May 19, 2015

The Tragedy of Moldova: Dependency, Globalization, & the Destructive Power of Elite Liberalism

via Counter-Currents

Moldova is Europe’s poorest country. Tiny, landlocked, and with a population of about 3 million and shrinking, she is often ignored in modern writing on Eastern Europe. She is one of the many castaways of the 1990s, the imposition of the “free market,” and the “end of history.” Yet she was an important part of the old USSR. But after the breakup of the empire in 1990–1991, she fared even worse than Ukraine, reaching Fourth World poverty levels.

Like so much in Eastern Europe, Moldovans overwhelmingly reject and west and “free markets.” Their sole hope is a customs union with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The much smaller Transnistrian Republic, formerly a part of Moldova, is expanding rapidly within the Russo-Chinese market and is proof of this argument, but the Romanian side, welded to the West, has failed.

Eurasia and the Transnistrian Republic

Moldova’s identity remains a problem that can only be solved through partition, especially as the two sides of the country move farther apart. She is an artificial creation taken from parts of Romania, Ukraine, and Belarus after the Second World War. As always, her diversity is nothing but a liability (Kaufman, 2006: 120). Her class imbalances are also enhanced by ethnic and linguistic division, making this failed state even further from a solution.

The Russian minority in the east is wealthier than the poor Romanians; it is a symbol of Eurasia versus Europe. Once the Romanian speakers took over in 1990, comprising a majority, the Russian minority began to worry about its future status. The new Romanian Popular Front based itself around the mobilization of marginalized Romanians and utilized anti-Slavic slogans to stoke resentment against Russians. Russians were envied for their economic and scientific prosperity as an important part of the USSR, but these Slavs were not voluntary migrants, but were sent by Stalin to raise the status of this area (Protsyk, 2002).

Riots erupted throughout 1989–1990 as the “Popular Front” made Romanian the sole official language. This implied that all offices at any level of government had to be utilized in Romanian. This also meant the private sector as well (King, 2000: 224–30). Fully understanding their intentions, the Russian minority, seeking aid from Moscow, separated though the formation of the Transnistrian Republic. She is thriving as a part of Eurasia. This connection is her lifeline to significance.

Using their own ruble, Moscow, true to the SCO’s mentality, leaves the economy alone. It develops as it needs to, not as an ideology demands. While Moldovan industries disintegrate, Transnistrian steel helps supply the growing economies of Russia and China (Kosienkowski, 2012: 52–57). Self-sufficient in power, the country had transitioned to a 100% gas-run power system in 2002. Russia subsidizes fuel to Moldova even given their anti-Russian rhetoric. The IMF is actually paying the Romanians to avoid any ties to Moscow, so her arrears are large and growing (Protsyk, 2002 and ES, 2006). The revival of the Russian market under Putin has ensured an equally strong market for Transnistrian goods. Thus, not only has Moldova missed out on Russo-Chinese growth, her war on the Russian-speaking east has removed her most productive ethnic group from contributing.

Moldova in the USSR

These present realities are a humiliating decline from the Soviet run system long dismantled. Moldova was seen as too small to be a threat, was able to develop in relative peace, and did not suffer the torments of the central regions of the USSR. In the first few years of the 1970s, industrial investment began to move east. The results were a 7.5% yearly rise in incomes. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the economy expanded rapidly into electricity, chemicals, automobiles, and automation equipment for assembly lines. In general, this production boom amounted to a 15% yearly growth when all sectors are considered (Fedor, 1995: 125–31). Exceeding their production quotas by 10% on the regular basis, Moscow had no incentive to harm her elite producers (Fedor, 1995: 105–109). Her industries were self-financing (and then some), so Moscow was not required to subsidize them or to reward failure. She was a model republic.

Even under this modified Soviet regime, Moldova was vulnerable to even a small shock. Profits, all told, increased by 15% yearly on average, but labor productivity had a tendency to rise only slowly. Given the absence of a market, this meant that production had little relation to wages. Given the “all union” nature of the economy, Moldova could be a major power in chemical engineering while only the elites had regular heat. These imbalances were to show themselves later (Fedor, 1995: 121).
Moldova grew even as the rest of the USSR stagnated. Moldova’s loyalty to Moscow, impressive production rate, and her importance in light industry permitted the Party to lower taxes and increase wages. She consistently registered a budget surplus made possible by 12–15% growth in high value-added industries on the cutting edge of (Soviet) science. Moldova focused on transformers, lighting, toolmaking, wine, and agricultural mechanization by the early 1980s (ibid).

The wage-production chasm made sure that this was not to last. Moldova grew rapidly without the ability to sustain these numbers. But beyond her capacity to sustain it. The USSR was designed as an economic machine where each region had a functional role (that is, what Moscow saw as their comparative advantage). Wages in Moldova were some of the highest in the USSR, but production, education, and medical care did not reflect this. Environmental degradation and all manner of corruption was permitted so long as the quotas were met and the regional elites were loyal (Lerman, 2006:440ff). Moldova reflected the eccentric nature of Soviet economics in that Third World lifestyles remained unchanged alongside a first class chemical and electric infrastructure (Fedor, 1995: 121).

Independence and the Catastrophe of the “End of History”

Watching the USSR disintegrate rapidly, Moldova, like Ukraine and so many other areas, was not prepared to rule itself as a European state. Suffering from a total lack of ethnic unity, economic cooperation and civic consensus were increasingly impossible. The resulting civil war in 1991–1992 was in part due to the chronic shortage of skilled labor. Moscow was thus forced to send Russians to the area, meaning that the success of the Moldovan SSR was not the work of native citizens (Kaufman, 2006: 119–120). Under the circumstances, this compound of economic and ethnic resentment was an easy way to create conflict.

Many of the Soviet-era corporations were being privatized. This meant that local rent-seekers and foreigners moved in and absorbed the labor of decades. The debt that the region carried just meant that this stock of capital was liquidated. By 1993–1995, the formerly high wages of the country went down by more than half, made more traumatic by runaway inflation, as prices for staple goods reached absurd levels. In 2000, the official poverty rate of Moldova was roughly 75%. By 2007, GDP was about 50% of its 1991 level while agriculture, always important, had fallen in value by more than 50% since 2009 (Bodewig, 2006: sec 3; World Bank, 2011 and Cantarji, 21–23).

Today, Moldova’s financial and fiscal policy shows no sign of improving. As in Ukraine, Moldovan officialdom has no rational structure. This reflects the lack of consensus or civic unity required to give purpose and goals to the state. The civil war harmed the economy in numerous ways as her Russian minority focused east, and Russia closed off her markets from her now overt enemies. Her post-Soviet nationalist government sought reunion with Romania, which, to say the least, was an unsuccessful gamble. The gray and black markets are likely the only thing keeping the shrinking and malnourished population from disappearing (World Bank, 2013 and Bodewig, 2007: sec. 13).

Any increase in exports is the result of trade with Eurasia, comprising mostly raw materials. Moldova cannot pay for any further Russian energy imports. In terms of value added goods, between 2009–2011 capital investments decreased by over 25% while industrial investment fell by 23% (ibid and Cantarji, 2013: 14–19). Machinery used in commercial construction has fallen 24%, while housing construction fell by more than 30%. This means that about 20% of all loans are non-performing, forcing the central bank to come close to total collapse. As the lei (the Romanian currency) is volatile and unstable, a situation caused by instability, social division, and inconsistent demands made by western banks (World Bank 2011: 14 and Husted and Melvin, 2013: ch. 12).

Generally, if debt is too high, and there is no compensating domestic savings, then foreign investment will have to make up the difference. However, the central bank in Moldova is neither trusted nor in control, and of course, under these unstable circumstances, no incentive exists to think of the long-term. The crisis economy forces short-term thinking, as investments have no assurance of any future in the country (Husted and Melvin, 2013: 114–16).

