de dupes. . . Trois jours plus tard, on lui disait que le plan était à l’eau : les officiers de Wrangel, selon Sklyansky, n’avaient finalement exprimé la volonté de faire défection. Brusilov comprit, mais un peu tard, que ce n’était pas vrai. Lors de l’évacuation finale à Sébastopol, les Rouges avaient distribué . . . des milliers de tracts offrant une amnistie au nom de Brusilov. Des centaines d’officiers y avaient cru et sont restés. Ils ont tous été abattus. [55]

Peu après, Sklyansky envoyait un télégramme aux bolcheviks en Crimée, leur enjoignant de poursuivre le massacre : « Que la lutte continue jusqu’à ce qu’il ne reste plus un seul officier blanc vivant sur le sol de Crimée». [56] De son côté, Trotsky faisait savoir à Kun et Zemliachka qu’il ne se rendrait pas en Crimée tant qu’il s’y trouverait encore un « contre-révolutionnaire ». [57] Lénine faisait également connaître son point de vue: «Il faut s’en débarrasser au plus vite . . . sans pitié». [58] Kun et Zemliachka ne pouvaient pas ne pas comprendre ce qu’on attendait d’eux.

Le Massacre Peut Démarrer. Le 17 novembre 1920, l’occupation de la Crimée était complète. La péninsule avait historiquement une population très mélangée ; outre les Russes et les Ukrainiens, il y avait des Tatars (musulmans) turcs, des Allemands, des Grecs et des Arméniens. La population atteignait alors les 800 000 habitants, gonflée par l’afflux des réfugiés politiques et des soldats : environ 50 000 Russes blancs  et  200 000 civils. Bela Kun faisait cerner la péninsule et toute la population se retrouvait à sa merci. Les bolcheviques radicaux et la Tchéka investissaient la péninsule, prêts à faire subir les foudres de la Terreur rouge à une population qu’ils détestaient et qu’ils avaient crainte.

Péninsule de Crimée 

La première ville traitée a été Simferopol, la capitale, le 12 novembre. Pendant plusieurs jours, des soldats ont saccagé, pillé, violé, fusillé. En une semaine, les unités de l’Armée rouge et de la Tchéka avaient exécuté 1 800 personnes, et en quelques mois, le nombre a dépassé 10 000 dans la ville et ses environs. [59] [FG: on note qu’avec la meilleure volonté du monde, il faut un certain temps pour un massacre, 30 000 en deux jours, ce n’est pas possible] Ils ont procédé par fournées de plusieurs centaines d’officiers et de notables, les entraînant hors de la ville, les forçant à creuser des fosses avant de les abattre. Ils pouvaient aussi se servir des ravins. Le général Danilov, un ancien officier tsariste qui a servi dans la quatrième armée de l’Armée rouge, rapporte que

les alentours de Simferopol étaient empuantis  par les cadavres en décomposition . . . qui n’étaient même pas enterrés . . . Les fosses derrière le jardin de Vorontsov et dans le domaine de Krymtaev . . . étaient remplis de cadavres à peine recouverts d’une mince couche de terre . . . Le total de ceux qui ont été fusillés à Simferopol seulement du jour où les Rouges sont entrés en Crimée au 1er avril 1921 atteignait 20 000 . . . [60]

Le 15 novembre, les troupes faisaient route vers Sébastopol « précédées d’une voiture blindée marquée en capitales rouges d’une étoile et de l’inscription « Antéchrist », [61] un diptyque caractéristique des commissaires juifs des premiers jours du règne communiste sur Terre. Le « reliquat des réfugiés se tenaient sur les côtes dans le froid de la bise, lorsque les cavaliers rouges sont apparus au bout de la jetée. Quand ces soldats déguenillés aux pieds nus se sont trouvés en présence de ces gens, ils avaient encore les nerfs à vifs . . .  d’avoir subi le crépitement des mitrailleuses. . . . Les troupes . . . ont estimé que cela méritait bien une compensation ». [62] L’auteur ne dit pas en quoi consistait cette « compensation », mais on peut supposer qu’il s’agissait du tarif habituel de la soldatesque. Le viol «avait pris des proportions gigantesques, en particulier dans les . . . régions cosaques de la Crimée en 1920 ». [63]

Les viols ne sont pas restés dans les mémoires à cause de l’échelle monstrueuse des massacres. Selon Sergey Melgunov, un témoin scrupuleux de l’époque, on comptait 8.000 victimes à Sébastopol pour la seule première semaine, les pendaisons étaient monnaie courantes: « La perspective Nakhimovskyt était comme pavoisée de cadavres d’officiers, de soldats et de civils qui, arrêtés au hasard, avaient été exécutés sur place … sans autre forme de procès (témoignage oculaire). [64] Ce n’était pas que sur la perspective Nakhimovskyt que les Rouges avaient pendu leurs victimes, mais partout dans la ville, aux lampadaires, aux poteaux, aux arbres et aux statues. La ville offrait un paysage dantesque, les morts au grand jour, les vivants reclus dans des caves. [65]

Des centaines de malades et de blessés – pas seulement des officiers blancs –  ont été sortis des hôpitaux et fusillés. Les infirmières et les médecins y sont passés aussi parce qu’ils avaient soigné des soldats blancs ; les noms de dix-sept infirmières de la Croix-Rouge figurent sur une liste publiée par les bolcheviks. Des centaines de dockers ont été abattus parce qu’ils avaient participé à l’embarquement des hommes de Wrangel. Melgunov estime que les Rouges ont exécuté plus de 20 000 personnes dans la région de Sébastopol. [66] Fin novembre, les autorités de la ville ont publié deux listes de victimes (une pratique occasionnelle de la Tchéka). Ces listes n’ont jamais été données pour complètes, mais rien que celles-ci totalisaient 2 836 noms dont 366   féminins. [67]

À Feodosia, des milliers de soldats Blancs se sont rendus, espérant la clémence:

Après avoir été désarmés, ils ont été nombreux à proposer de rejoindre l’Armée rouge, mais au lieu de ça, des soldats de la 9e division de fusiliers, sous la direction des tchékistes de Nikolaï Bistrih, ont exécuté 420 blessés et réparti le reste dans deux camps de concentration. Comme il s’est avéré, ce n’était que l’acte inaugural d’une campagne de terreur qui devait durer cinq mois. [68]

Le commissaire politique de cette 9e division était un Juif, Moisey Lisovsky. Il a participé à l’action qui vient d’être relatée, ordonnant la fusillade d’une centaine de blessés Blancs à la gare, dans la nuit du 16 novembre. [69] Dieu seul sait combien d’autres il en a fait fusiller dans les mois qui ont suivi, mais on peut s’en faire une idée :

Au départ, on disposait des cadavres en les jetant dans les anciens puits génois ; mais même ces puits ont fini par être pleins, et les condamnés devaient être emmenés hors de la ville. . . . Là on leur faisait creuser des fosses avant que le jour ne faiblisse, on les enfermait dans des hangars une heure ou deux, et, avec la tombée de la nuit, dépouillés de tout à l’exception des petites croix autour de leur cou, ils étaient abattus. À mesure qu’ils étaient abattus, ils tombaient en avant en couches. Et couche après couche, la fosse se remplissait jusqu’à raz-bord. [70]

Beaucoup n’étaient pas tués sur le coup et achevaient d’agoniser enterrés vivants au milieu de cadavres en sang.

