The Spartacist Revolt Shows Why Force Must Often Be Met With Force

Social justice warriors (SJWs) come in all shapes and sizes, but their methods and mentalities are similar enough to draw meaningful conclusions about such things if a long enough timeline is studied. Although the modern social justice warrior might seem on the surface to bear little resemblance to his 20th century Bolshevist ancestor, a close look at the record suggests otherwise.

There is a direct line of descent which runs from the bespectacled Bolshevist butchers of early 20th century Europe, and the blue-haired, overweight, shrill monitors of political correctness that haunt the college campuses, media outlets, and workplaces of the West today. Not to understand this fact is to miss something of central importance in predicting future outbursts of SJW violence.

We will examine here a historic event that has slipped into obscurity, Germany’s Spartacist Revolt of 1919. Who instigated it, how it came about, and—most importantly—how it was dealt with will be instructive for readers interested in social order, stability, and tradition.

spart7

Armed Spartacists on the march

Germany in 1918 was in chaos. The war had been lost; the Kaiser had abdicated; and the reins of power were being contested by various groups on the right, the left, and the center. Some of these groups cared about the future of the nation.

Some, inspired by the Bolshevist Revolution which had seized control of Russia, were ideological fanatics of the very worst type. They cared nothing about Germany, only about turning the country into a Communist hellhole of the type then being shaped in the East. All over Europe, Bolshevist agents were fomenting insurrection as part of a Moscow-directed scheme to control Europe.

It is easy to forget now, in 2015, that Bolshevism was the worst catastrophe to befall Western civilization. By any reasonable measure, this is a fact as inescapable as 1+1=2. Much like modern SJWs, Bolshevists liked to trumpet their alleged “ideas” of freedom, justice, and equality.

In practice, these slogans were code-words for exterminating people they did not like and destroying thousands of years of Western culture.

Knowing what we now know about the uncounted millions of Bolshevist atrocities, these “revolutionaries” should be recognized for what they were: a plague virus. No measures could be too harsh in dealing with them. Luckily, some governments in those days had the backbone to eradicate the virus. In Hungary, for example, a Communist rat and Comitern agent named Bela Kun staged a revolution in 1919, which fortunately was suppressed.

One of the groups in postwar Germany seeking to seize power was the so-called “Spartacist League.” It renamed itself the Communist Party of Germany in 1919 and joined the Comitern in that year (the Comitern was Moscow’s front organization dedicated to international revolution). The Spartacist League was founded by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Clara Zetkin. Here are their photos:

iliebkn001p1

Karl Liebknecht

spart2

Rosa Luxemburg

spart3

They look much like hateful modern social justice warriors. It is interesting, in fact, to note that SJWs of all eras look roughly the same. Luxemburg has been to some extent elevated as some sort of secular saint by the media, but she was little more than another vindictive Bolshevist commissar.

And just like the modern SJW, these people were traitors to their homeland and their culture. They spent the war years (1916-1918) locked in German jails for trying to foment antiwar demonstrations.

Had they taken power in Germany, they would have embarked on the same bloody program that all other Communist parties undertook. But they were able to conceal their schemes behind angelic-sounding phrases and slogans, much like the modern SJW.

At the end of the war in 1918, Liebknecht had taken advantage of the chaos to declare Germany a “socialist republic.” No one was interested in his or Rosa Luxemburg’s brand of radicalism except a vocal minority. But as often happens, the vocal minority can make itself appear larger than life by the acquiescence of those in power.

In 1919, Luxemburg and her cuckish lackey Liebknecht organized street demonstrations that were intended to destabilize the new Weimar Republic. The chancellorship was held at that time by Friedrich Ebert. Although Ebert was generally a centrist and a man of order, he despised the Communists and was determined to put down the revolt.

His job was essentially a thankless one: the new republic was not really satisfactory to anyone on either the right or the left, and it was for him to try to balance often irreconcilable differences. But he was a decent man, and was horrified at the stories of Communists attacking the traditional symbols of authority in Germany. Had there been more like him in Russia, perhaps Bolshevism would never have taken root there either.

spart8

A communist saboteur facing a Freikorps firing squad, 1919.

And so Ebert called in the Freikorps to smash the Communist revolt by force. The Freikorps were units of demobilized soldiers who had retained their organizational structure and weapons from the war. They were not men to be trifled with. Most of them had spent years in combat, were conservative by nature, and truly loathed the Communists.

In Berlin, the Freikorps units blasted the Communist rabble out of the streets beginning on January 8, 1919. The death toll was modest, around 150 Spartacists and 17 Freikorps soldiers. But there was no other way to deal with people who were ideological fanatics and determined to seize power by force.

Liebknecht and Luxemburg were found holed up in a hotel on January 15. They were taken into custody and handed over to the Garde-Kavallerie-Schützen-Division, commanded by Captain Waldemar Pabst. Both of them were interrogated, beaten, and shot soon after. Luxemburg’s body was thrown into a canal, and Liebknecht’s corpse was sent anonymously to a morgue.

Major Waldemar Pabst, Heimwehrführer. Österreich. Photographie. Um 1930.

Waldemar Pabst

Pabst was never prosecuted for the killings, and thereafter faded into obscurity. Knowing what we know about Communist regimes and their bloody conduct, there were no doubt many in Germany who breathed a sigh of relief that a Communist takeover had been thwarted.

But, of course, it would have been distasteful to say this openly.

Pabst believed he had done the right thing in disposing of Liebknecht and Luxemburg, and never apologized. In a published interview given with a West German newspaper in 1962, he said the following:

In January 1919, I attended a KPD [German Communist Party] meeting where Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were speaking. I gathered that they were the intellectual leaders of the revolution, and I decided to have them killed. Following my orders, they were captured. This decision to have them killed did not come easy to me… I do maintain that this decision is morally and theologically legitimate.

We should note that the West German government in 1962 fully agreed with Pabst. The German Federal Republic’s Press and Information office issued a statement that Pabst had acted rightly, and that the executions were “in accordance with martial law.”

When people are trying to destroy you, the West German government reasoned, you have to do what is necessary to defend yourself.

I fully agree.

Read More: Why We Should Reinstitute The Dowry

260 thoughts on “The Spartacist Revolt Shows Why Force Must Often Be Met With Force”

  1. If, by some remote chance, the SJW fanatics reach sufficient critical mass to pose a significant threat, you can bet there will be teams of Western culture conservationists lining up SJWs in front of firing squads. Though it seems much more likely that the entire movement will collapse in on itself by virtue of its own illogical, counter productive foundations before it ever can hope to reach that point. The narrative is already falling apart around them faster than they can rebuild it. This along with the infighting over who is the “Best SJW Ever” has them turning on their own like rabid dogs more often than than they would against anyone on the outside. However, while I’m betting bet on total collapse, I’ll be planning for the worst and taking note of my stock of supplies accordingly.

    1. I don’t think they’ll ever reach a critical mass simply because there’s too many different groups within the mass that constitutes SJW. As their size and power grow, the inevitably wind up tearing at each other. It’s a bit of a cycle where they grow and then subside. I could be wrong, but it seems more and more of the prominent leaders are getting torn down by the very people that propped them up.

    2. I think that social justice is a luxury that can only exist in a country as affluent as ours. As America declines due to the corrosive force that is the Left, we will see less of the Left.

    3. On the contrary, we may likely see many Western culture conservationists being lined up in firing squads by SJWs. The narrative is not getting weaker, they’re doubling down more than ever since Trump’s ascendancy. It comes down to this: 2016 is America’s ABSOLUTE LAST CHANCE to turn this ship around. This is our last chance to refute the leftist narrative. If Trump doesn’t win though, that’s it. We’ve lost. I’m cautiously optimistic that Trump will win, but if not, I will be purchasing a copy of Enjoy the Decline and taking advantage of all the entitlements that will be available before the end. It’s time to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Something big is coming, and I truly hope it will be good.

  2. Let us not forget it was these bolshevist cockroaches that eradicated the proud history of Russia with their communist tripe. These troglodytes executed Christians by the thousands, and their horrible gruesome tortures are detailed if you want to read them. It should come as no surprise that today’s hatred of Christianity by the left mongols is no different than the state-sponsored atheism of the bolshevist takeover.
    I refuse to capitalize bolshevism because it is loathe and worthless, another leftist speck of feculent scum. I spit in their direction, and while they may have the upper hand now with the media fulling backing them, their time shall come.

      1. Was that in his ‘200 Years Together’? I’ve got a copy of that, but I’m still working on my Russian (can’t find an English copy of it).

        1. The fact that you cannot find an English translation of a book that would guarantee at least a million copies sold, should make you think. Who is really running the information flow?

        2. ” Who is really running the information flow?”
          And what are they trying to hide? Didn’t they ever hear of the Streisand Effect?

        3. Let me get this straight. You have a Russian copy? But you can’t get an English copy of a book by an author who was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature? Why is that?

        4. Using duckduckgo to search, first actual link is entitled: “Most banned book in the World”
          I just searched on Amazon UK (both Amazon US and UK have a Russian version fairly easily listed), and they have a Kindle version for $5. However:
          1) I like hard copies, simply because I own the copy.
          2) I don’t like the idea of ‘them’ snooping on my purchases (Amazon is a US-based company, and plays by US rules).
          3) Can I trust the translator?

        5. I read they won’t publish it in English cause of the few chapters about how the Jewish Bolsheviks hated the Russians and what they did to them, look into an author named David duke, he put that in his book and said he told him that years ago and uses parts from ‘200 years together’ to get the info out in the west

        6. The Streisand Effect isn’t violent; it just means that censoring something will increase rather than decrease interest.

        7. The Jews certainly hated the Czars, with good reason, and those who could flee Mother Russia did. But, WW1 shut down that exit. Combined with Imperial Russia’s dramatic military failures, the Russian people also learned to hate the Czar, his family, and the class he represented. When the last of the Romanovs got shot in a cellar, the Russian people cheered. In turn, when Stalin disposed of the Old Bolsheviks in the course of his many purges, he Aryanized the Communist party.
          When Tsar Putin ascended the throne, he proved himself to be smarter than his predecessors and left the Jews alone. Religious Jews in Russia like and support Putin they understand each other just fine. Nothing that the Tsars could not have done – nothing like what they did. Don’t let your hatred of Bolshevisim blind you to the dire consequences of Imperial incompetence.

        8. I don’t , my father is Ukrainian/Russian and part Jewish from what we know cause his family died when he was a kid so we are still figuring things out but I’ve always read up and studied history and wether someone is right or wrong it should be shown, I hate how history is cherry picked on what’s to be told and what’s to be swept under the rug. I’m not one of those people suffering from “white guilt” and I don’t think anybody else should be guilty of something another generation did but it is shitty that people can play victim about one thing while ignoring their actions somewhere else. I know the tsar treated some Jews bad and even his Cossack guard left him for the people but what ended up happening after his fall was senseless

        9. Killing the last Czar and his family may have been evil,but not senseless. The Communists did it for much the same reason the Parliamentarians executed Charles the 1st – to eliminate a potential rallying point for their opponents. Evil, yes, but not senseless.

        10. No I was referring to the slaughter of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians being senseless not the czar. They coulda took over and reformed without the mass murder and starvation

        11. Actually, very few works by Nobel Prize winners are in English. Publishers understand that most Americans and British aren’t hungry for that kind of stuff. They pump out millions of Steven King books instead.

    1. When I read the story how a bunch of commie bastards got their pathetic arse roasted by conservative,nationalistic Germans it brings untold joy and warmth to my heart.And I’m not exaggerating! Wish I can hear more joyful news in the future about the gruesome demise of commie cockroaches. One can only wish…

    2. I would like to read on this genocide.
      If you have books on the subject to recommend me, that would be very kind.

      1. That would be nice wouldn’t it, however our malefactors wouldn’t be able to sleep soundly at night if there was printed word out there calling them for what they are. Take a look here for starters Charette:
        http://www.rense.com/general77/bols.htm
        http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
        https://www.darkmoon.me/2013/the-mass-murder-of-russian-christians-and-the-destruction-of-their-churches-by-lasha-darkmoon/
        http://www.texemarrs.com/062004/soviet_gulag.htm
        EDIT: Actually here is one by a great author and struggler himself, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Book is called Gulag Archipelago.

        1. Note: the book is divided into 3 volumes.
          1 and 2 are pretty easy to find; 3 is hard to find (just on my experience).

    3. So lets get this straight. The acceptable penalty for organizing a street protest was death?
      It is a good thing that Germany acted quickly to put down these protests, otherwise they would have wound up with a totalitarian regime that would oppress its people and slaughter millions.

