stock here: seen this on ZH, thought it was worth sharing: Think Lahaina too, LOL yesterday I got a trouble call from Lahaina, for solar, no kidding. I disagree on the EV comment, but note he is a “premium” ZH user
2 days ago
If you are white they are coming for your assets, for
cLIEmate change – eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines and tanks, and UN/WEF determines how much living space you are allowed
got to house the illegal immigrant invaders, you Americans “have had it good for far too long”
CCP and WEF need more American farmlands
UN needs your land to re-wild it, you need to be crammed into a 15 minute C40 open air prison where you will be over surveilled, also easier for big pharma to make more money with their lab made plandemics and the lab made mandated mRNA genetic weapon injection “shots”
Premium
2 days ago
The rich and powerful are so good at manipulating the masses. but there is one conservative conspiracy that bothers me. The energy industry polluters have convinced conservatives that renewable energy and EVs are a threat to them. actually, if we don’t build renewable energy resources domestically and don’t have car companies that sell affordable EV cars, they we will become a second-class country. those are technologies of the future, not oil. It is already cheaper to build a new solar power installation than a natural gas electrical plant. EVs are less than 5 years away from offering better value and performance in all price categories than ICE cars.
Republicans dont need to be Luddites.
stock here: I admit I was wrong on 2 things. One, that they would never run a child abusing dementia old white man, and Two: That there would be any vaccine against SARS-2. Early on, I did my research on SARS-1, and they tried for a decade on every sort of Injection and Vaccine, and finally gave up. The biggest takeaway is that somehow, Ferrets have immune systems similar to Humans. And in their SARs-1 experiments, all the Ferrets died. They also did testing on Monkeys, and about 13% died. I guess in a way I was right, they didn’t release a “vaccine” and then they not so subtly, as we caught them red handed, changing the definition of what a vaccine is, all part of the scam to issue an EUA Emergency use authorization. Here is more on the old white guy. The ultimate white trash family.
Biden has always been a small-time, small-state, crooked political hack. At root, a shakedown artist for two-bit political favors (“I see you have yet to contribute to the campaign; shame about that sidewalk outside that will never get fixed.”) Sure… He spent (too many ) yrs in the Senate and came into more power via tenure. But he was always a blustering oaf, pretending to be a profound actor on the stage of politics. Senator Plagiarism, in keeping with law student plagiarist.
Way back, Biden’s grandfather lived well. Worked for the old Amoco Oil Co and made good money, enough to be part of the upper class horsey set. During 1930s Depression, the Clan Biden hit hard times and moved down. By late 1930s Biden’s dad was in the asphalt business, and during WWII even cheated the Navy on several contracts, per govt investigation.
Point is… Biden grew up in a household that had known money but fell from grace… Hence the jealousy and money-grubbing rooted in his earliest upbringing. Family of cheats and grifters… But yeah, 81 million (votes).
I copied much of the article “summary” which in itself becomes book-like. I tried to get AI to summarize the lions share of the article, but was rejected as too long. When I finally toned it down, it flagged a “This content may violate our usage policies.” but even so it did provide a summary, here:
The usage policy is above, it seems straight forward, although except for talking about Jews (not mentioned in the usage policy) I don’t see anything else that would flag this excerpt.
o sane person wants to lie. Aside from whatever harm lying might cause, lying also chips away at a person’s dignity. Knowing that your words will quickly mold to a model other than Truth somehow cheapens you — as if any model will do. Expediency, authority, greed . . . it’s hard to think of circumstances under which lying about non-private matters doesn’t cheapen a person. Put person X under these conditions, and he’ll say whatever you want him to say. How’s that for a human being? Nothing exalts more than knowing that your words will serve Truth and only Truth.
Dissidents often struggle with this when discussing the Jewish Question. We want to tell the truth. On the other hand, our message would be much more powerful if only we could omit this inconvenient fact or embellish that disappointing one. As dissidents, we wish to put forth a realistic depiction of Jews, without spite or bias, to uncover their net negative impact on our politics, and, to a lesser extent, our culture. This is the first step to freeing ourselves from the Jewish yoke, so to speak. And if we are telling the truth, then we can afford to show more than one side of the story and still be persuasive.
This seems to encapsulate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s approach to the Jewish Question as it relates to Russia in his classic text Two Hundred Years Together. In this volume (which is still not properly translated into English), Solzhenitsyn reviews the history of Russian Jewry and places much of the blame for the October Revolution, the atrocities of the early Soviet period, and subversive Left-wing behavior in general squarely on the shoulders of Jews. He also, perhaps most importantly for him, exonerates much of Tsarist Russia from the charge of anti-Semitism which never seems to stop oozing from Jewish pens. That a writer of Solzhenitsyn’s towering stature took on a project which directly refutes the myth of perpetual Jewish victimhood and reverses the blame typically reserved for white gentiles should be nothing less than a triumph for the Right. Relatively minor figures who write and speak on the Jewish Question — as brilliant as they often are — can be deplatformed, smeared, and ultimately ignored. Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, was for several years in the 1970s the most famous dissident in the world. Since his death in 2008, his reputation as an author, historian, Christian, and patriot remains impeccable. He cannot be so easily ignored.
Dissidents on the Right should therefore piggyback on Solzhenitsyn’s fame and use his name as often as possible when combating the Left on the battlefield of ideas — especially when it comes to the Jewish Question. And this is where Two Hundred Years Together comes in.
But what if this would be a misuse of Two Hundred Years Together? Despite what many of his more hysterical critics say, Solzhenitsyn was no anti-Semite. There are many passages in this work that show justice, even tenderness, towards Jews. He does have great respect for them. He just wishes to set the record straight — a record that the Jews themselves have warped with their abuses of history.
But what if sticking scrupulously to the Truth as Solzhenitsyn does won’t be enough? What if the Jews themselves rarely do this and will not hesitate to publish material of questionable scholarship but unquestionable defamation against whites simply because it is in their ethnic interests to do so? In fact, it is a common trope among Jewish writers such as Bernard Lewis (Semites and Anti-Semites), Robert Wistrich (Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred), and Daniel Goldhagen (The Devil that Never Dies), and many others to speak about anti-Semitism not as a rational response to Jewish hegemony but as if it’s an a priori evil in the black hearts of white gentiles.
Despite being profoundly dishonest, this approach works. It holds sway among the Jews themselves and since World War II has helped to browbeat the West into submission to Jewish ethnic interests.
In an example of how Solzhenitsyn does not take this approach in Two Hundred Years Together, he frequently cites Jewish author Josef Biekerman who comes across as Solzhenitsyn’s Semitic doppelganger. He is ethnocentric yet willing to speak out about the abuses of power in which his own people indulge (which Solzhenitsyn does to great extent in his Red Wheel opus). As co-founder of the Patriotic Alliance of Russian Jews in the 1920s, Biekerman vowed to combat Bolshevism not merely because he feared it would increase anti-Semitism but also because he empathetically felt that it would be bad for Russia and Russians. His colleague Isaak Levin openly called for an examination of the Jewish role in the October Revolution. Jewish writer Danil Pasmanik, who authored a book about the Jews and the Russian Revolution, professed heartfelt concern for the “unending sorrow of the Russian citizen,” and stated that Jews “cannot flourish while the country disintegrates around us.” The book these men published, Russia and the Jews, challenges Jews, especially radical, secular, Left-wing Jews, to reject the evil in their hearts.
“It is time we understood that crying and wailing . . . is mostly [evidence] of emotional infirmity, or a lack of culture of the soul . . . You are not alone in this world, and your sorrow cannot fill the entire universe . . . When you put on a display, only your own grief, only your own pain, it shows . . . disrespect to others’ grief, to others’ sufferings.”
These were truly righteous Jews, and Solzhenitsyn admires them not only for their honesty and compassion, but also because of their lack of self-hate (a theme he discusses at length in his essay “Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of Nations” in his From Under the Rubble collection). Unfortunately, Biekerman, Levin, Pasmanik, and others like them were voices in the wilderness when it came to mainstream Jewish opinion. They seemed to accomplish little other than to inflame resentment among other Jews. They were accused of “attack[ing] their own compatriots,” and were smeared as “anti-Semites” and “enemies of the Jewish people,” and so on. Solzhenitsyn recognizes the tragedy in this, but also seems too enamored with the possibility of rapprochement between Russians and Jews to become as aggressive towards Jews qua Jews as the Jews themselves were to Biekerman, Levin, and Pasmanik.
I must admit, this is tempting, given how the majority of Jews don’t behave like the enemy of whites and have contributed greatly to Western culture through their talent, energy, and capital. It is very easy to admire them when imagining men like Josef Biekerman being the rule rather than the exception. Many convincing arguments can be spun from this false supposition.
In Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn is essentially more concerned about telling the truth than winning the argument.
Over a decade after his death, however, white dissidents in the West are beginning to realize that they can no longer afford to be correct if being correct is not enough to win the argument — that is, to persuade a critical mass of whites of the necessity of counter-Semitism. We are swiftly losing our majorities in our homelands to hostile invaders who wish ultimately to subjugate us — and, sadly, many wealthy and influential Jews remain on the vanguard of this invasion. Even more sadly, the majority of diaspora Jews, if their voting patterns tell us anything, actually support this invasion. Perhaps if Russia in the 1990s had been more like Western Europe of the 2020s, Solzhenitsyn would have written Two Hundred Years Together with a little more urgency.
This is not to be critical of Solzhenitsyn. The value and importance of Two Hundred Years Together cannot be overstated. Along with The Gulag Archipelago, it is perhaps his most important non-fiction work. Rather, I suggest that the Dissident Right use Two Hundred Years Together as a weapon against Jews — even if Solzhenitsyn himself would have disapproved of this tactic. Can we afford not to? Perhaps if Jews like Josef Biekerman were the rule and not the exception we could. But sadly this is counter-factual. Therefore it makes sense to use the Jews’ insidious methods against them and focus on only those elements of Truth which suit our argument. This is a cultural war, after all, and since when is it considered honorable to tell the truth to your enemy during war?
What follows is a simple accounting of the most noteworthy Jewish misdeeds found in Two Hundred Years Together. Not included will be the more common historical tropes involving Jews, for example as usurers, pimps, alcohol merchants, and unscrupulous exploiters of the poor. Also not included will be the many entertaining pages Solzhenitsyn dedicates to nineteenth-century Jews as tax cheats, draft dodgers, grievance mongers, and shockingly incompetent agriculturalists (the latter being part of the Russian government’s futile efforts to assimilate its Jewish population). Finally, we won’t include all the instances in which the Tsar or the Russian government either gave in to the demands of revolutionaries or acted on behalf of the Jews. Instead, we will focus mostly on the acts of terror and atrocity attributed to Jews during the Soviet and pre-Soviet periods, which were of most immediate interest to Solzhenitsyn. These periods should be of most immediate interest to modern dissidents as well, given how the leftward lurch of Russian society in 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s is finding an eerie analog in the West a century later.This is not to be critical of Solzhenitsyn. The value and importance of Two Hundred Years Together cannot be overstated. Along with The Gulag Archipelago, it is perhaps his most important non-fiction work. Rather, I suggest that the Dissident Right use Two Hundred Years Together as a weapon against Jews — even if Solzhenitsyn himself would have disapproved of this tactic. Can we afford not to? Perhaps if Jews like Josef Biekerman were the rule and not the exception we could. But sadly this is counter-factual. Therefore it makes sense to use the Jews’ insidious methods against them and focus on only those elements of Truth which suit our argument. This is a cultural war, after all, and since when is it considered honorable to tell the truth to your enemy during war?