Moldova’s burnt her bridges to the east because her ethnic hate rejected any cooperation with Moscow. The false promises of the IMF have led to the endless devaluation of the lei and the inability of the public sector to finance itself (World Bank, 2011: 2). Devaluing the lei has permitted the government to laughably boast that its debt value has gone down (Srour, 2012: 15). Prices continue to skyrocket as productive capital is sold off.[1] Moldovan exports have been decreasing 8% yearly since 2008 while exports to the west have fallen by as much of 75% with little hope for the future (World Bank, 2013; Husted and Melvin, 2013: 358–61).

By contrast, the 400,000 people in Transnistria are industrialized and growing. With rising wages and no shortages of staple goods, the economy focuses on both steel and electricity. According to the anti-Russian NGO “Economic Statewatch,” this tiny country’s financial sector is efficient, profitable and stable (ES, 2006, pp. 68–70).

Moldova tragically declined from a rapidly developing country in a profitable relationship with a giant Soviet market to a Fourth World backwater in less than a generation. Most employment and exports in this traumatized society are in the lowest value added category. Imports of machinery fell by almost 40% in 2009–2013 and, in a related figure, fixed assets have lost at least 23% of their value just between 2010–2011 with no end in sight. In effect, even staple goods now need to be imported for a country that at one time fed a sizable chunk of the USSR (Bodewig, 2007). Ludicrously, the Moldovan government and its broke western sponsors resort to deception. They claim, for example, that the sale of their state gas company, Moldovagaz, to Gazprom is “foreign investment” (Bodewig, sec 17).

Presently, there is not a single credible argument that a) the EU will do anything positive for Moldova, b) that Russia will somehow harm Moldova, or that c) the “independence” of this micro-state has been anything but a disaster.

The anti-Russian policy has consistently produced depopulation, early death, declining health, high infant mortality, and a general mood of distrust and anger. Since there is exactly 0% demand for Moldovan goods anywhere (including Moldova), the Transnistrian experiment shows how beneficial the Eurasian market is for these nations. Adding insult to injury, most of their consumption since 2010 has been through the sale of what functional, fixed assets remain in the country. Moldova is quite literally eating itself (Bodewig, 2007: sec. 17).

In the 2007 Annual Session of NATO, the Moldovan meltdown is treated in depth. In 2007, the full demolition of the country was well underway, and its trajectory was clear. They had the honesty to admit the statistics mentioned above, and without any apparent neurotic effects from cognitive dissonance. NATO states that “The Republic of Moldova and its supporters should lobby for better market access to the EU, and work to have the Transnistria issue placed higher on the EU agenda” (Sec. 51).

They continue: “The EU should continue to challenge the status quo of the Transnistrian ‘conflict’ and work to achieve a solution” (sec. 52). This does not stop them from admitting, in section 11, that Russia’s recovery is fueling some Moldovan growth, as are remittances. Of course, such growth is not growth at all. Making their argument more convoluted, they then state that real investment in fixed assets is non-existent (sec 12).

Explaining to the world why NATO should have no economic opinions at all, they state at this early meeting, bringing understatement to a new zenith:

Needless to say, the Republic of Moldova’s economic transition has suffered a range of birth pangs. The first stage, initiated in 1990, involved the liberalisation of prices, trade and enterprise operations. A second phase began in 1993 when, in co-operation with the IMF and the World Bank, the Republic of Moldova pursued massive privatisation of state-owned enterprises, introduced a new and stable national currency (leu) and established a national securities market (sec 9).

This is the justification and rationalization of failure. The good news is that the rebellion against this has already been developed over the last year. The same Customs Union that allegedly sparked the violence in Ukraine has been the only boost to Moldova’s economy since Gorbachev. The socialist party, led in this policy area by Irena Vlach has, since 2012, began the process of re-integration into Eurasia. The results are predictable: Russian demands for Moldovan fruit and wine, as well as many other agricultural products, is boosting production in all areas.

The Lesson: Transnistria Continues as a Success due to the Eurasian Market

More irritating to the west, the Eurasian idea, very popular in Transnistria, argues that any entry into western markets requires success first in Eurasia. Since this unrecognized nation is sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, her geography is unfavorable. Yet, it is only the Russian republic there that has any chance of continued development.

The World Bank has Moldova at well below 100 in its “Doing Business” survey. They are equal to Botswana and Ghana. Moldova in 2013 alone lost 2 billion lei due to debt and trade deficits, so that all public services have been slashed. In Ukraine, the minimum wage is $240 a month, while Moldova lives impoverished at $85 in 2012 American dollars. In Transnistria, it is almost 300% higher even under a US enforced blockade of the country though Romania and Ukraine. The Marketing and Public Opinion Institute in Chisinau has 80% of the population registering contempt for the EU. In 2006, 97.1% of the eastern portion of Moldova voted for integration with Russia.

Thus, as both Moldova and Ukraine fall below Fourth World status, Transnistria, under an embargo from its two neighbors, remains prosperous and unified. Worse for the EU, her success has made her an important source of trade with the EU itself. About 30% of this small country’s exports are to the EU, showing that profit is profit regardless of whether elites recognize the nation. As Russia has brought this tiny country into its own orbit (and hence that of China and the SCO) her budget has a surplus and her financial sector is stable. Moldova permitted about 600 Russian businesses from Transnistria to officially register in Moldova so as to circumvent EU sanctions. Hence, the success of the Russians here have forced their enemies to accept their requests and – no doubt – register these as “Moldovan” capitalists. Today, much of the Moldovan budget comes from Russian businesses!

In the World Bank paper on Transnistrian economics, we read:

In the first half of 2003, economic activity in the region has increased again as it is reflected in GDP growth of 18.4% with investments in fixed capital increasing by 2.9%, hence reducing the trade deficit by 35.5%. However These positive developments were combined with increased inflation. In January through August 2003 the average monthly inflation rate was 2.1% and it rose at the end of this period to 18% (in 2002, respectively 0.3 and 2.5%). Despite the commitment of the regional administration to alter the structure of the economy and the state, the economy remains in a transition stage (CISR, 2003: Translation mine).

This older study is important since it connects Transnistrian prosperity with Russian. Further, it shows that the increase in Moldovan trade has much to do with “illegal” relations with the Russian speaking east. The study goes on to show that the rational system of Transnistria, her relatively open economy and first class labor pool have ensured its prosperity regardless of the demands of the EU. Not too long after this study was released, by 2006, Transnistria was running a 200% trade surplus with Ukraine and almost 300% with Belarus.

Privatization was done under tight state control, and slowly: the oligarchs that rule Ukraine did not develop there. Attracting Russian and Eurasian investors stabilized the economy early. Her excellent relations with Gazprom ensure cheap power. Once secure in her economic policy, this tiny country then permitted more western FDI, to the chagrin of Moldova. While still unrecognized, Transnistria has forced her recognition through economics.

The lessons here are clear: first, rational economic policy will create the respect that diplomacy cannot. Second, the EU is incapable of helping these small societies as its own society is near total economic collapse. Third, to plug into a massive Eurasian market with total freedom of policy development works: the IMF does not. In his analysis of Transnistria and the EU, Andrew Mospanov states:

The last 20 years are sufficient to judge the results of the western economic model. The main conclusion is that economic integration with the West strengthens the strong economy and undermines the weaker, soon to push them out of competition entirely and, finally, making them chronically dependent (Mospanov, 2013: translation mine)

Failures in 1990s Russia, today’s Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Moldova show this as the success of Putin’s Russia, China, Belarus, and the tiny state of Transnistria confirm it. The western “market” system is only for those already in control. He continues:

We know that integration [into the EU] in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as well as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland led to significant structural changes in the economy of these countries. The changes have been very painful. Poland almost lost its coal industry and shipbuilding; Hungary, lost its well-known bus plants; Estonia and Lithuania saw their dairy industry destroyed, as well as its energy sector, mechanical engineering and other key sectors were lost to the more powerful EU states. In Latvia there are no more sugar factories (Mospanov, 2013: translation mine).