      1. At the time they had no idea that the Nazis were on the rise. If they’d put down the commies, and the Nazis didn’t show up, they would have been fine. The whole area was a mess, there was no real way of determining what would happen next with any certitude.

        1. Yet they didn’t apply the same “solution” to the Nazi’s who did far worse than a few street protests on their way to power, assisted, by the way, by the Commies!

        2. Because it was a different time. These events did not happen in the course of one week, you know. Unless 1919 is Monday and 1939 is Friday. Which I doubt.

        3. Ethics is universal across time and space. Whether or not, you knew the Nazis would rise up has nothing to do with whether its OK to kill someone because of something you think they might do.
          That’s called “murder”, you know.

        4. Yes, murder is wrong, I don’t think you’re telling anybody here anything that they didn’t already know.
          Your initial post (that I responded to) tried to posit that the Freikorps failed because a totalitarian establishment of power still occurred. I counter that it was almost thirty years separated and likely didn’t have many of the same players between the two times and nobody in 1919 knew the outcomes almost thirty years later. That’s what I was responding to, clearly, not “golly, is murder really wrong Mr. Bob?!? Gee, whoduthunkit?!”
          Snarling at me about basic ethics as if you were a Professor at university telling me some arcane wisdom that I do not already know is merely an exercise in condescension.

        5. Ghost, please leave sarcasm to the experts (i.e. the British).
          Interesting your timeline, since the Nazi party formed in 1920…
          Snarling…? You’ll know when I’m snarling because your lower jaw will be missing!!!!
          🙂

        6. I know when the Nazi party formed, Bob. And today some third rate SJW hacks are forming the party that will replace the Progressives of today, but that doesn’t mean that they’re relevant today. They formally took power in 1933. What you posit is the same as saying that the Reagan Revolution probably shouldn’t have happened, because in 2015 we have Obama. In other words, it’s nonsense, nobody in 1985 could forsee what would happen in 2015 (or 2008 if you will).
          What I’m stating is that you made a logical error. You should have stopped at “You probably shouldn’t murder people for marching” and left it at that.
          By the way, you do know that communists at the time just after WW1 were shooting, bombing and killing people actively in the streets of not just Germany, but Europe on the whole, right? These weren’t benign peaceful little protesters out asking for free medical insurance while putting flowers in their hair.

        7. Can you clarify what the logical error is?
          You seem to making assumptions about what I think. One group that was of course shooting and killing people actively on the streets of Germany was the Freikorps! And of course many Brownshirts, including their leader were drawn from the Freikorps. And so these people, who murdered people one year and formed the Nazi party the next, you want me to believe no one could guess that they would carry on murdering people years later?
          Frankly I am confused by your defense of one group of collectivists over another. Also, I am confused by your apparent relative morality – something that happens in one time, to one group of people is OK but in another, to other people not. I thought that for you, morality was absolute and important. I see I have you wrong.

        8. As it happens, one thing is not another thing. Freikorps does not mean Nazi.
          The Spartacists were violent. The Spartacists were killing people. In response, the German government gave the order to kill the Spartacists.
          Fun fact, loads of brownshirts were also former communists. So therefore communist equals Nazi.
          Never forget it’s always murder when the other guy does it. Same way Che was a hero, and Butcher’s Bay was a reasonable response to extreme circumstances. Ho Chi Minh was a patriot, the Rosenbergs were innocent…
          Of course remember, all revolutions by people you don’t like must be crushed ruthlessly. All revolutions from people you do like must be accommodated to prevent future bloodshed, after all they wouldn’t be revolting if they didn’t have serious grievances.
          (Edit: I have spoken too soon, the Spartacists hadn’t killed anyone, merely seized property that hadn’t belonged to them, obtained firearms, and incited the military to mutiny. Forgive me for assuming that they were not following the peaceful, justice centered examples of their Comrades in Russia. It was obvious in hindsight.)

        9. Thank you for the pointer, no I’ve never heard of him, will check out your link.

        10. The Freikorps existed from the 1700’s forward. Nazis also drew members from worker’s unions, business, the communist party and the clergy, so I guess that means those are all also evil institutions. (To be fair, the communists were evil)
          You seem to making assumptions about what I think
          No, I’m just reading your words directly. You’re snarking about the actions of the Freikorps being basically futile because, hey, nearly 30 years later the Nazis popped up into power. It’s a bad analogy from the get go and makes no logical sense.
          And so these people, who murdered people one year and formed the Nazi party the next,
          The next year then? Really Bob? The entire Nazi party, or even the majority of it, just coalesced out of the Freikorps, did it? That’s odd because the German Worker’s Party existed from the 1800’s forward and was made up of many groups, and rebranded itself in 1920 into what we now call the Nazi party.
          Frankly I am confused by your defense of one group of collectivists over another.
          That’s because you’re too worked up and, frankly, emotional over the topic to see that I’m simply noting your “X failed because Y happened later statement” is not logically sound. Stop taking everything so personally. It has *nothing* to do with supporting either the Freikorps or the Nazis, I could give a fuck about them as groups for the purposes of this discussion.

        11. It’s odd, I was always under the impression that it was common knowledge that the Socialists and Communists were raiding and claiming/destroying private property in Germany and Europe in general at the time immediately after WW1 ended, shooting people, bombing people, etc. Hell they were even throwing bombs over here in the states, now and again.

        12. What do you have against Nazi’s? It’s hollywood and false historical accounts that display them as butchers and genocidal maniacs. They were trying to protect Germany from the swine that was undermining them. White nations are not allowed to exist purely because the fools running the show have a sick hatred fetish and want to destroy everything that is white. They don’t particularly like blacks either Englishbob, but the jewel of envy for these people are white proud nationalists, and it is these paragons of civilization that they want to destroy.
          I have no doubt that the Nazi’s murdered people, all governments do, but to call them the worst thing to happen to humanity is brainwashing at best. What the bolsheviks did to Russia and the Christians cannot be forgiven or forgotten, and it was far more than ‘6 million’ who were slaughtered and maimed.

        13. I just read about Dollfuss in “To Hell and Back.” Great book, by the way. Shows what happens when weak pacifists and those that do not respect freedom and the individual pull down societies and countries, leaving the path open for someone like Hitler.

        14. “At the time they had no idea that the Nazis were on the rise”
          ———————–
          Everyone in Germany knew the Nazis were on the rise.
          It’s just that nearly everyone preferred them to the communists.
          Everyone except the Jews who were mostly pro-communist (I know, shocking ain’t it?).
          And if truth be told had Hitler been more interested in developing an atomic bomb (he knew about the idea but dismissed it as impractical) we might well all be speaking fluent German today.
          And while we would still have problems (I would imagine we’d be struggling to compete economically against genetically engineered people right now) it’s hard to imagine leftism, as we know it today, being one of them.

        15. At the risk of repeating myself, Germany was plunged into chaos by the very people who killed these “Bolseviks”.
          I think your mind is guided by hate.

        16. Yes the Freikorps existed for some time, but the Freikorp of post- WW1 was not the same as the original organisation. There were many Friekorps. So we must look at this individual group. This particular group we are talking about was basically a terror group.

          The entire Nazi party, or even the majority of it, just coalesced out of the Freikorps, did it?

          I never made such a claim.

          the German Worker’s Party existed from the 1800’s forward and was made up of many groups, and rebranded itself in 1920 into what we now call the Nazi party

          So a socialist political party, re-branded itself into another socialist political party? OK.

          That’s because you’re too worked up

          You are projecting here. You are the one exhibiting defensive behaviour here. I even gave you a smiley face to indicate my levity. I don’t take anything you say personally. This is just mid-game “handbags” and afterwards we’ll go for a beer. Loser pays!

          your “X failed because Y happened later statement” is not logically sound

          I never made such a statement. I was merely pointing out the irony in Quintus’s words.

        17. You seem to be confused here. This is not a Nazis versus Communists argument. Its like telling me I am defending psychos over mass shooters. Both are bad.

        18. Speaking German? Germany is the size of Arizona, you idiot. There’s was a defensive war strictly. Jewry launched a war as Hitler resisted Judaism and fiat funny money. Instead of German, we will all be speaking Spanish, Chinese and Arabic…. Rolls eyes

        19. And j ew Marxists killing 66 million non j we Christians or goyim/cattle is kosher, right Bob? My guess is you’re an oven dodger apologist and big Israel supporter or citizen. Your gig is up

        20. Communist j ews are diametrically opposed to Bational Socialists. They couldn’t be more different…. For you to infer differently is blatant lying abd errant

        21. Why is national socialism bad? Why can European white Christian nations exist and not be invaded by brown and black peoples? Why can’t they print their own money, protect their unborn, say no to j ew fiat money, feminism and porn? Why are you anti white?

        22. BHill, national SOCIALIST German WORKERS party. Do you think the red background on the NatSoc flag was an accident? Or referring to their rise to power as a revolution? Or that the reddest parts of the German electorate became the brownest parts?
          Government control of the economy, everything done in the name of “the people”, reducing all of human history to a class struggle ( racial classes as opposed to economic classes). State control of the family and the church.
          The Nazis were red as Harry Hopkins, only reason the international Left hates them is the same reason the crips hate the bloods.

        23. What was taught in my high school history classes (late 90s, early 00s) was that scare-mongering xenophobes exaggerated the Socialist threat post-WWI and threatened the poor little immigrants, or some-such nonsense.
          Seems like a similar gag with Trump and the media of today.

        24. Actually, no, the German Jews were not mostly Communist – rather the opposite. You are confused by the fact that KPD had a much higher percentage of Jews than there were Jews in Germany. if the Nazis had been like Mussolini in their policies, the German Jews would have gladly served the country, just as they did during WW1, and as they didItaly before Benito turned on them. The father of Fermi’s Jewish wife was an officer in the Italian Navy. Jews were founding members of the Fascist party, and Mussolini in the 1920s made loud noises about appreciating their support.
          One additional point. Most Germans were NOT anti-semitic. They admired Hitler of course for his success with the economy and the re-armament program, but they were shocked at the organized 1938 ‘Aktion’. Alfred Rosenberg records this in his diary at the time, excerpts of which can be found in the Nuremberg documents.
          This may seem so strange to y’all who are regular readers here, but nothing is stranger than the truth. Glad to provide more evidence as desired.

        25. Good point.Note that Freud was a strong and open Doluss supporter. Wore the rosette of the Christian Social party on his suit lapel. There were many Jews in the upper class like him.

        26. One of the first things Stalin does in the 1930s is kill off the Old Bolsheviks. He did this to obtain the loyalty of the shiny new rank and file Party members whose advancement was being stalled by the presence of the Old Bolsheviks. So, as part of killing off the old boys, he also killed the ones who were racially Jews. He also killed off Jewish cultural institutions such as the National Yiddish Theater , as part of the cultural purges. He sacked replaced Litinov with Molotov when it came time to negotiate his pact with Adolf.
          “Just the facts, ma’am”. – Joe Friday.

        27. They certainly were the worst thing that happened to Germany. If Hitler had stopped with Austria,, he’d be regarded as a great world-historical leader. Instead, he lead his country into ruin..
          As General Henning von Trescow,one of the 20th July conspirators put it:
          “The whole world will vilify us now, but I am still totally convinced
          that we did the right thing. Hitler is the archenemy not only of Germany
          but of the world. When, in few hours’ time, I go before God to account
          for what I have done and left undone, I know I will be able to justify
          what I did in the struggle against Hitler. God promised Abraham that He
          would not destroy Sodom if only ten righteous men could be found in the
          city, and so I hope for our sake God will not destroy Germany. No one
          among us can complain about dying, for whoever joined our ranks put on
          the shirt of Nessus. A man’s moral worth is established only at the point where he is ready to give his life in defense of his convictions.”
          I hope people will concede that the General was in a good position to know.

        28. It’s kind of like what happened after 9/11, when people fervently supported Bush 2. At the time it didn’t matter to most people that he basically funded two wars with a credit card and wiped his ass with the Constitution. And that was over one terrorist attack. Imagine how people would have been if we had lost a war, lost part of our country and had our military disbanded.

        29. Good man, tried to smash these monsters and cockroaches. Nazis and commies are just two sides of the same death-coin. Europe needed more Dollfusses at the time.

      2. Sometimes violence is necessary to prevent even bigger bloodshed. 2014 Ukraine coup is a perfect example. If the president at the time just supressed so called “peacefull demonstrators”, there wouldnt be thousands of dead in the East of the country, dozens of burnt alive in Odessa and Crimea would be still Ukranian.