Perhaps when confronted with the twin myths of Jewish innocence and victimhood, this information could help convince the uninitiated of the lies and hatred which bolster both. And for the initiated, the knowledgeable, the dissident, perhaps the most trenchant passages in Two Hundred Years Together will arm him or her with the information which could help spark the counter-Semitic revolution that is so desperately needed in the West today.
• • •
Chapter Six: In the Russian Revolutionary Movement
Despite being poorly represented among Left-wing radicals prior to the 1870s, Jews quickly grew in prominence among them during the 1870s. Students such as V. Yokhelson, A. Zundelevich, Mark Natanson, Leon Deutsch, and others became energetic organizers of the revolutionary movement. Solzhenitsyn notes how almost none of these Jews supported revolution due to poverty — they, in large part, came from wealthy families. He also notes how, unlike Christian revolutionaries, few Jewish ones suffered a break from their families because of their activities. On the whole, Jewish parents — regardless of their occupations — tolerated their children’s subversive activities. These revolutionaries quickly turned from their religious, patriarchal, and traditionalist roots after the slightest contact with Russian culture. Egalitarian nihilism made it too tempting for them. In many ways, Solzhenitsyn blames assimilation with Russians for bringing out the worst in Jews. And while demonstrating that these early Jewish revolutionaries had tremendous drive and talent, he also describes how mentally unbalanced many of them were.
After the 1881 assassination of Tsar Alexander II and the widespread pogroms which followed, however, a critical mass of Jews then rose to pursue one goal: “the destruction of the current political regime.” Jews rapidly established international networks dedicated to Marxist and socialist revolution, and these networks had a profoundly negative impact upon Russia. In fact, during the 1880s and 1890s, Russian revolutionaries began to rely more and more on Jews as “detonator[s] of revolution.” The revolutionary movement became disproportionately Jewish. Marxist historian M. N. Pokrovsky estimated that by the late nineteenth century, Jews (who made up less than five percent of the population of Russia) made up between a quarter and a third of all the revolutionary parties. In 1903, Russian statesman Sergei Witte told Zionist Theodore Herzl that Jews constituted no less than half of all revolutionaries. In 1905, General N. Sukhotin, the commander of Russian forces in Siberia, calculated that of all the political prisoners exiled to Siberia, thirty-seven percent were Jews. Solzhenitsyn also cites various Jewish sources that attest to the heavy Jewish involvement in the revolutionary movement during the pre-Soviet period.
Chapter Nine: During the Revolution of 1905
In this chapter, Solzhenitsyn demonstrates how ravenous Russia’s Jewish population had become for armed conflict with the Tsarist regime by the turn of the twentieth century. The belligerence on display is shocking not only for its own sake, but also because the Jews barely discuss it themselves. Because of this, this crucial episode has been left out of history almost entirely.
Solzhenitsyn dedicates several pages to the deadly 1903 pogrom in Gomel, Belarus. While the official investigation by the Russian authorities claimed that Jews and Russians alike shared blame for the violence, Solzhenitsyn, using contemporaneous police reports, shows that armed and organized gangs of Jews had instigated the pogrom against Russians. These groups had been formed by the Bund, which previously that year had organized a festival celebrating the anniversary of Tsar Alexander II’s assassination. During an argument between a Jew and a Russian peasant in an outdoor market, the Jew spat in the face of the Russian. A brawl ensued, during which the surrounding Jews blew whistles, a clear sign for attack. Soon enough, the place was swarming with armed Jews, who beat the outnumbered Russians mercilessly, men, women, children, and elderly alike. Solzhenitsyn describes how a Jew snuck up behind a Russian and stabbed him in the neck, killing him. In another instance, a Russian girl was dragged down the street by her hair. And when the police arrived, the Jews fired live rounds and hurled stones at them. This went on for a day, and all the casualties were Russian. What’s worse for the Jewish victimhood narrative, when the troops arrived, their main purpose was to protect the wealthy Jewish part of town from Russian reprisals — and to show their appreciation, the Jews fired shots and threw stones at them too.
Of course, the reason why the Jews were so irate at that point in time was because of the anti-Jewish pogrom in Kishinev in modern-day Moldova, a few months prior. But modern dissidents should not concern themselves with this. Why? Because Jews rarely consider the reasons behind any anti-Jewish actions taken by gentiles, pogroms or otherwise. For them, such behavior simply springs from irrational gentile minds. This is how Jews weaponize history. Well, thanks to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, two can play at that game.
From the Jewish Virtual Library, an example of how Jews weaponize history by presenting only that information that suits their ethnic interests.
Several times in Chapter Nine, Solzhenitsyn relays how Jews instigated conflict by firing their revolvers at police as well as by committing acts of terror and attacking innocent Russian peasants and workers. He names Nissel Farber — who threw a bomb at a police station, killing two and wounding three — and Aron Eline — who threw a bomb at police, wounding seven. He describes several other similar attacks by Jewish terrorists. This kind of provocation immediately invalidates any claim to Jewish innocence and Jewish victimhood.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the new breed of Jewish radical became much more influential and radical than before. Solzhenitsyn labels Grigory Gershuni and Mikhail Gotz as terrorists and describes how they and others took charge of many of the revolutionary parties throughout Russia, especially the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SR). Gershuni oversaw the assassination of two governors and Minister of the Interior Dmitry Sipyagin as well as one failed assassination attempt. While these revolutionaries often relied on Russian assassins, one of their primary bomb makers was Jewish. Solzhenitsyn seizes upon the irony of the Jew Pinhas Rutenberg, who trained Jewish terrorists in Russia and oversaw the execution of the double agent priest Georgy Gapon, and then moved to Palestine, became an engineer, and brought electricity to the region. “There, he shows that he is capable of building,” Solzhenitsyn writes, “but in his early years, in Russia, he certainly does not work as an engineer. He destroys!” Jews also made up the great bulk of theorists who would tirelessly propound anarchism, socialism, and other disruptive ideologies. These ideologies often took on religious proportions. And although the most active of these Jewish terrorists were young, Solzhenitsyn points out how the older generations of Jews continued to tolerate or support them.
Prior to the failed revolution of 1905, the Bund had actually declared war on Russia in one of its proclamations:
The revolution has begun. It burned in the capital, its flames covering the whole country. . . . To arms! Storm the armories and seize all the weapons. . . . Let all the streets become battlefields!
The press and the local orators echoed this sentiment. Solzhenitsyn relays an incident involving a Russian soldier who returned home to Moscow after being held in captivity in Japan:
At the mere sight of this officer in battle dress, the welcome which he received from the Muscovite crowd was expressed in these terms: “Spook! Suck up! The Tsar’s lackey!” During a large meeting in the Theater Plaza, “the orator called for struggle and destruction”; another speaker began his speech by shouting” “Down with the autocracy!” “His accent betrayed his Jewish origins, but the Russian public listened to him, and no one found anything to reply to him.” Nods of agreement met the insults uttered against the Tsar and his family; Cossacks, policemen, and soldiers, all without exception — no mercy! And all the Muscovite newspapers called for armed struggle.
One final anecdote in this damning chapter. Solzhenitsyn tells of an Alexander Schlichter, a Jewish revolutionary, who instigated a railway strike that paralyzed rail traffic to several cities, including Moscow. This Schlichter had also made threats to Kyiv workers to go on strike, raised money from students to purchase arms, and established “flying detachments” whose purpose was to disrupt the city of Kyiv to “prepare the armed resistance to the forces of order.”
This Alexander Schlichter ultimately became a Bolshevik and was, years later, the Agriculture Commissioner in Ukraine during the time of the Holodomor, in which over fifteen million people perished.
Solzhenitsyn states it succinctly: “The revolutionary effervescence that had seized Russia was undoubtedly stirred up by that which reigned among the Jews.”
Despite including little by way of terrorism or atrocity, chapter ten is one of the most revealing and fascinating chapters in all of Two Hundred Years Together. It simultaneously demonstrates both Jewish perception and distortion of reality, and just how devastating this can be.
The chapter begins with Tsar Nicholas’ October Manifesto of 1905 which, among other things, promised basic civil rights to all Russian citizens and established the Russian parliament known as the Duma. This, and the establishment of the first Russian constitution a year later, signified the ongoing liberalization of the Russian government, which was following similar changes among the Russian intelligentsia. And this leftward shift, slow and ponderous as it was, allowed the Jewish Question to be openly discussed and considered more than ever.
Yet when hearing the truculent rhetoric of the Duma and its significant Jewish element — as well as that of the Jewish-run Russian press — it would seem as if Russia were backsliding in feudalism. Jewish interests were represented largely by the Cadet Party (“Cadet” being the informal name of the Constitutional Democratic Party), both with Jewish representatives coming from the Pale of Settlement and their allies among the Russian intelligentsia. Solzhenitsyn describes the Cadet Party as the juncture where the groups mingled freely. Their stated goal was equal rights, especially for Jews. Nevertheless, the Tsar’s appointment of Pyotr Stolypin as Prime Minister belied how disingenuous the Duma really was.
Under Stolypin, real measures had been taken to alleviate restrictions placed upon Jews. Stolypin himself had limited ability in this regard, since the Tsar in 1906 had expressed sympathy for the Jewish cause but insisted that reforms must be implemented by the Duma. Despite having implemented administrative measures to ease restrictions upon Jews and believing that pro-Jewish policy in general would deter Jewish radicalism, Stolypin had no choice but to comply. Yet, ironically, the Duma refused! The Tsar and Russian Prime Minister, the two most powerful men in the empire, had given its parliament — and, by extension, its pro-Jewish Cadet Party — freedom to legislate Jewish equality, and the parliament chose not to. Why?
Difficult to explain this other than by a political calculation: the aim being to fight the Autocracy, the interest was to raise more and more the pressure on the Jewish Question, and to certainly not resolve it: ammunition was thus kept in reserve. These brave knights of liberty reasoned in these terms: to avoid that the lifting of restrictions imposed on the Jews would diminish their ardor in battle. For these knights without fear and without reproach, the most important, was indeed the fight against the power.
Between the lines, we should read that one should never take the Left, especially the Jewish Left, at its word. Any Progressive agenda is merely a smokescreen for destroying traditional gentile power structures and replacing them with totalitarianism. Solzhenitsyn also notes the irony behind Stolypin’s assassination at the hands of the Jew Mordko Bogrov — as well as the Russian Jewish community’s tacit approval of the assassination. In fact, Bogrov’s father, despite being a wealthy capitalist himself who had benefited greatly from the Russian system, publicly declared that he was proud of his son.