À Feodosia, nous trouvons un autre tchékiste juif de haut rang, Ivan Danishevsky. Il dirigeait le département spécial de la 13ème armée, œuvrant à Feodosia et à proximité de Kerch avec une énergie aussi juvénile que démoniaque. En décembre seulement, il a condamné à mort 609 personnes à Kerch et 527 à Feodosia. Les documents existants montrent clairement qu’il était responsable de la mort de plus de 2 000 personnes. Pour le 27 novembre, il rapportait que « 273 prisonniers ont été exécutés dans la journée, dont : 5 généraux, 51 colonels, 10 lieutenant-colonels, 17 capitaines, 23 capitaines d’état-major, 43 lieutenants, 84 sous-lieutenants, 24 fonctionnaires, 12 officiers de police, 4 huissiers ».[71]

À Kertch (et ailleurs), les communistes ont chargé des gens sur des barges, les ont emmenés au large et les ont coulés. Certains accusent Zemliachka d’avoir voulu économiser les balles. C’était une « technique » de la Révolution française qui avait été adoptée par la Tchéka et qui avait été précédemment mise en œuvre, par exemple, par la juive à moitié folle, Rebecca Plastinina-Maizel dans le Grand Nord. [72] (Ce qui ne l’a pas empêché de siéger à la Cour suprême de l’Union soviétique). [73]

Le chef de la Tchéka à Kertch était un certain Joseph Kaminsky [FG : un peu comme Jacques l’éventreur qui s’appelait Aaron Kosminski]. Le nom Kaminsky est courant chez les Russes et les Juifs. Parmi les autres bourreaux à Feodosia/Kerch figurent Zotov, N. Dobrodnitsky, Vronsky, Ostrovsky et I. Shmelev, certains pourraient bien être juifs. [74]

Recensement en vue d’extermination

Au bout de quelques jours, Kun a ordonné aux résidents de Crimée de s’inscrire auprès des autorités. Tous les adultes ont été sommés, sous peine de mort, de

se présenter à la Tchéka locale pour remplir un questionnaire contenant une cinquantaine de questions sur leurs origines sociales, leurs actions passées, leurs revenus et aussi sur leurs . . .  opinions au sujet de . . . Wrangel et des Bolcheviks. Sur la base de ces enquêtes, la population a été divisée en trois groupes : ceux à abattre, ceux à envoyer dans des camps de concentration et ceux à épargner. [75]

Le principe d’action, en l’occurrence, avait déjà été énoncé par Martin Latsis, membre de l’organe dirigeant de la Tchéka (le Collège), en novembre 1918 :

Nous sommes là pour détruire la bourgeoisie en tant que classe. Par conséquent, chaque fois qu’un bourgeois nous passe entre les mains, la première chose à faire doit être, non . . . de découvrir des preuves matérielles d’un crime . . . mais de poser au témoin les trois questions : « À quelle classe appartient l’accusé ? » « Quelle est son origine ? » et « Décrivez son éducation, sa formation et sa profession.» C’est uniquement en fonction des réponses à ces trois questions que son sort devra être décidé. Car c’est la raison d’être de la « Terreur rouge ». [76]

On peut se rendre compte des résultats du recensement effectué par les hommes de la 9e Division de fusiliers à Feodosia : « 1100 personnes recensées , 1006 abattues, 79 emprisonnées et seulement 15 libérées». [77] Moisey Lisovsky, le commissaire politique de la division, a certainement joué un rôle dans ce massacre. À Kertch, des patrouilles de la Tchéka ont bouclé la ville pour le recensement, identifié 800 ennemis de classe et les ont abattues. Les habitants pensent que le nombre est beaucoup plus élevé. [78] À Sébastopol, la Tchéka avait transformé un quartier en camp de transit et y avait filtré la population recensée, les heureux élus étant ensuite fusillés hors de la ville, comme on l’a vu plus haut. [79] Dans les principales villes de la Crimée, les Rouges ont procédé à des exécutions de masse suite à ce genre de recensement. Il est apparu que toutes ces éxécutions étaient le fruit d’un ordre direct contresigné par Kun et Zemliachka. [80]

Zemliachka le Démon – L’écrivain russe Ivan Shmelev, qui a personnellement souffert de ces événements – les communistes ayant abattu son fils, lieutenant Blanc – a écrit en souvenir un livre poignant : Le Soleil des morts. Devant le tribunal de Lausanne en 1923, il dresse, par petites touches impressionnistes, un portrait de Zemliachka:

Elle volait de clocher en clocher, cintrée dans son éternelle veste de cuir, son visage était d’une pâleur maladive, sa bouche sans lèvres, ses yeux éteints ;  . . .  la silhouette menue, le Mauser énorme . . . c’était son heure de gloire. Là, Zemlyachka-Zalkind n’avait pas son pareil. . . . « Feu, Feu, Feu … » répétait-elle sans arrêt, jouissant d’assouvir enfin ses instincts meurtriers si longtemps refrénés. . . . Rozalia Samuilovna s’est montrée en Crimée comme le chien le plus loyal, la voix de son maître, Lénine. Elle n’escomptait aucune récompense, la chair et le sang suffisaient à la combler. Son épopée laissait derrière elle, sur les montagnes et sur la mer, un sillage rouge de sang. [81]

Ce portrait démoniaque trouve un écho chez un haut responsable bolchevik envoyé en Crimée au printemps 1921 pour se rendre compte de la situation. Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev, un responsable du Parti communiste musulman, déclarait ainsi à propos de Zemliachka :

La camarade Samoylova (Zemlyachka) était une femme d’une irritabilité et d’une intransigeance extrême, qui rejetait a priori toute idée d’agir par la persuasion . . . . Un état d’énervement permanent, toujours à hausser le ton avec presque tous les camarades, des exigences extravagantes  . . . des répliques coupantes dès qu’on s’avisait d’avoir la témérité d’exprimer une opinion personnelle . . . Quand la camarade Samoylova était en Crimée, littéralement tous les travailleurs tremblaient devant elle, n’osant pas désobéir même aux ordres les plus stupides ou erronés. [82]

Je me suis abstenu de reprendre les descriptions les plus pittoresques de Zemliachka parce qu’elles manquent de sources solides, mais ces deux récits donnent une indication de sa folie homicide. Certains auteurs disent qu’elle a manié les mitrailleuses, torturé des prisonniers ou eu des accès de rage. Peut-être. Une écrivaine moderne russo-juive, Arkady Vaksberg, qui en sait long sur ces Juifs communistes, dit d’elle que c’est « un monstre sadique », sans détails, malheureusement. [83] Nous ne pouvons qu’attendre un travail plus approfondi dans les archives soviétiques.

Pendant ce temps, le massacre se poursuivait, le 5 décembre, un certain N. Margolin publiait un article dans le journal Krasny Krim (« La Crimée rouge ») :

L’épée impitoyable de la Terreur rouge pourfendra toute la Crimée et nous la purifierons de tous les bourreaux et exploiteurs de la classe ouvrière. Mais nous serons plus malins et ne répéterons pas les erreurs du passé ! Nous avons été trop gentils après la révolution d’octobre. L’expérience a été amère, mais cette fois, nous ne serons plus aussi magnanimes. [84]

Il traite les victimes de ce grand massacre de bourreaux ! Était-ce le même N. Margolin que celui que Soljenitsyne nous décrivait en affameur, en commissaire juif impitoyable, célèbre pour avoir fouetté les paysans qui ne fournissaient pas de grain. (Et qui les assassinait par-dessus le marché) ? [85] Ça doit être lui.

La tuerie a duré jusqu’au printemps suivant. En outre, des dizaines de milliers de personnes ont été internées dans des camps de concentration de fortune, avant d’être redirigés vers des camps plus grands hors de Crimée. 50 000 Tatars musulmans ont été expulsés en Turquie ou expédiés dans des camps en Russie. Il y a eu des rapports selon lesquels 37 000 hommes de l’armée de Wrangel languissaient dans des conditions épouvantables dans des camps de la région de Kharkov. [86] Vu ces conditions, il est à craindre que beaucoup de ces hommes soient morts. Lorsque la Tchéka a envoyé une requête à Lénine demandant ce qui pouvait être fait pour améliorer la situation dans les camps, il s’est contenté de noter sur le papier, « aux archives ». [87]

Rappel de Kun et de Zemliachka –  Après un mois de cette orgie sanguinaire, les tensions accumulées éclataient au grand jour parmi les tortionnaires. Certains commençaient à exprimer des doutes et des craintes devant cette violence qui proliférait à une allure vertigineuse, au point de menacer de prendre une dynamique propre, totalement indépendante de tout contrôle. Les signes d’indiscipline se multipliaient, avec les escadrons de la mort qui se livraient à toutes les exactions, se livraient au pillage, montaient des harems, tuaient pour des raisons personnelles. On s’inquiétait aussi du degré de fanatisme de Zemliachka et de Kun qui liquidaient toute la classe moyenne, y compris les experts et techniciens dont les bolcheviks auraient besoin pour faire fonctionner la péninsule après la normalisation. L’un des membres du Comité révolutionnaire, Youri Gaven, qui n’était pas Juif, écrivait une lettre à un ami du Comité central à Moscou le 14 décembre, disant que Kun était devenu une sorte de Moloch et que sa place était à l’asile. Gaven, se défendant par avance de toute faiblesse, prenait soin de préciser qu’il était lui-même pour la terreur, mais que trop de personnes utiles étaient tuées. [88] Le même jour, Zemliachka se fendait d’une longue lettre à Moscou, se plaignant des faiblesses et défaillances de certains cadres, qui, disait-elle, la forçaient à faire tout le travail. [89] (Des lettres du même genre, elle en envoyait déjà à Lénine dès 1904. [90]) Elle demandait le rappel à Moscou d’un certain nombre de responsables, dont pas un n’était juif (y compris le frère cadet de Lénine, Dmitry Ulyanov, qui siégeait au comité du parti de Crimée). Il y aurait donc eu une composante ethnique à cette controverse, les non-Juifs prônant une certaine modération, les Juifs étant partisans de la terreur maximale. En l’occurrence, Moscou répondait en rappelant Zemliachka et Kun, début janvier 1921. Ils n’étaient en Crimée que depuis sept semaines.