The only difference between these countries and Transnistria is the lack of formal ties with the EU. It is that union that has crippled and destroyed these countries and their significant industries. The future lies with Russia, China, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Ukraine, Moldova, and Bulgaria, just to name three, should abandon the western sinking ship and focus on an area that actually wants their products.


Исследование экономики Приднестровья. Исследование выполнено неправительственной организацией Центр стратегических исследований и реформ (CISR). Кишинев-Тирасполь, ноябрь 2003 (The Center for Strategic Research and Reform. The Economics of Transnistria. Chisinau-Tiraspol, November 2003)

Моспанов, A (July 2013) Почему Приднестровью нельзя в зону свободной торговли с ЕС? Eurasia Informer Online

Media Transnistria: СМИ Приднестровья: “История успеха” Евразийского союза против “истории успеха” ЕС. October 2013
Bodewig, K. (2007) The Economic Situation in Moldova. NATO Parliamentary Assembly, 171 ESCEW 7 E BIS

Bruton, L (1999). The Republic of Moldova: Time for a New EU Strategy? SWP-CPN, Selected Contributions, no. 5, European Union Analysis and Evaluation

Cantarji, Vasile (2013) Costs and Benefits of Labor Mobility between the EU and the Eastern Partnership Countries Country Report: Moldova. Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw. CASE Network Studies and Analyses No. 465

Center for Economic Polices of IDIS Viitorul. “Transnistria.” Economic Statewatch, 1, 2006: 68-70 (unsigned) web resource from the Central and Eastern European Online Library:

Fedor, H. (1995) Belarus and Moldova: Country Studies. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

Husted, S. and M. Melvin (2013). International Economics. Addison Wesley
Kaufman, SJ (1996) Spiraling to Ethnic War: Elites, Masses, and Moscow in Moldova’s Civil War. International Security 21(2): 108-38

King, Charles (2000) The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture. Hoover Institution

Kosienkowski, M (2012). Moldova: Arena of International Influences. Lexington Books
Lerman, Z. (2006). Land Consolidation as a Factor for Rural Development in Moldova. Europe-Asia Studies 58(3): 439-55

Moldova Economic Update – April 2013. World Bank, April 2013

Protsyk, O (2007) Nation-building in Moldova. In: Nation and Nationalism: Political and Historical Studies (Andrzej Suszycki and Pawel Karolewski, eds.): Wroclawskie Wydawnictwo Oswiatowe. Online chapter:

Srour, G and Michael Gorbanyov (2012) IMF Selected Issues. IMF Country Report No. 12/289

World Bank (2011) Moldova After the Global Crisis: Promoting Competitiveness and Shared Growth. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region: Report 55195-MD


1. Cantarji, 2013 foolishly accepts official figures on the “economic recovery.” Apparently, he is the only one on earth who does, cf 15ff. He also says, however, that it is foreign remittances that are fueling it (ibid). Many of his figures are contradicted to an extreme by the World Bank, esp. 2013. However, The Bank does believe that revenue has increased. In truth, the devaluation and increase in taxes is the case for that, not sane policy.

2015 Jonathan Bowden Oratory Award: And the Winner is . . .

via Western Spring

The annual award of a prize and a trophy in honour and in memory of the late Jonathan Bowden is something that Western Spring are proud to be associated with and pleased to sponsor. Last year saw the first occasion upon which this award was made and today the second winner of the prize was be announced.

Members of the nationalist community and our wider audience were invited to submit to this website, the name of any nationalist speaker they felt deserved to be added to our list of nominees for this award. For nominations to have been accepted by our panel of judges, the speech concerned must have been made during the twelve months ending on 1st March 2015, and be accessible on the internet either as a video or sound recording.

The prize awarded for the best piece of nationalist oratory was the laurel wreath statue that stood on Jonathan Bowden’s desk at his home, which is inscribed with the winners’ names and which this year’s winner will be allowed to retain until 1st March 2016, together with a cash prize of £250 provided by Western Spring, which of course will be for the winner to keep.

The nominees this year were:

Kevin Bryan;
Richard Edmonds;
Tess Culnane;
Jez Turner;
John Leech;
Peter Rushton; and
Craig Frazer.

The winner this year was Richard Edmonds. The speech for which Richard was nominated was delivered by him at a London Forum meeting towards the end of last year. Richard spoke about the abuse and torture of German prisoners of war at a prison called Bad Nenndorf, and he spoke at length, largely without notes, demonstrating a thorough knowledge of this subject.

The speech demonstrated Richard’s engaging use of humour and the great enthusiasm and animation which are features of Richard’s speaking style.
Congratulations to Richard, he is a worthy winner and an inspiration to others.

Speaking Art to Power

via Alternative Right

A while ago, I wrote an article entitled “Alt Right Art,” a sort of mini-manifesto for dissident aesthetic voices who find their scope impaired by the machinations and ministrations of a dully ultra-conformist and punitively small-minded age, an age wherein the once-revolutionary Left has seized hold of nearly all established citadels of thought, its entrenched cultural commissars ruthlessly enforcing their ever more pernicious institutional “innovations” with monotonous fervor and plodding regularity, and in so doing, rendering adherence to embattled traditional mores the only possible means of rebellion, excitement, redemption, and relief.

I don’t retract a word from the text of that earlier piece, as I honestly don’t think it contains a speck of untruth. However, I now discern that, apt though “Alt Right Art” is in in diagnosing what is needful, it nevertheless lacks a sense of completion. Put simply, there is more that must be said on the subject.

It is not enough, after all, simply to buck the trends of the times. Determined and thoroughgoing defiance does show guts, of course, and this is something to be praised and admired in and of itself, to be sure. But he who would be an caroler of dissidence ought not merely assign himself the task of being as offensive as possible with his song of sublime subversion, rendering himself a mere aural nuisance or (to shift to a different metaphorical sense)  an “eyesore in the architecture.” Instead, the willingness to offend, even mortally offend, must be accompanied by an awareness that one isn’t primarily addressing himself to those of his time. Topicality must ever be tempered with patient comprehension of the arc of history. “Today is not forever,” as the saying goes; put otherwise, the temporal is not the eternal.

As grating as present preoccupations of our would-be rulers can be, their prescribed ideologies ought not vex us too greatly, because these gruesome manifestations of “totalitarian humanism” possess no intellectual heft whatsoever; they amount to little more than shoddily-constructed fortresses made of mud, which have no chance of surviving the soon-to-be incoming tide. We give our highly-placed detractors too much credit if we take them too seriously; the best response is laughter and mockery: namely, in the words of Martin Luther (famously invoked by C.S. Lewis), to “jeer and flout at the Devil, for he cannot bear scorn.”

We are, after all, not really speaking to the opinion-shapers, but more properly, past them. And a careful study of the course of human affairs will reveal that our own given dispensation is in fact not categorically different at all from past epochs. There have always been oafish oligarchs, brutal bureaucrats, putzy politicians, and cunty commissars; our times didn’t invent such specimens, nor will such creatures be removed from our sight in some ostensibly bright and shimmering future world of miracle and wonder. We are not the first to face off against the “machine” of organized authority, and we won’t be the last. Truth has always been, and ever will remain, the great enemy of power, and vice versa.