        1. No, because the Ukrainian President didnt give the order to attack the demonstrators. Putin, on the other hand, used force in 2011 against US financed Russian opposition and Americans failed at destabilizing Russia.

        2. What! you mean to tell me that you dont think america should bless russia with a “slavic spring” like they blessed the arabs.

        3. I think Russia should bless US with “Free Aztlan” movement and maybe donate 20-30 millions for Black Lives Matter. I wish they had a taste of their own pill for once.

        4. Heh 20-30 millions for black lives matter seems like overkill, america would be decimated to rubbles within a week.

        5. US have been pouring billions into various NGOs in Russia to destabilize the country and topple the government. Thank God Putin banned many of them such as disgusting Soros Fund, National Endowment for Democracy and many others. The rest NGOs receiving funding from abroad had to register as “foreign agents”. Many were declared as “undesirable” in Russia.
          Why not use the same strategy against the US? Give various Marxist organization in the US a billion dollars, then relax and enjoy the show.

        6. I know that, and Im familiar with this guy in the video. The Cold War never ceased. However, from what Im observing in the West today – it is destroying itself, Russia just has to stay strong for another decade or so and Watch Liberalism collapsing once great West. Thank God Russians rejected Liberalism. Being called a Liberal today in Russia is like calling one a traitor.

        7. I agree that this is happening, and I hope that Western countries eventually follow the Putin model. I think it is ultimately inevitable – liberals are self destructive people who, in a democracy, naturally eliminate themselves from the political process (hence why they need immigrants to prop up their vote). However these immigrants will often not assimilate, and so there will be an eventual civil war or balkanisation.
          Liberals are always traitors. They think with their heart, and not their head (although once they have established their emotional assumptions, they proceed very logically about it). Such people should never be allowed into power.
          However, ultimately, Russia is getting its just desserts. Your elders thought they could corrupt the world into a rotten mess while keeping your totalitarian system intact – that was their greatest folly. Now the corrupted world is out to get you, and your country is in for a tough period. I hope leaders of our generation realise that this kind of degeneracy promoting realpolitik ultimately always fucks us as much as it fucks anyone else.

        8. What I cant understand is why so many whites support the policies and ideology that are blatantly anti-white? Like quotas for example, or third-world immigration or gay propaganda. Why Western whites hate themselves so much?

        9. I think it’s because of a bad diet and falling testosterone. Overpopulation and industrial agriculture has meant that food today has 1/2 to 1/10th of the nutrients it did in the 1930s. Russia has had, and will have, a huge population decline, so your food nutritional quality will improve. Thus your people will be able to develop their brain and hormones better and think better.
          I know it sounds far fetched, but I know it very intimately – I used to eat junk food, drink alcoholo, smoke weed and have low testosterone, and I was a left liberal commy. After years of eating organic, avoiding shit and taking supplements, I am the most right wing person around. Lack of brain development and testosterone’s effect on the brain is the main reason that young people (and women) are undisciplined and childlike. I think if everyone followed a paleo diet, we could have a very right wing male population very quickly, within five or ten years.
          You’ll also see Japan become very right wing once its population collapses. This is just an cyclical, evolutionary process, ultimately. Overpopulation -> degraded food supply -> weak population -> population collapse -> regraded food supply -> population growth -> overpopulation. It has happened many times before in history. I’d argue it is a major contributory factor in the rise and fall of most empires.

      3. Think of it as treason. The street protestors were looking to have Germany become part of Russia.
        The Nazis, by contrast, were pro-Germany through and through.

        1. Right it was an argument between National Socialism and International Communism. And of course Germany wound up being shared between the Brits, Americans and Russians.

        2. Actually in 1919 the Soviet Union was under 2 years old and very much consumed by infighting. Marx and Engels wrote Das Kapital for Germany; they came from a milieu of unemployed, oppressed German workers. Therefore there’s no reason to conclude that the Spartacists were anything other than homegrown German communists.

      4. Well, the Nazis weren’t exactly conservative fellas.
        Na-zis: National – SOCIALISTS.
        A cross between nationalism AND socialism.
        So it looks like Germany wasn’t very successful in stopping a totalitarian regime after all.

        1. Nazis were in the extreme end of conservatism. The socialism you refer to wrongly was not their economic model based on fiat or debt borrowing or high taxes, But a fraternal one ie social as in ones folk. This is sociology 101 you boob

      5. Hitlers actions were entirely defensive by every account. His economic miracle made Jewry nervous, no more fiat print press, and for that they were attacked. Polish j ews slaughtered thousands of German women and children in the Danzig. After the Bromberg Massacre, 5500 dead Germans , Hitler invaded Poland the next day. Totalitarian? Gun laws were lowered to age of 18 to own, abortion made illegal, vacations made mandatory. No crime, no unemployment

        1. Get your facts straight. So called (in nazi propaganda) “Bromberg massacre” happened in 3 September. Hitler invaded Poland 2 days earlier. Germans killed that day were saboteurs, and there were 300 of them, not 5500.

      1. True enough. Russia is Slavic Authoritarian, and the Chinese Sino-Fascist. In those two countries, the Commies are long gone.

    4. You forgot China, too.
      Mao and his entourage killed millions in all of their stupid programs, like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

  3. And what do all these “revolutionaries” have in common? they are jews.
    This is a war on the european folk soul waged by this parasitical virus that eats and poisons its host from the inside out.
    Communism is judaism, Karl Marx and Lev Bronstein would without a doubt agree wholeheartedly.

        1. oh yeah? actually i need money. do you know where can i find a Jew who’d pay me to play his games? how much do they pay?

      1. Yes indeed, many traitors in the midst of gentiles, or they are crypto-jews.
        “Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.” – Rabbi S. Wise
        “The Communists are against religion (Christianity), and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature of Communism, we see that it is essential nothing else than a religion (Judaism).” – Rabbi Harry Waton.
        I could go on.

        1. everybody can “go on” and pick useless quotes from stormfront and whale. “Rabbi S. Wise” quote is a known fake – just like many other “quotes” there that are either fake, altered or taken totally out of context.

        2. Believe what you will, there are much reality bending and pretending to be something else than you actually are within the bolshevik movement, why did Lev Bronstein change his name to Leon Trotsky, so that he could be inconspicuos to what?
          Of course you are here to deny the jewish roots of bolshevism, thats all i ever see you come on RoK to do.

        3. Trotsky sounded much better as a pseudonym for a crazy international revolutionary. everybody knew he was a jew and he never hid it so it’s a moot point. otherwise what can be more pathetic than actually caring what some random users post on internet forums.

        4. Well you care because you’re probably a jew would be my guess.
          As a matter of course there were jewish powers behind the bolsheviks, just look at the percentage in comparison to the european populace and wich individuals were in key positions and you have your answer, its all by coincidence of course according to you so lets just leave it at that.

        5. i was replying to your specific post. i don’t care what else do you post here or anywhere on the internet or what’s your race. that’s what pathetic.
          percentage-shmercentage. but unfortunately, you started discussion with a fake quote – so your credibility is exactly zero. so let’s just leave it at that indeed.

        6. Here are photos of the native rulers of Hungary, pre-communist take-over of Hungary, circa 1919:



          Now, here are photos of the “Hungarians” who made revolution against them and destroyed the native European culture in the process (Note the racial differences):




        7. *dumb question from the audience*: Isn’t there a difference between being ethnically Jewish, and a Jew that practices Judaism as a faith?
          While the practicing Jews have no great love for Christianity or Christians, the Orthodox Jews are extremely traditional as far as values are concerned. Isn’t it the main problem the high-profile Jews are also very secular, non-religious, and progressive / communist / establishment types (eg Barbara Streistand, Sheldon Adelson)?

        8. Taking the Talmud at face value for the document it clearly is makes one “Stormfront”? How convenient.
          We don’t need questionable sources like Rabbi Wise and “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” when we have the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud and the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua.
          Jesus layed this whole plot bare before He allowed Himself to be captured and killed by it.

        9. There is a difference. You need to go back to biblical times to see who the Jews are and where they came from.
          Jews as we know them today as a race originated from a mixed race of people called Edomites. They descended from Esau who was older brother to Jacob. Esau’s wife was a canaanite which means she was a BLACK WOMAN. Jacobs descendants would be the one to continue the divinely blessed royal lineage down the line on into Christianity after his older brother Esau traded his birthright for some food to Jacob. The true Israelites therefore are those who descend from Jacobs line. It was only after generations later that the people of Edom would be forced to convert to Judaism through war.
          “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger. (Genesis 25:23). The Jews of today serve the line of Jacob TO THIS DAY. The real ethnically Jewish people are NOT the ones who call themselves JEW today. Those ones who you call the secular Jews are the Edomites according to Jewish scholars today. And most likely the orthodox ones as well.
          I have to note that there was another lineage which broke off the line that Jesus Christ was born from. Judah had a lawful albeit Canaanite wife who bore him a son named Shelah. Descendants of this line are the rightful, original Jewish Jews. A mixed race but legitimate heirs and rightfully so up until Judah. These Jews are different then the Jews who hail from EDOM. It would be hard to tell the difference between the original Jewish, Israelite Jews descended from Judah and the converted Edomite Jews for they both come from a mixed race background. One is a legitimate, Israelite heir and the other is a converted mixed race people. It’s safe to say that these people probably intermixed as they both expressed hatred towards Jesus and Christianity.
          But Judah also had twins from a woman who was white and NOT his wife therefore making them illegitimate heirs. One twin would go on to become the red haired folk you see as Irish and Scots. The other twin, the blonde haired blue eyed people you see as the European kings and queens who reign today. Jesus sprang from this line and since he was an immaculate conception, one can not say he is an illegitimate heir even though his lineage technically springs from the birth of two non-married people.

        10. I actually believe those high profile jews in power you talk about are very traditional as well, just a different tradition than the orthodox jews, the inner circle if you will.
          I myself am not very christian but when christ talked about the synagogue of satan i believe it is them that he is mentioning.
          I think judaism is a front for something else more secretive and nefarious.

        11. Jews and Muslims are similar, they are both parasitic to the white race. Slight difference is Jews are smarter than Muslims. Plus today you see some Jews with Eurocentric features from the constant intermingling and mixing. Usually Jews use this as a strategy. They send some of their Jews to mix with Whites and other race as subterfuge to sabotage into that certain area.
          Jews are sneaky rats like that.

      2. Read the Talmud. Look up the Kol Nidre prayer. You might begin to change your opinion of the Jews. Of course there are rank and file Jews, that live according to decent values. However, the Jewish elites, in a tribal sense, have been the force behind global Usury, Bolshevism, Neoconservatism and now the central banking system, as well as the IMF.

    1. I used to believe as you do that it is the Jews behind all of this. Until I read that America is still a British Colony and that the end of the civil war in America did not see the King of England surrendering his right over America. Through legal trickery he still kept control. The Jews are the biggest scapegoats in history maybe next to the Muslims
      The Jews are in the pocket of the Kingdom of England. They are the banking/media arm and are mandated to take care of the books and brainwashing agenda of the NWO. The US, that is the military arm used to fund and fight the wars of conquering the earth. There are but a few FREE nations left on the list who haven’t fallen into the IMF and banking enslavement cartel which are Iran, North Korea and 1 or 2 others.
      I’m not saying to let the Jew elite off the hook for their crimes. But to see who is really pulling the strings.

      1. If the Rothschilds are the servants of the British Empire, and not vice versa, can you offer a reasonable explanation of the Balfour Declaration?

        1. In exchange for what? If I’m giving you my leash what will I get in return? The Rothschilds got a piece of paper from the British Empire ceding Palistine to the Jewish people. What did the British Empire get and why couldn’t they as the ”masters” require it without pledging a chunk of their empire.?

        2. That one page letter? Allow me to de-construct the letter and you shall see my theory just may be true.
          It says right in the letter that it is a “declaration of sympathy” and his “Majesty’s Government…will use their best endevours to facilitate the achievement”. Rothschild wrote to the King for HELP. He wanted to create a ‘national home’ for his Jewish folk and wrote to the King seeking his blessings.
          Tell me, if you are Master of the Universe why would you need anybody else’s blessings to do anything? And here’s the kicker; the most lowest rank of nobility, a BARON, is the one who sent Lord Rothschild (whose forefather also held the rank of BARON), this letter. Not even the King himself will acknowledge this lowly Jew. Heck no. He’s going to send his measly errand boy.
          It even states that nothing must be done to prejudice the rights of existing non-jewish communities. That means we will help you but don’t fuck with the people who are already living there.

        3. Unfettered loyalty. Jews are used to keep the books up to date through their banks, jews are used to indoctrinate their message through the media, and finally, jews are used to keep the legal system in business. Loyalty.