Zemliachka et Kun ne sont donc pas responsables de la totalité des 50 000 morts, cependant, les sources semblent indiquer que la plupart des décès ont eu lieu alors qu’ils étaient en Crimée. Rien n’indique que Lénine ait réprimandé les deux fous furieux, ni même qu’ils soient tombés en disgrâce. Au contraire Zemliachka était nommée au Comité du Parti à Moscou et Kun au présidium du Komintern. Zemliachka se voyait décerner le drapeau rouge pour son service exemplaire pendant la guerre civile. [91])

On trouve dans l’Encyclopédie juive universelle, publiée à New York dans les années 1940, une notice des activités de Zemliachka pendant la guerre civile. Zemliachka, disait-on, « s’est rendue utile au front.» Un bel exemple d’historiographie juive à encadrer.

Épilogue

Après son arrivée à Constantinople, Wrangel s’est efforcé de maintenir l’ordre et l’unité parmi les exilés. En 1924, il fonde l’Union militaire panrusse pour maintenir l’espoir d’un renversement du régime communiste. En 1927, il déménage à Bruxelles avec sa famille, quasiment réduit à la pauvreté. Il écrit ses mémoires, Always with Honor, qui sont publiées après sa mort. Sa brusque disparition en avril 1928 alimente aussitôt des soupçons d’empoisonnement par des agents bolcheviques. Les deux hommes qui lui ont succédé à la tête de l’Union militaire, les généraux Kutepov et Miller sont eux-mêmes enlevés et tués. [92] Les restes de Wrangel se trouvent à l’église de la Sainte Trinité à Belgrade.

En Crimée, bien que les communistes aient déjà assuré leur emprise, les exécutions se sont poursuivies jusqu’au printemps. D’autres Juifs sont arrivés ; Alexandre Rotenberg prenait le commandement de la Tchéka de la Crimée normalisée en septembre 1921. [93] La famine, qui va souvent de pair avec la domination bolchevique, prenait le relais des massacres. Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev mentionné ci-dessus rapportait au Comité central en avril 1921 :

La situation alimentaire empire chaque jour. Tout le district sud, habité principalement par la population tatare, est littéralement affamé au moment où je vous parle. Le pain n’est distribué qu’aux employés soviétiques, et le reste de la population . . . ne reçoit rien. Des cas de famine sont observés dans les villages tatars. . . . À la conférence régionale. Les délégués tatares ont indiqué que les enfants « tombent comme des mouches ». [94]

La situation en Crimée était catastrophique, mais la principale cause de la famine, qui a tué environ 100 000 personnes, n’était autre que la gestion bolchevique, en particulier la réquisition de nourriture et la collectivisation des terres, avec la création des fermes d’État totalement inefficaces. En mars 1922, la Tchéka de Crimée rapportait que le cannibalisme « devient courant ». Pendant ce temps, des enfants disparaissaient, et « à Karasubazar en avril 1922, un entrepôt contenant 17 cadavres salés, principalement des enfants, était découvert ». [95] Ce n’est qu’en 1923 qu’une certaine normalité est revenue – la normalité toute relative qu’on peut escompter d’un régime communiste.

La prise de contrôle de la Crimée par les Rouges a été un horrible bain de sang qui a plongé la population dans un état de choc et d’horreur et inspiré une haine tenace du régime bolchevique. Une grande partie de la population est passée du côté des Allemands pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, ce qui a déclenché une nouvelle répression et des vagues de déportation lorsque les forces de Staline ont repris la région au printemps 1944.

Passons maintenant à la vie d’après des sanguinaires.

Je n’ai trouvé aucune autre information sur Lisovsky et Margolin. [96]

Alexandre-Israël Radzilovski, le tueur adolescent, a eu une longue carrière dans la Tcheka puis au NKVD, atteignant le grade de major principal de la sécurité d’État (un grade équivalent à celui de général d’armée) et de chef adjoint du NKVD de Moscou, de 1935 à 1937. En 1936, il est député au Soviet suprême, la plus haute instance du régime. Il reçoit l’Ordre de Lénine en 1937, peu avant d’accompagner Lazar Kaganovich à Ivanovo, pour une nouvelle Grande Terreur : « La tornade noire ». [97] (Ici du moins, les victimes étaient communistes) Il est arrêté en septembre 1938, accusé d’espionnage au profit de la Pologne et fusillé en janvier 1940. [98]

Israel Dagin a également poursuivi une longue carrière à la Tchéka et dans les organes de répression. Il atteint un rang encore plus élevé que Radzivanski, commissaire de la sécurité d’État de grade 3, équivalent à commandant de corps. Il a travaillé dans de nombreuses villes, arrêtant, purgeant, tuant – la routine des officiers Tchéka. En 1937, au plus fort de la Grande Terreur,

Dagin et ses hommes devaient . . . . superviser l’une des opérations de terreur de masse les plus notoires. Le 28 juillet 1937, E. G. Evdokimov réunit les dirigeants locaux du Parti [dans le Caucase] et donne des instructions pour la purge massive prévue de longue date. Dagin, en étroite collaboration, a mené l’opération de police proprement dite. . . . Dagin avait depuis longtemps élaboré un plan, avec des listes de noms dans chaque localité. [99]

Rien que dans la première de ces petites régions, la Tchechnie-Ingouchie, « 5 000 prisonniers étaient entassés dans les prisons du N.K.V.D. à Grozny, 5 000 dans le garage principal du Grozny Oil Trust, et des milliers d’autres dans divers . . . bâtiments. Au total, environ 14 000 arrestations, soit environ 3 % de la population. [100] Toutes ces personnes ont été ou fusillées ou envoyées dans des camps. Mêmes auteurs, mêmes tragédies, seules les victimes changent. Dagin a reçu les plus hautes décorations d’État, mais il était également arrêté en novembre 1938 et abattu quelques jours avant Radzizilovski. [101]

Lev Mekhlis a connu une longue carrière sous Staline en tant que secrétaire personnel, rédacteur en chef de la Pravda, député du Soviet suprême et membre du Comité central. (Le Comité central était l’organe dirigeant du Parti communiste ; le Politburo, l’Orgburo et le Secrétariat étaient techniquement des sous-départements en son sein). Il a dirigé diverses purges sur l’ordre de Staline, inspirant la terreur surtout chez les officiers. En 1937, Staline le nomma chef de la direction politique principale de l’armée (le faisant commissaire politique pour toute l’armée), fonction qui lui permit de mener à bien la fameuse grande purge de l’Armée rouge. Il « était capable de trouver des ennemis partout » et aura joué un grand rôle dans les répressions politiques de cette période. [102] Durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Mekhlis a parcouru des milliers de kilomètres sur les fronts, tuant autant de généraux de l’Armée rouge que les Allemands. Sa cruauté était légendaire . . . [103] En septembre 1940, il croisa à nouveau le chemin de son amie Zemliachka et lui succéda comme ministre du contrôle d’État, un organe de surveillance placé au-dessus des bureaux du Parti et du gouvernement. On peut fidèlement résumer Mekhlis en remarquant qu’il était à la fois le serviteur indéfectible de Staline et l’ami cher de  Rozalia Zemliachka, deux des personnages les plus maléfiques du vingtième siècle. Mekhlis a pris sa retraite en 1950, titulaire des plus hautes distinctions, et est mort de causes naturelles en février 1953, moins d’un mois avant la mort de son maître, Staline.

Ivan Danishevsky, le juvénile bourreau de la Tchéka, reçut une montre en or pour son « travail » en Crimée. Dans les quelques mois qui suivirent, il fut envoyé dans le Caucase pour une mission similaire, liquidant des personnalités intelligentes et dignes d’intérêt – les ennemies naturelles du régime bolchevique – dans une région nouvellement conquise par les forces rouges. Avant la fin de 1921, le Parti l’affecte à un travail civil dans le commerce et la finance. Dans les années 1930, il est ingénieur, travaillant à des moteurs d’avion à la tête d’une grande usine (les usines industrielles soviétiques étaient gigantesques). Pendant la Grande Terreur, il échappe de justesse à une arrestation en dénonçant parmi son entourage, il est finalement arrêté à son tour en août 1938. Torturé, il avoue de fausses accusations et est condamné à mort. Inexplicablement, il est épargné et envoyé dans les mines d’or de Kolyma où il survit jusqu’en 1955, date à laquelle il est libéré et autorisé à rentrer à Moscou. Il écrit un certain nombre d’ouvrages sur l’histoire soviétique dans lesquels il défend énergiquement la pure doctrine communiste. [104] Il meurt en 1979.