One temptation, however, must be resisted, and that is the desire to feel oneself to be a part of “something greater,” a “movement” which will eventually “prevail.” If the purpose of art is to expose and champion truth, then truth must be the artist’s only byword. Truth is never an instrument of mass movements; it only grows diluted, if it doesn’t disappear entirely, in the presence of base propaganda. Truth is not a company man, nor is it a charismatic rabble-rouser; it neither smilingly spouts bland platitudes in a 30-second PSA spot, nor does it stand on a platform and shout shrilly into a microphone before a throng of adoring worshippers. Truth is no glamour-monger; it doesn’t preen or posture, with puffed-out chest, for a photo op, nor does it sashay with verve and panache down the red carpet, drawing the awe and admiration of smitten passerby. 

Truth’s features are always gritty, never glossy. One looks for it in vain among the nice, sweet, pretty, palatable things of the world. Truth is not a faction; instead, it transcends factionalism. Whoever is in charge, truth tends to be on the opposite side: this isn’t to say that it merely pitches its tent among the camp of the faction that is temporarily on the outs until the next election rolls around. Its opposition is more radical, even—one might saytotal.

Truth vs. Power

Indeed, truth is an exceedingly lonely, tormented figure, a “man of sorrows,” perpetually enduring the eternal recurrence of his own (eternally willed) scourging and crucifixion. Truth never “wins” on a mass scale, since its very existence is inimical to the world, yet it is forever in the habit of winning people over within the still, small space of their hearts. Truth never operates on a ramifying, exponentially imposing level, because only destructive forceslike bombs, hurricanes or riotsthrust themselves so brazenly upon the world; rather, truth is communicated via an earnest, one-on-one encounter with an open-hearted hearer. The personal nature of truth means that it only adds its adherents one at a time, which is one reason why its ranks remain so tiny; the only ones who choose it are those who are ready to weather the storms that it brings.

The artist who strives for truth in a world of lies (and any worthwhile artist would never think of doing otherwise) must thus lose any delusion of glory or phantasm of grandeur concerning his calling. He will never be feted by kings or exalted over by high-placed functionaries or otherwise ostentatiously praised for his troubles. Instead, he will remain ignored, if he is not actively frowned over, denounced, and ridiculed. Moreover, he will be ruthlessly ostracized and isolated. 

Truth, after all, exists solitarily, while power instinctively metastasizes, forever colonizing new territory before uniting with all of its minions, the better to collectively blot out that which would render it irrelevant. Truth’s most compelling trait is surely the authoritative flavor of compulsion it invariably carries, making a person feel that it cannot be refused, even though it exerts no actual force and makes absolutely no threats. This intangible quality is what renders truth powerful, even when it has no apparent semblance of what is usually reckoned to be "power," even when it stands alone against the full fury of a mob. Power must do its best to separate and thus contain truth; this is why power spares no expense at using its nearly unlimited resources to dissuade people from the opting for the trappings of truth and convincing them instead to dwell within the good graces of those with power.

The artist who makes truth his ally thus renders himself a solitary figure, alienated from his age, cast adrift from the fellowship of his fellow man. Not everyone is cut out for such a life, to be sure. The true artist must be boldly disposed, sternly-built, and temperamentally self-contained, with enough desperado swagger to scorn the feckless herd and their unscrupulous handlers, yet at the same time he must be possessed of the requisite humility to serve his true Master, even unto death.

Global Forum in Israel Seeks to Criminalize Online Criticism of Jews or Jewish Power


The following article from the Times of Israel reports on a global conference being held in Jerusalem (sponsored by Israel’s Foreign Ministry) aimed at enacting international laws against “anti-Semitism” and enforcing bans on internet “hate speech.” The Israelis seek to globally criminalize and ban from the internet such things as Holocaust revisionism and questioning Israel’s legitimacy. The German Justice Minister and the Mayor of Paris were among foreign luminaries to attend the conference. This should be a wake-up call to many that while the internet and the First Amendment provide us with the opportunity to liberate ourselves peacefully by educating our people about the tyranny of Jewish supremacism, this window of opportunity is limited and we have to act before it is slammed shut. 

Jerusalem forum recommends new laws on cyberhate, anti-Semitism

Gathering notes ‘pervasive, expansive, transnational’ nature of internet – and the challenge it poses to combating hate
Still from the new documentary ‘Crossing the Line 2,’ which depicts rising anti-Semitic activity on North American campuses. (Courtesy)
The biennial Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism issued statements recommending steps for governments and websites to reduce cyber hate, and for European governments to reduce anti-Semitism.

“Given the pervasive, expansive and transnational nature of the internet and the viral nature of hate materials, counter-speech alone is not a sufficient response to cyber hate. The right to free expression does not require or obligate the internet industry to disseminate hate materials. They too are moral actors, free to pursue internet commerce in line with ethics, social responsibility, and a mutually agreed code of conduct,” read a statement issued Thursday night in Jerusalem by the Forum, which is run by Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Among the recommendations to Internet providers: to adopt a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism; adopt global terms of service prohibiting the posting of such materials; provide an effective complaint process and maintain a timely and professional response capacity; and ban Holocaust denial sites from the Web as a form of egregious hate speech.

Recommendations to governments include: establishing a national legal unit responsible for combating cyber hate; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute cyber hate and online anti-Semitism, and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are absent; and adopting stronger laws and penalties for the prohibition of Internet materials promoting terrorism and supporting recruitment to terrorist groups.

The forum also addressed the upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe.

“European institutions and governments need to take strong proactive steps to address the current outbreak of anti-Semitism in order to assure the continued vibrancy of Jewish communal life in Europe,” read a statement issued Thursday.

Among the recommendations for combating anti-Semitism: adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism applicable throughout the European Union and its member states under law including reference to attacks on the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its right to exist, and Holocaust denial as forms of anti-Semitism; apply agreed standardized mechanisms for monitoring and recording incidents of anti-Semitism in all EU countries; take urgent and sustained steps to assure the physical security of Jewish communities, their members and institutions; and direct education ministries to increase teacher training and adopt pedagogic curricula against anti-Semitism, and towards religious tolerance and Holocaust remembrance.

The three-day conference hosted a panel of prominent Muslim leaders and imams from Europe who came to speak out about anti-Semitism in Europe. The opening of the conference featured addresses by the mayor of Paris and the German justice minister.

Whites Behaving Badly

via Radix

Sometimes life imitates art in all its absurdity, violence, and comical nature.

America witnessed what might be one of the most violent, yet darkly humorous events in its recent history on Sunday. A three-way biker gang battle erupted at Hooters rip-off (named after a David Lynch creation to top it off) in Waco, Texas that left nine people dead and several more injured. In a scene that could’ve come straight from a Lynch film, the bikers started their brawl over a parking spot, and it quickly escalated from fists and feet to chains and knives and then naturally to guns.

Did I also mention that this happen in a suburban strip-mall where most of the inhabitants were families enjoying a nice after-church lunch?

The violent conflict resulted in hundreds rounds of gunfire being exchanged—with some of it directed at SWAT teams who quickly swarmed the area—and over 100 weapons were confiscated. The most interesting part is that it appears that all of the individuals involved were White, which, of course, prompted leftists to sneer at just how violent White people are and how they are just a bunch of thugs. (And, yes the Bandidos MC, despite its name, is a White gang.)

The Left had a field day pointing to Black riots and Muslim terrorism as unreflective of Blacks and Muslims in the same way that this biker shoot out is unreflective of White people. . .or proves that White people are worse because more people died in this incident. That is an easily dismissed line of reasoning because very few White communities support outlaw MCs, unlike Black communities with rioters and Muslim communities (excepting most American ones) with jihadis. This event also claimed no innocent lives and was strictly an internal battle among bikers. The same thing can’t be said of Muslim terrorism and Black rioting. Also, this is once-in-a-blue-moon type of incident, unlike Black criminality and jihadi acts.