Cheering on the Duma’s refusal to create a smooth transition to equal rights for Jews was the Jewish-run press. In many ways, Solzhenitsyn’s description of how Jews dishonestly manipulate public opinion to serve their own ethnic interests presages how they do the same thing today in the West. This indicates that this could very well be a fundamental characteristic of Jewish diaspora news media which traverses centuries and thousands of miles. Solzhenitsyn describes how the newspapers “systematically distorted the debates in the Duma, largely opening their columns to the deputies of the left and showering them with praise, while to the deputies of the right they allowed only a bare minimum.”
The predominance of Jews among the press corps covering the Duma became a running joke after a Right-wing deputy referred to the press box as “this Pale of Settlement of the Jews” in a speech.
Solzhenitsyn sums up the destructive nature of the Jewish-run press thusly:
The following statement was attributed to Napoleon: “Three opposition papers are more dangerous than one hundred thousand enemy soldiers.” This sentence applies largely to the Russo-Japanese War. The Russian press was openly defeatist throughout the conflict and in each of its battles. Even worse, it did not conceal its sympathies for terrorism and revolution.
This press, totally out of control in 1905, was considered during the period of the Duma, if we are to believe [former Russian Prime Minister Sergei] Witte, as essentially “Jewish” or “semi-Jewish”; or, to be more precise, as a press dominated by left-wing or radical Jews who occupied key positions. In November 1905, D. I. Pikhno, editor in chief for twenty-five years of the Russian newspaper The Kievian and a connoisseur of the press of his time, wrote: “The Jews . . . have bet heavily on the card of revolution . . . . Those, among the Russians, who think seriously, have understood that in such moments, the press represents a force and that this force is not in their hands, but in that of their adversaries; that they speak on their behalf throughout Russia and have forced people to read them because there is nothing else to read; and as one cannot launch a publication in one day, [the opinion] has been drowned beneath this mass of lies, incapable of finding itself there.”
Solzhenitsyn ends this chapter with the way in which the Jewish press covered the famous Beilis Trial from 1911. Similar to the Dreyfus Affair from earlier in the century, a most-likely innocent Jew was charged with a crime — in this case the torture, mutilation, and murder of a 12-year-old boy — in an atmosphere steeped in classic anti-Semitism. The murder occurred on the property of a Jewish-owned factory, and quickly blood libel accusations were being made by the local population. This led to the arrest of factory worker Menahem Beilis. Solzhenitsyn chronicles many of the bizarre twists of the investigation and ensuing trial, and admits that not only was the prosecution’s case dubious, but Beilis was accused in large part because he was Jewish.
Beyond the person of Beilis, the trial turned in fact into an accusation against the Jewish people as a whole — and, since then, the atmosphere around the investigation and then the trial became superheated, the affair took on an international dimension, gained the whole of Europe, and then America.
So we have an innocent Jewish defendant, corrupt and incompetent gentile authorities, and a vengeful, seemingly anti-Semitic, gentile public. This was, in effect, the perfect storm in which the Jewish press could lose all of restraint, and Solzhenitsyn provides some examples. Ultimately, an all-gentile (and mostly peasant) jury acquitted Beilis. But this, of course, did not exonerate the Russians of anti-Semitism in the eyes of Jewish writers. Note how Bernard Lewis, in his Semites and Anti-Semites, describes the affair:
Another case . . .was the arrest in 1911 of a Jewish brickmaker called Mendel Beilis, in Kiev in the Ukraine, for the ritual murder of a Christian boy. This followed after the temporary halting of the pogroms in Russia under both international and domestic liberal pressures, and represented a new effort and a new direction on the part of the anti-Semites, by now entrenched at the highest reaches of the imperial Russian government. Two years were spent in preparing the case, which was concocted by an anti-Semitic organization, in cooperation with the minister of justice and the police. It was opposed by an impressive array of Russian liberals and socialists, including such figures as the writer Maxim Gorki and the psychologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. The trial opened at the end of 1913, and, like the Dreyfus trial in France, became the focus for a conflict between opposing political forces in Russia, and the cause of widespread protests in the democratic countries of the West. It was no doubt partly because of the latter that the trial ended in an acquittal of the accused, “for lack of evidence,” and with no decision on the question of ritual murder.
So clearly, the entire Beilis Affair can be wrapped up in Lewis’ simplistic Jew Good-Gentile Bad paradigm. Indeed, there is some truth behind the claim that the whole thing was a regrettable mess that brought out the worst on both sides. And, it must be said that Beilis does appear to have been innocent.
However, the tremendous value of Solzhenitsyn’s analysis emerges when we see how he includes information that Lewis and others do not. Not only did finding this information require some legwork. It also evinces a keen understanding of the weaknesses behind the Jewish narrative. First, Solzhenitsyn shares with us the truly bizarre and horrific nature of this murder.
. . . there are forty-seven punctures on his body, which indicate a certain knowledge of anatomy—they were made to the temple, to the veins and arteries of the neck, to the liver, to the kidneys, to the lungs, to the heart, with the clear intention of emptying him of his blood as long as he was still alive, and in addition — according to the traces left by the blood flow — in a standing position (tied and gagged, of course).
So, this outrage, combined with the fact that the victim was a child, could perhaps explain the heated reactions from the local community better than anti-Semitism can. Jewish writers like Lewis would want one to believe that this was a run-of-the-mill murder. It most definitely was not.
Second, Solzhenitsyn offers a coda to this affair which utterly undresses the myth of Jewish innocence and victimhood. While Beilis emigrated, ultimately to the United States, and died of natural causes at age sixty, other players in this affair were not so lucky. During the early Soviet period, the now-former Russian Justice Minister (whom Lewis mentions above) was shot by the Bolsheviks. The prosecutor was sent to a concentration camp, after which his fate is unknown. And, in 1919, Vera Cheberyak, a witness for the prosecution, was interrogated over her role in the Beilis affair by Jewish Chekists. After refusing to change her testimony and denying that she had been bribed, she was summarily executed.
As with much of volume two of Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn demonstrates how Imperial Russia was highly imperfect under the Tsars, but remains far superior in many respects to the Soviet Union — one of which obviously being criminal justice. Gentiles wrongly accuse a Jew, but still give him his day in court and acquit him, and Jews everywhere scream and protest. Later, Jews don’t give a gentile her day in court — and, even worse, blow her brains out with a pistol shot — and Jews say nothing.
With this kind of double standard, how can we trust the Jewish narrative on anything?
It seems to make sense that Lewis would dishonestly exclude such salient information in his cursory analysis of the Beilis trial. It would undermine his philo-Semitic, anti-gentilic agenda, something Solzhenitsyn does quite well in Two Hundred Years Together.
Solzhenitsyn takes one final, well-aimed dig at the press:
Beilis was acquitted by peasants, those Ukrainian peasants accused of having participated in the pogroms against the Jews at the turn of the century, and who were soon to know the collectivization and organized famine of 1932-1933 — a famine that journalists have ignored and that has not been included in the liabilities of this regime.
By the time the reader begins the second volume of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, he’s aware of a complex yet fragile balance established by the author in volume one. Jews and Russians have shared the same empire and language for centuries, but not without conflict brought about by their different natures and the exigencies of history. Solzhenitsyn takes pains to remain objective despite his clear sympathy for the Russian point of view. Often, when he reveals the misdeeds of Jews, he demonstrates how Russians are not without sin either. The first three chapters of the second volume (thirteen through fifteen), however, smash this balance and reveal Solzhenitsyn almost desperately trying to maintain it as if reconstructing a house of cards while it crumbles. These chapters span the two revolutions of 1917 and mark the culmination of changes among Russian Jewry which began in the 1870s — a change that took Russian Jews from calculating self-interest and detachment to assimilation, radicalism, and ultimately wanton destruction. The historical material is too damning to view it any other way. It embarrasses any attempt at evenhandedness. Solzhenitsyn never stops making them, of course. But knowing what’s coming in the years ahead — the Russian Civil War, the terror famines, the gulags, and the Great Terror, among other things — it becomes impossible to walk away from Two Hundred Years Together and not lay disproportionate blame for the catastrophe that was the Soviet Union upon the shoulders of Jews.
Solzhenitsyn makes it clear that one of the first orders of business for the victors in the February Revolution was Jewish equality and a ban on anti-Semitism. Anyone who showed even the slightest fealty towards the Tsar, Christianity, the old Russian Empire, and, by extension, Russian culture, history, or identity, was at the very least suspect. Right away, things improved for the Jews. With so many of them already in the cities, and with so many of them sympathetic to the Revolution, it should come as no shock that a multitude of professional opportunities opened up for them practically overnight. Jewish groups proliferated in the cities and the military. Jewish enthusiasm ran high, especially abroad, where financiers such as Jacob Schiff, the Rothschilds, Baron Ginzberg, and others gave millions to the cause. Tens of thousands of Jews returned to Russia to take part in the Revolution. At the same time, however, the fledgling government began hunting known judeophobes, including the prominent men who presided over the infamous Beilis trial from several years earlier.
The Right, in general, was also targeted for cultural annihilation. Rightist newspapers were forced to close down for accurately reporting the links between the Bolsheviks and the Germans during World War I. Even more insidiously. . .
[t]he chairman of the Union of the Russian People, Dmitry Dubrovin, was arrested and his archive was seized; the publishers of the far-right newspapers Glinka-Yanchevsky and Poluboyarinova were arrested too; the bookstores of the Monarchist Union were simply burned down.
And, of course, Jews were everywhere. Solzhenitsyn describes how, during his exhaustive studies of the February Revolution and the memoirs of its participants, many Jewish names leaped out at him. He provides several eyewitness accounts that corroborate this observation, including one from V. D. Nabokov (the novelist’s father). An American pastor named Simons, who was in Petrograd during the revolution, testified before the US Senate that
. . . everywhere in Petrograd you could see groups of Jews, standing on benches, soap boxes, and such, making speeches . . . There had been restrictions on the rights of Jews to live in Petrograd, but after the Revolution, they came in droves, and the majority of agitators were Jews.
Solzhenitsyn also produces numbers to support these claims. Among the thirty active members of the Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies in Petrograd immediately after the Revolution, more than half were Jews and fewer than one quarter were Russians. Solzhenitsyn also points out that at the Socialist Revolutionary Congress of May and June 1917, thirty-nine of the 318 delegates were Jews (over twelve percent). Of the Central Committee elected during that Congress, seven out twenty were Jews (thirty-five percent). In April 1917, Jews made up a third of the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks. They also comprised a majority of the revolutionaries in those two trains which sped through wartime Germany towards Russia after the Tsar’s abdication. One of those trains contained Lenin. In October 1917, when the decision was made to launch the Bolshevik Revolution, Solzhenitsyn lists six Jews among the twelve conspirators. After the Revolution, a young Lazar Kaganovich destroyed the photographic evidence of the Council of the Assembly of Leningrad, explaining that “the vast majority of the presidium at the table were Jews.” And, of course, Jews made up a clear half of the first Soviet Politburo. It must be remembered that at that point in history, Jews made up less than five percent of the Russian population.