Quant à Semyon Dukelsky, le musicien tueur de la Tchéka, il quittait bientôt la Crimée pour prendre le commandement de la Tchéka à Odessa, remplaçant le juif Max Deich, qui s’était acquis une « réputation de sadique drogué » et avait dû être rappelé. [105] Il a travaillé à divers postes de la Tchéka et du gouvernement – plusieurs fois muté ou réprimandé pour incompétence – en 1938, le Politburo essaiera de le caser responsable du Département cinématographique du Comité central ; son prédécesseur, le juif Boris Shumiatsky, ayant été fusillé. Ceux qui ont travaillé sous lui en gardent un très mauvais souvenir : rigide, excentrique, doctrinaire, arrogant. Mais là encore, il ne tient qu’un an. De 1939 à février 1942, il est commissaire de la marine de guerre (ou de la marine marchande ; les sources ne sont pas claires); puis, jusqu’à sa retraite en 1952, il est vice-commissaire/ministre de la justice. Il se met à émettre des dénonciations de plus en plus invraisemblables, à tel point qu’il est interné en asile psychiatrique. Il meurt en 1960. [106]

Samuel Vulfson, collaborateur de Kun au sein du Comité révolutionnaire de Crimée, est retourné à Moscou en 1921. Il a siégé au comité du parti de Moscou (avec Zemliachka) et, après 1924, il a travaillé dans le commissariat du commerce extérieur et en tant que représentant commercial en Europe occidentale. En 1929, sa tuberculose s’aggravant, il part à l’étranger et décède à Berlin en 1932. [107]

Sergei Gusev – Drabkin a continué à travailler dans l’administration politique de l’Armée rouge, pendant un certain temps en tant que chef du département, avant que Trotsky ne le fasse partir – Gusev était l’homme de Staline. Gusev a ensuite travaillé dans le Parti en tant que membre aspirant du Comité central et secrétaire de la Commission centrale de contrôle (1923), qui était l’organe disciplinaire placé au-dessus du Parti et du gouvernement. Au milieu des années 1920, Staline l’affecte au Komintern, ce qui lui donne l’occasion de se rendre aux États-Unis pour arbitrer un différend au sein du Parti communiste américain, sous le nom de « P. Green ». Gusev participe à la controverse sur la littérature en Russie, arguant (avec Zemliachka et d’autres partisans de la ligne dure) que les écrivains doivent se contenter de propager la pure doctrine communiste, sans égards à leur liberté littéraire. Dans un discours prononcé au quatorzième Congrès du Parti en décembre 1925, il dit : « Lénine nous enseignait que chaque membre du Parti devait être un agent de la Tchéka – c’est-à-dire qu’il devait surveiller et informer », et il concluait que « si nous souffrons d’une chose, c’est bien de ne pas le faire assez ». [108]. Ça fait froid dans le dos. Le principal défenseur de la liberté de création, l’écrivain Alexander Voronsky, tombait en disgrâce et fut fusillé en 1937. Gusev a continué à travailler à des postes élevés du Komintern jusqu’à sa mort en 1933. [109]

Ephraim Sklyansky, le jeune assistant de Trotsky qui avait berné des milliers d’officiers blancs avec une fausse promesse d’amnistie, n’a pas survécu longtemps. En avril 1924, il perdait son poste au sein du Conseil révolutionnaire-militaire à cause de l’hostilité de Staline, qu’il avait fortement critiqué pendant la guerre civile. Il a été muté dans la sphère économique, à la tête d’un conglomérat textile. En 1925, il se rend en Europe et en Amérique pour récolter des informations sur la production industrielle, mais se noie dans un accident de bateau suspect. Arkady Vaksberg, entre autres, accuse Staline:

Sklyansky a été noyé dans un lac lors d’un voyage d’affaires aux États-Unis avec le directeur d’Amtorg (la société de commerce américano-soviétique), Isaïe Khurgin. . . Le meurtre de deux juifs que Staline détestait avait été organisé par deux autres juifs, Kanner et Yagoda. [110]

Grigory Kanner était l’un des secrétaires de Staline ; Genrikh Yagoda était à cette époque chef de de facto l’OGPU, l’organe qui succédait à la Tchéka. Un historien note que Kanner « était chargé des sales coups de Staline contre Trotsky et d’autres », [111] mais il n’y a pas de preuve tangible de la culpabilité de Staline; l’accusation émanait à l’origine de Boris Bazhanov, ancien secrétaire de Staline.

Bela Kun, qui était virtuellement dictateur en Crimée au moment du massacre, est parti  directement au Présidium du Komintern (qui était dirigé par Grigori Zinoviev jusqu’à la fin de 1926). Lénine l’a ensuite envoyé, en tant qu’agent du Komintern, en Allemagne, en compagnie d’un autre Juif hongrois, Joseph Pogany (de son vrai nom Schwarz), pour y déclencher la révolution communiste. Les attentes étaient élevées ; Lénine avait toujours considéré que le succès de la révolution en Russie dépendait de l’adhésion de l’Allemagne à la révolution mondiale. Imaginez cette terrifiante perspective : l’association d’une Russie et d’une Allemagne communiste ! Le résultat fut l’Action de mars, un soulèvement très mal préparé qui a rapidement tourné au fiasco. Kun, éreinté par Lénine, est envoyé dans l’Oural, affecté au comité local du Parti, sans toutefois perdre sa place au Komintern. Dans les années 1920, il travaillait sous couverture en tant qu’agent du Komintern en Allemagne, en Autriche et en Tchécoslovaquie, jusqu’à son arrestation à Vienne en 1928, après quoi il est resté en Union soviétique, dirigeant toujours le Parti communiste hongrois en exil. Il a continué à travailler dans les échelons supérieurs du Komintern jusqu’au milieu des années 1930. [112] En juin 1937, c’est son tour d’être dénoncé et arrêté. Ses tortionnaires du NKVD, probablement des voyous juifs, l’ont battu et forcé à rester debout sur un pied pendant près de vingt heures ; quand « il est retourné dans sa cellule après l’interrogatoire, ses jambes étaient gonflées et son visage était si noir qu’il en était méconnaissable ». [113] Il est abattu en août 1938, avec pratiquement tout le contingent d’émigrés communistes hongrois.

Rozalia Zemliachka. Elle avait quarante-quatre ans en 1920, elle a vécu encore vingt-sept ans, servant à des postes variés de la machine soviétique. Stalinienne naturelle, elle était immunisée contre les arrestations – en fait, c’est elle qui purgeait. Elle « avait toujours été le genre de bolchevik qui plaisait à Staline parce qu’elle partageait sa vision manichéenne du monde, un lieu d’affrontement à la mort entre alliés et ennemis ». [114]

Après « s’être rendue utile» en Crimée, elle rentre à Moscou en janvier 1921, travaillant comme secrétaire de l’un des comités du parti du district. Dans les années suivantes, elle travaille dans l’Oural et le Caucase du Nord comme « responsable de la formation, des manuels, des conférences et des cours à destination des ouvriers ». [115] Elle travaillait pour Staline, le soutenant contre l’opposition, que ce soit Trotsky ou Kamenev et Zinoviev. En 1926, Staline la nomme membre du conseil d’administration de la Commission centrale de contrôle, ce qui signifiait qu’elle avait atteint le rang de principale responsable de la discipline du parti. C’est un rôle qu’elle continuera à jouer pour le reste de sa carrière [116 ], ce qui l’a amené à travailler pour le NKVD:

Il ne fait aucun doute que Zemliachka ait travaillé en étroite collaboration avec le NKVD. Ses fonctions exigeaient qu’elle leur transmette ses rapports et dossier, de plus, il est probable qu’elle était pleinement prédisposée à le faire. . . . Convaincue de l’existence de complots menaçants pour le Parti, elle est devenue experte pour les contrecarrer. Elle a également réussi à se protéger des purges qui ont balayé les rangs du NKVD lui-même. . . . Au lieu d’être victime, Zemliachka collectionnait les distinctions. En septembre 1936, elle recevait la plus haute décoration civile soviétique, l’Ordre de Lénine. [117]

En 1937, elle devient députée du Soviet suprême et, deux ans plus tard, membre du Comité central. La même année, elle devient vice-présidente de la Commission de contrôle et vice-présidente du Conseil des commissaires du peuple (poste équivalent à celui de vice-premier ministre). Elle est très proche du sommet. Elle passe les années de guerre à Moscou, rédigeant des souvenirs polémiques sur Lénine et effectuant diverses tâches mineures. Elle prend sa retraite en 1943 et décède à l’âge de soixante-dix ans, en janvier 1947.