Thus, that argument ultimately falls apart.

But there is something interesting in the whole idea of White people as thugs. Granted, this was an event that so incredibly stupid that it became farcical. Three gangs slash, stab, pound, and shoot each other over a parking spot at a restaurant called Twin Peaks. The Battle of Hastings this wasn’t. In addition, biker gangs sell poison into blue-collar White communities and engage in idiotic violence. . . like the great Twin Peaks Shoot Out of 2015.

But their “White thug” reputation is what drives the interest in a show like Sons of Anarchy and the fascination surrounding this midday shooting. White people sometimes want to relate with the bad guy, the outlaw of society, in a way he can’t with Black gangbangers and Hispanic drug lords. Bikers show White people as individuals you fear, not as potential victims of non-white crime. They’re modern-day barbarians—living outside the confines of the System and the law it imposes.

There’s a natural appeal there for the average law-abiding White guy. It goes against the cultural stereotype that Whites are just a bunch of goofy losers and it is a completely different lifestyle from that of the bourgeois norm. That’s why it’s not entirely a bad thing that the media is going wild with a story about White thugs—it’s a welcome respite from the normal reporting on domicile Whites.

While the shooting is definitely contemptible and insanely idiotic, certain media figures playing up the meme that White people pose a serious threat to public order is peculiar. It’s almost like they want us to become the new barbarians.

Fighting in the Dark

via Cambria Will Not Yield

To come to the point at once, I beg to say that I have not the least belief in the Noble Savage… he is a savage – cruel, false, thievish, murderous…
-Charles Dickens

Dryden first coined the phrase ‘noble savage,’ and Rousseau developed it into a religion. Since that time there have been two forms of ‘noble savage’ worship. The intellectual Christians such as Wesley, Wilberforce, and the Quakers revered the negro, because he was ‘pure’ and ‘noble’ and much more receptive, in their minds’ eye, to the Gospel of Christ as expounded by Wesley, Wilberforce, and the usual array of anti-Christian Christian zealots. How black savages, who are subject to all the effects of original sin — just as the white man is — can be more noble and pure than the white man is not something the anti-European Christians took the time to dwell on. They were annoyed with white Christians for being less than perfect, and they sought to beat out their rivals by filling their own particular churches with humble, obedient ‘noble savages.’ The anti-European bias of the Christian churches has not abated since the days of Wesley and company; in fact, it has intensified. And the intensity has reached such a fever pitch that the sacred negro has supplanted Christ as the center of Christian worship. In my younger days I vividly recall being denied access to a chapel, because an ecstatic nun told me they were “bringing blacks up from the city to worship with them.” It was obvious that the nun should have said, “to worship them,” rather than “to worship with them.”

The aforementioned Christian ‘inclusion’ has blended with the straight secular ‘noble savage’ worship of men like Dryden, Addison, Bentham, and Rousseau – the forerunners of the modern liberals and their cult of negro worship. But in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries there was strong opposition to the new ‘noble savage’ faith. Dickens’ essay on “The Noble Savage” in The Uncommercial Traveller and Reprinted Pieces is a classic. And Samuel Johnson (“Don’t cant to me of savages”) was not a believer in the ‘noble savage.’ Nor was Burke, who saw the connection between Jacobinism and negro worship:
“How must we feel, if the pride and flower of the English Nobility and Gentry, who might escape the pestilential clime, and the devouring sword, should, if taken prisoners, be delivered over as rebel subjects, to be condemned as rebels, as traitors, as the vilest of all criminals, by tribunals formed of Maroon negro slaves, covered over with the blood of their masters, who were made free and organized into judges, for their robberies and murders?”
That was not only the plight of the French in Saint-Domingue, it was the plight of the Southern people during the northern Jacobins’ reign of terror that lasted through the “reconstruction” period of the South’s history. The anti-‘noble savage’ sentiments of Fitzhugh, Dabney, and Page reflected the beliefs of the entire Southern nation, which did not completely yield to negro worship until the second half of the 20th century. And in the main, European sentiment, until the 20th century, was against negro worship. The tide shifted toward negro worship in the 20th century, not just in the liberal camps of historians such as Toynbee, but also in the deluded minds of many conservatives. Whittaker Chambers, for instance, might have divested himself of his communist faith, but he still maintained his faith in ‘the people,’ albeit they were no longer the white proletariat, they were the pure and simple negroes. (See “In Egypt Land,” 1946) Conrad, in The Heart of Darkness, also expressed a belief in the ‘noble savage.’ It seems that once a European abstracts himself from his people and the Christian faith, he is open to the worship of the colored stranger, which is usually the negro, but Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians have also served as the pure and noble gods of color.

The only Christian doctrine that is harder for intellectuals to accept than the resurrection of the dead is the doctrine of original sin. Pelagius eliminated it, and Aquinas freed reason from its effects, but I think that the Christian’s belief in original sin is one of the few doctrines that has a mountain of evidence to support it. Just look at the evil that men do; are we not all in the position of the Ancient Mariner? We have shot the albatross. But the intellectual Christian and the secularized liberal refuse to admit that they share the guilt of the Ancient Mariner. Guilt is pain, and they want no pain. So they cast all original sin on the white man. He is original sin incarnate. From time immemorial he has sinned against the colored races and stopped them from living and loving in their black, brown, red, and yellow paradises. But how can the intellectual Christians and the liberals escape from their own original sin? They can take refuge in reason. Reason has no skin color, if you are one of the elect, a man of reason, you can worship the negro and remain free of the taint of original sin. The reasoning men and their negro gods will smite the white man who prowls about the world, seeking the ruin of the good and pure negroes. Why is it supposed to be a tragedy when murderous scum like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are killed in the midst of an assault? It is a tragedy, because they are the pure and noble, they are without sin.

The worship of the negro and the other savages of color started out as the embittered attempt of white intellectuals to strike out at God by effacing His image in the collective face of the European people. If they are evil, then God must be evil, and He can be rejected in favor of other gods. But this belief is no longer just the belief of a few dissident intellectuals, it has entered the blood stream of the European people. They instinctively feel that black crime is their fault, that the white man must never defend himself against the black barbarians, and that Tony Blair’s command that they “must be multicultural” is the will of God. Can such a spiritual virus ever be cured? Not be ordinary means. Some power greater than reason and science must be invoked. There is power in the blood of Christ, just as the old hymn says, but that power, the power that makes a spiritual weakling into a hero, comes to us through the human channels of grace that the liberals have damned up. If we don’t love our own, we will never feel anything in the blood, we will be the walking dead, blindly serving the gods of color.

The consciousness that we are all tainted with original sin was what made the European wars, prior to the 20th century, limited wars. As grisly as the wars were, there was a modicum of chivalry in such wars, because Christian men knew that sin was not the exclusive property of the enemy. The one exception to that old concept of war was the American Civil War. The leadership in the North did not believe that all men were tainted with original sin; they believed that only the white southerners had that taint. Their belief has become the belief of the white race. Original sin exists, but it only exists in white racists. This is why the main concern of white people is to show they are not racist. When conservatives criticize a black leader, they always make sure to find some other black leader to praise. When a grazer shows outrage at rock-throwing black thugs, he is always careful to say that he is against thuggery, not blacks. The English Defense League spoke for all the grazers of the European world when they called on blacks, Muslims, Indians, and Martians to take a stand against hooliganism. Such a stand is not a stand at all, it is an admission of defeat. If you won’t fight for your own racial hearth fire, you won’t have the spiritual spine to fight for anything else. The liberals know this, which is why they condemn white racism. So long as whites remain in fear and trembling of being called racists they will be helpless and hopeless in the face of the liberal and colored barbarian onslaught.

The frameworks for negro worship and white genocide were in place in the European nations in the 1950’s. But the work of slaughter was just beginning, there were still white communities. I recently saw a short travelogue filmed in Holland in 1951. There were no blacks or Muslims in town or country. What a blessed sight! Many of the small children depicted in that film would still be alive today. What do they think of their nation now? Have they become true believers? Do they love multicultural Holland? At least those Europeans had a childhood. What do white children have today? They are told by every authoritative body in their respective European nations that they are evil, because they are white. The females are told that they can escape whiteness by repudiating the white male and cohabiting with the negro. And the white males are told that they will only be allowed to live out their pathetic existence if they serve as milch cows for the sacred negroes. “Black lives matter, white lives don’t,” is the liberals’ and the blacks’ mantra.

Rationalism and its child, negro worship, seem to be permanently ensconced as the religion of the European people. It is, of course, a suicidal faith, because the sacred negro is a god of sacrifice not mercy. But the historians of our race, the poets such as Scott, Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky tell us of a different type of European than the modern negro-worshipping Europeans. They tell of men and women who had something in their blood that was worthy of redemption. They were not rationalist piano keys and recorders to be played upon by the men of the satanic intellects. The Europeans once loved and hated first hand. Now they love through the negro, trying to love what he loves, which is murder, rape, and pillage, and striving to hate what he hates, the white man.

When the Athenians were trying to decide whether or not to fight, the Spartan leader Leonidas said that, “Sparta will fight whether the others fight or not.” And when the Persians told Leonidas and the 300 that the Persian arrows would darken the sky, Leonidas replied, “Then we will fight in the dark.” Leonidas and the 300 represent the pinnacle of Greek culture. They were not rationalists; they did not believe in the dialectic approach to existence. Nor did the Christian Europeans, who, through the Christian ages, fought their own battles of Thermopylae. Now it is time, past time, for Christian Europeans to stand in front of the pass and face the negro-worshipping liberals and their colored minions. Not likely? No, it is not likely, but then again there was nothing likely about the miracle of Europe. That is something to hold on to, something that bids us look inward to the spirit above the dust of negro-worshipping liberalism.

The Myth of the Great Russian Victory

via Alternative Right

All hail mighty Russia saviour of the world! 

If you’re a leftist, you can get down on bended knee and worship the greatness of the Red Army and thank them for saving the world from the evils of Nazism (while delicately manoeuvring your considerable mental blind spot over the inconvenience of over two million rapes and tens of millions murdered by Stalin and his henchmen).

If you’re a rightist, you can get down on your other bended knee in deference to the fact that above the Aryan superman is the far greater power of the Slavic superman, a creature of such enduring strength and toil that he can suck up 26 million dead (the ever reliable figures of the Soviet Ministry of Truth) and then roll up the Wehrmacht like a used carpet.

Whatever your ideology, be assured on one thing, Mother Russia rocks.

In a nutshell, this was the message sent out the other weekend by the big “victory” parade in Moscow and by the Russian-financed media and its army of internet shills and trolls.

According to this version of things, the Brits and Yanks were nothing but a pathetic sideshow. But this pretty picture, in as much as there is any truth in it, is heavily reliant of careful framing and exclusion of facts. At best, it is a carefully edited snippet of truth, rather than truth itself, which tends to sprawl out in all directions.

"Soviet" Does Not Equal "Russian"

Yes, most of the fighting occurred between the Germans and the Soviet forces – but Soviet, not Russian!

It is difficult to find evidence for the proportion of Russians in the Red Army in WWII, and anyway Soviet stats are about as reliable as the “fact” that the Germans committed the Katyn Forest Massacre. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the Red Army relied heavily on the Soviet Union’s ethnic fringe of Kazakhs, Mongols, Tatars, Buryats, Uzbeks, Kalmucks, Jews, etc.

This would certainly explain the comments made by General Patton in a letter to his wife in July 1945:
"Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages."
Using troops from the ethnic fringe is normal practice for any large, multi-ethnic state like the Soviet Union, but is an even more pronounced tendency when that state also happens to be tyrannical. This is because one of the best ways a tyranny can defend against rebellion is by breaking the ethnic link between the military and the general population. In the case of the Soviet Union, this would mainly be the Russian population. The Red Army would therefore, in all probability, have a disproportionate number of non-Russians, even in wartime.

The Red Army's greatest general – a Pole!
So, any army that beat the Germans, although including Russians, would by no means be dominated by them.

This is signalled in the fact that the supreme leader of the Red Army throughout this period was a non-Russian, namely Stalin himself; while other important Red Army leaders were of diverse nationalities: Semyon Timoshenko (Ukrainian), Konstantin Rokossovsky (Polish), and Kliment Voroshilov (Ukrainian), to name a few.

One reason why the only Soviet general everybody knows is Georgy Zhukov is because he was one of the few top military leaders who was actually Russian, and so benefitted from the need for the Soviet state to showcase an authentic Russian hero to inspire its core population in wartime.

Dead Germans Do Not Signify Degree of Victory

The main data point that you hear from those trying to magnify the Russian part in the German defeat is that most Germans were killed on the Russian front. The German military historian, Rüdiger Overmans, in Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg (2000) broke down the number of German military personnel killed as follows:

Even if you add Western Europe, Sea and Air War, Italy, and Africa together (all areas entirely dominated by the Western Allies), you only reach 752,244, which is little over a quarter of the number of Germans killed on the Eastern Front – in return for 8 to 14 million Soviet servicemen killed (a suspiciously high figure that probably includes several million killed by their own side).

Russian history tends to stand
things on their heads quite a lot.

But the high causality figures on the Eastern Front are highly deceptive, because all they mean is that Soviet forces were engaged in a more indecisive struggle for longer with the Germans.

If the Soviet forces had actually had a more decisive victory, the number of Germans killed would actually have been less, and if the Soviet victory had been more difficult, likewise, the number of German troops killed would have been higher.

The relatively low German kill rate of the Western Allies means that Western military action was actually more successful and decisive. This becomes apparent when we look at the POW hauls. According to Overman’s estimates, the three main allied powers held the following number of POWs at the end of the war.

Another 1,000,000 were allocated to the French, presumably by the Americans. This means that the Anglo powers captured around 7.6 million German troops to the Soviet figure of 3 million (of which at least a million were exterminated in captivity).

So, if we add the number of POWs to the number of dead, we now get the following figures:
The lucky ones – captured by the West.

Only the Soviet Union Needed to Fight this War

Apologists for the Soviet Union will no doubt contend that the higher number of Germans who surrendered to the Anglo powers merely reflects the fact that this was an easier option.

Of course that is true, but that only reflects the fact that there are degrees of enmity, and that the true enmity was the one between the Soviets and the Germans. It is well known that Hitler was more than happy to leave the British Empire and the United States alone in return for a free hand to deal with the genocidal threat posed by a Soviet State that had already killed millions of its own people in peacetime.

This fact – that the West voluntarily offered its services in this war – should also weigh in how we apportion the “credit” of victory over Germany. This is not to say that what the West did in opposing Nazi Germany was morally right or wrong. That is a separate issue and one that is not under discussion here. We are merely judging this as a question of military credit.

If we view the question in terms of contributing to victory, it can be argued that the Soviet Union contributed absolutely nothing to victory in the sense that any “contribution” was not freely given. Instead, its sacrifice was exacted from it, forced upon it by Germany’s pre-emptive strike against it. The Western allies, by contrast, opted to give of their men and money to defeat Nazi Germany. In this sense we can say that the West contributed everything to victory, the Soviet Union practically nothing.

The Non-Soviet Sinews of War

Arctic convoy: To Russia with Love.
Finally, there is the economic question. Not only did the Western powers pound German cities and industry into the ground, an unpleasant aspect of the war on which I have little inclination to dwell, but they also provided the Soviet Union with enormous amounts of material assistance, delivered at great expense over lengthy supply lines.

The bombing campaign against German cities also forced the Germans to divert enormous resources of skilled men, materials, and technology to defend against it. These resources, applied to the Eastern Front, could have made a decisive difference. But that is a hypothetical. What is more certain is the massive amount of Western material assistance, without which the Red Army would have been a lot easier for the Germans to deal with. The complete list of aid for the Soviets can be found here. It included the following items:
Trucks: 427,284
Tanks and Combat Vehicles: 13,303
Aircraft: 11,000
Bombers: 3,000
Anti-Aircraft Cannons: 8,000
Motorcycles: 35,170
Ordnance Service Vehicles: 2,328
Radar Systems: 400
Petroleum Products (gasoline and oil): 2,670,371 tons
Explosives: 300,000 tons
Field Radios: 40,000
Foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.): 4,478,116 tons
Locomotives & Railway cars: 13,000.
Tommy Guns (fully automatic machine guns): 135,000
Metal Cutting Machine Tools: 400,000
Soviet apologists will typically make the case that most of this aid started to arrive after the “decisive” Battle of Stalingrad, but Stalingrad was only decisive because all the other battles after it were decisive as well. If the Battle of Kursk in 1943 had followed the German plan, Stalingrad would have been reduced to a historical footnote.

What made the war against Germany decisive was the overwhelming weight of men and materials leagued against the Axis power. But even if we merely focus on Soviet production, here too we have to acknowledge a massive debt to the West. Most Soviet industries were not built up in some autarkic dreamworld as Leftists and Russophiles love to imagine. In Facing The Abyss, the British nationalist A.K.Chesteron comments on Anthony C. Sutton’s study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917 to 1930:
"So far from Russia’s pulling herself up by her own boot-laces, as Communist propaganda would have us believe, almost all of the projects of the First Five Year Plan were designed by American companies. At least ninety-five percent of the industrial structure received Western assistance, the agreements to grant concessions having been reached by the Russian Congress of Councils of the National Economy as early as December 1917" (p 69-70)

"In the development of the Russian iron and steel industry, Britain’s huge Lena Goldfields Ltd. Obtained a concession to operate blast furnaces and steel works in the Urals, where a German firm, Bergman, was busy restoring metal plants and manufacturing heavy machinery, together with guns, shells, and small arms for export. Lena Goldfields also re-opened the pre-war Ridder mine complex for the production of lead-zinc. The powerful Deutsche Bank of Germany provided long-term loans. Bryner & Company (U.K.) contributed to meet Soviet foreign exchange through the export of zinc concentrates and two years after the period covered by Sutton a smelter built by Lena produced thirty-four per cent of the total Russian output of zinc." (p 70-71)
This pattern of a technologically backward Soviet Union relying on infusions of Western know-how ran all the way through to the final demise of the USSR in 1991. My own uncle, a high-ranking executive for the British chemical company ICI, spent several years in Russia in the 1960 and 1970s overseeing the construction of a massive chemical processing plant with technology that the Russians were incapable of providing for themselves.

The Two-Act War

So far, we can say that the Red Army was not Russian, but instead a polyglot force in which Russians were probably underrepresented. We can also say that the Western Allies fought Germany not only on the land, but also in the air and on the sea, while the Soviet Union only fought Germany on one of these elements. We can point out that the high number of casualties between the two (2,742,909 German military personnel up to the end of 1944 and between 8 and 14 million Soviets) is testament mainly to the indecisiveness of the fighting between them, rather than a measure of either side's victory.

When it comes to the sinews of war, we can also say that the Soviets were overwhelmingly dependent on Western assistance, both in building their “own” industries in the 1920s and 1930s, and through the enormous supplies that the Americans and British delivered directly to their doorstep during the war.

Bletchley Park: reading the enemy's mind.
I have not even mentioned the fact that UK code breakers gave the Allies an enormous intelligence advantage over Germany, something that also immeasurably benefitted the Soviets.

Bearing all this in mind, the Soviet share in the defeat of Germany can be reckoned at no more than one third of the total, and probably less. If we look at it in terms of strictly the Russians, we have to reduce that to around a quarter at best.

But it must also be remembered that WWII was merely a coda or sequel to WWI, the Great War. In that war, Russia, despite the vastness of its armies, was crushed and humiliated, and it was only by the tremendous victories won by General Haig on the Western Front in 1918 that an otherwise victorious Germany was brought to its knees, allowing Russia to regain the extensive territories it had surrendered at Brest-Litovsk.

So, if we view WWI and WWII as different parts of a single struggle entitled “The Defeat of German Power in the Early 20th Century,” then, the Russian contribution shrinks even more, possibly to as little as an eighth or a tenth – this is about the same level as the French contribution to the two World Wars.

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 3

via Occidental Observer

Part 1
Part 2

Shneur Odze
Your interview with the European Knights Project was actually quite circumspect in not explicitly mentioning the Jews. But anyone who was informed would be able to join the dots. However even talking in code, it was still enough to get you suspended. So obviously the climate is far worse than many thought, about the frankness over the real causes of White dispossession and cultural Marxism — even within UKIP! Did you overestimate the extent of freedom of speech?

As naive as this may sound, I in fact did overestimate how much free speech one would be afforded when speaking one’s mind about Cultural Marxism and Jewish involvement.

I care about Britain and a part of me believed that my party did, as well. Most of the people who volunteer for UKIP, run as candidates, and support us genuinely do. I firmly believe that. Sadly, I now recognise that party elite are more concerned with how they’re viewed and the interests of their financial backers than the nation they claim they’re fighting for.

Still, as my statement was made with Britain’s best interest at heart, I thought I’d have a little more latitude. I didn’t mention the Jews by name, nor did I blame every Jew, just a few that are making a mess of my beloved homeland.

I honestly — and again this might be naïve — never thought simply alluding to Jews being behind the fall of the South African Nationalist government and subsequent genocide, and as you’ve stated, dispossession of Western European people, and a couple of innocuous tweets would be enough to have UKIP pull the plug on me without a hearing.

I still can’t fathom how it’s possible that I had become a national scandal.

Farage typically tells the media that he knows few of us by name and doesn’t have an opinion on our comments. But in my case he held a press conference calling me an embarrassment — never once explaining why what I said was so embarrassing.
And this obsession didn’t end there.

When I spoke to UKIP chairman Steven Crowther this past week, he again discussed the European Knights project interview, seemed to know what I’d said word for word. Considering how many of us there are, and the loads of trouble other parliamentary candidates have gotten into, one has to ask why my particular case was such a big deal.

It was because I dared mention the Jews.

Although the Muslims are protected, one can get away with criticising them. Several Jewish UKIP parliamentary/MEP candidates literally racially abused Muslims, calling them “savages”, insinuating that Muslim constituencies would be involved in electoral fraud, even demanding their immediate deportation, yet in the press Farage called them Facebook mistakes.

It shows how much pull particular special interest groups have and how quickly UKIP are prepared to throw free speech into the abattoir when the Jews are mentioned.

I pointed out the hypocrisy to UKIP’s chairman, but he didn’t budge. When I now call head office I often open the conversation with, “Hi can I speak to so and so”. When asked my name I typically respond “Je suis Jack Sen”.

But then again it’s not truly appropriate, as “Je Suis Charlie Hebdo” was not about protecting free speech, but giving people who incite hatred and resulting violence, on European soil a free pass to do so.

Daily Express publisher Richard Desmond donated £1 million to UKIP. Do you think that this has had any influence on UKIP policy proposals? Has Desmond effectively made UKP into controlled opposition?

You’ve raised a great point — one that hardly anyone inside UKIP has even recognised. I sat down for a pint the other day with a local chairman who’s also had some issues like me because he too thinks outside the box. I introduced the notion that UKIP is in fact controlled opposition.  It was remarkable to see his expression change when he realised we were volunteering our time for an anti-establishment party that just might be part of the establishment.

Before joining the party I saw UKIP as an organic nationalist movement, supported by both patriotic civic and ethnic British nationalists. In stark contrast to groups like the EDL and Britain First which are funded by Zionist Jewish American financiers, UKIP never had an overtly anti-Islamic agenda and when we talked about immigration and grooming gangs it was more about rescuing Britain than attacking others.

The other groups I mentioned claim they’re nationalists when what they are is serving Israel’s and American neocon interests.

But, to be honest, I’m not sure if UKIP was ever the organic movement I once naively believed it was.

I say this due to a few things I have discovered since my suspension.

Firstly, I discovered that the man commenting in a major Jewish publication that covered my Berger tweets was someone by the name of Shneur Odze, a Lubavitcher who runs UKIP Friends of Israel. He is apparently an MEP candidate, good mates with Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall and a regular speaker on the Jewish lobby circuit.

He has photos of himself with Nigel Farage all over his account.  I then discovered he was also a follower of mine on Twitter. One need only connect the dots to understand what happened.

Then there’s a conversation I had after my suspension with a fellow parliamentary candidate in the North West who, like most candidates I’ve spoken to, was very supportive of me. Unlike me, he was in a seat deemed winnable by UKIP HQ.

He detailed a conversation he had with a Jewish lobbyist in London, some 300 miles away. The man’s organisation wanted to do a story on him, pay for a trip down to London and put him up for the night in a posh hotel. Question is where did they get this contact info? He doesn’t have his personal email on his site.

It was quite bizarre. He is a tad naïve when it comes to this sort of thing, so he thought nothing of it until I brought it up.

The fact that not a solitary soul at head office would even speak to me after my suspension tells me all I need to know about how they see candidates that dare tell the truth.

I’d like to add that although I was shut out, even blocked by top officials in UKIP, many of my fellow UKIP parliamentary candidates, disgruntled with the party and supportive of my efforts, did reach out. The support from people on the ground in my constituency has been wonderful.

Also, quite a few members of the British National Party (BNP) have reached out to me since the suspension, commending me for my decision to speak out. One of them offered to put me in touch with BNP party Chairman Adam Walker, who’d heard about how I had been treated by UKIP. Adam and I have spoken quite a bit over the past week. I am impressed with the manner in which he wants to take the BNP forward and was pleased to see that our ideals and vision of a better Britain lined up. It’s nice to know authentic nationalism is not dead.

Was Enoch Powell right in predicting racial strife in the UK of the future? Or will the Brits muddle along without making any drastic changes as White Britain slinks away to oblivion?

The polarising Tory minister was spot on when he said there would be rivers of blood in the streets if we continued to allow non-Western people to flood our nation. And I am saying this from a unique perspective as my grandfather was of Indian origin. Although I don’t present as Indian, I am obviously not 100% British.

This has given me the unique ability to take a step back and look at things objectively.

Ethnicities with very different cultures and religious backgrounds simply don’t mix. Having vast swathes of immigrants landing on our shores only serves leftist politicians, big business and groups that thrive when the host nation is weakened.

Immigrants and minorities provide the people trying to destroy our societies from within the ability to incite hatred and collect votes: the political right benefit by importing cheap labour. Sadly, it’s the people on the street that suffer.

Before the last election, I believed that immigration would be an issue that people prioritised when voting. Unfortunately, based on the results, I am inclined to think that nothing’s going to change anytime soon.

Whether it’s fear of being branded racist or historical party allegiance, I have no idea, but to vote in the two parties responsible for Britain’s demise again and again and again, amounts to madness.

This is probably the reason why I joined UKIP in the first place. UKIP’s positon on immigration is that ALL forms of mass immigration are wrong. Whether it’s from White or non-White nations, due to the impact it would have on Britain’s unique culture. As a British culturalist, I want to see Britain’s indigenous culture protected at all costs.

And this is where my opinions vary to a great degree from many self-described White Nationalists. I believe that whether mass immigration originates in Africa or Eastern Europe, it’s detrimental to British society. For me this is more about preserving indigenous people and culture, that happen to be White.

An organic assimilation of people we hand pick to move into our country is very different than encouraging mass immigration as our government have done for decades. If I had my way, I’d close all the borders and repatriate anyone who wasn’t able  to, or refused to assimilate. We’d only take immigrants deemed culturally assimilable.

I am certain if the great Enoch Powell were alive today he’d be fighting mass immigration whether it was from Eastern Europe or sub-Saharan Africa, as he did the West Indies.

Would you agree that devoting all our energies to tackling the Islamic issue, is to fall into a trap — that it keeps us from seeing who the main culprits are, organized Jews and White elites in partnership?

Yes, certianly. Islamic radicalism is a threat, but only because we continue to allow it to be. We need to impose a moratorium on non-Western immigration into Britain, implement and enforce laws that prevent radicalization, and cease invading and destabilizing foreign countries.

A stable Libya and North Africa were what stood between us and millions of African migrants. One has to ask which nations and special interests groups pushed us into conflict with Libya, and opened our floodgates in the process. It’s the same ones that took us into war in Iraq, pushed us into arming the rebels in Syria and are now encouraging us to attack Iran.

I believe we need to start holding the people behind our foreign policy and push for open borders accountable for their actions. Although it’s easy to hate people committing crimes and corrupting our culture on the ground, we’d be better served focusing on the politicians, journalists, policy makers, lawyers and activists behind the madness.

We also need to be careful not to allow our corrupted media to focus too much of our attention on Islam due to the catastrophic repurcussions it can have on our soil. I merely think of Zionist terrorist Anders Breivik, who’d been incited by the likes of Pamela Geller and Debbie Schussel to kill scores of innocent Norwegian children. Both those women, in my opinion, should be charged with inciting mass murder. They’re as responsible as Breivik.

In fact the aforementioned Geller and Schusslel both had the audacity to sympathise with Breivik afterwards.

We need to move away from what has been referred to as Kosher nationalism before more even more blood is spilled.

Would you agree that the whole issue of indigenous dispossession cannot be tackled without Whites being able to freely discuss the Jewish question head on?  That it is too central a component to ignore? If so, how would you go about this?

I would certainly agree. Without addressing the root causes of our demise there’s no way we will be able to implement the changes needed.

We need to facilitate an environment where constructive criticism of outgroups is possible without the fear of recrimination.

Allowing Europeans to freely criticise people that undermine their interests is the key. Being able to criticise Jews, not on their Jewishness, but their allegiances and agendas they push, as I tried to do when I Tweeted Jewish Labour MP, Luciana Berger, will facilitate that.

Mere mention that Berger had foreign loyalties was enough for Nigel Farage to hold a press conference on national television, say I embarrassed the party and immediately suspend me.

What sort of message does that send to other people wishing to express these same sentiments?

Knowing what you know about UKIP, do you regret running? What was behind your running in the first place?

Not at all.

My desire to do right by my family, my ancestral home, West Lancashire, the innocent children I see being harmed by our establishment in Britain and abroad is all that matters to me. Running as a prospective member of parliament for UKIP and being as unceremoniously suspended as I was, has given me an opportunity to reach a lot of people.  For that I am thankful.

Without my being suspended, my voice would have had less of an impact. Although people in the South African community would have heard my roar, I doubt Britain would have heard a peep.