        4. Here’s a quote via wikipedia from Caroll Quigley:
          “In his posthumously published 1981 book The Anglo-American Establishment, Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley explained that the Balfour Declaration was actually drafted by Alfred, Lord Milner. Quigley wrote:
          This declaration, which is always known as the Balfour Declaration, should rather be called “the Milner Declaration,” since Milner was the actual draftsman and was, apparently, its chief supporter in the War Cabinet. This fact was not made public until 21 July 1937. At that time Ormsby-Gore, speaking for the government in Commons, said, “The draft as originally put up by Lord Balfour was not the final draft approved by the War Cabinet. The particular draft assented to by the War Cabinet and afterwards by the Allied Governments and by the United States…and finally embodied in the Mandate, happens to have been drafted by Lord Milner. The actual final draft had to be issued in the name of the Foreign Secretary, but the actual draftsman was Lord Milner.”
          If this is corret we appear to be talking about the Rhodes-Milner Round table group which seems to have been at the heart of the British establishment. Rhodes’ enterprises were I think partlly funded by one of the Rothschild, although that was I think many years prior in the previous century.

        5. Your looking at it backwardly. The original draft was the Belfour document. Once the King gave the go ahead, it was given to parliament to pass which then completed a final draft of the accord. Without the Kings approval, there would be nothing to pass. The reason for the about face is to remove all ties and evidence that the Kingdom of England is the Ultimate decision maker in this or other major global moves.
          The Rothschild are bankers but they still serve the interests and pay tributes (aka taxes) to the Crown especially since it was the Kingdom who helped to create a national home for Jews.

        6. Whose banks? Bank of England is is a wholly owned arm of the Rothschild family. As are their messenger services that helped them acquire it (namely Reuters)

        7. What was exchanged? You’ve managed to give the history without getting into the politics. The people sitting at the table in Versailles understood.

        8. I don’t really get your point. Carroll Quigley implied that there were secretive groups running the British and international politics and the implication was that this was not far off from being a conspiracy. Quigley wasn’t the usual sort of conspiracy theorist. He was pretty much an insider – albeit probably on the outer edges – of the kind of quasi-conspiratorial groups he suggesting were pulling the strings. Moreover he was Bill Clinton’s favourite tutor – bear in mind that Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and Quigley claimed that it was the people who gravitated around Rhodes and then Milner who were key players in so much of the real history of the previous century.
          In the extract quoted he is claiming that it wasn’t Amery or whoever who drafted the Balfour document but Milner – one of the ‘behind the scenes guys’. The question arises was this a document written by one set of powers to another (the petitioning party) or something done more for presentation amongst groups who may have been pretty much in agreement with each other. Quigley might not be right about what he’s claiming, but he’s usually taken fairly seriously because of the position he occupied.
          As for the idea that the kingpin in all this is literally the king – or rather the British monarchy, I don’t know what to think about that. I imagine it is rather less vertical than that. Power and influence is probably more distributed. As far as I’m aware the only group pushing the Britain is the well-spring of all evil is the LaRouche people

        9. the quote is about who authored the document. Quigley is saying that it wasn’t who we were told it was – the foreign secretary – but Lord Milner, who for Quigley is almost a conspiratorial figure, who amongst many others, aligned together through groups like the Round table (and probably many others too) may have had a disproportionate influence on international affairs. Israel etc then ceases to be concession, except to the extent that (strategic) interests of the British government are at odds with the likes of these shadowy figures in their international policy-making groups

        10. Reading up on Milner it says he was a viscount, one level up above a baron. Even if what you say is true, it doesn’t change the fact that the King of England was Milner’s master at the time. If Quigley is correct, Milner probably recited the declaration to the Baron boy to give to Lord Rothschild.

        11. We’re talking about a central bank here, not bricks and mortar down on the corner. The question is who do governments pay interest to?

        12. I guess 0bama is on about nothing. Why do we care about interest rates and S&P ratings again? Seem to have a passle of Keynesians around this site.

        13. What you say ’bout my mama?
          On a serious note, I don’t have all the answers. It may be that the Jews are allowed to rule within the created Matrix world of fiat money and interest and the true rulers of both the Matrix world and Natural world only make it seem as if they are underlings to them in that world to throw everybody off.

        14. For the most part I’d say the British monarchy was genuinely ‘constitutional’ – it’s power largely limited to the symbolic rather than translating into some kind of continuing but hidden executive force existing even after its supposed transfer to parliament. That doesn’t mean they aren’t enormously powerful in their own right, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the aristocratic / monarchical pecking order reflects a real political hierarchy i.e. the fact that one aristocrat outranks another doesn’t necessarily translate into any kind of political hierarchy. Its quite possible that the monarch is more powerful than it would like us to believe, but I don’t see any real evidence for it being any kind of great international puppet-master.
          Re. Quigley I’ve yet to read much of his book – Hope and Tragedy so I’ll reserve judgement on what he says for the moment

        15. My views were completely changed after reading this – http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/united_states_british_colony.htm
          If you get some time to read it I’d like to hear your thoughts about it. I checked the facts as everything is backed up with documentary evidence and I found no holes in the story. It explains so much as to why Admiralty Law is practiced in courts, why there are constant checkpoints and why licenses are needed to do anything lawful in the country.
          America is still a British colony.

        16. Funny then that after King Richard and Lawrence fought for it that it should be “given” to the Jew. If it is so valuable why would someone give it to a supposedly despised minority? You are FAR too credulous.

        17. Also the formation of Israel seems to be reversing the former strategy of dividing the nations that formed the Caliphate. It is serving to revive the Caliphate with the very “leverage” you cite.

        18. World Zionists considered Kenya and Argentina as a homelands. They chose Palestine due to its proximity to work oil from which to run their criminal empire as well as religious reasons though 90% of j ews and Israelis are atheists. Any beckoning/approval seeking from royalty or others was a gesture of goodwill and decency, as these people were viewed correctly with scorn, contempt and hate having been evicted 109 times in history for crimes of financing Muslim war parties, roles in tax collection, subversion, causing Black Plague et al fascinating history really

        19. The crown is inbred. A miss Kate Goldsmith ( jewess) has married the prince! and they now have a hatchling to inherit the crown…

        20. Don’t worry they know this and most likely planned it. Remember, there are 3 other types of Jews today. There are the Edomites who adopted the religion by force and not of Israelite Jewish blood. The legitimate son of Judah who was half black/half white who carried on the line and the illegitimate son of Judah born of fornication who was the true first born rather than his twin brother whom Jesus and the Queen sprang from.

        21. Yes they are of Edomite stock mostly. Non-racial Jews who adopted Judaism when King David conquered them.
          Read the Balfour Declaration again. The Crown would not offer help if not asked for it. That’s what Rothschild needed was the Kingdoms help. They (Jews) may own the fiat world of finance including profitable businesses within it but it’s the Kingdom of England who owns almost all the property on Planet Earth. And property is true wealth next to gold and silver.

        22. thanks for the link. I will check it through properly when I get a chance. I skimmed through it but will reserve judgement until I get a chance to look at it properly. I should probably point at this stage though that I’m from the UK but one of the riff raff rather than a toff. I’m still inclining very much against the idea though.

        23. I implore you to keep an open mind then when reading it then even though you admit you are, and very well should be, biased against it. Maybe that makes you the perfect type of person to deconstruct it’s theory for you will be looking at this essay through a heavier magnifying glass compared to another who is less politically inclined (or whatever sways your bias against the work). I’m still trying to locate my eyeballs after they popped out of my head but I hope you do read it and follow up with your opinion.

        24. I read a little bit last night but I will definitely read it properly. I actually love alternative histories. I’m just having a slightly hard time getting my head around the idea of her Maj as a mafia queen or whatever. You never know

        1. That’s crazy. Now global humidity. That I believe. They will make the whole planet into one big schvitz

        2. “english” bob do you always have to resort to things like that? i thought the manosphere was a place were different people with different perspectives could have discussions without directly going into ad hominem mode.
          I have never talked about global warming by the way so dont put words in my mouth.

        3. I thought it was a reasonable assumption given you turn every comments section into a crusade against the Jews.

        4. English Bob is an anti Christ j ew or oven dodger as Mel Gibson would refer to him as… Hence his shilling lies

      2. Some arab nations as well, they are being destroyed by the US and the saudi funded proxy armies but the last word hasn’t been said in relation to syria yet so we’ll see how that goes.

  4. “We shall push back the Christians and annihilate their influence. We shall dictate to the world in what they should have faith, what they ought to honor and what to curse.” – Rabbi Reichon, Prague 1869

  5. The modern SJW is indeed the intellectual descendant of these Bolsheviks, but the family tree goes much deeper than this. It covers the left-right spectrum, it stretches back thousands of years. It’s religious and secular. There is one root in common: deconstruction.
    This is what I cover in my upcoming “Year Zero” project, and coincidentally, I just got past this stage of the history.
    2015 has given us some good signs that the tide is beginning to turn and the deconstructivist rats will be ousted, but the corruption and rot is just so deep that I’m not sure.
    We should start building those freikorps-like groups, just as we discussed on the forum.

    1. The “unorganized militia” concept in the States is along this line, however it’s been so infiltrated by government operatives that you’re not going to get very far in one.

  6. What’s sick is that there are still memorials to Liebknecht and Luxemburg in Berlin, and their deaths are generally considered a sign of right-wing brutality (of the sort that led to Nazis).
    What made Germany different from Russia is that in Russia, the country and its government were in such terrible shape after WWI that nobody could organize properly to smash the nascent Soviets. The Germans were fortunate that their army and government were still intact.

  7. To be honest that guy in the firing squad picture looks fucking heroic. I really hope you messed up the pictures or something because that look like sjw propaganda.
    Also, I noticed very long noses and semitic eyes on these three. I wonder if there’s some kind of connection?
    Seriously speaking though, by now it seems like the rot is in so deep that we would need to dispatch a lot more than a few hundred sjws. Im talking about the humanities faculties, media, government bureaucrats, you get the idea. And even worse, we dont have any organization (that I’m aware of) like the Freikorps that could do the job so the military could keep its hands clean.
    By the way, the military is fucking pozzed too right now. I just cant see any way other than hanging in there and organizing into militias.

    1. Bet he didn’t look so cool 10 seconds later. Long-barreled 8mm Gewehr 98s from 10 feet away – hope that was a thick wall he’s standing in front of.

      1. All I’m saying is that if sjw got their way and I was in front of a firing line for reading ROK I would want to go out like that. Doesnt mean that I wouldnt shoot him if I was one of the soldiers.

  8. I can’t wait for our version of Spartacists to turn on each other: “I’m not a Spartacist, she is!” “No, he’s s Spartacist!” “No, they’re all Spartacists, not me!”

    1. This is a bit off-topic, but Germaine Greer was just disinvited to speak at a British university because she’s too reactionary: transgendered men are not women, she says. They don’t look like women, or sound like women, or act like women. …
      Third wave feminism clashing with the (new) powers that be.

  9. “The Spartacist Revolt Shows Why Force Must Often Be Met With Force”
    Yes. WW1 had the participation of many eccentric figures. Adrian Carton de Wiart was one of them. In his memoirs he wrote:
    “Governments may think and say as they like, but force cannot be eliminated, and it is the only real and unanswerable power. We are told that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I know which of these weapons I would choose.”

    1. I always like to think that if put in front of a firing squad with no recourse to save my self I would at least be able to do a dope pose

  10. The Weimar Republic is today remembered for “gaiety” and sexual freedom from the movie “Cabaret” from a book written by a fag. But what followed after the suppression of the Communists by the Freicorps was free elections. But the Socialists won power and then deliberately caused hyperinflation to destroy the conservative elements of society. It largely worked.
    From the social and economic wreckage, society rallied around a charismatic figure offering to restore order AND create a welfare state – Adolph Hitler.
    A good book on the hyperinflation and its political causes and effects is “The Downfall of Money.”
    Like Mark Twain said, history may not repeat itself, but it sure rhymes!

  11. General Pinochet in Chile showed the world what you have to do with these kinds of parasites and degenerates. Don’t plan on seeing sports in the major stadiums if we get an American Pinochet; those facilities will have other uses as he straightens out the country.

  12. And seven years later!Germany saw the rise of the NAZI party. Adolf Hitler becoming president and the beginning of WW2. the holocaust and the muder of 24 millions russians along with million more Europeans. Nazi Germany was defeated. the country was divided up between communist east and democratic west for the next 44 years! Thing did not work out well for Germany.