A small pile of Bolsheviks had now come to power and taken authority, but their control was still brittle. Whom could they trust in the government? Whom could they call on for aid? The seeds of the answer lay in the creation in January 1918 of a special People’s Commissariat from the members of the Jewish Commissariat, the reason for which was expressed in Lenin’s opinion that the Bolshevik success in the revolution had been made possible because of the role of the large Jewish intelligentsia in several Russian cities. These Jews engaged in general sabotage, which was directed against Russians after the October Revolution and which proved extremely effective. Jewish elements, though certainly not the entirety of the Jewish people, saved the Bolshevik Revolution through these acts of sabotage. Lenin took this into consideration, he emphasized it in the press, and he recognized that to master the state apparatus he could succeed only because of this reserve of literate and more or less intelligent, sober new clerks.
Thus, the Bolsheviks, from the first days of their authority, called upon the Jews to assume the bureaucratic work of the Soviet apparatus — and many, many Jews answered the call. They in fact responded immediately.
As typical in Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn provides names — and these go well beyond the famous ones such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev. Here we have the Jewish second tier. Under normal circumstances, minor figures such as Arkady Rozengolts, Simon Nakhimson, Zorach Greenberg, Yevgeny Kogan, and many others would hardly be worth remembering except for historians. But in Two Hundred Years Together, they become pawns on the great Jewish Question chessboard.
Throughout these three chapters, however, the reader can see Solzhenitsyn struggling to maintain his evenhandedness. His efforts get more strained as time goes on. At first, he simply denies the Jewish role in the February Revolution. “[N]o, the February Revolution was not something Jews did to the Russians, but rather it was done by the Russians themselves, which I believe I amply demonstrated in The Red Wheel.” Of course, there is much truth in this. The shortsightedness, corruption, laziness, and incompetence of the Russian leadership at the time is impossible to deny. But rarely does Solzhenitsyn attribute this downfall to outright malice. The Russians, such as Alexander Kerensky, who contributed to the first Revolution were atypical Russians, while the Jews who became revolutionaries were typical Jews.
The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews had.
Often in this part of the work, Solzhenitsyn remarks on the dominant “foreign element” among the revolutionaries aside from Jews — Poles, Latvians, Georgians, even Chinese. Solzhenitsyn seems to argue against himself even further when he discusses the ethnic makeup of the shadowy Executive Committee (mentioned above) which was formed only hours after the February Revolution and was indeed the real power behind the Provisional Government. The Committee’s first act was to seize control of the Russian Army. This organization was over half-Jewish, although it attempted to obscure this fact through pseudonyms. At the time, no one knew who was really ruling Russia. Despite this, Solzhenitsyn wavers between laying blame upon the foreign element, which was acting behind the scenes after the February Revolution, and the Russian element, which should have prevented the Revolution in the first place. Ultimately, he punts on this quandary, refusing to ascribe definitive blame in either direction.
This is unconvincing, largely due to Solzhenitsyn’s profound understanding of the Jewish Question and his genius for argument. This emerges during his discussion of otshchepentsy (отщепенцы), which can be translated to mean “traitor to one’s blood and heritage.” Looking back to the revolutions of 1917, many Jews no longer deny their shamefully disproportionate participation. Instead, they endeavor to slip themselves off the hook by claiming that Trotsky and the others were otshchepentsy — not real Jews, but renegade Jews. As evidence, they will point to the not insignificant number of Jews who were also victims of the Bolsheviks. Solzhenitsyn, for argument’s sake, accepts this, but then wonders why these same Jews hesitate to apply the otshchepentsy excuse to non-Jews, and Russians in particular, for similar misdeeds.
Solzhenitsyn also notices a pattern. Jews just happen to produce a lot of otshchepentsy, don’t they? Yes, there were Russians like this, but proportionately far fewer. Solzhenitsyn also asks the delicate question of how these otshchepentsy were received by their own people at the time, and not years later when embarrassed historians find the need to make excuses for their deceased countrymen. And, sadly, the majority of Jews during the time of the 1917 revolutions did not renounce their so-called otshchepentsy. Quite the opposite, actually. Solzhenitsyn states that there are modern Israeli historians who interpret the October Revolution as a great triumph of Jewish spirit and identity.
So much for otshchepentsy.
It seems that Solzhenitsyn’s fighting spirit gets the better of him towards the end of chapter fifteen. The same author who halfheartedly exonerated the Jews vis-à-vis the February Revolution now states that they were the driving force behind the October Revolution. Further, he reminds us that the clearly pro-Jewish stance of the Provisional Government made this second revolution entirely unnecessary for the welfare of Russian Jews. They had already achieved equality and were on track to surpass the former Russian elites in power and influence if they hadn’t already. Why did they need the October Revolution if not for unlimited power or the annihilation of Russia? In a powerful passage, Solzhenitsyn quotes a Jewish author who believes that the Jewish Bolsheviks “willfully destroyed their own souls.”
Solzhenitsyn ends this powerful chapter with a direct call for Jews everywhere to take responsibility for their past, and to renounce their “revolutionary thugs” and their “endless ranks who went into Bolshevik service to commit mass murder.”
How do we Russians take responsibility for the pogroms, for those merciless peasant arsonists, for the mad revolutionary soldiers and sailor beasts, and the Jews get to spread their hands in blameless innocence over the countless Yiddish names among the commissar-butchers who commanded the whole wretched business?
Solzhenitsyn has absolutely no time for this blatant double standard. Still, he wants nothing more than to meet the Jews halfway in this repentance and self-limitation of nations. But he insists that it be mutual. And why not? If the Jews don’t hold up their end of the bargain, then the Russians (or anyone else) have no reason to hold up theirs. And this would be a tragedy, because, according to Solzhenitsyn, without the obligation of responsibility and a true understanding of the past, all sense of national identity will be lost.
Solzhenitsyn points out early in chapter sixteen of Two Hundred Years Together that immediately after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks wielded fearsome, unchecked power. And it was the wanton abuse of this power that led to the unspeakable violence of the Russian Civil War and the anti-Jewish pogroms to which Russian history had no equivalent.
Right away, the Red Army was a Jewish creation. Leon Trotsky, along with Ephraim Sklyanksy and Jacov Sverdlov, founded it in 1918 with many Jews in leadership positions. Solzhenitsyn cites several Jewish sources and spends pages naming names. The first Soviet secret police, known as the Cheka, was also disproportionately Jewish in its leadership (especially in places like Kyiv where there were many Jews to begin with), as it was also disproportionately non-Russian. Trotsky himself is on record admitting to this. Solzhenitsyn names names in the Cheka as well.
He also points out how dedicated to terror the Cheka really was. The early days of the Russian Civil War Solzhenitsyn describes not as a war but as the “liquidation of a former adversary,” and the Cheka was the weapon used to effect this. It held the Russian population in mortal fear. It routinely enforced the death penalty without trial. It captured and executed innocent hostages by the thousands (sometimes by mass drownings in barges). Whenever bothering to interrogate suspects, their concern was not to reveal incriminating evidence, but to discern the suspects’ heritage and social class. One’s identity was enough to determine guilt or innocence in the jaundiced eyes of the Cheka. Solzhenitsyn quotes a certain (presumably Jewish) Schwartz promoting nothing less than genocide:
The proclaimed Red Terror should be implemented in a proletarian way. If physical extermination of all servants of Czarism and capitalism is the prerequisite for the establishment of the worldwide dictatorship of proletariat, then it wouldn’t stop us.
Solzhenitsyn quotes a Cheka order to annihilate entire villages and execute their populations. He relays estimates that in Crimea from 1917 to 1921, Red forces murdered 120,000 to 150,000 people. During the Russian Civil War, Crimea became known as the “All-Russian Cemetery.” He also includes a Jewish source who remarks on the striking change which Jewish youth underwent after the Revolution:
We were astonished to find among the Jews what we never expected from them — cruelty, sadism, unbridled violence — everything that seemed so alien to a people so detached from physical activity; those who yesterday couldn’t handle a rifle, today were among the vicious cutthroats.
Things become murky, however, in Ukraine. The Revolution and the resulting Red Terror met with great resistance there. Reactionary forces, represented mostly by the White Army, had their share of victories before their ultimate defeat. And with victory, as was the case during this time, came atrocity. In many places, Jews were blamed for the rise of Bolshevism. This resulted in a series of pogroms that dwarfed the ones of the late nineteenth century. Between 1917 and 1921, an estimated 180,000-200,000 Jews were murdered in Ukraine and what is today Belarus — but not entirely by White forces. The Red Army (believe it or not) as well as various partisan groups (often Ukrainian nationalists who fought against both White and Red) were responsible for nearly eighty-five percent of this. The remainder was caused by the Whites.
Solzhenitsyn vividly describes the horror:
Sometimes during the anti-Jewish pogroms by rebellious peasant bands, entire shtetls were exterminated with indiscriminate slaughter of children, women, and elders. After the pogromists finished with their business, peasants from surrounding villages usually arrived on wagons to join in looting the commercial goods which were often stored in large amounts in the towns because of the unsettled times. All over Ukraine rebels attacked passenger trains and often commanded communists and Jews to get out of the coach and those who did were shot right on the spot; or in checking papers of passengers, suspected Jews were ordered to pronounce “kukuruza” [кукуруза, the Russian word for corn] and those who spoke with an accent were escorted out and executed.
(Note the similarity to the famous Shibboleth episode in the equally bloody Book of Judges from the Old Testament. Coincidentally, the ancient Hebrew word Shibboleth meant an ear of corn.)
Outrages such as these accelerated the Jewish shift to the Left and forced the majority of centrist or neutral Jews to embrace the Reds. Can anyone blame them? Could this have been helped? Could any middle ground have remained during such a turbulent period? After the October Revolution, how could the average Russian peasant, now armed and part of an army, not be seething in hatred for Jews — the very people they believe stole their country from them? In fact, Solzhenitsyn describes the White Army as being “hypnotized by Trotsky” and believing that their country was now being occupied solely by Jewish Commissars.
But there was a non-insignificant number of patriotic Jews who were either sympathetic with the White cause or had actually joined White forces. Solzhenitsyn makes this point often. He also stresses how not all White forces were hostile to Jews. Rather, many tended to remain suspicious of even friendly Jews given how prominent other Jews were among the Reds. And so, in many cases, Jewish allies were either rejected or forced into humiliating supporting roles during the war. Some White generals forbade pogroms entirely, such as Alexander Kolchak in Siberia and Pyotr Wrangel in Crimea.