La Russie qui existait à sa naissance n’était plus. D’une Terre fertile, de paix, d’ordre et de développement sous l’égide de sa petite communauté allemande, [118] la Russie avait basculé, sous la coupe de sa minorité juive, dans la peur, le meurtre, la dénonciation et les camps de concentration. Zemliachka est la figure de proue de cette transformation, l’incarnation de la haine juive au pouvoir et de son zèle pervers.

Zemliachka qui préside un procès de la Grande Purge

Conclusion

La question se pose de savoir combien d’autres victimes ces Juifs ont-ils faits après la Crimée. La plupart, si ce n’est tous, ont poursuivi dans leur vocation révélée, terroriste communiste, opérant des années durant dans un système dont la base même était la terreur. Ce nombre doit être faramineux, mais à leur décharge, ils ont fini par être eux-mêmes victimes du monstrueux système qu’ils avaient mis en branle.

Pour évaluer correctement la tragédie de Crimée, nous devons avoir une idée des chiffres impliqués. Les estimations varient de 12 000 à 120 000, mais de nombreux chercheurs pensent que le véritable nombre doit se situer entre 50 000 et 60 000, c’est aussi l’avis des auteurs Russes contemporains qui ont accès à au moins certaines des archives. [119]

Il faut y ajouter 20.000 morts dans les camps et 100.000 morts dans la famine, le tout en l’espace de seulement dix-huit mois et sur une très petite zone. Ce schéma s’est virtuellement répété partout où les bolcheviks avaient la main, et il s’est poursuivi de 1917 jusqu’au milieu des années 1950, périodiquement entrecoupé de brèves accalmies. Le régime communiste en Russie a été une interminable et colossale tragédie, perpétrée par une clique de criminels dérangés, surtout Juifs, animés par une idéologie qui n’était rien moins que satanique dans ses manifestations.

Quand on songe que de tels enragés rôdent en silence au cœur de nos sociétés modernes, menaçant en permanence de se coaliser de nouveau pour former une nouvelle tornade noire, cela donne la chair de poule.

Les Palestiniens de Gaza et de Cisjordanie en savent quelque chose.

[FG – Peut-être n’est-il pas inutile de rappeler que :

1 –  La peine de mort en Russie avait été abolie le 26 octobre 1917 par décision du IIè Congrès Panrusse des Soviets des Députés Ouvriers et Soldats.

2 –  La peine de mort n’existe pas en Israël – à part Eichmann et les assassinats ciblés]

Francis Goumain Adaptation française

Source

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

La Terreur rouge de 1918-1922 | C’est… Qu’est-ce que la Terreur rouge de 1918-1922 ?

La peine de mort en Russie a été abolie le 26 octobre 1917. par décision du IIe Congrès panrusse des Soviets des députés ouvriers et soldats.

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8] Clements, 24

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

[10] Clements, 24.

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

[12] Clements76

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

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

[15] Clements, 77-78.

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

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

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

[19] Clements, 79.

[20] Ibid, 142

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[29] Clements, 182.

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

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

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

[33] Lincoln, Red Victory, 443-48.

[34] Ibid, 448.

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

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

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

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

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

[40] Serge, 163.

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

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

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

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

[45] Serge, 248.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[53] Borsanyi, Bela Kun, 31 and 212.

[54] Borsanyi, 275.

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

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

[57] Ibid, 76

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

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

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

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

[62] Borsanyi, 241

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

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

[65] Courtois, 107.

[66] Ibid, 80-81.

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

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

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

[70] Melgunov, 78.

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

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

[73] Solzhenitsyn, Ch. 16.

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

[75] Courtois, 107.

[76] Melgunov, 39-40.

[77] Forczyk, 25-26.

[78] Melgunov, 80.

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

[80] Melgunov, 77

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

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

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

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

[85] Solzhenitsyn, Ch. 16.

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

[87] Pipes, 135

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

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

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

[90] Clements, 77.

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

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

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

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

[95] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[104] Teplyakov, op. cit.

[105] Leggett, 447.

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

[107] See note 41.

[108] Slezkine, House of Government, 291.

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

[110] Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews, 28

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

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

[113] Conquest, The Great Terror, 403.

[114] Clements, 242.

[115] Ibid, 242.

[116] Ibid, 243.

[117] Ibid, 286.

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

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

 

US Media, Churchill, and the end of free Britain: Churchill set a bad example

Last Friday, August 8, two prominent US Media outlets coincidently carried articles vividly demonstrating the sorry state of the United Kingdom and of the country’s historiography.

The Neocon-controlled Wall Street Journal wheeled out prominent British historian Andrew Roberts to launch Why the Far Right Hates Churchill.

From its position high up the Right food chain, ZeroHedge posted Why Britain Arrests 30 People Every Day For Speech by Taylor Durden.

The WSJ piece, unusually, was posted outside the Paper’s paywall. The Drudge Report, now of course a news aggregator for Establishment Democrats, linked to the essay for an unusually long time. This was a smear which important elements wished to propagate.

The WSJ/Andrews essay is simply an attempt to utilize the widely-revered Churchill legend to shut down consideration of the wisdom of British WWII policy, and by extension the foreign policy of today. Andrews says

“Today’s revisionists project their views about Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran backward through history and denounce the leading global interventionists of yesteryear.”

The reciprocal of this is equally true.

Andrews intones:

Churchill …stands watching over a world order that is now challenged by, among other things, a populist far right whose influence is spreading dangerously.

His position seems to be that the catastrophic and ongoing damage done to the UK by WWII (which he never mentions) is of no consequence compared to the achievement of destroying the Third Reich.

An American NeoConservative could understandably take this view. But Roberts is an Englishman still living there.

The ZeroHedge piece is an annotated reprint complete (with video) of an essay of the same title at Modernity News. It is a current account of the astonishing eradication of free speech underway in Britain, for centuries renowned for not repressing opinion.

Apart from supplying the startling ‘Arrests 30 people everyday’ headline the interviewee, founder of the UK’s Free Speech Union Lord Young of Acton

…warns of broader threats to free expression…including a quarter-million non-crime hate incidents recorded…often for online posts challenging government narratives on immigration

In the opening minutes of the video, Young directly says he expects further tightening and from 8:00 explains how free speech protections in the legislation have been circumvented.

The sick truth is that Britain’s “Conservative” Party is equally responsible for this murderous attack on British historic rights. I discussed this in UK: Totalitarian Night Descending. Social liberals have been in control of the Tories for over two generations.

In his 1995 book Alien Nation Peter Brimelow wrote

There is a sense in which current immigration policy is Adolf Hitler’s posthumous revenge on America. The U.S. political elite emerged from the war passionately concerned to cleanse itself from all taints of racism or xenophobia. Eventually, it enacted the epochal Immigration of 1965

This also applies to the UK – Tony Blair actually confirmed this in his 2010 autobiography. And of course it applies to matters of Race generally. WWII poisoned public discourse, as Diana West has persuasively argued.

But it was not necessary to wait so long to realize that WWII was an unparalleled catastrophe for Britain. The Americans plundered all her huge foreign assets and drove her deeply into debt. (Unlike the aid to the USSR, Lend-Lease to Britain was not a gift.) The Soviet Union had seized half of Europe and very likely would have taken the rest had it not been for the Atomic bomb. That was just an unproven dream when the key war decisions were made in 1939–40. To control the always treasonous impulses of the Left, Churchill during the war handed control of domestic policy to the Labour Party. Fortified by this, Labour held power from 1945–51.

As a result, Britain was forced into a socialist straight jacket which crippled the economy until the Thatcher years in the 1980s. And of course, Labour eagerly set about destroying the British Empire.

I do not blame Churchill for the British decision to go to war in 1939. He was not in Government, and although he was a major leader of anti-German opinion, it was clearly the consensus of British elite opinion that Hitler had become an insufferable nuisance.

But I do hold him responsible for the decision to fight on after the Fall of France in 1940.

By this time the British had fought literally scores of wars, by no means all of them victorious. They were experts at shutting wars down. When Churchill engineered the decision to fight on (and subsequently ignored all peace feelers) he was defying a central characteristic of British statecraft.