  13. the Comitern in that year (the Comitern was Moscow’s front organization
    the phrase ( Communist International ) is usually abbreviated ‘Comintern’.

  14. The biggest mistake the Tsar made was not executing Lenin, Trotsky and co when he had them after their initial attempts (early 1900’s)
    They did a bit of time in Siberia then went to Germany and new york gost all the funny money and went back. And they STILL had to steal someone else’s genuine revolution and turn it into a sadistic ™ bloodbath.
    One of the most barbaric chapters in human history, reparations anyone?
    A great and honourable people ripped, roasted, torn, raped, smashed to smithereens.
    Compare the cultural output of Russia in the 1800’s and then the ussr.
    To research the Russian “revolution” is one of the biggest damn red pills you have to swallow in your quest for some kind of historical perspective not based on complete mumbo jumbo.
    The question is who came first, the red shirts or the brown shirts?
    How you answer that determines how much or how little research you have done.

    1. ”If the Tsar had executed Lenin, Trotsky and company” . . ‘AND COMPANY’ is the key. It wouldn’t have been enough to simply execute a handfull of leaders. The 20’th century had droves of ‘made men’ of the cabal. People speculate what history would be like if singular individuals had been removed, but with the 20’th century movements, purges were itching to commence in all corners and the ‘heads’ like Lenin were picks from a larger rotation of puppet heads similar to a caucasus or primary poll of electorates.
      If Lenin were taken out, business would have continued as usual with another runner up puppet head/spokesman/placator of the public much like ceo’s and corporate heads are recycled but the larger shareholding body or ‘congress’ of its constituents perpetuates the direction of the organization. Removing Lenin would have taken only one well placed sniper’s shot whereas unrooting an entire organization would be more akin to disrupting the core of its body politik, much like sending a death charge to the center of the death star to put it metaphorically.
      Business and tech had great avenues to expand in the early 20’th century but established cultural institutions are prohibitive to growth of tech revolutions. For once some commandments need to be laid how technology should be disseminated and used. Patriarchal resurgence will be a major force in the upcoming years. Technology is overwhelming enough to completely remove man from his obligations to his tribe and the propogation and direction of his greater species goes out of his hands and falls to neglect. Real ‘smart’ growth and advancement includes retaining our core nature and patriarchal order and our tribal hegemony.

  15. I remember reading an article awhile ago about how the communist had to break
    Russia and let communism fail so it can be implemented willingly.

  16. “There is a direct line of descent which runs from the bespectacled
    Bolshevist butchers of early 20th century Europe, and the blue-haired,
    overweight, shrill monitors of political correctness that haunt the
    college campuses, media outlets, and workplaces of the West today.”
    I always argue this, but that descent is quite a slippy one in terms of demonstrating ideological lineage. The blue-haired SJW may or may not identify as some kind of marxist but typically doesn’t and will argue that their social justice concerns, progressivism is different from marxism, which they will tend to describe as narrowly as possible in terms of classical (economic) marxism. Ideologically speaking the principal characteristic that unites the blue haired bolsheviks of today with their overtly bolshevik ancestors is the determination to critique and tear down, because at root all of it is destructive in its major impulse.

  17. While it’s true that she was a socialist, Luxemburg was actually an anti-Bolshevik. In Marxist thought, her main thesis was that socialism needn’t be imposed by way of revolution – that instead the democratic system could be usurped by the proletariat to vote in socialism. Sort of a step or two to the left of Sanders or Corbyn, but not a revolutionary per se.

    1. “her main thesis was that socialism needn’t be imposed by way of revolution – that instead the democratic system could be usurped by the proletariat to vote in socialism”
      ———–
      Basically what they’ve trying to do nowadays.

        1. His Mother was jewish and that means he is a jew.The religion btw plays no role in this.It doesnt matter if the mother practices the jewish cult or is a converso.The child is jewish if the mother is jewish and that means he was a jew.This religion thing is a cheap jewish trick to conceal themselves.

  18. The irony is that the Bolsheviks were financed and organised from the USA.
    The quote below is from John Bradley’s “Allied Intervention in Russia” (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968.):
    William Boyce Thompson is an unknown name in twentieth-century history, yet Thompson played a crucial role in the Bolshevik Revolution. Indeed, if Thompson had not been in Russia in 1917, subsequent history might have followed a quite different course. Without the financial and, more important, the diplomatic and propaganda assistance given to Trotsky and Lenin by Thompson, Robins, and their New York associates, the Bolsheviks may well have withered away and Russia evolved into a socialist but constitutional society.

      1. The German government was heavily involved in financing the Bolsheviks during the First World War. After all, Russia was an enemy despite in that war.

  19. In Russia there are still thousands of streets named after these German Jewish Cosmopolits. Their names always struck me as odd sounding when I was a kid.

    1. You can find the same in Germany as well. Berlin still has a Karl-Marx-Straße, a Rosa-Luxemburg-Straße, and a Karl-Liebknecht-Straße. There are plenty more which I’m sure would fill a small volume.

    2. Yeah no shit those names sound strange on a Russian street don’t they! There’s even entire country named Luxemburg. Did u know that it’s a hotbed of Jewish Communism?
      Btw Liebknecht and Zetkin weren’t Jews. Just in case.

  20. “And just like the modern SJW, these people were traitors to their homeland and their culture” – Not at all, these Jews simply had a loyalty to their own tribe.

    1. Exactly! Jews have no homeland and no culture. They only know how to destroy. That is why jews always tend to destroy whatever nation they infest.

      1. I’ve read about Liebknecht, I know he was a Jew. Clara Zetkin I’ve never heard about before, but “Zetkin” is a Jewish name, so she at least has some Jewish connections, probably Jewish herself.

        1. you know Google doesn’t sound like a Jewish name – but it’s in fact Jewish. in any case, there’s no evidence that Karl Liebknecht was a Jew (which in context of this discussion means he was NOT a Jew), and Clara Zetkin was NOT a Jew.

        2. You confuse me >_Z, Google? Thought that came from Googol? Anyhow, everything I have read about Liebknecht says he was a jew, you google that face and tell me he is not Jewish lol, he looks like a jew incarnate. As I said I hadn’t read of Clara Zetkin before, though google tells me she took her Jewish mans name and most likely was Jewish herself.

        3. Jewishness is not defined by your ideas of how Jews are supposed to look like. i’m informing you once again that there’s no evidence that Liebknecht was a Jew, and that Clara Zetkin wasn’t Jewish.

        4. Oh don’t give me that bullshit, some Jews have a very distinct look, it’s hard to miss, there is plenty of evidence that Liebknecht was Jewish, together with his entire movement lol.

  21. There was a similar uprising in Munich. The communists took over and ran Bavaria for three months before Freikorp could discover who was who and organized counter measures. They waited until there was a big meeting with all the leadership in attendance. The building was stormed and all the leadership were isolated in one room. At the command, members of the Freikorp openned up and the whole leadership of the Munich communists were killed. The new government never let the wall of that room be repaired and in fact put a large pane of glass in front of it to preserve the bullet holes and blood splatter. Once the NSDAP took over it became a very important shrine. Sadly, it was destroyed during the bombing raids of WW2.

  22. Wow! These 3 look exactly like today’s SJW’s. Just add some blue to the hair and there you have it.
    Good thing they were rounded up and executed. 150 was a good number, since it sent a powerful message to the rest of the disrespectful piss-ants with no reason to exist. I think that is coming soon enough in the USA. I might start on college campuses, where plenty of normal students are having their educations interrupted by SJW’s and Black Lives Matter racists.

    1. Sure, they instituted anti tobacco campaigns, started up a successful car business (Volkswagen), built a highway system that is still in place today and were responsible for many advances in medical science. They also helped reduce cruelty towards animals and established youth programs to teach young people useful skills.
      Oh they also killed a bunch of people, tortured a whole lot more, started the biggest war in history and tried to brainwash the entire population. But then again, far more people were killed in Communist regimes.

      1. i myself believe that communists did more evil than Nazis. however when people compare the number of people killed by both regimes, they forget that the majority of communist atrocities happened in the Soviet Union and China. those countries were many times bigger than Germany – and were not populated by Western Europeans you know.
        had commies come to power in Germany they’d do a lot of evil for sure. but for sure it would be also a much softer, “humane” and advanced version than in Russia or China. would evil of communism be a better deal for Germany than evil of Nazism in the long run? for better or worse we’ll never know.

  23. The discourse here is similar to Edmund Burke’s support for the American Revolution but his ardent argument against the French Revolution. The American Revolution was generally run by the gentry and was based in sanity. The French Revolution was a free-for-all murder fest on anyone with any sort of affluence.
    In short, as I don’t wish to write a book here, the French Revolution, like Social Justice Warriors, choose Equality over Liberty, whereas America and the British Empire chose Liberty over Equality.

  24. Ah yes, more pro-facism rhetoric from Quintius Curtius. I say old chap, do you remember who it was that rose to power on the strength of German anti-communist fears? Adolph something…

    1. BTW fighting for what you believe in is no vice. In 1919 the Soviet Union (having been established less than 2 years prior) would have been far too weak to foment revolution in Germany. Those were authentic German communists, not Russian plants. And, given that Marx wrote his theory for Germany (which had a legitimate factory-based proletariat) not Russia (which had no industrial production at the time) – there’s a good chance it would have been successful, with Germany’s built-in high productivity and social cohesion. Actual communism – the control of factories by workers – strikes me as a pretty sane idea (cf Mondragon region in Spain which regularly outcompetes all capitalist rivals), but unfortunately it remains to be seen in practice as the combination of 1) authoritarian dictators and 2) capitalist efforts have prevented the experiment from running. However, “communism lite” has been running fabulously in Scandanavia for the better part of a century now, beating the pants off the US in quality of life ratings. Not saying I endorse it but it’s a legitimate economic theory and it deserves the right to compete in the marketplace of ideas without its adherents being shot for their beliefs. The “saboteur” in the photo about to be executed by a firing squad (the latter group would of course become Nazis) doesn’t look a bit scared or ashamed to me. Maybe it’s because he wanted what was best for his country. Do you, Quintus, believe our current corporatocracy is what’s best for our country? Or, like Hitler and his latter-day imitations, do you merely seek to build your reputation by heaping hate and fear on those with the courage to stand up for their beliefs?

      1. Also, if it’s wrong to kill dissidents when you’re Soviet Russia, isn’t it also wrong to kill dissidents when you’re Weimar Germany?

    2. I don’t believe Quintus advocated Fascism in his article. Two points:
      1) Of the governmental systems tried in the West since the collapse of the monarchies, Fascism is easily the least bad (though I still don’t approve of Fascism, for its notion that “the State is everything” and “nothing is outside the State,” which I consider to be anti-human nonsense).
      2) Quintus said people had a right to defend themselves, and that is all. Do you disagree?

      1. QC is obsessed with commies and Jews, and his unblinking support for shooting a crowd of demonstrators should give you an idea of what his true ideology is.
        Your point is a non-starter. “Fascist” is not a system of government. “Autocracy” or “Totalitarianism” are the systems of government advocated by Fascists. Fascism itself is more a descriptive/qualitative word, rooted in examples primarily of WWII-era Germany and Italy, connoting the elevation of xenophobic/nationalist feelings into law, the casual use of brutality and murder to suppress dissent, and a state monopoly of industry.
        There being no current fascist governments to use as examples (North Korea being communist, and the only other intelligible feature of fascism is that it is virulently opposed to Communism)
        If you advocate totalitarianism as a governmental system, there are some pockets of support but in reality it has not competed well against democracies in any era. The Persians were defeated by the Greeks. The Mongols were only able to hold their territories for 200-300 years. The British Empire (a parlimentary democracy in which the the monarch had only nominal power) surpassed them in terms of overall land, economy, population, and duration of control.
        I don’t disagree with your point that our modern system of government remains woefully inadequate, but I have yet to meet a strongman to whom I am willing to totally cede my agency, as is required in a totalitarian government. Have you? Not a particularly manly thing to do, in my opinion.