Sadly, this wasn’t enough. In the West, the pogroms soured public opinion of the Whites and crippled their ability to raise much-needed funds. Winston Churchill, then Britain’s Secretary of War, was sympathetic to the Russian nationalist cause, and wrote to White General Anton Denikin, explaining that the pogroms were making it difficult for him to secure support for the Whites in Parliament. Churchill also feared the influence of British Jews who were already making up a substantial portion of the British elite. Of course, the Bolshevik press took full advantage of every pogrom and did much to manipulate world opinion away from the Whites. That equally enormous Soviet atrocities did little to sway world opinion in the other direction is a testament to how tightly the Jews controlled world media even back then.
It’s a rigged game, this public opinion. Jews make ostentatious victims, but as victimizers, they lurk in the shadows like assassins. This is the two-faced beast all Rightists must face, and was something the White forces may not have understood well enough.
That being said, pogroms and a persistent, almost superstitious, Jew-hate may not have been all that doomed the Whites to defeat. But according to Solzhenitsyn, they were significant factors. When he writes that the Whites were hypnotized by Trotsky, he isn’t exaggerating much. For example, wild conspiracy theories about Trotsky worshipping the Devil and practicing Satanic rituals in the Kremlin persisted in White circles for years after the war. Without pogroms at the very least, the Whites would have been able to raise more money and make more use of Jewish talent and manpower than what they had at their disposal at the time. They also would have made Bolshevism a lot less attractive to centrist or otherwise neutral Jews. And, who knows? This might have made the difference in the war’s outcome.
White racial dissidents today can learn much from this regrettable episode. The Russian Civil War is a unique time in history since it is where racial nationalism, petty nationalism, the Left, and the Jewish Question all meet at a bloody crossroads. How could the forces of Reaction have survived this encounter? How could some semblance of normalcy have been restored in the former Russian Empire? My reading of chapter sixteen of Two Hundred Years Together tells me that a sober appreciation for the Truth — and a good deal of restraint — would have gone a long way. The enemy is the Left — in this case, the Bolsheviks. The driving force behind this enemy is, as always, the Jewish Left. But not all Jews are on the Left, and not all of the Left is Jewish. This, of course, does not mean that the Dissident Right need curry favor with Jews or even with the relatively small subset of them that is favorably disposed to Dissident Right perspectives.
What this does mean, however, is threefold:
All-consuming hatred is unhealthy, immoral, and bad in and of itself. This should be an axiom not just in war but in life.
All-consuming Jew-hate plays into the Left’s strengths. In any struggle against the Left, Rightist or Reactionary forces must understand that the propaganda war and the war on the ground are equally important. In at least three of the great Left-Right conflicts of the twentieth century (The Russian Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War) the propaganda war made the difference in favor of the Left. This is what the Left — especially the Jewish Left — is really good at. They’re much better at propaganda than the Right is, in fact. When taking the Left on, the Right needs to understand this and behave accordingly, even if the Left doesn’t have to behave accordingly. This is the price the Right has to pay for coming in second when it comes to propaganda.
Any Rightist movement in conflict with the Left should do as little as possible to alienate centrist or neutral Jews. Again, this does not mean the Right should seek these people out or curry favor with them. Unabashed philo-Semitism is simply a bad look for any leader of the Right. It seems that a professed Judeo-neutral position might be the best course. It makes the radical Left less attractive, it makes Leftist propaganda harder to fabricate, and it will allow for the Right to utilize a certain amount of Jewish capital, talent, and manpower.
Solzhenitsyn laments at the end of the chapter that the hard swing of Jews towards Bolshevism and the hard swing of the Whites against the Jews “eclipsed and erased the most important benefit of a possible White victory — the sane evolution of the Russian state.”
Large numbers of Jews who did not leave after the revolution failed to foresee the bloodthirstiness of the new government, though the persecution, even of socialists, was well underway. The Soviet government was as unjust and cruel then as it was to be in 1937 and 1950. But in the Twenties the bloodlust did not raise alarm or resistance in the wider Jewish population since its force was aimed not at Jewry.
Having contributed greatly to defeating the Whites in the Russian Civil War, many Soviet Jews spent the 1920s consolidating their positions within the Soviet government apparatus. In chapter eighteen of Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn, in typical comprehensive fashion, reveals how extensive their dominance during this period really was. He calls upon contemporaneous sources which claim that in 1927 Jews made up nearly twelve percent of the Soviet government in Moscow, twenty-two percent in Ukraine, and over thirty percent in Belorussia. Much of this can be explained by the general enthusiasm many Russian Jews had for the young republic, their large presence in the major cities, and their innate intelligence and talent. This does not, however, explain the active discrimination against Russians that took place during the same time, especially in universities. This also does not explain how Jews in government consistently used their influence to aid other Jews in quasi-official ways or how the law encouraged Jews to register complaints about anti-Semitism. Most insidiously, this does not explain how non-Jews who remarked upon or criticized the disproportionate Jewish presence in government ran the risk of being labeled counter-revolutionary. And counter-revolutionaries, Solzhenitsyn reminds us, could very well come in contact with nine grams of lead.
Despite Jews making up only 5.2 percent of the Communist Party in 1922, Jewish per capita party membership (7.2 percent) was nearly double that of Russians (3.8 percent). In leadership positions among the Communists, however, the Jews truly distinguished themselves. According to Pravda in the same year:
. . . at the 11th Communist Party Congress, Jews made up 14.6 percent of the voting delegates, 18.3 percent of the non-voting delegates, and 26 percent of those elected to the Central Committee at the conference.
Pravda, 1930:
The portrait of the 25-member Presidium of the Communist Party included eleven Russians, eight Jews, three from the Caucasus, and three Latvians.
Solzhenitsyn describes how, in the state security organizations, Jewish membership increased during the 1920s. Three of the four of OGPU director Felix Dzerzhinsky’s assistants were Jews: Genrikh Yagoda, Benjamin Gerson, and M. M. Lutsky. Solzhenitsyn spends several pages describing the careers of people such as Lev Zalin, Leonid Bull, Simeon Schwartz, and the Nakhamkins clan (Hasidim from Gomel who “thirsted for revenge on everyone”). The Soviets staffed their diplomatic delegations largely with Jews — something the Western Europeans could not help but notice. Even among lower-level provincial authorities, Jews were disproportionately represented. As usual, Solzhenitsyn provides pages worth of names.
Of course, the Russian populace began to notice the brilliant success of so many Jews within the government of their barbaric new republic. They noticed the overall Jewish enthusiasm for the USSR. They noted how, as a group, Jews were the only nationality that seemed to enjoy a net benefit from the Revolution. Jews received the best land, the most privileges. They were less likely to be seen waiting in lines. Although there were efforts to suppress Judaism, Zionism, and Jewish culture (as there was with all religions and ethnic identities at the time), the Christians seemed to get the worst of it, with clergy being murdered or sent to gulags by the thousands, and their churches ransacked or destroyed. Solzhenitsyn describes how, in 1918, a Russian Orthodox procession came forth from the Kremlin in Tula in Central Russia and was simply gunned down.
This naturally caused a great deal of anti-Jewish feeling, especially in the countryside. When prominent Jews Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Lev Kamanev formed their United Opposition against Stalin after Lenin’s death, most of their followers were Jewish. Trotsky fretted how Stalin might use the growing anti-Jewish feelings among the populace against his Jewish rivals. There may have been some truth to this, but Stalin was too politically astute to resort to crass anti-Semitism himself — especially given how numerous Jews were in the Party and how Western opinion and support of the Soviet Union depended much upon its treatment of Jews. As such, his most trusted Jewish allies, Lev Mekhlis, Moses Rukhimovitch, and Lazar Kaganovich never left his side during this time.
Solzhenitsyn also leaves us with this unsubtle nugget:
At the 12th Communist Party Congress (1923), three out of six Politburo members were Jewish. Three out of seven were Jews in the leadership of the Komsomol and in the Presidium of the All-Russia Conference in 1922. This was not tolerable to other leading communists and apparently preparations were begun for an anti-Jewish revolt at the 13th Party Congress (May 1924). There is evidence that a group of members of CK [Central Committee] was planning to drive leading Jews from the Politburo, replacing them with [Viktor] Nogin, [Aleksandr] Troyanovsky, and others, and that only the death of Nogin interrupted the plot. His death, literally on the eve of the Congress, resulted from an unsuccessful and unnecessary operation for a stomach ulcer by the same surgeon who dispatched [Mikhail] Frunze with an equally unneeded operation over a year and a half later.
It should be noted that in 1925 Mikhail Frunze was a rising star among the Soviets and was considered a possible successor to Lenin. Although he also suffered from a stomach ulcer, he said he was in fine health when Stalin pressured him into having this operation. Whether or not the physicians who performed this operation were Jewish remains an open question, but rumors persist among those who preserve Frunze’s memory that they were.
Towards the end of chapter eighteen Solzhenitsyn states unequivocally that Jews could be found throughout the Soviet power structure during the 1920s when that same power structure was stripping freedoms of speech, commerce, and religion from its citizens.
The 1930s, which Solzhenitsyn covers in chapter nineteen, was a different beast. This and the following chapter indeed are the bloodiest red pills found in Two Hundred Years Together. Terror famines, the Great Terror, and the worst abuses of the gulag system lay ahead. The “sinister principal executive” behind the mass collectivization which starved millions in Ukraine and other places, was Yakov Yakovlev-Epshtein. For many years this killer was lionized in the Soviet press. Solzhenitsyn lists three of his Jewish collaborators. He discusses Isai Davidovich Berg, the NKVD murderer who invented the mobile gas chamber. He implicates Jews such as M.G. Gerchikov (chairman of the Grain Trust board of directors), M. Kalmanovich, and I. Kleiner for their important roles in Soviet agriculture during the worst months of the Holodomor. Jews also comprised a third to a half of the People’s Commissariats of Trade and Supply during this time. Despite offering the caveat that Jews never populated one hundred percent of these powerful organizations, Solzhenitsyn goes on for pages detailing the Jewish dominance of Soviet economics, diplomacy, culture, and politics during the 1930s. He lists dozens of Jews by name who were victims of Stalin’s purges and describes the list as a “commemoration roster of many top-placed Jews.”
Here is a typical passage from chapter nineteen:
Out of 25 members in the Presidium of the Central Control Commission after the 16th Party Congress (1930), 10 were Jews: A. Solts, “the conscience of the Party” (in the bloodiest years from 1934 to 1938 was assistant to Vyshinsky, the General Prosecutor of the USSR); Z. Belenky (one of the three above-mentioned Belenky brothers); A. Goltsman (who supported Trotsky in the debate on trade unions); ferocious Rozaliya Zemlyachka (Zalkind); M. Kaganovich, another of the brothers; the Chekist Trilisser; the “militant atheist” Yaroslavsky; B. Roizenman; and A.P. Rozengolts, the surviving assistant of Trotsky. If one compares the composition of the party’s Central Committee in the 1920s with that in the early 1930s, he would find that it was almost unchanged — both in 1925 as well as after the 16th Party Congress, Jews comprised around 1/6 of the membership.