I have discussed this situation at length in Why Did Churchill Have Britain Fight On After Summer 1940? It’s Bad News. Not only was this action contradictory to British traditions, but it is anomalous set against his own record of longsighted sagacity both before and after WWII. (His Iron Curtain Speech of March 5, 1946, was disavowed by the Truman Administration; He tried hard in 1954 to get his “Conservative” Cabinet to curtail colored immigration into Britain.)

Clearly Churchill enjoyed leading the Country in war. But the frightful experience of the early ‘40s should have satiated anyone let alone a Statesman thinking about the future.

I am afraid the answer is that apparently first discovered by the ultra-taboo historian David Irving. (On David Irving as an Historian, I commend Ron Unz’ definitive exculpation: The Pyrrhic Attack on David Irving). The fact is that from March 1938 Churchill was completely dependent financially on one Sir Henry Strakosch. Having bailed him out from the consequences of the American stock market collapse of 1937-8 with a vague but substantial soft loan arrangement, Strakosch made another smaller payment in June 1940, after Churchill had become Prime Minister on May 10.

In his extraordinary 2015 book No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money which draws on Churchill’s actual financial records, author David Lough drily comments of the 1940 transaction:

The amount reached Churchill’s account on 21 June. Thus fortified, he paid a clutch of overdue bills from shirt-makers, watch repairers and wine merchants before he turned his attention back to the war.

Both payments rescued Churchill from insolvency. A Bankrupt cannot be a Member of the UK Parliament.

Who was Sir Henry Strakosch? He was a Jew, born in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, who migrated to England in 1891 and thence to South Africa. There he made a fortune promoting gold mines. He became a British citizen in 1907 and was knighted in 1921. He spent the interwar years in London, interesting himself discreetly in public affairs.

Henry Strakosch - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

From the early 1930s he was supplying Churchill with information on the German military buildup, about which he was presciently concerned.

The plain and ugly fact is that when in summer 1940 Churchill was facing the most momentous decision in modern British history, an anti-Hitler partisan had him by the financial throat.

Since David Irving discovered this story, most biographers of Churchill have simply briefly mentioned the 1938 transaction without analysis or comment.

But Andrew Roberts in his 1,152 page 2018 book Churchill: Walking with Destiny handled this awkward matter differently. He made no mention of Strakosch at all, except for one from October 1943, This however is extremely significant.

Roberts quotes from the diary of Churchill’s long time private secretary saying Churchill was exuberant the day after Sir Henry died, telling her the Strakosch Will expunged the Churchill debt and additionally left him a similar sum.

This means that more than 4 years into the war, Churchill had still been apprehensive about the hold Strakosch had on him.

On reflection, it is quite appropriate that the Wall Street Journal should mobilize the Churchill name to delude the peasantry.

After all, it is clear to those who pay attention that the US foreign and immigration policies of recent decades which the WSJ has supported have also been maintained by (much more massive) bribery.

From Patrick Cleburne’s Substack: US Media, Churchill, and the end of free Britain. Posted with permission.

Manufactured Martyrs: A Survey of Self-Slain Blacks and Anti-White Subversion in Scotland

Sanguis martyrum semen ecclesiae — “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.”[1] It’s an ancient Christian principle embodying some potent psychological and cratological truths. Those who suffer and die for an ideology thereby inspire and invigorate their fellow believers. By honoring and celebrating the martyrs, the believers indirectly honor and celebrate themselves. They increase their own solidarity against a shared enemy, strengthen their own courage and will-to-power, assure themselves of the rightness and righteousness of their cause.

Bashed bacteria bounce back

In short, ideologies that embrace martyrdom are harnessing the power of antifragility. This is a phenomenon identified and named by the Lebanese-Christian statistician Nassim Taleb. When an ideology or entity is antifragile, it benefits from being attacked and from experiencing adversity. Fragile things break under pressure; antifragile things get stronger. You can see antifragility in action everywhere from Christianity to botany to microbiology. When pagans persecuted Christians, they got more Christians. When gardeners dig up Japanese knotweed, they get more Japanese knotweed. When doctors attack bacteria with antibiotics, they get superbugs. The details differ, but the principle is the same: “Attack us and we get stronger.” That’s why Christianity and other religions have martyr-cults: they’re harnessing the power of antifragility. Indeed, martyrdom is so potent as an institutional fertilizer that a sub-principle applies: if martyrs don’t exist, it’s necessary to invent them (the same applies to hate-hoaxes).

Two thuggish Black criminals, two manufactured martyrs: George Floyd and Sheku Bayoh

You can see martyrs being manufactured in that perversion of Christianity known as leftism. In America, leftists made martyrs of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, two thuggish Black criminals who self-slew by behaving badly. But those martyr-cults were only moderately successful, so leftists kept trying. They hit the big time with the martyr-cult of George Floyd, another thuggish Black criminal who self-slew by behaving badly. The martyr Floyd was the institutional fertilizer for Black Lives Matter (BLM), which oversaw riots and destruction not just in America but around the world. It’s interesting and instructive to compare the leftist martyr George Floyd with the Christian martyr St Stephen. Indeed, St Stephen was the protomartyr of the Faith, the first of his holy kind and the model for all who followed him.

Loving and loathing

In both cults there is an in-group and an out-group, the righteous Godly group that supplied the martyr and the unrighteous, un-Godly group that killed him. In Floyd’s case the righteous in-group was Blacks and the wicked out-group was Whites. In Stephen’s case the righteous in-group was Christians and the wicked out-group was Jews. But Stephen died forgiving his killers, praying for his enemies. As the New Testament puts it: “he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep” (Acts 7:60). In Christianity, martyrdom is meant to inspire love; in leftism, martyrdom is meant to inspire loathing. The martyr-cult of George Floyd was also a murder-cult directed at Whites. And a looting-cult, an arson-cult directed at White property. In Christianity, martyrs inspire righteousness; in leftism, martyrs inspire riots.[2]

And in one sense the martyr-cult of George Floyd is wholly unnatural. In another, it’s as natural as the birds and the bees. Why should a majority-White society create and host a martyr-cult that elevates the Black minority and excoriates the White majority? A martyr-cult that insists on the saintliness of Blacks and the wickedness of Whites? Well, I think it’s an example of the parasitic subversion often seen in nature. Smaller and weaker parasites can manipulate their hosts into behavior that harms the host and benefits the parasite. With birds, you’ve got cuckoos. With bumblebees you’ve got cuckoo bumblebees, which behave in a similar way. With rats, you’ve Toxoplasma gondii, a microscopic and mindless organism that subverts the brain of its highly intelligent mammalian host. Healthy rats flee cats, as you would expect. Rats infected with toxoplasma are attracted to cats, who are the next stage in the life-cycle of toxoplasma. The infected rats aren’t paradoxically suicidal; they’re parasitically subverted. And I think there are clear parallels with the self-destructive behavior of White societies that elevate non-White minorities and excoriate the White majority.

Based on a giant lie

I further think that Jews, those aces of antifragility,[3] have played a necessary (but not sufficient) role in this parasitic subversion of White societies. As Kevin MacDonald has documented, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was run and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In the UK, the anti-racist Runnymede Trust was founded by two Jewish lawyers, Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, to attack Whites and promote mass immigration from the Third World. Lester himself hailed the inspiration of “the ‘Long Hot Summer’ of civil rights action in the American South” during the 1960s. In other words, parasitic subversion in America inspired parasitic subversion in Britain. That pattern has continued. Some of the riots inspired by the martyr George Floyd took place in Britain, which already had its own well-established martyr-cult celebrating a saintly Black who died at the hands of evil Whites.

For once the martyred Black wasn’t a criminal and hadn’t brought about his own death by his own bad behavior. No, Stephen Lawrence was a genuinely innocent victim of genuinely criminal Whites—so, like St. Stephen, he was an ideal martyr. But Lawrence might easily have survived his chance encounter with those Whites and was always at much greater risk of murder by his fellow Blacks. And guess what? A Jewish “anti-racist” called Dr Richard Stone was instrumental in creating and sustaining the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence. As with George Floyd, the cult is based on a giant lie: that violent, hate-filled Whites are an omnipresent threat to the lives and well-being of gentle, enriching non-Whites. In fact, far more Whites are killed in far worse ways by non-Whites in the ethnically enriched West. But there is no martyr-cult for the White couple Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, horrifically raped, tortured and murdered by Blacks in America. And no martyr-cult for the White schoolgirl Mary-Ann Leneghan, horrifically raped, tortured and murdered by Blacks in England.