        1. Well, I’ve read Quintus Curtius for a long time, and have privately conversed with him on more than one occasion. I’ve never seen evidence that he is “obsessed” with Commies and Jews. Normally, in my experience, people who accuse others of having “obsessions,” and use the various “phobia” related terms, are themselves the ones with irrational fears and fixations.
          My use of the term “Fascism,” conforms to the description of Fascism given by Mussolini, since most people simply use “Fascism” to mean “evil Rethuglicans.” Therefore, I try to conceive of Fascism in the way that Fascists describe it. For Mussolini, Fascism was a means to an end, an autocracy in the present that aims at the renewal of a nation’s identity and moral fibre, so that an aristocratic leadership can be formed in the near future, and the autocracy can be retired. It rightly rejected the absurd and patently false, chief principle of modern democracies (egalitarianism). Neither people nor ideas are equal, and there can be no such thing as a right to spread pernicious theories of government or to engage in sabotage, violence or even public agitation for it (so, by all means, line up Commies and SJWs and have them shot; it is a good and moral thing for the legitimate authority to do). But, as I said, I am not an apologist for Fascism, as I find its idea that there is nothing outside the state, including spiritual or moral ideals, to be absurd… because this amounts to a declaration that “there is no such thing as morality or the good of national identity, since these are inherently transcendent concepts, but within the borders of this state we will propose these fictitious concepts and enforce them as organs of the nation for purely utilitarian reasons, and demand that people somehow find inspiration in this.” No, thanks.
          The fact, is that all great, societal transformations tend to be crystallized in a strong man, or great leader, who knocks down the old thing and makes it possible to bring in the new. Because the healthy portion of society is reduced to a minority in periods of decadence, usually their renewal of society cannot come about until the decadence is advanced enough to corrupt the great body of the masses so thoroughly, that the fewer numbers of the strong and healthy are able to prevail even against so vast a number of people. Then, when the moment is right, they rapidly rise to power, usually around one or a few, charismatic figures.
          The situation in the American revolution was different because of our isolation, and the cooperation of conspiratorial societies that arose after the Protestant disintegration of European culture.

        2. What you are espousing is known as the “great man” theory of history, which has its roots in histories written by the same “great men”. And it’s fallen into disrepute among historians. Yeah, Napoelon, Alexander, Caesar built empires that bridged cultures. And those empires collapsed, usually within a hundred or two hundred years. Ideas, technology and cultural practices have a much greater effect on actual human behavior, as evidenced by the famous anecdote of Phyrrus and Alexander. BTW it might interest you to notice that Napoleon was Corsican, Hitler was Austrian, and Stalin was Georgian. None of these nationalists was born in the country whose values they supposedly championed.

        3. As to your final point about “international Jewry” and “dual loyalties”, there’s very little of it left after the hypocrisies are whittled away. To begin, the Jews are hardly a collectivist monolith — their role in early trade and mercantilism, then in banking and capital, and finally in contemporary economic theory (think Milton Friedman) make them as essential to the foundation of capitalism as its opposite. Secondly, I would posit that Marx and ideological communism are actually manifestations of a much bigger, much simpler idea, which is essentially populism. If you were among the millions of nameless factory workers of the early 20th C., working for a pittance from childhood with no safety precautions, living in a tenement, barely having survived an economic upheaval caused by financial speculation — whose side would you be on? Whether or not Das Kapital were ever published, there would have been a movement towards workers’ rights, collectivism, and socialism. It’s a natural response to the kind of conditions they were living in. Thirdly – not that I entirely agree with the “dual loyalty” comments but, if it were true, wouldn’t it be justified? Did Spain earn the Jew’s loyalty with millions murdered in the Inquisition? Did Britain, when it expelled them in 1290 and seized their property? Did Russia, with its regular pogroms and blood libel? I encourage you to read more of what Churchill had to say about Jews (“the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world”). I’ve never read a more unabashed Jew-lover and Zionist.

        4. Unfortunately in our supposedly open society there are 2 major taboos — you can’t publicly criticize the Jews, and you can’t speak openly about our true range of options as to political systems. I think if we were able to remove these taboos, we’d ask why the Jews have always seemed to be in the center of history, and the answer I think has less to do with their intrinsic qualities (sorry Churchill) and more to do with a combination of unique circumstances including a) building on the cultural capital of late Babylonia (Abraham, nee Abram, was a Babylonian) including legalism and literacy b) early adoption of Middle-Eastern trading practices c) the development of a “portable” (ie non-local deific) religion d) Constantine’s surprise adoption of Christianity e) the early Christian abhorrance of moneylending combined with early anti-Semitism leading to a Jewish trading class and f) everybody in the 20th Century practicing racial solidarity, including the white Europeans who excluded Jews from every advantage they could, who were butthurt at the Jews for playing the game better, and that group definitely includes Hitler at the beginning of Mein Kampf. Countless European monarchs invited the Jews to settle, knowing that they would “heat up” the economy, only to expel them and seize their assets as soon as it was convenient. After a few centuries of this, it’s a wonder that so many Jews continued to work for the betterment of all humanity, as did Einstein, Copland, Salk, Spinoza, Jesus of Nazareth,etc.

        5. If we removed the other taboo, we’d admit that America in the 30’s, with its strong labor unions, came VERY close towards open socialism, that the New Deal was undercover socialism (that saved our economy), and that, since the pendulum has swung the other way (with the near-destruction of labor unions and any regulations on capital), life for the working man has gotten much, much worse. Wages are lower, we have less time, family size is shrinking, savings are lower. With one person=one vote, under these conditions, an impulse towards a more redistributive economy (aka populism) is inevitable, and is currently only suppressed by media propaganda. McCarthy and those he represented weren’t angry — they were AFRAID. What would people do if they realized they had a choice? The fact is, Bernie Sanders is such an easy sell because it’s a no-brainer. To have the many work for the benefit of the few is simply not a sustainable practice. And I think on some level you know this. You know that capitalism degrades our environment, pollutes our minds, and tears apart families. Yet you continue to champion it? Why? You think that the manufacture of the next generation of widget is more important than the welfare of your fellow man? Than our planet? Unfortunately for you the challenges that face humanity in the next century – specifically climate change, population control, and resource management – are too big for nationalism, too big for capitalism. The change HAS to come. So you will be carried along, with the rest of the reality-deniers.

        6. Obviously history is more than the work of a few great men. But often an important man acts as a catalyst for a period of change, and that was the only point.

      2. 1) Of course QC is pro-fascist. And so are you. The moment you endorse murdering your countrymen that harbor different beliefs.
        2) Is Facism really the “least bad”? Under what criteria? Not only did Hitler exceed Stalin in moral turpitude (next point) but they LOST. With the element of surprise and a formidable ally in Japan (who beat Russia in a naval war, btw) by their side. They lost to communism in a fair fight in the East, and they lost to democracy in the West. And, ironically, they may have lost BECAUSE they were totalitarian, as Hitler turned out to be a shit commander who ignored his generals and diverted too many resources to non-military (ie killing Jews) objectives. So…
        3) Killing people on the basis of their political beliefs (which you and everyone here cites as the worst crime of the Bolsheviks, btw) is bad; killing people on the basis of their race is slightly worse. Because you can’t change the latter. There is no degree of personal responsibility for one’s race.
        4) The only people here I see in need of defense are the demonstrators. Who, by the way, had done nothing except commence a general strike. Which is their right to do. That’s why the friekorps attacked them, not because they posed a threat. Funny how that detail slipped through the cracks.

        1. People murder each other all the time. If murder for one’s beliefs is “Fascism,” every ideology is a Fascist ideology – including, astoundingly, Anti-Fascism, Liberalism, Communism, etc.
          I was dealing with Fascism as a philosophy, on its philosophical merits. In the real world, the people running a Fascist country may not be the best men for the job. It is very simplistic to assume automatically that whatever wins is “best.”
          Killing in defense of one’s political beliefs is in itself morally neutral. What makes it moral/immoral, is the justice of the ideology being defended, the injustice of the ideology being attacked, the guilt of the victims, and other circumstances of the conflict. What made it a great crime for the Bolsheviks, is that their ideology was iniquitous and their victims undeserving. But to let the streets run red with the blood of dead Bolsheviks is no crime at all; it is meritorious.
          As I said, there is objectively speaking no right to spread erroneous or malicious ideas in society; this is the error by which Liberalism gives cover to perpetual revolution. Obviously they posed a threat; their ideology wrought havoc (and still wreaks havoc) upon many throughout the world. A just state has the authority and even duty to execute or exile dissidents fomenting objective social ills.

        2. 1) Mass killings of political opponents are neccesary but not sufficient to define fascism — you would need to include xenophobia, nationalism, and rigid state control of industry and culture.
          2) What democracy has instituted a mass killing of political opponents?
          3) Political killing is not “morally neutral”. It’s possible to co-exist in a state with those whose beliefs differ from your own. Indeed, as the most successful countries in the world – in economic, military and cultural terms – are all pluralistic to a greater or lesser extent. China is the least politically pluralistic but still prove the point, as their success has corresponded to their degree of political pluralism (allowing capitalist ideology into their framework) and, because only time will tell if they will be successful, as this is a relatively new development.
          4) And by what standard do you judge ideas to be meritorious or erroneous? Economically? 18 out of the top 20 economies are democracies. Militarily? The same, and to my memory, a non-democracy has never defeated a democracy in warfare. Culturally? Name a globally popular Chinese or Iranian TV show. So, according to your own logic, your ideas are “objectively erroneous” and you should, by extention, be put to death for espousing them.
          Seriously, what evidence do you have that totalitarianism is a good idea?
          5) The last 50 years have seen nearly all the remaining dictators deposed (usually without dignity) and replaced by democracies – Marcos, Pinochet, Ceaucescu, Amin, Bokassa, and before our very eyes, Ghaddafi, Hussein, Assad. To name a few. The only rulers who openly support the ideas you espouse are to be found in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, replace nationalism with religion (or co-mingle them) and it’s not at all incorrect to label them, as many do, Islamo-fascists.
          6) It thus being proved that facism is both ineffectual and on the decline, one may seek a reason. And I believe it is this: People yearn for freedom to self-determine. Since the advent of civilization, people have organized towards more and more personal freedom. Perhaps “erroneously” in your view, but time an time again people have shown willingness to sacrifice their lives for it.
          7) If you truly believe what you say, the ultimate irony is that you are free to join the ranks of neo-Nazi marchers in Skokie every year, where they are mocked by protesters far outnumbering them. Your “degraded” state has so little to fear from these ideas that, far from fearing death at the hands of the state, they are allowed the freedom to impotently hope to curtail the freedom of others. You can express your (hopelessly backwards, in my opinion) freely and without fear of recrimination, on the transglobal communications network built by the state and given to the people free of charge.
          8) Fascism and Communism (so practiced in the mid 20th Century), for all their sworn enmity, were so similar in most of their political and social methods that they were nearly indistinguishable. A strongman, a secret police force, political prisons, mass killings of citizens, seizure of assets and industry, propaganda, and a planned economy, makes the two regimes incredibly similar to one another — and much more similar to each other than either was to a democracy. Which is why this article is ridiculous — the killings of communists by proto-fascists and the killings of “reactionaries” by bolsheviks are absolutely equivalent.
          And if your argument is that fascism is right and communism is wrong, then by all means provide the evidence that fascism has superior outcomes .