In the upper echelons of the communist party after the 17th Congress (“the congress of the victors”) in 1934, Jews remained at 1/6 of the membership of the Central Committee; in the Party Control Commission — around 1/3, and a similar proportion in the Revision Commission of the Central Committee. (It was headed for quite a while by M. Vladimirsky. From 1934 Lazar Kaganovich took the reins of the Central Control Commission). Jews made up the same proportion (1/3) of the members of the Commission of the Soviet Control. For five years filled with upheaval (1934-1939) the deputy General Prosecutor of the USSR was Grigory Leplevsky.
And this was occurring when Stalin was supposedly purging Jews from the Party.
In chapter twenty, Solzhenitsyn returns to his focus on the gulag system. This, understandably, is a short chapter given the vast, three-volume Gulag Archipelago which preceded it. However, Solzhenitsyn focuses on the Jewish Question here in the way he did only tangentially in Gulag. For example, he states that Jews had it easier than non-Jews in the gulag, and that they tended to make up the upper strata in these places. They deliberately looked out for each other and used their influence at the expense of non-Jews. For example, they were known to recruit other Jews for privileged positions among medical staff, even if the recruits had no medical training. Solzhenitsyn, again, spends pages listing Jews by name who used their tribal affiliations to receive unfair advantages in the gulag system — some of whom even had the nerve to complain about it later. He also retells the story of Ane Bernstein, an ethnic Latvian who believed his fortunate name was his ticket to salvation while a zek. He claimed that in all his camps, Jews took him for one of their own and never failed to help him when he needed it.
Solzhenitsyn reserves particular contempt for Lev Inzhir and Naftaly Frenkel. The former was a stool pigeon and false informant who became the chief accountant of the gulag system. Inzhir used his Jewish connections in government shamelessly to improve his position in the camps while presiding over the suffering of untold Russians, Ukrainians, and others. The latter was a successful businessman residing in Constantinople who had escaped Russia before the Revolution. He was no communist. Yet, he returned to the Soviet Union anyway and, as chief manager of the labor force of Belomor Canal, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Both Inzhir and Frenkel were covered extensively in Gulag.
stock here: time kind of got warped by the Scamdemic. 2020 3-11-20 was the announcement of “global pandemic” and then the Warp Speed. Proving that Trump is not a Stable Genius, he may be stable, but definitely not a Genius. I thought he had some type of strategy related to Fauci, scarf lady, and the injections. He didn’t. Even in the last weeks, he was still touting himself as the force behind “the injections”. I think he rarely gets people in front of him that are willing to present non-conventional opinions. So here was my email Jan 1, 2022 = 111 222.
I hope this is a good warning and not a playbook ———————————
They will admit that the Vaccine was a “solution” to almost all of the Earth’s problems. You all should be proud that you made yourself 15% less fertile, as the earth will benefit from less people. We will be rolling out tax breaks to Robotic and AI companies. A Plethora of Robots will allow the remaining people to live at higher quality levels. We will all live at higher quality levels and we can all share in this new found wealth.
The AI will help us individually make better decisions: your purchasing decisions will be monitored and if you go off the prescribed course, an intervention will occur. Property ownership is obviously a racist patriarchal system in which those not privy to the system are continuously suppressed in their ability to ever reach the affluent life. We can all live the affluent life with our Robots servant and producers when we all give up individual property rights.
The vaccines come in many types, and now that you have Antibody Dependent Enhancement ADE meaning an overblown immune response when challenged with a new variant, Pfizer has perfected a system for targeted boosters developed within 45 days. A fringe group of greedy psychopaths who could care less about the rest of society, and sociopathically cannot even empathize that they are putting all of society at risk by not taking the vaccines will be treated. Some may be cured by custom State Provided Injections.
Because we sent each batch of custom vaccine to at least 20 different states, we now know exactly how our initial 4000 various batches affects the populations, in different demographics and States and even temperatures so problem areas of the country can get custom vaccines to push that area to greater prosperity and affluence. Some individuals who still refuse to join the People’s Affluence Movement (PAM), will receive mental health screenings and AI robots will use repetition to get rid of harmful and hateful ways of thinking.
The vaccine is all we need to solve all problems and let everyone live their best life. Follow the science, have faith in the science. The James Webb telescope has now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no grand creator, no God, and that is why it was launched on Christmas day….your real savior is science formed by our great computers in our hallowed halls. It’s one for all and all for one!
Not sure why this popped into my feed. African American just so gets my goat. Amazing that this event is so important to this Karen that she strangles her own dog, who the whole problem started with her having her dog off leash in a “must leash” zone.
stock here: When deciding who really wields the power, just consider who you are not even allowed to discuss, especially as they are doing a genocide in wide open view. You be the judge.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a highly controversial figure in Russian history due to his critiques of the Soviet regime and his portrayal of Russian history in his works. While some critics have accused him of being dishonest or overly biased in his accounts, particularly in his seminal work “The Gulag Archipelago,” it’s essential to consider various perspectives and evidence when evaluating such claims.
Accusations of Inaccuracy: Critics have accused Solzhenitsyn of exaggerating or distorting facts to fit his narrative. For instance, some historians have challenged specific details in “The Gulag Archipelago,” arguing that his portrayal of the Soviet labor camp system is overly dramatic or lacking in nuance. However, it’s crucial to note that Solzhenitsyn based much of his work on personal experiences and extensive research, and while his perspective may be subjective, it provides valuable insights into the horrors of the Soviet era.
Political Bias: Solzhenitsyn’s staunch anti-communist stance and his criticism of the Soviet regime have led some to question the objectivity of his writings. Critics argue that his ideological beliefs may have influenced his interpretations of historical events, leading to a skewed portrayal of Russian history. However, it’s essential to recognize that all historians have biases to some extent, and Solzhenitsyn’s perspective, shaped by his experiences as a political prisoner, offers a unique viewpoint on Soviet history.
Historical Context: When evaluating Solzhenitsyn’s works, it’s crucial to consider the historical context in which they were written. “The Gulag Archipelago” was published during the Cold War when tensions between the Soviet Union and the West were high. Some critics argue that Solzhenitsyn’s portrayal of Soviet atrocities may have been influenced by the prevailing anti-communist sentiment of the time. However, it’s essential to separate the political context from the substance of his arguments and examine the evidence presented in his works.
Legacy and Reception: Despite the controversies surrounding Solzhenitsyn’s work, he remains a significant figure in Russian literature and history. While some scholars may question the accuracy of his accounts, his writings have sparked important discussions about the nature of totalitarianism, the importance of human rights, and the legacy of the Soviet regime. Ultimately, whether one views Solzhenitsyn as a truthful chronicler of Russian history or a biased ideologue depends on individual perspectives and interpretations of the available evidence.
In summary, accusations that Solzhenitsyn was a liar about Russian history are not uncommon, particularly among those who disagree with his anti-communist views or his portrayal of the Soviet regime. However, it’s essential to critically evaluate such claims by considering the evidence presented in his works, the historical context in which they were written, and the broader legacy and reception of his writings. Ultimately, Solzhenitsyn’s contributions to our understanding of Soviet history should be examined with nuance and a recognition of the complexities involved.
He had some quotes about the bolshevics and the real perpetratorsChatGPT
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn indeed had strong opinions about the Bolsheviks and their role in Russian history. While I can’t provide specific quotes without more context, I can offer you some general themes and sentiments expressed by Solzhenitsyn regarding the Bolsheviks and those he considered the “real perpetrators” in Russian history:
Critique of the Bolshevik Regime: Solzhenitsyn was highly critical of the Bolsheviks and their ideology. He viewed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 as a catastrophic event that led to the establishment of a totalitarian regime in Russia. In his writings, he often condemned the violence, repression, and brutality of the Soviet government under Lenin and Stalin.
Identification of “Real Perpetrators”: Solzhenitsyn believed that the Bolsheviks were responsible for the suffering and oppression endured by the Russian people under Soviet rule. However, he also pointed to broader societal factors and moral failings that enabled the rise of totalitarianism. He criticized not only the leaders of the Soviet regime but also the apathy, conformity, and lack of moral courage exhibited by ordinary citizens.
Spiritual and Moral Dimension: Solzhenitsyn’s critique of the Bolsheviks went beyond political ideology to encompass broader questions of morality, spirituality, and human nature. He argued that the root cause of totalitarianism lay in the loss of spiritual and moral values, which allowed tyranny to flourish unchecked. Solzhenitsyn emphasized the importance of individual responsibility and moral integrity in resisting tyranny and preserving human dignity.
Historical Reflection: Solzhenitsyn’s writings on the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime reflect his deep engagement with Russian history and his desire to understand the forces that shaped his country’s destiny. He sought to uncover the truth about the past, even when it was uncomfortable or inconvenient, in order to confront the moral challenges of the present and future.
Yes, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote several other notable books and works in addition to “The Gulag Archipelago.” Some of his most famous writings include:
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962): This novella is one of Solzhenitsyn’s most famous works. It tells the story of a day in the life of a prisoner in a Soviet labor camp and offers a stark portrayal of the harsh conditions endured by political prisoners under Stalinist rule. “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was the first of Solzhenitsyn’s works to be published in the Soviet Union during a brief period of relative openness known as the Khrushchev Thaw.
The First Circle (1968): This novel explores life in a special Soviet prison where inmates, many of them intellectuals and scientists, are forced to work on secret government projects. “The First Circle” delves into themes of intellectual freedom, moral compromise, and the struggle for human dignity in a totalitarian society.
Cancer Ward (1968): Set in a hospital in Soviet Uzbekistan, “Cancer Ward” follows the lives of patients suffering from cancer and tuberculosis. The novel explores themes of illness, mortality, and the search for meaning in the face of suffering. Like much of Solzhenitsyn’s work, “Cancer Ward” is deeply philosophical and reflects his own experiences as a cancer survivor.
August 1914 (1971): This historical novel is the first part of Solzhenitsyn’s epic series “The Red Wheel,” which examines the events leading up to and following the Russian Revolution of 1917. “August 1914” focuses on the disastrous Russian military campaign against Germany at the outset of World War I and offers a detailed portrait of Russian society on the brink of revolution.
The Oak and the Calf (1975): This autobiographical work chronicles Solzhenitsyn’s struggles with Soviet censorship and his efforts to publish his writings despite government repression. “The Oak and the Calf” provides insights into Solzhenitsyn’s personal experiences as a writer and dissident in the Soviet Union.
These are just a few examples of Solzhenitsyn’s extensive body of work, which includes novels, novellas, essays, and speeches. His writings are characterized by their moral depth, historical insight, and unwavering commitment to truth-telling in the face of oppression. Solzhenitsyn’s works continue to be studied and admired for their literary merit and their contribution to our understanding of the human condition under totalitarianism.
I remember seeing this in real time and was just flabbergasted.
I wonder why these Doctors didn’t push it, I wonder why they accepted a deal? Maybe it is damning enough? For anyone with a brain the war on ivermectin was obvious.
Probably those in the industry knew before me, but I believe I was the first to publish the reason for the war on Iver and HCQ…..and that is, if there is a viable treatment for a disease, then law prevents the issuance of an EUA Emergency Use Authorization….and it was always, all about the mRNA injections.