Another thuggish Black criminal

There is also no martyr-cult for the White schoolboy Kriss Donald, horrifically tortured and murdered by Pakistanis in Scotland. But leftists in Scotland have striven mightily to create a martyr-cult for a dead Black. And this Black followed the typical pattern of leftist ethno-martyrs: he brought about his own death by bad behavior and stupid decisions. The truth is apparent even in the article about him at highly leftist Wikipedia:

On the morning of 3 May 2015, [Sheku] Bayoh visited a friend’s house to watch TV. His friends noticed he was acting out of character after he took a cocktail of drugs including MDMA and Flakka. He left their property and went home. After he returned home, a fight broke out between Bayoh and his friend, Zahid Saeed. Zahid fled and Bayoh then took a large kitchen knife and left his house. Concerned neighbours called emergency services to report a man with a knife acting erratically, chasing cars and trying to get into cars. Police were dispatched. After six Police Scotland constables arrived at the scene, Bayoh refused to listen to instructions and began to walk away ignoring police commands. He then turned on PC Nicole Short, chasing her, punching her to the back of the head as she ran away, knocking her to the ground, where he thereafter stamped and kicked at her torso while she lay unconscious in the middle of Hayfield Road. Officers rugby-tackled Bayoh after he failed to respond to baton strikes during his attack on PC Short. Bayoh continued to fight and resist arrest and a short time later lost consciousness. Officers immediately commenced CPR and requested an ambulance. He was pronounced dead in hospital. A post-mortem report revealed injuries to Bayoh’s head and face, burst blood eye vessels (consistent with positional asphyxiation), bruising across his body, a fractured rib, and the presence of the street drugs MDMA and Flakka. His cause of death was recorded as “sudden death in a man intoxicated … [drugs] whilst under restraint”. (“Death of Sheku Bayoh,” Wikipedia)

Like George Floyd, Sheku Bayoh took drugs, committed crime, and was accidentally killed by police. And as with George Floyd, the left reacted to Bayoh’s death not by urging Blacks to behave better but by maligning the police for failing to preserve a Black criminal from the consequences of his own bad behavior. The result of such leftist agitation is that police become reluctant to confront Black criminality and Blacks are emboldened to commit more and worse crime, including especially against other Blacks. In other words, more Blacks die because leftists posture about their concern for keeping Blacks alive.

Leftists have performed the same malignant trick with other non-White groups. In the Scottish city of Glasgow, for example, the leftist police refused to take tough action against Pakistani criminals, who were therefore emboldened to commit more and worse crime. This culminated in one of the worst murders ever committed on British soil: the kidnapping, stabbing and incineration of the fifteen-year-old White schoolboy Kriss Donald by a sadistic Pakistani gang. But despite the direct culpability of the police in that murder, there has never been a public inquiry into their conduct. After all, such an inquiry would undermine rather than promote what really matters: the power and prestige of anti-White leftism.

No guesses needed

In short, leftists did not demand or conduct a public inquiry when the police were plainly to blame for the death of the innocent White schoolboy Kriss Donald. So what did leftists do when the police were not at all to blame for the death of the thuggish Black adult Sheku Bayoh? You won’t need any guesses. As that Wikipedia article goes on to state, a “public inquiry” into the self-inflicted death of Sheku Bayoh was announced in November 2019 by the anti-White politician Humza Yousaf. More than five years later, the inquiry is still running. But Wikipedia does not reveal the eyewatering cost to White taxpayers in Scotland: “The inquiry has so far cost £24.8m, with an additional £24.3m spent by Police Scotland, including £17.3m of legal costs.”

Hannah Lavery (second right) “Disrupting the Narrative” with other anti-White activists, including the “award-winning and critically acclaimed” non-binary and neuro-diverse Niall Moorjani in a dress (image from Lavery’s website)

Yes, Scottish lawyers are doing very well out of the leftist martyr-cult of Sheku Bayoh. So are Bayoh’s family, who have received undisclosed sums of compensation from Scottish police with the help of the anti-White Pakistani lawyer Aamer Anwar. Also doing very well out of the martyr-cult is the anti-White Black “poet, playwright and performer” Hannah Lavery, who wrote and directed a Lament for Sheku Bayoh in 2019. Just as the Black martyr Bayoh follows a typical pattern of bad behavior and self-inflicted death, so the Black poet Lavery follows a typical pattern of bad verse and self-serving activism. In other words, she’s a poetaster, which is the useful Latin term for “bad poet.” Lavery’s fellow Black Jackie Kay is also a poetaster and, just as Kay was made National Makar (Poet Laureate) for Scotland in 2016, so Lavery was made Makar for the Scottish capital Edinburgh in 2022. Here is some of

Lavery’s poetastry, as included in Best Scottish Poems 2021:

I was invited here
I am sure I was
to read my poetry
That’s what the email said.

I’ve been writing a lot about trees
Oh! there is this nest I found in a hedge
blue wee eggs. A Starling — was it?

Aye, well. I was invited
that’s what it said.

Tonight, for all you lovely folk
I am unpacking my poetry suitcase — ta da!
The travelling poetry salesman. That’ll be me
Roll up, Roll up, going, going, going…

And they say after, they say, I love
how you spoke about found nests
as a metaphor for immigration
truth is I’ve always been here

I was just writing about this wood
at the back of my house
about a nest I found.

How at night, I duck the bats
as if they might fly into my hair
even though I know, I duck.

Even though I know
they know this place
just as well as they know
I know this place. Still, I duck. (“Flying Bats”)

Like so much modern poetry, it’s simply banal prose chopped into short lines for delivery in a special “poetry” voice. And like so many modern poets, Lavery has made her name not through talent but through her identity. She’s Black and female — bow before her greatness, ye wicked wee whites! Her art and activism never tire of emphasizing those twin poles of her identity. Indeed, her art and activism aren’t simply self-serving: they’re self-worshipping. Her Lament for Sheku Bayoh is intended to celebrate Blacks like herself and malign Whites unlike herself. The play was first “commissioned by the Royal Lyceum Theatre” of Edinburgh. But has any Scottish theater ever commissioned a Lament for Kriss Donald? Or any English theater a Lament for Mary-Ann Leneghan? Or any American theater a Lament for Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom?

“Wicked Whites, Saintly Blacks”

Of course not: leftists regard Whites sadistically killed by non-Whites as fit only for oblivion, not for endless publicity. But leftists have reacted very differently to Hannah Lavery’s play about the self-inflicted death of Sheku Bayoh. The play has been extravagantly praised in the Guardian, which hailed it as “impassioned, poetic and alive with political import” and as “a stark critique of Scotland’s self-image.” The Scotsman went even further, describing the lachrymose Lament as “a beautiful and shattering ritual of rage and mourning that — in the year of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter — is both painfully familiar, and new in its insistence that here too, in bonnie Scotland, black people sometimes cannot breathe, purely because of the colour of their skin.”

Got that? The simple message of Lament for Sheku Bayoh is that Whites are wicked, Blacks are saintly.

Hannah Lavery was back with that simple message in 2025, celebrating Blacks like herself and maligning Whites unlike herself in the Guardian. As you read her words, note not only her self-righteousness and blaming of Whites for all non-White failure, but also the relish with which she pours opprobrium on Scottish heroes and demands the dismantling of Scottish history:

As a young woman growing up in Edinburgh, I was taught this was a city built on the genius of the Scottish Enlightenment. That story was sunk deep into our bones and passed between us as our treasured inheritance. It formed our sense of ourselves and our belief in Scotland’s good and worthy contribution to the world.

We walked past statues of David Hume and Adam Smith. We celebrated their intellect and claimed it as our own. Statues to those men were erected. Yet no one spoke of what lay beneath that brilliance — of whose labour built their wealth, whose bodies were stolen, dispossessed and abused as a consequence of their “thinking”. Edinburgh was framed not as a city of complicity but of genius. That silence shaped us.

Now, the University of Edinburgh’s review of its legacies of enslavement and colonialism joins a wider reckoning that has been building across Scotland. It confronts the stories we were told — that we continue to tell. That we love to tell.

Scotland has long positioned itself as a nation on the margins of empire. We speak of being oppressed, victimised — or as a benign participant in the British imperial project. But many of us, through our family histories, have always known that’s not the whole truth. It’s a lie of omission. One that has excluded us, exiled us from a national story in which we also have histories to contribute, and in which we have a claim.

Edinburgh University’s recent inquiry into its history is sobering. It focuses on the institution’s financial gains from plantation slavery, its intellectual support of racial pseudoscience and its memorialisation of colonial figures. It names how Enlightenment thinking in Scotland justified racial hierarchies. These aren’t revelations for many Black and Brown Scots, or for those involved with Scotland’s anti-racism movements — they’re confirmations of truths long lived and denied.

And still, we are met with denial, minimisation and the defensive recoil of a nation uncomfortable with the truth of itself. There’s a reflex to preserve pride at all costs within our society — even when the cost is exclusion and erasure of fellow Scots; of their histories and their story of Scotland. […] Race is a social construct. But we must now confront the fact that it was constructed, in part, here, by so-called “great men” — our great men — whose legacy continues to shape our country and institutions. And their legacy still causes us harm.

This harm is not abstract. In 2024 alone, Police Scotland recorded 4,794 hate crimes under the new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. Black and minority ethnic people are 60% more likely to live in the most deprived parts of Scotland than their white counterparts. Black and minority ethnic workers have poorer outcomes than white workers when applying for jobs in our public sector organisations.

These are reverberations of a legacy born in Enlightenment philosophies that theorised racial hierarchies — ideas presented as science, later used to justify enslavement and colonialism. These narratives of white supremacy negatively affect us all, and they continue to endanger and blight the lives of Black and Brown people.

What happens next must therefore go beyond apology and symbolism. It must be structural, sustained and fiercely imaginative. Education is key. Not just to correct the record, but to transform how we imagine and create a better nation. Within our schools, reform is under way — initiatives such as Education Scotland’s Building Racial Literacy programme and collectives such as The Anti-Racist Educator provide vital resources and training. Such efforts must be scaled, funded and politically backed if they’re to meaningfully reshape how we understand ourselves, how we embed anti-racism within our institutions and how we teach Scotland’s history.

Edinburgh council’s Slavery and Colonialism Legacy Review, endorsed by councillors in 2022, included a public apology and the creation of an implementation group, chaired by Irene Mosota, to guide reparative action. This included initiatives such as the Disrupting the Narrative project, which has formed the main body of my work as Edinburgh makar (the city’s poet laureate). The meetings of the Scottish BPOC [Black and People of Colour] Writers Network’s writers group at the University of Edinburgh, and the important work of mentorship and support from We Are Here Scotland are also living examples of this reparative work. This work is not symbolic — it is foundational. It allow us to rebuild from the margins, and write ourselves back into the story of Scotland, and into the story we tell. […] History is not settled. Our story is not finished. We are capable of confronting ourselves honestly and critically. We can take pride in our history of social justice movements — but this pride must also own and acknowledge the truth of what and who built this nation. That means interrogating our past and the reasons for our collective amnesia. It means listening to voices long silenced. The time has come, Scotland. The time has finally come. (“This is the week Scotland was forced to confront its role in slavery, and say: ‘Yes, that was us’,” The Guardian, 2nd August 2025)

Hannah Lavery is obviously full of resentment and envy at what Scottish Whites have achieved (notice Lavery capitalizes Black and Brown, but not white, as in “white supremacism”). And she is obviously lying when she writes that “We are capable of confronting ourselves honestly and critically.” Just as obviously, she relishes the prospect of leading a neo-Maoist “Cultural Revolution” in Scotland, of tearing down the wicked White past and creating a glorious non-White future. I’m sure that non-Whites like her, Humza Yousaf and Aamer Anwar would be delighted to exercise arbitrary, unaccountable power in the way Mao and his followers did. It’s easy to picture Lavery and Co overseeing show-trials of Whites, imprisoning and exiling Whites whilst exalting and honoring themselves and their own kind. Okay, I don’t think those resentment-filled non-Whites will ever get the power to enact such persecution, but be in no doubt: all of their activism is directed towards achieving it.

Paragons of pathology

Fortunately enough, although Hannah Lavery likes to think of herself as “fiercely imaginative,” she is in fact farcically incoherent. In that article, she constantly talks about “we” and “us” and “our,” asserting that non-Whites like herself are fully and authentically Scottish. But she’s speaking with a forked tongue, because she’s denying that “Black and Brown Scots” have any share in the negative aspects of Scottish history and culture. The villainy of Scotland is reserved strictly for Whites, the virtue strictly for non-Whites. Indeed, her vision is of  an old White Scotland stained and soiled by “so-called ‘great men’” like David Hume and Adam Smith. That wicked White Scotland can be redeemed only by virtuous, visionary non-Whites like herself, who will “embed anti-racism within our institutions.”

And extract money and prestige from “our institutions,” of course. But when she says “our,” she really means “your” — the institutions were created by Whites and are still funded by White taxpayers. Scotland has indeed been a land of genius, making a vastly disproportionate contribution to the science, engineering, art, literature and philosophy of the West. But all of that genius has been White, from David Hume to Robert Louis Stevenson, from James Watt to Thomas Telford. Non-Whites like Hannah Lavery and Sheku Bayoh neither belong in Scotland nor contribute anything but harm and subversion there. Bayoh is routinely described by leftists as a “gas engineer,” as though Scotland were deprived of a highly skilled technician by the malign forces of White racism and White police brutality. In fact, he was only a trainee, and his drug-abuse and violence strongly suggest that he wasn’t going to become a paragon of the profession. Blacks are rarely paragons of any profession. But they and other non-Whites are often paragons of pathological behavior.

New poet and true poet: the Black Zimbabwean Tawona Sitholè and the White Scot Rabbie Burns

And if they’re not committing gross violence against people or property, then they’re committing gross violence against poetry. Take Hannah Lavery’s fellow “Black poet” Tawona Ganyamtopè Sitholè, a Zimbabwean male who is comfortably “embedded” at the University of Glasgow as a “Lecturer in Creative Practice Education within the UNESCO Chair in Refugee Integration through Education, Languages and the Arts.” If you thought that Hannah Lavery’s poem was bad, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Here is one of Tawona Sitholè’s poems, formatted exactly as I found it on the internet:

seeds of antiracist education (by tawona ganyamtopè sitholè)
vakuru vakati chinokanganwa idemo
asi muti wakatemwa haukanganwi
the proverb is a reflection that
what forgets is the axe
but the tree that was cut does not forget
the mouth of this river is dreaming of words
in dreamtime but in the meantime
it is not going swimmingly
bursting on the inside but on the outside
all we get to see is the brave face
so to ask where is the safe space
brave enough for difficult conversations
safe enough for nuanced observations
elsewhere it is just life
“racism isn’t a problem in Scotland”
“oh God she’s talking about racism again”
at the same time
“no matter how much i’m perceived to be loud
my voice is still not heard”
“I feel like I cannot bring my whole self
just parts that are acceptable”
and in the meantime
instead of raising instead erasing
the young talking of problem behaviour
unfair burden placed on people of colour
racial trauma leading to mental unwellness
in all this embarrassing richness
we cannot afford to ignore race
to ignore race is to ignore ourselves
we cannot afford to neglect healing
to neglect healing is to neglect learning
fundo cunoastere seekna al táleem ionnsaich
so much ground covered
so much left uncovered
in the spirit of this dear rugged land

That is the kind of poetry celebrated in modern leftist Scotland. It has no beauty or grace, no style or sweetness. It’s ugly, uncouth and anti-White. That’s why it presently succeeds, of course. But that’s also why it is destined to die and be forgotten, unlike the true poetry created by a true Scot. He’s a White man called Rabbie Burns and his centuries-old verse offers the cure for modern Scotland’s anti-White sickness:

“SCOTS WHA HAE”

ROBERT BRUCE’S ADDRESS TO HIS ARMY, BEFORE THE BATTLE OF BANNOCKBURN

Scots, wha hae wi’ Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victorie.
Now’s the day, and now’s the hour;
See the front o’ battle lour!
See approach proud Edward’s power—
Chains and slaverie!
Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward’s grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee!
Wha for Scotland’s King and law
Freedom’s sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand, or freeman fa’?
Let him follow me!
By oppression’s woes and pains!
By your sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty’s in every blow!
Let us do or die!


[1] The principle was originally formulated by the Christian theologian Tertullian (c.155-c.220 AD) as sanguis martyrum semen Christianorum or “the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians.”

[2] It’s also instructive to compare Christian martyrs, who die forgiving their enemies, with Muslim martyrs, who die slaying their enemies. See, for example, my article “Martyr with a Machine-Gun,” which discusses how a vicious political assassin called Mumtaz Qadri became an honored martyr in Pakistan.

[3] For examples of how Jews are antifragile, see the way some Jews have explicitly stated that antisemitism benefits Jews. And the way Jews often commit hate-hoaxes, manufacturing antisemitism when demand outstrips supply.