        3. 1) “Xenophobia” is your own emotional characterization of it, and does not seem particularly accurate. I would agree that Nationalism is its central feature, along with a strong interest of the state in culture. Rigid state control of industry sounds more like Socialism, but I suppose, depending upon how one reads the implications of “the state is everything,” this could require rigid state control of such things in a more direct, rather than passive, way.
          2) Democracy began with mass killings in the American and French Revolutions, and the continual warfare of republican elements against the various European monarchies and empires. After a few centuries of killing traditionalists and inculcating liberal ideology through the lodges, schools, churches and other institutions, it has found that it is able to shepherd a coddled and emasculated population rather effectively. But we are coming to the edge of a precipice, in my opinion.
          3) Yes, to say that a killing was motivated by political considerations, is not yet to indicate enough about it to make a moral judgment; it is neutral. “The English defeated the French on the continent.” Morally neutral, so far. Now, say the English were the men with Henry V, or the men with Wellington. Now we can begin to make moral judgments.
          4) I never said Totalitarianism was a good idea. If you can’t be bothered to read and understand what I say, why waste breath? I judge things by the standards of objective morality. Democracy panders to people, so it’s no surprise if it is popular and “culturally” appealing. But if you compare the products of our culture to the cultural artifacts of the Catholic monarchies, or even the virtuous pagan empires of old, it is obvious that we are very uncultured. As to militarily, I don’t know that there has ever been a society so fully Democratic as at present. I wouldn’t want to stretch things too much, declaring that Greek Democracy wasn’t really just a slightly expanded aristocracy. Certainly Rome was not a Democracy. Even we weren’t a Democracy – and we still aren’t, entirely – until recently. So, I’m loath to compare Greco-Roman “Democracy” to their opponents. Two centuries ago, all the top nations were monarchies. And our present-day Democracies are simply burning the fumes of their intellectual, social and moral capital. I don’t see that we are generating new health and reserves, so much as obviously degrading.
          5) For people who claim to be so smart, you leftists have a very limited grasp on history. Systems of government change; Democracy is not a new and glorious idea that proves our social progress. History is littered with failed Monarchies and failed Democracies. In the past, broad tolerance of moral perversion was an herald of imminent social collapse; according to modern leftists, it is a sign of progress! Right now, I’d rather not live in a Western Democracy or an Islamic Caliphate. I’d rather live somewhere where the infrastructure is low, the indigenous people unambitious and incapable, so I can be left in peace. In a perfect world, I’d prefer to live in a Catholic Monarchy. They built up the financial, moral and intellectual capital the West is now spending.
          6) “Freedom to self-determine.” Translation: people want to do what they want to do. Thanks, but no thanks; I’d rather not live in a place where people do what they want to do. I’d rather live in a place where the good and beautiful is held up as the norm, the state encourages people to live up to it, interferes as little as is necessary (but does interfere when necessary), and the concept of an abstract right to “do what you want to do” is laughed out of the room for the irrational and self-pandering nonsense that it is. Your words are based on the assumption that we are always progressing; I think the overall trend, morally and spiritually, is towards regression, with ebbs and flows here and there. It is not surprising that, more and more, people try to do what they want to do. You don’t have to be a genius, or a keen student of human nature, to predict this. You read this as “progress,” whereas I read it as a gradual loss of conviction and first principles in favor of egotism.
          7) Again, I disapprove of Fascism and have no desire to march with Neo-Nazis. Are you talking to me, or are you just arguing with the notion in your mind that best casts you in the light of a voice of reason against the Fascist oppressor?
          8) I agree. Fascism and Communism are both anti-human philosophies, and they inevitably produce maladaptive methods of social control. Again, are you trying to have a conversation with me, or are you just playing the role of “brave antifascist” for personal and emotional reasons?
          As to them being more similar to each other than to a Democracy – sure, provided we understand one thing: Democracy inevitably produces Fascism (or some other totalitarianism), eventually. This is because Democracy is a parasitical organization of society, that only knows how to deplete, and not to replenish, social, intellectual, moral and economic capital. It is not fair to say that totalitarianism compares unfavorably to Democracy (and therefore, Democracy is superior), when Democracy inevitably leads to totalitarianism. The totalitarianism comes when the load is too much to bear, and the Democracy collapses. Better than all, is a Constitutional Monarchy that treats virtue as primary, and policy as complimentary.
          For the same reason, it would be irrational to compare Fascism – an admitted political intermediary for a time of crisis – to Communism more broadly. Of course an Emergency Crisis Management System is going to have a lot of problems on its ticket. Communism, just like Fascism, has no real successes on its side.

        4. So far you’ve apologized for Hitler (who you say was “irked” by as-yet unnamed Jewish sins), espoused the Great Man theory, advocated killing of SJW’s and “Commies”, declared Bolshevism to be the worst thing ever, and accused our society of being “degraded”. Yet you claim not to be a fascist – but only because it’s too statist. . You advocate a state based on “truth and beauty” (apparently the murder of your fellow citizen is beautiful to you) and, hilariously, a “low infrastructure” system (except for high-speed internet, right?).
          So, how exactly does that work out? Little enclaves of self-sustaining idealists who periodically go out and murder other enclaves who hold different beliefs? Kind of a Mad Max/Waterworld situation? No thanks.
          Again: When did America institute mass killings of political dissidents? Answer: It didn’t. You say America has no appreciable gain in health or resources? Answer: Life expectancy has nearly doubled since 1900. GDP has increased by a factor of nearly 20,000.
          I’m not an ‘anti-fascist’, there’s nothing “brave” about it, such a cause needs no supporters as it’s been decided a long time ago. It’s not a debate that anyone cares about or is interested in.
          Fact is, you can have your libertarian low-infrastructure utopia right now if you move to Montana or Wyoming. Nobody’s gonna fuck with you there. But that’s not what you want. Your only consistent principle is that you’re right and everybody else is wrong. Which is not particularly dangerous when you make such gross misstatements and have such an openly contradictory set of ideals.

        5. No, I’ve apologized for the view that Hitler’s views were more complicated than mere racism, and may be related to the same concerns Churchill, Montagu and many other sane (and even Jewish) men had at the time.
          Did I say Bolshevism was the worst thing ever? It comes close, but it’s not. You also put “low infrastructure” in quotes, despite the fact I never said that. It’s easy to win arguments when you get to control what both sides say. I suppose that’s why this is the only tactic leftists use.
          Yes, I’m afraid if you want Truth and Beauty, you have to keep out error and ugliness, the void of corruption. Hence, war, the judiciary, prisons and, ultimately, the unquenchable fires of hell. It’s a small price to pay, since the alternative is for everything to be war, a prison, and hell, all the time.
          Again, I never said America had no appreciable gain in health or resources, what an absurdly stupid thing to say; who would doubt it? But, I assume you’ll just ignore this and keep arguing with your cartoon version of what I said.
          As to the “settled” political debate: the debate is picking up again. I was a good little liberal 10 years ago, a proud Democrat, I hated Republicans. A little bit of history and philosophy, a few firm ideas, can do wonders to clean the mind of the cobwebs of smug, feckless mediocrity. As liberalism leads the West to its increasingly acute and conspicuous suicide, you will find that your comfortable illusions about these questions being “decided” will vanish. If you knew anything about history, you’d know that no question is settled for very long.
          When Liberalism invites negroes to behave like bonobos at Yale, welcomes gay tranny spies into the army, pushes incompetent women through Ranger training, floods the country with third-worlders, etc., I see Liberalism completely destroying the last remnants of intellectual and genetic capital needed to keep their ailing institutions afloat. The inmates now run the asylum; next, comes the collapse.
          You aren’t even capable of quoting me correctly; by what delusion of adequacy do you think you understand my principles? You wouldn’t know my first principles if they walked up and bit you on the ass. Which they may well do, in the coming decades. (I know, I know, you’re not worried; it’s all been “settled”). I wonder if you Leftists are simply used to haranguing people who haven’t learned to be rhetorically ebullient through vanity and artifice, like yourselves, and that’s why you think saying amusingly inapplicable things will somehow impress me. I have “openly contradictory ideals?” I don’t think you understand my ideals at all, nor, if you did, do I have any confidence in your powers of reason to demonstrate the supposed contradictions between them. But you certainly did sputter out the accusation with impressive conviction.
          And I’m quite pleased that you did. It is an encouraging sign.

        6. Sure you did, sweetums.
          “I’d rather live somewhere where the infrastructure is low, the indigenous people unambitious and incapable”. – You
          “Democracy began with mass killings in the American and French Revolutions” – You
          “I don’t see that we are generating new health and reserves, so much as obviously degrading”. – You
          “Which isn’t to say Hitler was an angelic figure. But, of the evils of the past century, he is a lesser one.” – You
          “History is littered with failed Monarchies and failed Democracies” -You (I skipped that one but really? Give an example of a large country where a democracy failed and was replaced by a different form of government, long-term. [crickets])
          You don’t remember writing any of that? Do you have a kind of Sybil-esque multiple personalities thing happening? Or were you in the throes of syphilitic megalomania? Seriously, bro, that was the purplest prose I’ve read in a while, and I read some Nietzsche yesterday. And you accuse me of “ebullience”? If you want to combat “smug, feckless mediocrity”, start with your writing. Back away from the thesaurus. Slowly.
          Democracy has been the most effective form of government at creating wealth, health, and military superiority. And the power of new communications technology is easily able to circumvent facism, as we see in Arab Spring (which I notice you still have no answer for when I highlight it as a hallmark of the decline of Totalitarianism). Socialism seems to be a close second, and perhaps more sustainable in the long run. Seen any functioning, successful Monarchies recently?
          There are actual arguments for Totalitarianism (and here is where you can actually begin to accuse me of voicing both sides of the narrative, but only because my “partner” doesn’t know how to make them): That Democracy is too slow to deal with major problems like global warming or an existential threat like a pandemic or alien invasion; or that primatologically, we are designed to follow a single strong male leader (see bonobos, below). There’s also a certain military success that can be attributed historically to central, total leadership, but again, once democracy arrived it proved superior. Conceivably, there is also the risk that unwise but popular policies can be implemented but there seem to be sufficient checks and balances to prevent it from happening, so far. The general trend of well-being continuing to be on the upswing (notwithstanding various fuckwits’ complaints about “moral degradation” like they’ve never watched a porno in their life) that seems likely to continue. Rome didn’t fall because of moral decline, it fell because it outsourced its military to the same Germanic tribes it was cruelly suppressing.
          Yale is a private institution, which has no official affirmative action policy. So you have no right and no concern. Also you won’t see the inside of the building unless they reboot Good Will Hunting to be about a dim, adjective-addicted misanthrope. Likewise,are you writing from the front lines in Kabul? If not, you have no place criticizing the female ranger who is fighting to protect you. Why don’t you deal with your own contribution to society, beyond espousing ridiculous, impractical, backwards-looking rhetoric to a readership of 250?
          Truth and Beauty my ass. The people who actually have the brutality to become dictators lose any pretense to those concept when they kill innocent people. And yes, people who hold beliefs different from yours are innocent. Because to presume you know better (especially when your grasp of facts and discourse is not particularly impressive) is nothing more than arrogance. Which isn’t even original. One thing held in common by all dictators of the 20th C. is a disdain for and fear of intellectualism. Hitler and his ilk burned more Truth and Beauty (in written, as well as living) form than he could ever hope to envision.
          Inasmuch as you might actually believe the drivel you are spouting, I caution you — the road you are flirting with (you haven’t yet committed) is very fucking dangerous. To believe you alone (or perhaps you and a small cadre of similars alone) have the unique right to decide what is good and what is bad, who will live and who will die, is the first step towards murder, war, and the destruction of what humanity has worked for for millenia. If you can’t respect others who are different from you, then do yourself and us a favor and move somewhere where it won’t be a problem. Nobody is infringing on your right to be an uptight, regressive prude, don’t infringe on others’ rights to do what they want. Modern society is cosmopolitan and diverse. Deal with it.
          We’re done, Shirley. You don’t have the goods. You can keep going on about the Glorious Regime of Truth and Beauty, and the rest of us will continue working to keep your high-speed internet running. I can tell, from listening to you, I want no part of the world you envision.
          And I’ll thank you to leave the good name of the bonobo out of it. Cute little fuckers never did a thing to anyone and their sexual proclivities are positively impressive. And they’re as similar to us as chimps.
          BTW “Boner” with a “B”

        7. Sure you did.
          “I’d rather live somewhere where the infrastructure is low, the indigenous people unambitious and incapable”. – You
          “I don’t see that we are generating new health and reserves, so much as obviously degrading”. – You
          “Which isn’t to say Hitler was an angelic figure. But, of the evils of the past century, he is a lesser one.” – You
          Don’t remember writing those? Kind of a Sybil situation going on?
          You’ll probably want to disavow these too:
          “Democracy began with mass killings in the American and French Revolutions” – You
          [actually, no, American royalists (like yourself) were called Tories, and they were not slaughtered in their beds as you advocate but allowed to fight as part of the British Army. Because the early revolutionaries had something called Decency, which you will find filed under Truth and Beauty]
          “History is littered with failed Monarchies and failed Democracies”
          -You
          [please name 1 major Democracy that was replaced, long-term, by another form of government?] [crickets]
          A partial list of your open contradictions:
          You’re a supposed deist, who advocates taking life against those who have done you no harm.
          You’re a privileged member of a democratic, pluralist society, using the tools of that society (created by the government, given to you for free) to advocate for its violent destruction.
          You advocate for “Truth and Beauty”, but can’t answer for the fact that all prior dictatorships have burned Truth and Beauty in all its written and human forms.
          You claim totalitarianism is on the upswing, but can’t answer the fact that we’ve seen 5 dictatorships crumble in the last 3 years.
          You mock female soldiers, who show more courage than you by actually fighting your country’s wars.
          And, unforgivably, you dare to impugn the cute, egalitarian, free-lovin’ bonobo, probably unaware that it as related to you as the violent, heirarchical chimpanzee, and a far better model for our society.
          I for one want no part of your regime of Truth and Beauty. There is no human supreme arbiter to whom I will cede my agency — and particularly not a to prudish, purple-prosed pedant such as yourself, nostalgic for an era he was never a part of. And if you seek to create and give your worshipful alleigance to such a figure (be it human or to the Great Big Brother in the sky, although interestingly the fascists were some of the only authoritarian regimes not to claim some version of the Mandate of Heaven ), instead of trusting in own self and judgement, then perhaps you must ask yourself if you are not, in fact, a weaker, lesser man, unfit to guide others.
          I don’t blame you for feeling lost and afraid in this society. There is much to fear and dislike about it. But that is the price of progress. The moral excesses are the inevitable and predictable result of the marriage of high technology and our lower natures. And they will be reconciled in time of their own accord. But for the most part, because of our relatively free society, they do not affect you. Men can get married to each other, private universities can set their own admission standards, women can be in the army if they want, and you can continue to be an insufferable little person, all thanks to the (actual) freedom afforded to you in the society against which you so impotently warble.
          Not really a Leftist, by the way, just enjoy fighting stupidity and bullshit when I encounter it. Plenty to go around on the Left. But I guarantee you a reversion to Totalitarianism/Royalism is not the path to success. And lining up citizens in the street to be shot is nothing to be proud of. Even if they’re communists.