This is still up as of today, I thought they were forced to take it down.
stock here: she just made up some names for 3 fake military people. The system generated the absentee ballots, and other election operatives mailed them out. Whoever received them could then vote 4 times.
This was from 2022 Midterms, it took until last week to find a guilty sentence. The defense tried to poise her as “a whistleblower” which is mal-practice in my view, I guess they have to say something. She could get 3.5 years plus 0.5 year for each ballot, 5 years max, and fines around $10,000
One little slip up though, I mean a major mistake that shows just how unhinged some of these people can be….she had them sent to a top Republican who was speaking on how voter fraud is likely in Wisconsin….who received the ballots and reported the ballots and they were traced back to this piece of work.
She doesn’t get the normal benefits of being an attractive female, so she acts out in other ways. Hypothesis. Maybe she hates the world, I wonder if her social media was already scrubbed.
Graham Hood is an unassuming 65-year-old with a long career in aviation. Two days ago, he testified to a senate committee of the AU Parliament in Canberra. For 20 minutes, Hood spoke without notes or pause. Learning he intended to get the ‘vaccine’ to keep his job, his wife spurred him to do a risk/benefit analysis.
He then articulated points along a decision tree that determined that the vaxx mandate was in conflict with safety and how he became a rallying figure in the anti-vaccine movement. Using his emergency training in the cockpit, Hood shapes his analogy in a way that will bring tears to your eyes. “Captain, listen!” Americans rarely see credibility, courage, and commitment in such measure.
Why did Hamas stage a long-planned, carefully executed and multifaceted attack on Israeli towns, soldiers, and civilians—one designed to instill terror by executing noncombatants, taking hostages, and desecrating the bodies of the dead?
A 50th Anniversary War? Why did Hamas stage a long-planned, carefully executed and multifaceted attack on Israeli towns, soldiers, and civilians—one designed to instill terror by executing noncombatants, taking hostages, and desecrating the bodies of the dead? And how were the killers able to enter Israeli proper in enough numbers to kill what could be hundreds and perhaps eventually wound what could be thousands?
a) Ostensibly, radical Palestinians wanted to stop any rumored rapprochement between the Gulf monarchies—the traditional source of much of their cash—and Israel, by forcing the issue of Arab solidarity in times of “war”, especially through waging a gruesome attack aimed at civilians and encompassing executions and hostage taking. Iran likely was the driving force to prompt the war—given its greatest fear is a Sunni Arab-Israeli rapprochement.
b) Arab forces have had only success against Israel through surprise attacks during Israeli holidays, as in the Yom Kippur War (i.e., was it any accident that the present attack began 50-years almost to the day after the October 6, 1973 beginning of the Yom Kippur War?). And so they struck again this Saturday during Simchat Torah, coming at the end of a weeklong Jewish celebration of Sukkot—in hopes that others will join in as happened in 1973. (So much for the Arab warnings not for Westerners to conduct war during Ramadan).
c) Hamas may have reckoned that recent Israeli turmoil and mass leftist street protests over proposed reforms of the Israeli Supreme Court had led to permanent internal divisions and thus a climate of domestic distraction if not an erosion of deterrence. But, more importantly, in a larger sense the Biden administration has contributed both to the notion that Hamas was a legitimate Middle East player, and to the perception that the U.S. was backing away from its traditional support for Israel—to the delight of Hamas—based on the following inexplicable policies:
1) In February Secretary of State Blinken had bragged that not only had the Biden administration resumed massive aid to the PLA cancelled by Trump, but cumulatively had transferred $1 billion—even as Palestinian authorities bragged that they would continue to pay bounties to the families of “martyrs” (i.e., those killed while conducting terrorists attacks against Israel). And millions of American dollars also went into Gaza, run by Hamas—despite the Biden administration’s efforts to keep mostly quiet the resumption of such inexplicable support. In this regard, note the current shameful State-Department (“U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs”) website news release that was posted after today’s attack. It ended with this quite embarrassing, morally equivalent admonition: “We urged all sides to refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks. Terror and violence solve nothing.” “All sides?” “Refrain from retaliatory attacks?” So Israel is the moral equivalent of terrorists executing civilians and brutalizing their corpses? And the IDF then is not supposed to retaliate against these killers? This Biden State Department insanity cannot stand. So expect some apparatchik to take down this Munich-like posting as soon as possible.
2) The Biden administration had recently released some $6 billion to Iran through a prison swap deal that saw South Korea hand over embargoed Iranian money to Qatar—despite Tehran’s increased anti-Israeli rhetoric and its loud brag about the escalation. We should assume money for rockets (Hamas claims they have launched 5,000, and have received 100,000 of them via the Damascus airport) and weapons in general for Hamas were supplied by Iran, which again is likely the chief catalyst for this surprise attack.
3) Almost immediately, after his inauguration Biden mobilized to resume the bankrupt Iran deal. And in unhinged fashion he appointed the anti-Israeli bigot, pro-Iranian journalist Robert Malley as America’s chief negotiator. Note that Malley is now under FBI investigation for security breaches, involving disclosing classified U.S. documents and also for allegedly helping pro-Iranian activists and propagandists land influential billets inside the U.S. government. In short, there was a general Hamas and Iranian perception that the Biden administration had resumed the discredited Obama madness of empowering Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
This discredited agenda was to “balance” the power of Israel and the moderate Arab Gulf governments to achieve “creative tension”, exacerbated by Biden’s loathing of the government of Benjamín Netanyahu (who has been snubbed by Biden and never invited for an official visit).
Note as well that the Biden administration has siphoned off key weapons and munitions from stockpiles inside Israel to transfer them to Ukraine. The so-called “War Reserve Ammunition—Israel” is all but depleted of just the sorts of weapons needed in the present crisis. In this regard is there not a pattern here?
Upon the ascension of Biden and his woke military agendas, we saw the following: the complete humiliation of the U.S. in Kabul in its most shameful flight in 50 years and greatest abandonment of equipment in its history; followed by Vladimir Putin’s opportunistic invasion of Ukraine; followed by China’s new belligerence and escalating threats to Taiwan; followed by Turkey’s new de facto alliance with Russia and recent drone encounter with the U.S. air force in Syria; followed by the Hamas/Iranian inspired attack on Israel—with more to come unfortunately.
And will Biden finally get the message from the attacks on the Ukraine and Israeli borders, that borders matter and we too are being invaded, with the encouragement of the Mexican government and to the advantage of the cartels whose fentanyl exports kills 100,000 Americans a year? What to expect in Israel?
Expect the following: the usual Hamas/terrorist selling and/or execution of Israeli hostages, the use of Israeli hostages as “human shields” in Gaza, the bargaining/sale of the remains of Israeli dead, occasional killings of Jews inside Israel by Arabs who falsely believe there will be a winning Middle East-wide existential war against Israel. And finally, a devastating Israeli counter-response that will eventually earn a U.S. rebuke.
What should the U.S. instead do? It should quit talking to Iran and restore full sanctions against it. It should cut off all aid immediately to all the Palestinians. It should undertake a 1973-like massive arms lift of key munitions to Israel and warn Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and others in the Middle East not to intervene or else, given that Israel will need several weeks to deal with Hamas and Gaza. And if it shows any hesitation or weakness, other terrorist groups will opportunistically jump in.
stock here: I swear I am going to look at some blood today. At the bottom, is a Twitter video of a Doctor, middle age white female with dredlocks…..doing some basic Microscope work. She doesn’t seem super credible, but noted in the comments there are so many distractors, detractors. As if “Over the Target!”
Dark field microscopy is an optical microscopy technique used to visualize objects that are too small to be seen with conventional bright field microscopy. In dark field microscopy, the specimen is illuminated with oblique or off-axis light, causing the background to appear dark while the specimen itself appears bright against this dark background. This technique enhances the contrast of transparent or translucent specimens, particularly those that have low refractive indices and may be difficult to see under bright field illumination.
Dark field microscopy is commonly used in various scientific fields, including biology, microbiology, materials science, and nanotechnology, to observe live cells, bacteria, nanoparticles, and other small structures. It provides a method to highlight features that might be difficult to see with other microscopy techniques, thus offering valuable insights into the structure and behavior of microscopic objects.
under what circumstance would you use dark field to look at bloodChatGPT
Dark field microscopy can be particularly useful for examining blood under certain circumstances, especially when you’re interested in observing certain components of blood that might not be easily visible under standard bright field microscopy. Here are a few situations where dark field microscopy might be employed to examine blood:
Observing Live Blood Cells: Dark field microscopy can be used to observe live blood cells in their natural state without the need for staining. This is particularly useful for studying the behavior of cells such as red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets.
Detecting Microorganisms in Blood: Dark field microscopy can help in the detection of microorganisms such as bacteria or parasites present in the blood. By using dark field illumination, these microorganisms appear as bright objects against a dark background, making them easier to visualize.
Identifying Blood Abnormalities: Dark field microscopy can aid in the identification of blood abnormalities such as the presence of abnormal cell morphology, unusual cell aggregates, or the presence of foreign particles in the blood.
Visualizing Blood Clotting: Dark field microscopy can be used to observe the process of blood clotting (coagulation) in real-time. This can provide insights into the mechanisms involved in clot formation and help in studying disorders related to blood coagulation.
Research and Educational Purposes: Dark field microscopy can be used in research settings or educational laboratories to demonstrate the characteristics and behavior of blood components under different conditions, contributing to a deeper understanding of hematology and related fields.
Overall, dark field microscopy offers a valuable tool for studying various aspects of blood morphology, composition, and behavior, providing insights that may not be readily apparent with other microscopy techniques.
Kelly has been looking at people's blood using Dark-Field Microscopy since 2017, and has found some interesting 'anomalies' since the vaccine has rolled out
Please watch.
Several people we have spoken to over 2 years have had a Live Blood Analysis completed and have seen… pic.twitter.com/bXXDfEbvIB
— COVID VACCINE INJURIES .COM (@Storiesofinjury) March 23, 2023
This was a surprise, just days after I praised the Daily Wire, LOL
Here it is on Vanity. Take a look see at the comments. Rabid Genociders, for the most part. People just making stuff up. You have to wonder, what part of the conversation is actual humans?
The article writer is so tone deaf that they show the “event” photo were she looked frail, in glasses, weird hair.
She said her good friend was there and knew about the assault but her friend denied it. She said she had a fear of flying and her ex-boyfriend revealed that she flew in small planes and commercial airlines. And so many other lies were apparent. She realized afterwards that when you go on national tv that millions of viewers will notice hundreds of details that don’t add up and especially the body language.
I wrote this Sept 2018 before my website was censored and destroyed.
Repost: Balsey-Fraud’s ridiculous behavior was so much like Strzok’s. While he was bizarrely odd, immature and goofy she engages in baby talk and projects a level of fragility that makes her appear unable to cross the street without holding the hand of an “adult”. Her performance was preposterous. Let’s see a video of her teaching or at a conference or anywhere. I’m a licensed clinician and that was a “school play” as George Webb would say. After 36 Years, she threw herself under the bus for “the cause”.
Party was held; she forgot who she was with or how she got home; she was drinking and said nothing to anyone. 1983, through to 2002 She said nothing. July 25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit…
She said nothing. 2004, 2005… She said nothing. May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate… She said nothing. June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy… She said nothing.
2007, through to 2011… She said nothing. 2012… She remembered ‘something’ happened in 1982, yet doesn’t name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to authorities. 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 – She becomes an anti-trump activist 2018 – Now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations? Who does she think she is?…….and then there’s this picture of her and George Soros…hmmm….Can anyone else see what’s REALLY going on here? and now the Corrupt FBI is “Investigating” this? LOL!!!!
So, Her father is CIA; she oversees CIA mind control (MK- Ultra) program at Stanford; she is a huge Clinton supporter; her brother was/is connected with Fusion GPS; the Balsey-Fraud family works with the Strzok family selling night vision goggles in middle East- and all that information is out there now- why is anyone even continuing with this farce?
William Casey (Reagans CIA director. Yes, the one who said “when everything the American People Believe is a lie, our task will be complete”) publicly thanked her Father for contributions to the CIA psychological warfare research.
2. I also know what Democrat “handlers” do when they are working their political instructions. In this case the visible handlers are: Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich.
5. Hence Ms. Ford has no idea who is the financier behind the entire operation; and all of her subsequent expenses. The script was written around her, with an intended purpose. Likely the first narrative was reliant on never actually appearing before congress.
6. The airport hotel lie-detector narrative, part of the constructed evidence through Katz inc. A familiar testing resource, only two questions, a carefully written script to follow etc. Purchased via legal counsel (Katz Inc.)
7. As the loose narrative became more evident it was going to end with a congressional appearance, Katz needed more specific support from a Capitol Hill legal insider. Enter Bromwich’s contracted assistance.
10. The narrative engineers cannot specify the *house* where the event took place, because that would lead to specific ownership trouble. If the owner of the residence refutes the false claim, the lie cannot advance. Hence, the “where” must be generally ambiguous.
11. The “when” can also be a problem. It would suck to give a specific “WHEN” only to find out the accused wasn’t in town, or was elsewhere. Hence any specific “when” must be avoided to retain the false assertion.
12. As noted, the “who” in this narrative *had to* be a part of the story. But as with this story under scrutiny those four “who’s” actually refuted the accusation and aligned with the accused. Thus the problem with specific “who’s”.
13. The use of a validating “counselor” or “therapist” is a common part of a false narrative. The reason is HIPPA protection. Regardless of what the accuser claims, the Dr. is bound to silence unless released.
14. Now we see more of the origination details falling apart.
TheLastRefuge added,
Paul Sperry @paulsperry_
BREAKING: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford’s testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008
15. Keep pulling these threads, and there’s likely to be many more aspects of the false narrative that will fall apart. [fear of flying, document origination and process issues]
16. One can easily imagine a person being exploited, who was promised their need to testify would likely be negligible, beginning to freak out as it appeared testimony was going to be required. Imagine the stress.
17. Which would explain the emails to the committee backing out…. trying to find an exit…. not realizing it was going to go THIS FAR. I would doubt strongly the “hacked work email” is even remotely accurate. Occam’s Razor = Panic.
18. Under questioning, the Ms. Ford doesn’t even know the committee volunteered to go to her, because the *handlers* (Katz Inc, then Bromwich) controlled everything. She was originally clueless to the airline travel excuse which needed to be constructed rapidly.
19. The handlers can’t change history, the frequency of Ms. Ford’s airline travel negated the original excuse; and needed to be shaped. Thus she needed to support the excuse in testimony, yet historic reality refutes it.
20. This is how modern Democrats roll. Fabrication and the false framework of accusation is their skillset. The lie only needs to hold up long enough to get them to the objective. [ex. Romey’s taxes and Harry Reid]
21. The end justifies the means; any means. Nothing is out of bounds. This is how the modern political left operate now. Leaks, lies and intentional falsehoods. This is what Lindsey Graham was angry about during the Kavanaugh hearing. They don’t care. /END
This at the Teaparty, I wonder why they got rid of the “Christine Blasey Ford” lied story. Funny how the white trash Biden’s even find more white trash to marry.
The former stripper then divulged that Hallie Biden, widow of Beau Biden, Hunter’s brother, also partook of the drug.
“One night he left me and Hallie at the table together at dinner. She slid next to me and said ‘I know it looks weird. You’re probably judging me. But I never cheated on my husband.’ She wanted to make it very clear to me. I was, like, ‘cheated on your husband or not, this is your brother-in-law. This is so frickin’ weird,’” she continued.
“She told me that they started hooking up kind of like a trauma bond. She was also on crack, she was probably paranoid that I was judging her. That night she was smoking crack and saying ‘I never do this.’ I was like, ‘I don’t know girl, you look like you know what you’re doing to me,’” the former exotic dancer declared.
Kennedy noted that she met Hunter Biden due to him wanting a spray tan in his hotel room.
“He needed a spray tan at like nine o’clock at night. Now we know he was probably cracked out. I show up and it’s three girls in his room. I guess he was living in the hotel at this point. I did the spray tan, he tipped me $500. And then he gave me an extra $300 to do the other girls. I was like, oh my god, I just made $800 in 20 minutes. Of course, I took his card,” she stated during the interview.
While the two shared naked pictures with each other, she says they never engaged in sexual activity until a one-night stand that happened toward the end of their relationship. She also asserted that panic was a typical part of Hunter Biden’s behavior.
“Every time I talked to him he was in some kind of a panic about something that was going to come out in the media,” Kennedy recalled, pointing out the last time she saw him was in April 2019.
stock here: For some reason, Ireland and Scotland are hugely important in the world. I have always thought of them as strong, persistent, fighters to the last. I was amazed that they were easily and quickly swayed to the woke non-sense. As a libertarian i won’t deny most forms of sexual expression, but nevertheless look at Male Gayness as extremely bad judgement. And so why are these queers being voted into office….are the funded and pushed by those who want to push the whole NWO blasphemy on the world? It seems it must be this way.
Hmmm…..3 days after meeting with the Biden entity?
Lost 2 referendums in a row on woke issues proving how out of touch he is so now he is picking up his ball and going home…Well done Ireland, send those regressives packing!!!
Mission accomplished!
The WH squatter meets with him. Then Obama meets with Sunak.
Please watch this 100% verifiable COVID-19 vaccine injury compilation video, which includes tons of examples. This should be shared with EVERYONE and even those who still believe the mainstream narrative. It's time to wake people up! pic.twitter.com/VldUd7YAhQ
stock here: The usual advice is just Calcium, but my knowledge of general health and vitamins caused me to suspect the adding Mg Magnesium to the mix, would further compete against Radio Strontium and what do you know….I was right
I bought this at Amazon, for the “bug out bug in” emergency Large Box, and to take on trip to Hawaii. $20.00 I like that they advertise the correct 2:1 Ratio
Adult, take 3
To mitigate the absorption of radioactive strontium, calcium supplements are often recommended. The reason for this is that the body absorbs strontium in a manner similar to calcium, as they share similar chemical properties. By increasing calcium levels in the body, the absorption of strontium can be reduced.
The recommended dose of calcium supplements to mitigate strontium absorption can vary depending on factors such as age, weight, and individual health status. However, a common recommendation is to ensure an adequate intake of calcium through diet and, if necessary, to take calcium supplements as directed by a healthcare provider.
As for the pathway of travel in the body, when radioactive strontium is inhaled, it can enter the bloodstream through the lungs and circulate throughout the body. Strontium, being chemically similar to calcium, is taken up by the body’s calcium regulatory systems. This means it can be absorbed into bones and teeth, where it can emit radiation and potentially cause damage to bone marrow and surrounding tissues.
Regarding the intake of strontium through contaminated foods, such as milk from cows grazing on contaminated pastures, the radioactive strontium can be ingested and absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. Once ingested, it enters the bloodstream and can be deposited in bones and other tissues, similar to the pathway of inhaled strontium.
To mitigate the absorption of strontium from contaminated foods, ensuring an adequate intake of calcium-rich foods or supplements can help reduce the uptake of strontium into the bones. However, it’s important to note that this strategy may not completely eliminate the risk of strontium absorption, especially in cases of high-level contamination.
As for the upper limit for calcium intake in the short term, such as a week, there isn’t a specific upper limit established for short-term calcium intake. However, excessive calcium intake can lead to hypercalcemia, a condition characterized by elevated levels of calcium in the blood, which can cause symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, constipation, and kidney stones.
The recommended daily allowance (RDA) for calcium varies by age and gender, but generally ranges from 1,000 to 1,300 milligrams per day for adults. It’s essential to avoid exceeding the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for calcium, which is set at 2,500 to 3,000 milligrams per day for adults. Exceeding this limit for an extended period can increase the risk of adverse effects, including kidney stones and impaired absorption of other minerals.
In summary, while calcium supplementation can help mitigate the absorption of radioactive strontium, it’s crucial to follow healthcare provider recommendations and not exceed recommended calcium intake levels to avoid adverse effects. Additionally, minimizing exposure to contaminated foods and following appropriate safety measures during a radiological event are essential for protecting health.
The addition of magnesium (Mg) to calcium supplementation might offer some benefits in mitigating the absorption of radioactive strontium, especially in a post-nuclear event scenario. While calcium is known to share similar pathways with strontium in the body, magnesium also plays a role in calcium metabolism and bone health.
Here’s how magnesium could potentially contribute to mitigating the effects of radioactive strontium:
Competitive Absorption: Like calcium, magnesium is absorbed by the body via similar pathways in the gastrointestinal tract. By increasing magnesium intake alongside calcium, it’s possible to competitively inhibit the absorption of strontium, reducing its uptake by the body. This competitive absorption mechanism could help lower the amount of radioactive strontium that gets deposited in bones and tissues.
Bone Health: Magnesium is essential for bone health, as it is a cofactor in several enzymes involved in bone formation and mineralization. By ensuring adequate magnesium intake, bone density and strength may be improved. Stronger bones could potentially reduce the uptake of radioactive strontium into bone tissue, as there might be less available space for strontium to be deposited.
Anti-inflammatory Effects: Magnesium has anti-inflammatory properties and can modulate immune responses. In a post-nuclear event scenario where radiation exposure can lead to tissue damage and inflammation, magnesium supplementation may help mitigate these effects, potentially reducing the overall impact of radiation on the body.
While adding magnesium to calcium supplementation may have potential benefits, it’s essential to consider several factors:
Balanced Intake: Maintaining the right balance between calcium and magnesium intake is crucial. The ratio of calcium to magnesium in the diet should ideally be around 2:1. Excessive magnesium supplementation without sufficient calcium could potentially disrupt calcium metabolism, leading to adverse effects on bone health.
Individual Variation: The effects of magnesium supplementation on strontium absorption may vary among individuals. Factors such as age, gender, overall health status, and dietary habits can influence the body’s response to supplementation.