        8. Thank you for quoting me accurately at the beginning of your enervated screed. It had nothing to do with what we had been discussing previously, but as it’s clear you now have a case of the vapors, I’ll let you recover on your fainting couch for a bit. Ut valeas!

        9. Well it was apparently worth 3 paragraphs to you to rant about, so I thought I’d respond. Good luck in Butte, Montana! Bring a jacket.

        10. False statement –> rebuttal –> denial of false statement –>
          proof of false statement –> flippant remark. “…American democracy began with mass killings”. You don’t even know your history well enough to have this discussion. As a (pretend) professional writer, you’re an embarrassment. ROK started as a blog about men’s self-improvement; it’s spiraling into a morass of indefensible proto-fascist Stormfront-lite bullshit. You’ve been disposed of. QC is next.

        11. And “Xenophobia” meaning “fear of the other” – whether nationalist, racial, or ideological – is ABSOLUTELY a constant of all fascist/totalitarian regimes. Perhaps the only one. German fascists accrued power from fear of Jews and Communists; Italian fascists through anti-communist and nationalist propaganda; japan through nationalist and race-pride propaganda; North Korea by manufacturing fear of the West. You are absolutely wrong in everything you’ve said, right down to your ideological core, and if you had any confidence in your beliefs you’d provide an example to counter mine.

        12. Again, the desire to ascribe “irrational fear” to the traditional man’s dissent from the Revolutionary spirit, is an emotional characterization and, in my opinion, a bit of projection. Often “fear” is not present at all; in cases where it is, it is often rational; or, in either case, is dwarfed by other, more lofty and noble sentiments, such as righteous indignation, contempt, disdain, despite, etc.
          In other words, I don’t disagree that Nationalists (and others) have often thought negatively of outside influences; but where you think it is axiomatic that this is simply “irrational fear,” I think things are a bit more complex than that.

        13. The point is that stirring up hate and anger against others is a great smokescreen for having no good ideas of your own. This is true of 30’s Fascism; this is true of Trump; this is certainly true of this article.

        14. And, if you have the time to deal with errata and apopostrophe marks, take the time to deal with my main complaint: that in supporting the “smashing” of the unarmed spartacists, you have lowered yourself morally beneath them.

        15. This is the usual meaning of “phobia” (i.e., you said “xenophobia”) – an irrational fear of the thing, described in psychoanalytical terms as a mental problem or anomaly. “Claustraphobia” doesn’t refer to the rational fear a man would feel upon finding himself suddenly awaking, trapped inside his own casket; it describes people who feel that way when getting into elevators or other small spaces from which they will easily emerge again.
          “Xenophobia,” “Homophobia,” “Transphobia,” the Revolution always uses these terms to imply that people simply have an irrational fear of these things.
          Also, if you thought their fear was rational, or at least that it was held by rational people who had simply made an error in the reasoning process, you would not condemn “Xenophobia” as a problematic feature of Nationalism; you would address their feelings towards outsiders on the merits, rather than assume that their wariness of outside influence was a prima facie indictment of their position. On both grounds, your appraisal of their fear was plain.

        16. An interesting re-imagining of my words, from the one who threw a pissy fit about a misplaced apostrophe (but that was because it was easier than explaining the way the hypocrisy of enjoying urban amenities and wi-fi, while bloviating about the merits of living a presumably rural life).
          Not that you’re unaware, but medicine (to the extent psychology is a legit science, which is not much) has a different standard of norms from international politics. What’s “reasonable” for an individual has some legal consensus; not so for a state.
          However, if we accept your tenuous terms, the burden is still on the killers to show reason to fear their own lives and/or the lives of their countrymen.
          Reason dictates that the best form of government should be selected. Germany having a long history of successfully electing and replacing its own rulers and political systems, it is also reasonable to assume that the German people had the right and the ability to make up their minds about what kind of political system they wanted, by voting, by staging counter-demonstrations, and by economic and political action. Killing supporters of one side – and terrorizing the entire citizenry in the process – was a subversion of that process. It was therefore, unreasonable.
          It is also your burden to prove that Communism was an actual “threat”. Is it? Economically, Russia and China are still both powerhouses. Militarily they have a string of wins over fascist regimes.
          You are caught in a contradiction, because the main drawbacks of historical Communism- the killings of citizens by the state, the suppression of free speech, the reign of terror – you have already called “meritorious!”
          Reasonably, it makes sense to view Communism with a cautious skepticism reserved for all new ideas, not to line up Communists in the street and shoot them. We do know that, when applied as Marx intended in Das Kapital – in a dense, industrial urban area in a first-world culture [as it currently operates in the Mondragon region of Spain] – it has been fantastically economically successful. Cuba, too, is an example of the system easily out-competing its neighbors despite a US embargo. We know that socialism is currently, country-by-country, the most effective economic system in the world. So, no, I don’t believe there is a “reasonable” fear of communism.
          In any case, the best you can do is prove that the killers did something bad, but with good intentions. You cannot make the case that they made the right choice. What happened as a result of Germany going Fascist instead of Communist (thanks no doubt in part to the terror inspired by these sorts of killings) was as bad as things could possibly have gone.
          Stalin was almost as bad as Hitler, but at least he never started a world war.

        17. Great job with all the liturgical stuff you’ve been writing recently, by the way. Deadly boring with no relevance whatsoever to men’s issues. Does this website really have to be a forum for your particular starchy, regressive religious views? Isn’t there some obligation on your part to tie into, y’know, issues that regular men are interested in? (That’s constructive feedback, btw, you’re welcome).

    3. Also, you act as though Adolph Hitler is the epitome of evil. I would say that Stalin, the Federal Reserve, even Chancellor Merkel, are all more evil, objectively speaking.
      Which isn’t to say Hitler was an angelic figure. But, of the evils of the past century, he is a lesser one. The degenerate alliance of Democratic Usurers and Totalitarian Communists that defeated him, have degraded mankind in far worse ways.

      1. I believe Hitler is alone in history for killing masses of people simply for their race. Stalin may have killed more in number, but he at least had the (totally unsatisfactory) explanation that they were (real or potential) political opponents. In Soviet Russia you at least had the hope of survival by pledging party allegiance. German Jews, Poles, and homosexuals did not have that choice. Therefore I would posit that in moral terms Hitler was objectively more evil. As much as “Democratic Usurers” (I suppose this includes the US?) and “Totalitarian Communists” have “degraded” mankind (which I kind of agree with), the fact is you and I are alive to have this conversation. And that means however bad things are it’s not as bad as having the wrong set of parents under Hitler.

        1. Your premise, seems to be that it is worse to kill people simply for their race, rather than simply because they dislike your politics. I suppose I don’t share that view.
          I will say that I have come to have doubts, in the past couple of years, that the Holocaust occurred in the way it is purported to have occurred. I have not yet formed a definite opinion, so I won’t commit myself to a view, yet. But I think there is ample reason to doubt.
          But, assuming it did: I still don’t think it’s accurate to say Hitler killed Jews simply for being Jews. He was irate with them for the same reason many people are still irate with them (myself included). I understand that not all Jews are wicked people, but the fact is that their elites often play a disproportionately large role in fomenting revolutionary movements, corrupting morals, and eradicating the wealth of nations through usury. This has happened so many times in history, that it is now common knowledge. A revelatory moment for me, was to read Winston Churchill’s article (“Zionism vs. Bolshevism: a Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”) that appeared in 1920, in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, wherein he makes the same distinction between the decent Jews of the world, and the elitist, scheming, “International Jew,” as he called it. A transcript of the article can be found here:
          https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism
          Such things as the Balfour Declaration also show the kinds of goings-on that stirred up antipathy to International Jewry. A Jewish member of the British Government, Edwin Montagu (secretary of State for India from 1917 to 1922), wrote a memorandum protesting the Balfour Declaration and Zionism with a clarity that proved to be prophetic, predicting that it would stir up anti-Jewish sentiment and guarantee both actual Jewish duplicity and dual-loyalty, and suspicions of the same even where it did not exist. His memorandum may be read here:
          http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Montagumemo.html
          Now, if Hitler had actually planned a systematic extermination of any Jew he found, it would be because this and other events in the early 20th century had cemented in his mind the idea that world Jewry was also his political opponent and a threat to German prosperity. In other words, his motives were the same as Stalin’s. It was also common knowledge that the Jews were leaders in various Bolshevik movements, and of course Hitler viewed Bolshevism as a major political opponent. Now, if Hitler was trying to combat this political threat, the Holocaust would have been a rather blunt instrument, that was more likely to kill off perfectly innocent Jews who were not in cahoots with the revolutionary movements of the “International Jewry” (or whatever term one wishes to use). But, certainly history shows us that when different groups of unassimilated people live in close proximity, the usual result is tensions that erupt, sooner or later, in hostilities. So, there’s no accounting for whatever was done, morally or intellectually. But, long story short: Hitler wasn’t simply a “racist,” he viewed Jews, with some justification, as lacking in loyalty, or perhaps even having hostility, towards the European populations of their host countries, and felt especially that they had played a role in Germany’s poor fortunes during and after WWI, and that they were leading the Bolshevik movements and moral degradation then plaguing Europe. His actions, if they occurred at all as reported, would have to be understood in that light, rather than in a simple and inexplicable dislike for big, Jewish noses, or some similarly nonsensical explanation. That’s not to say he was right, morally or intellectually; just that painting him with the simple brush of “obtuse racist” is probably inaccurate.

  25. Excellent article, Quintus. Chesteron, I think, said that the patriot fought not because he hated the enemy in front of him, but because he loved the nation behind him. When it comes to natural disputes between nations, I essentially agree with Chesterton.
    But when it comes to our times, and the fight against the satanic philosophies that have arisen, I would say: the upright man hates the evil in front of him because he loves the Good in him and behind him. It is eminently natural and good to plunge the sword into the bosom of the ravening fiend.

  26. Germans were lightweights for mass murder and war casualties. Russians were guilty of exterminating 100 million. Germany actually saved lives in the long run.

  27. All of this blaming the jews for everything is foolish and immediately discounts the views of whomever spouts that nonsense, in my opinion. It shows a lack of ability in having a legitimate conversation about foreign policy and human nature.

  28. Did I just read an article about Bolshevism in post-war Germany without once seeing the word “Jew”? What is this bullshit? Ridiculous.

  29. This is an excellent article and should be saved by all white men and women. It is an unfortunate fact that the time may be approaching when we will have no choice but to retake our country by force. When the time comes it must be done coldly, calmly, deliberately but without mercy or pity, The so-called Social Justice Warriors and anybody who support them or tolerates them or condones their actions must be removed from the life of our country, one way or another. History has shown that Marxist fanatics (and that is exactly what SJW’s are at heart) who have reached the positions they have reached in the US have only been stopped by utterly ruthless methods. Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala and Spain are the appropriate models to follow. Contrary to what our controlled history tells us, no injustice was done when the military in these countries killed or imprisoned these traitors and lunatics. They saved their countries from a terrible fate. Get ready, folks.

  30. The Bolsheviks were Zionist Jews. They started the Russian Revolution with the idea of having a nation of serfs at their command. They put Stalin in charge to have a “Russian Face” on the government, and thought to use him as a puppet. Then he killed them. Then they tried the same thing in Germany and financed Hitler. The Holocaust against Jews didn’t happen till near the end of the war when the Nazi Party overthrew the Jews running things. But before that, the Jewish controlled Nazi Party started eliminating Christians and everyone else that they saw as a threat. The Ashkenazi Jews are responsible for the mass genocide of millions and millions more people than modern Jews keep talking about in the German “Holocaust.” They basically got what they deserved. But they had control of a lot of media before WWII, and rewrote history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *