New U.S. nuclear doctrine is next step to build infrastructure enabling global strike on Russia – MP Slutsky

MOSCOW. Jan 15 (Interfax) – The United States’ new nuclear doctrine is aimed at protecting the infrastructure which is being created in Europe to enable a strike on Russia, the State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Leonid Slutsky said on Facebook.

“It’s hardly a revelation that the U.S. is building comprehensive infrastructure to support Prompt Global Strike. Under the pretext of deterring a missile strike by North Korea and Iran, supposed missile-defense positions are being built in Poland and Romania – they are capable of launching offensive cruise missiles at Russia without any serious modification,” Slutsky said.

Hence, “the Americans have been consistently creating infrastructure enabling a global strike on Russia and have just approved a doctrine in defense of this infrastructure,” he said.

Slutsky said he considered it necessary to comment on newspaper leaks regarding the U.S. nuclear doctrine “because of the blatant lies in the document, whose premises and arguments are false.”

The doctrine presumes that “supposedly, Washington’s biggest concern is the Russian national security strategy, which puts emphasis on the threat of limited nuclear escalation,” Slutsky said. “Moscow is supposedly threatening to use nuclear weapons in a limited way first, giving the wrong idea that these threats can paralyze the United States and NATO,” Slutsky said, said, adding that he was quoting the doctrine practically word-for-word.

“The question is who, where, and when has Moscow ever threatened? Why would Moscow threaten anyone at all? The strong does not threaten. The strong gives a warning. All Moscow did was warn that it would not tolerate an invasion. That it would retaliate against any invasion attempt,” Slutsky said.

The U.S. presents “false arguments regarding the emergency circumstances” under which it will use nuclear weapons even in case of a conventional “strategic attack.” “In addition to the natural reason of an attack on the U.S.’ civilian population, it also mentioned an attack on allies and partners of the U.S. Clearly, this would be a reason for war under any circumstances, and in any case, Russia has no intention to do anything like that,” he said.

There is one exception, however: “if the command-and-control stations and the attack-warning facilities, which are mentioned in the same context, are used as tools of attack on Russia,” Slutsky said.

Exclusive: Russian Leadership in Transition – From Stalin to Putin

Russia, the country whose experience, tragedies and victories, people with great ability to create and achieve great goals, can and should become a true friend and partner of the American people.

By
VT

January 13, 2018

By Galima Galiullina, Ph.D.

Lust that fed invaders of all stripes to young Russia always turned into disappointment as attempts to conquer this most rebellious country always failed. From time immemorial, heaven sent Russia a savior – a strong and intelligent leader who gathered people and together they defeated armies breaking grandiose plans of her enemies. So, in the twentieth century, Russia was saved by the unity of its people and Joseph Stalin; in the twenty-first century Russian people embraced Vladimir Putin as such a savior.

In the twentieth century, the Soviet people managed to become one of two centers of power and launch a new civilization. The Soviet Union brought a new experiment inspired by Marxist ideals to establish social control of the means of production wresting from capitalist hands all aspects of life.

In the west, capitalism marched on its divine mission to conquer the planet and perhaps beyond. The struggle between advocates of international communist revolution, and their patriotic Russian socialist rivals was the fundamental crisis in post-revolutionary Russia, and it continues today. Since the end of World War II, Capitalism rose to dominate most societies but now fades due to its own inherent contradictions, and the demise of socialism as an alternative balancing force.

After a decade long struggle, Stalin emerged as champion and embarked on ambitious efforts to industrialize post-revolutionary Russia. His goals were to assure its defense, modernize agriculture, and produce consumer goods. Between the time Stalin consolidated power directed to socialism in one country, and the advent of the Second World War, the USSR became the symbol of success of Soviets and the envy of the old industrialized society.

At the end of the 20th century Russia again found itself nearly defeated by the international financial assault force that had nearly seized control in the 1920’s. In the twenty-first century she managed to rise after an almost deadly knockout engineered by western white-collar invaders and quickly re-entered the battle. Not only reasserting her own sovereign rights, Russia also fights to protect weak nations threatened with enslavement through 21stcentury financial warfare and frighteningly lethal weapons.

For a short period of 25 years, the West destroyed Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, countries left defenseless after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and turned Afghanistan into a poppy plantation for the production of heroin, and a sinkhole left from mining rare earths and strategic minerals. Putin’s Russia is returning hope for justice to these countries through its own survival and the victory it brought to Syria.

What motivates this mysterious country? What is the secret of its victories and what lies behind the Russian leadership? Is it a strong and cruel tyrant lording over humble and unhappy people (as numerous researchers on Russia now claim), or an inspired union of the nation trusting the electorate with its own destiny? Or maybe something else?

Overcoming the Subjective View of History

The great Russian philosopher and ethnographer Lev Gumilev, one of the first intellectuals who approached the secrets of Eurasia, considered it possible to understand the history of peoples using a multi-scopic perspective. You can see the object from a bird’s eye view, from the top of a mountain, and from the mouse hole.

This method gives tremendous effect. When you look at Stalin, as I did in the past from a mouse hole, the tribal fear and memory of losses obscured my understanding of his figure in history. Myths viewed at this angle are frighteningly bloody.

But it’s worth to climb to the top of the mound, see the cities built by Soviet people, the boundless wheat fields, millions of people involved in the process of inspired work, the Victory banner at the Reichstag, and images of Joseph Stalin begin to change.

From the bird’s-eye view the image acquires the grandeur of a great dreamer and inspirer, leader and ascetic, the image of a visionary and the harbinger of a new era. The features of the civilization that he was able to build with the Soviet people are emerging today in hopes of peoples around the world, the rapid changes in Russia and its spiritual and material development.

In modern Russia, Stalin and his role in history became the core item for understanding events as Putin addresses his domestic and geopolitical challenges. The extraction of truth about Stalin and his work from official history is fundamental to understanding processes which led to the dissolution of the USSR.

These events culminated in Gorbachev’s initiation of collective penance for Soviet crimes, and sins of Stalin against freedom and democracy. National guilt was alieved through confession and repentance called forth from the pulpit of mass media pushing persistent messages that Stalin’s guilt must be shared by each Soviet soul. Psychological entrainment forced all Soviets to mingle Stalin’s crimes and guilt with their own experience resulting in the removal of Stalin’s legacy from their memory. The outcome of innocent people rejecting Stalin, was how Soviets destroyed the USSR.

My Transformative Journey

From Kirovsk, my familiy in the Gulag Portrait studio, 1939

I was born in the USSR at the time Stalin died (or was killed by conspirators) and for a long time I was absolutely sure that the country got rid of a tyrant and dictator. My parents survived the years of Stalin’s rule, having been in exile to the Murmansk region, in the Arctic.

My mother was sent as a 15-year-old girl in an animal carriage enduring a two long months train trip with hundreds of fellow exiles to Murmansk. My grandfather, her father, a successful and respected landowner and owner of a herd of a thousand mares, was sent to Siberia by court verdict for his resistance to collectivization, during which he lost all his wealth and family. In the 1990’s we received an official document stating that he was shot in 1938.

My parents created a family in Kirovsk and in 1937 they had a first-born, my elder brother. The exiles lived in barracks and my parents remembered that people in uniform came every night and took away one of their neighbors. No one ever saw them again.

A children’s doctor (an exile from Leningrad) taught my young parents to raise their son to be cheerful. The only picture of the young family that we have preserved since that time testifies that some Gulags were not a hell, the exiles could form families, give birth to children and raise them as cheerfully as possible. In the memories of my parents, their part of the Gulag was a multinational camp, where all nations and nationalities tried to preserve their traditions – Ukrainians loved to kindle bonfires and sing and dance their beautiful dances, Crimean Tatars treated their neighbors to dishes of their national cuisine.

My father and his friends were invited as actors to play Japanese soldiers in the film “Volochaevskie Days,” when the brothers Vasiliev filmed scenes in Kirovsk portraying the 1905 war with Japan. Many years later I saw my father then young and fit in this film. At the beginning of the war with fascist Germany, my mother with her son and mother-in-law were evacuated to the Urals, and my father went to war.

He reached Koenigsberg in the 3rd Belorussian Front where he was seriously wounded. For heroism in battle, he was awarded the Order of the Red Star. Many years later I asked my father: How could you fight for the country that did this to its citizens? “I fought not for Stalin, but for the Motherland,” answered my father. And many years later I realized the depth of his answer.

But only in 2017, did I understand how events affecting my family were the result of a struggle among revolutionaries from the first days of the 1917 October Revolution. Two factors formed my view that there was a capitalist inspired coup against Joseph Stalin, and these same issues remain in play today inside Russia. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many researchers have discovered evidence previously hidden in archives, both in the former Soviet Union and in western countries.

These records confirm several facts, chiefly, that Stalin as proponent of “socialism in one country” was in a winner-take-all battle with Right-Block Trotskyists intent on international revolution as quickly and widely as possible. Putting aside the inevitable stain these archives may suffer from periodic filleting and salting to cover or redirect blame, or claim glory for some achievement, objective conclusions can be drawn that coincide with historical fact.

Add to this the unmistakable similarity between events Stalin faced in the period 1922 through 1940, with events Soviet, and then Russian, leaders faced between 1989 and 2002, caused me to reassess my attitude toward Stalin and my Father’s belief he fought for Russia – not Stalin himself.

Stalin was the first head of state in the twentieth century holding a strategic Eurasian view for development of the USSR focused on its relations with other countries, and relations between peoples and ethnic groups among themselves. It was he who laid the strategy for creating a unique state in which the “blooming complexity” of numerous nations and nationalities turned into a new great civilization, and he succeeded.

Vladimir Putin inherited from the Soviet Union not only the ruins of a great civilization, but also something impossible to destroy quickly – the mentality of the Russians. The cultural code of Soviet people retains memory of the great empires of Eurasia, and pulses in the rhythm of the heart and the recalcitrant spirit of the inhabitants of the Great Steppe. Perhaps, the greatness of this goal – to continue the Eurasian idea in the new century, inspired Putin at the beginning of the road leading soon from Paris to Beijing through Russia’s Eurasian heartland.

What did these two leaders face when forming teams? Here the situations are very similar. Stalin had to choose from a snake’s club of those who could agree to turn steeply from Trotsky’s plans. Trotsky enjoyed certain advantages brought through his allegiance to Wall Street, including finance, a global network of spies, and a somewhat coherent theoretical base. Stalin, had virtually none of these assets but gathered the support of nationalists with practical ideas for planting socialism in Russia itself.

Stalin had to constantly maneuver between the Trotskyites, former Socialist-Revolutionaries, hiding Mensheviks, convinced Marxists and inflexible Leninists. Putin has to navigate between liberals, who still occupy many key positions in governing the country, communists, Slavophiles and Westerners, nationalists and globalists.

The social base of the opponents of both Stalin and Putin is quite extensive with constant support from abroad. But Putin’s position today is more stable than that of Stalin, partly due to Stalin’s achievements, and because Russians passed through the hard school of the 1990s experiencing enormous disappointments that now turn opposition arguments into annoying and largely useless noise.

The goals of Stalin and Putin are similar in two key points:

  • The construction of a strong and independent sovereign state where social justice and freedom of citizens are the top priority.
  • Russia is the core of the Eurasian continental belt that unites the peoples of Eurasia in their quest for development free from neo-colonial ties impeding each nation to realize its own potential.

Stalin and Putin are united by a dream – to free themselves forever from the trap of international finance, in which Russian people invariably played the role of barbarians and slaves, while the land and its riches were given away to foreigners. Both leaders see and understand the essence of Russia as a powerful center, pulling together and unifying the numerous yet diverse peoples of Eurasia.

As under Stalin, the peoples of Russia under Putin again reject mirages of the European community, instead comforting themselves as heirs and successors of a great world power. Stalin’s victories today again inspire my contemporaries and give them strength in the battle against the suffocating embrace of globalists.

Enemies and opponents of the plans and goals of Stalin and Putin have hardly changed over the past century. It is international finance, striving for world domination, blurring borders and destroying sovereignty of states established as the civilized world order at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Weapons of the globalist enemies – debt enslavement of the world’s population, the worldwide spread of counter-culture, the disintegration of morals, the destruction of Christianity and Islam, corruption of power structures, powerful propaganda built on lies, educating populations to be consumers and killing creativity.

The accusations and criticism of Stalin and Putin by the global network of liberal politicians, compradors in Russia and the USSR, oligarchs and their servants are surprisingly similar. Both are called dictators, their control system is the “regime” and “prison of peoples,” or even worse – “Empire of Evil” or “Axis of Evil.” Both leaders are accused of killing their political opponents and aggression towards the world around them.

1937: The History of Drama

Consider, for example, specific historical events, the validity of accusations of Stalin’s mass terror and the murder of political opponents. The most popular “horror story” is the myth of 1937. The processes of the arrests and trials between 1934 and 1938 were not the result of Stalin’s paranoid fears and murderous inclinations. These were trials of a large group of conspirators who continued the work of Trotsky after his exile in 1929.

The purpose of the plot was to destroy the Soviet Union with the help of foreign forces and means. The most revealing is the third trial on March 2, 1937, involving a group of conspirators known as “The Right-Trotskyite Bloc.” The bloc united underground anti-Soviet groups of Trotskyists, Rightists, Zinovievites, Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, with bourgeois nationalists of Ukraine, Byelorussia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Central Asian republics. United in their desire to derail Stalin’s socialism in one country by any means possible, and propelled by a desire to reach their own goals, Trotsky directed them to establish contacts with German Intelligence (1921), the British Intelligence Service (1926), and Japanese Intelligence beginning in 1934.

The Right-Trotskyite Block planned to organize a wide network of sabotage groups, which would rely on dissatisfied Bolsheviks, remnants of the kulaks, basmachists fighting on in Central Asia after the civil war, and church leaders. At the behest of the fascist intelligence services, a bandit-insurgency movement was to be launched all over the country simultaneously with the onset of the German armed offensive.

France and Britain were promised much of what Trotsky achieved initially after the October Revolution – specifically that western capitalists could resume business concessions that Stalin had interrupted. Japan was promised the surrender of the Soviet Maritime Region for their contribution. The greatest hopes of the conspirators were to prepare the USSR for defeat in the war with Germany.

A tactic successfully played against the Tsar in 1917 as Lenin and Trotsky were sent to Russia as “defeatists” intent on ending Russian participation in World War I at the behest of Germany. The strategy was carefully laid to restore International Communism from Stalin’s heretical National Socialism.

During the investigation, a shocking picture of the Trotskyists’ preparation for the defeat of the USSR in the war with Germany was revealed, and Trotsky was absolutely sure of the support of his plans by the German fascist leadership.

The testimony of one defendant, S. A. Bessonov, described how Trotsky told his supporters “working in the diplomatic arena to sabotage formal agreements in order to stimulate the Germans’ interest in unofficial agreements with opposition groups. We should not, he said, stop before making broad territorial concessions.”

Bessonov added: “We will go to the concession of Ukraine, Trotsky said, consider this in your work and in your conversations with the Germans. He went on to discuss issues related to the work of the Trotskyite organizations in the Soviet Union, and at the same time emphasized with special force that, in the situation of an imminent inevitable war, the only possible form of the Trotskyites’ coming to power is the defeat of the Soviet Union in this war.

Then he dwelt on the question of the methods of work of the Trotskyite organizations in the Soviet Union, with particular emphasis on the need to exacerbate the most extreme terrorist methods of struggle, according to which the physical elimination of Stalin and his most loyal comrades-in-arms was planned.

Bessonov went further, revealing details of a later conversation with Trotsky in 1934 calling for assassination of writer Maxim Gorky because he is widely popular as Stalin’s closest friend and conductor of the party’s general line. Trotsky lamented that supporters from the intelligentsia, largely influenced by Gorky, are moving away from us. Plans of the conspirators were successful, Maxim Gorky and his son, also Menzhinsky and Kirov were killed by different methods.

One of the criminals, shot by the decision of the court in 1937, was Marshal Tukhachevsky. The contemporary liberal public calls Tukhachevsky’s removal from the political arena the greatest crime of Stalin, since the shooting of the marshal and the co-conspirators weakened the Red Army before the war. Conveniently, Wikipedia does not mention the crimes of Tukhachevsky, committed by him together with Trotsky. Tukhachevsky commanded the cruel suppression of the uprising of the sailors of the Baltic Fleet in Kronstadt, and during the suppression of the peasant uprising in Tambov province where Tukhachevsky used poison gas.

Instead Stalin is painted a bloody executioner who, during the period of the country’s preparation for defense against German attack, engaged in the destruction of the army.

The Real Scale of Repression

Stalin had no option to save the country, which he created together with the Soviet people, than to subject the criminals to a severe trial. Note that all processes were open. The 18 defendants in the 3rd trial fully admitted their guilt and were sentenced to be shot.

If we weigh on the scales of history the value of their lives and the value of preserving the USSR from their planned destruction, Stalin deserves rehabilitation on this point alone in the memory of those who continue the work of their grandfathers, fathers and mothers.

In the Western press, the number of the victims of Stalinist repressions grew exponentially, especially during the Perestroika years. The largest figure – 60 million – is claimed in Solzhenitsyn’s work “The Gulag Archipelago.” Solzhenitsyn himself is an interesting case when considering shifting opinion about the Stalin era. Once a popular dissonant in the USSR, he came west in glory and returned to Russia a celebrity whose star was in its decendency.

Amazing is the popularity of this man in the Western intellectual environment. Interred in a camp from 1945, he served part of an 8-year sentence in Moscow in a government scientific laboratory plying his mathematical skills, then in a Kazakhstan camp until his release in 1953. He published his eponymous “The Gulag Archipelago” based on personal experience while serving as camp Librarian. His access to archival records was unlikely as were his estimates of victims, which remain uncertain by most accounts but tend to much lower figures.

Seen as fabricating murderous myths about the Soviet Union and Stalin, the writer provokes resentment in most modern Russians. Solzhenitsyn realized that his writings could bring him fame provided that he would create an incredibly cruel portrait of Stalin and his associates. Ironically, his salad days in America ended in frustration as he gagged on western hypocrisy, returning to Russia a sad fugitive seeking redemption. Whether or not he eventually regretted the black paint he spilled over Stalin, he became supportive of Putin and the efforts to restore Russian national dignity.

As for figures of the extent of suffering between 1921 and 1954, Nikita Khrushchev obtained from the Prosecutor of the USSR Rudenko, Interior Minister Kruglov and Minister of Justice Gorshenin, the following figures:

Between 1921 and 1954 some 3,777,380 people were convicted of counter-revolutionary crimes. Of these, 642,980 (17%) were sentenced to the maximum punishment (execution). Another 2,369,220 (63%) people were banished to the various camps serving terms of up to 25 years. Finally, deportation of 765,180 (20%) people occurred throughout the 33-year period.

Demonization of Stalin accelerated widely in the West after World War II, chiefly through efforts of Trotsky’s sponsors in New York and London. Having failed to kill Stalin before, during, or after the War, western media amplified exaggerated claims of crimes against Russians and those in the Soviet controlled area of Eastern Europe. Trotskyite Bolshevicks are nothing if not persistent.

In an astonishing move at the end of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev launched into an unscheduled six-hour review of his predecessor’s grand reign. It was, however, a long and completely unexpected diatribe of Stalin and everything he stood for. In his speech, titled “On the Cult of the Personality of Stalin and its Consequences” Khrushchev laid the foundation for the collapse of the USSR, debunking and overthrowing Joseph Stalin.

One participant of this Congress, the First Secretary of the Chelyabinsk Regional Committee of the CPSU, M.S. Solomentsev, characterized the perception of this report by delegates as lies, and the collective betrayal of Stalin by Khrushchev and other members of the Central Committee as a brash attempt to absolve themselves of any guilt they ascribed solely to Stalin himself.

To my generation, all the conspirators and traitors were portrayed as innocent victims of Stalin’s cruelty and paranoia. In history textbooks, there was practically nothing about Trotsky’s true role in the history of Russia and the USSR, about his crimes against the Russian people, or about his active network of spies and saboteurs. But even in the Khrushchev era, when Khrushchev got rid of compromising evidence of his own deeds, he failed to completely whitewash traitors and criminals.

In 1956, The Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a decision, “On the study of open trials in the case of Bukharin, Rykov, Zinoviev, Tukhachevsky and others,” refusing the rehabilitation of these traitors because of “their long anti-Soviet struggle.” Despite the CPSU refusal in 1956 to restore these traitor’s reputation, Gorbachev, in 1988, continued what Khrushchev began. This time no CPSU intervened to stop the fake historical narrative of the Trotskyites from becoming official Soviet policy, and confirming to the world that Stalin was the sole monster.

Henry Yagoda was not rehabilitated even in the time of Gorbachev, from which it can be concluded that, with all the desire to rewrite history, it was impossible to whitewash this “figure” even with the “superintendents of Perestroika.” Consequently, the crimes in which he was accused and for which he was punished were absolutely “real and grave.”

In the years of perestroika, when liberal pro-Western structures in Russia had wide access to the archives, they salted the testimony of criminals, adding meaningless praises to Stalin to create the impression that the accused became invalids after torture repeating anything they were told to say. And they removed what specifically described their own guilt. The devil is always in the details!

In an interview about the events back in 1956 and first published in 2006, Solomentsev recalled the following:

“Such assessments about the role of Stalin, which we heard from the mouth of Khrushchev, no one ever even in the West did not give. We knew a lot, but did not know much, and we were surprised at how, why, these facts did not reach us? There were questions that aroused questions, sorry for the tautology. “But was it at all true,” then what did Nikita Sergeyevich (Khrushchev) tell us about? He is impulsive, I would call him a nugget, big and strong. He kept moving away from the text of the report.

And these digressions concerned some specific examples, the facts that took place, they concerned the personality of Stalin. Even if it was done by other people, everything was attributed to Stalin. Including all repression. Nikita Sergeyevich did not say a word in self-criticism that he participated in the decision-making process. That he participated in the repression and when he worked in Ukraine and when he worked in Moscow. This is for certain known. I saw these documents. He did it, too. But not a word about it.

Another Soviet intellectual, famous in the West for his anti-Soviet works (Alexander Zinoviev, “The Yawning Heights” is the most famous of them), being in forced emigration in Europe, was able to understand Stalin’s role in the history of the USSR and in an interview with the newspaper Le Figaro he said: “Churchill was a genius. But he’s a puppy compared to Stalin.”

“I have been a convinced anti-Stalinist since the age of 17. We even began to prepare an attempt on Stalin. If in 1939 I was condemned to the death penalty, this would be fair. Now, reflecting on this whole century, I confirm:

Stalin was the greatest personality of the 20th century, the greatest political genius … To my shame, I must admit that I paid tribute to the bad attitude about Stalin as the leader of the country in the years of preparation for war and in the war years, when I was an anti-Stalinist and eyewitness of the events of those years.

Many years of study, research and reflection took place before the question “How would you behave if you were in Stalin’s place?” I answered myself: I could not do better than Stalin. ”

Stalin – A Great Commander and Savior of the Nation

In the opinion of many Russians today the courage and self-control of Stalin at critical moments of the Great Patriotic War became key moments in raising the spirit of the masses. For the leadership of the USSR in the city of Kuibyshev, a bunker was prepared for shelter from the advancing fascist troops. Stalin refused to leave the Kremlin even when Hitler’s troops occupied the suburbs of Moscow.

The parade on Red Square on October 25, 1941 was a demonstration of the Soviet people’s determination to win. Stalin’s words from the rostrum of the Mausoleum “We will win!” We will win “- they listened throughout the country. Throughout the war, and especially the most difficult first year, the courage, determination and competence of Stalin inspired the entire Soviet people.

In the hours of despair Stalin embodied the belief in the ultimate victory. The counter-offensive near Moscow was the beginning of a great victory. Fascists lost half a million fighters in battles near Moscow.

When the fascists invited Stalin to exchange his captured son Yakov for Field Marshal Paulus, Stalin listened to the proposal from his generals who came with the report, went to the window and for a long time remained silent.

Then he returned to the table and asked the generals: “What will the other fathers say about this?” We note that both Stalin’s sons fought against the Nazis. Vasily Dzhugashvili flew on his combat aircraft without a parachute, since he had no right to be captured.

Rethinking their history today, Russians are realizing Stalin’s role in the victory in the Great Patriotic War. The growth of patriotism is not accidental and is not the result of propaganda efforts. Constant accusations of Russian aggression and attempts to strangle Russia via sanctions, combined with stubborn western refusal to recognize Russia as a country with its own national interests, are the sources now of the growth of Russian patriotism.

It is not by chance that the spontaneous “Immortal Regiment” movement, uniting Russians around the world under banners of the Great Patriotic War together with portraits of those who fought for the USSR, attracts new participants each year.

In the spring of 2017 in the US, the ranks of the “Immortal Regiment” were 4,000 people, and among them were not only Russians, but also Americans with portraits of their veterans of the Second World War. In 2017 the Levada Center reported 52% of Russians believe that Stalin had a positive impact on the history of the country. And, 38% of Russians consider Stalin to be the greatest leader of the twentieth century. So, history confirmed the correctness of Stalin’s foresight. More than half of Russians became Stalinists!

Industrialization and Collectivization: Two Colossi of a New Civilization

Before the Second World War, Stalin did a tremendous job of turning the USSR into a formidable power fortified for any battle. A clear understanding of the need for accelerated industrialization was reflected in the first five-year plan (1929-1933). The era of the “Great Break” was called upon to turn a peasant country into a powerful industrial nation. Mass mobilization of the population involved young people in the turbulent processes of building cities and plants.

The task of building socialism in one country included the renunciation of bonded concessions, as previously advocated by Trotsky, but the country was critically short of specialists in the field of building large engineered structures. Stalin invited the world’s most talented industrial architect and designer Albert Kahn to help the Soviets create their industrial base. Kahn brought the Soviets just what they needed as his success in the US was based on his talent in design, as well as his method of bringing design, engineering, and construction under his control as an integrated project.

This one-stop-shop approach garnered Kahn some 20% of industrial orders in the United States, including the famous automobile factories in Detroit. Kahn’s methods appealed to Soviet planners especially because they resulted in quickly designing factories, foundries, forges, and other buildings needed to achieve rapid industrialization.

Albert Kahn helped to construct and build 632 plants and factories in the USSR between 1929 and 1932, among them the tractor plants in Stalingrad, Kharkov and Chelyabinsk, Uralvagonzavod, GAZ, ZIS. Already in 1932, the USSR stopped importing tractors from abroad. In the 10 years before the war, 700,000 tractors were produced.

These tractors transformed labor in agriculture. The factories worked on conveyor technology and allowed facilities to transfer to the production of tanks. During the war, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant produced 18,000 tanks. The machinists operating heavy equipment at the converted tractor plants were children as young as 10 years old, replacing fathers and brothers who left to the front. During the construction of the Chelyabinsk plant, 1 million cubic meters of soil was taken by hands and shovels, the plant was designed in 3 months and built in 2 years.

In 1932, Gibbson Jarvi, Chairman of the United Dominion Bank (Great Britain), wrote “I want to clarify that I’m not a Communist or a Bolshevik, I’m a capitalist and an individualist … The Soviet Union is moving forward, while many of our plants are idle and about 3 million our people are looking for work in despair. The five-year- plan was ridiculed and predicted for failure … But you can consider it unquestionable that in the conditions of the five-year plan more was done than planned …

In all the industrial cities that I visited, new areas are being built, built according to a certain plan, with wide streets decorated with trees and squares, with houses of the modern type, schools, hospitals, work clubs, and the inevitable nurseries and children’s homes that take care of the children of working mothers … Do not try to underestimate the Russian plans and do not make mistakes, hoping that the Soviet government can fail … Today’s Soviet Union is a country with a soul and ideals. The Soviet Union is a country of amazing activity. I believe that the aspirations of the Soviet Union are healthy … Perhaps the most important is that young people and workers in the Soviet Union have one thing that unfortunately is lacking today in the capitalist countries, namely, hope.”

In the United States, the Nation Journal, in 1932 wrote: “The four years of the five-year plan brought with them truly remarkable achievements. The Soviet Union worked with the intensity of wartime on the creative task of building a basic life. The face of the country is changing literally beyond recognition … This is true of Moscow with its hundreds of newly paved streets and squares, new buildings, new suburbs and cordon of new factories on its outskirts. This is true of relatively smaller cities.

New cities arose in the steppes and deserts, at least 50 cities with a population of 50,000 to 250,000 people. All of them have arisen in the last four years, each of them is the center of a new enterprise or a number of enterprises built to develop domestic resources. Hundreds of new district power plants and a number of giants, like Dneprostroy, are constantly implementing Lenin’s formula: “Socialism is Soviet power plus electrification” … The Soviet Union organized a mass production of an infinite number of items that Russia had never produced before: tractors, combines, high-quality steels, synthetic rubber, ball bearings, powerful diesel engines, turbines of 50,000 kilowatts, telephone equipment, electrical machines for mining, airplanes, cars, bicycles and several hundred types of new machines … For the first time in history, the Soviet Union extracts aluminum, magnesite, apatite, iodine, potash and many other valuable products.

Guiding points of the Soviet plains are now not the crosses and domes of churches, but grain elevators and silo towers. Electricity penetrates the village, radio and newspapers have won it. Workers learn to work on the newest machines. Peasant boys produce and service agricultural machines, which are bigger and more complex than what America has ever seen. The Soviet Union begins to “think machines.” The Soviet Union is rapidly moving from the century of the tree to the age of iron, steel, concrete and motors.”

Stalin as Personified Power of the USSR

In his efforts to isolate blame on Stalin alone, Nikita Khrushchev wrote about Stalin’s reluctance to reckon with the collective mind, and his tendency to dismiss group consensus. However, the story about Stalin’s collaboration with Kahn shows that he willingly attracted the best specialists for consultations, used their unique experience and knowledge to solve unprecedentedly complex tasks, and execute avant-garde projects.

Even then, Stalin understood the true role of consultation was not do the job for client’s, but to help clients achieve goals by teaching them to do the work themselves. In this way Stalin brought western expertise to Russia but gave away only consulting fees, not decades-long concessions. Stalin’s tremendous erudition was fueled by an extensive personal library, he read up to 500 pages per day, and many thousands of books preserved Stalin’s notes on their pages. His library numbered 20 thousand volumes.

Assessing today the scale of the Stalin reforms, we can realize the level of intellectual culture of Stalin and the power of the individual. There is an interesting comment on this from Joseph Schumpeter, a friend of Hayek, an Austrian political scientist and economist. He wrote in his work “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” in 1945, that he did not meet anyone other than Stalin on such a high intellectual level in the modern world.

American diplomat William Averell Harriman noted in Stalin: “A great mind, an incredible ability to penetrate into details, foresight and amazing human sensitivity. He was better informed than Roosevelt, more realistic than Churchill, in many respects the most effective leader of the war. ”

Marshal Georgy Zhukov, in January-July 1941 – the chief of the General Staff, testified: “Joseph Stalin was not a man with whom it was impossible to mention difficult problems with whom one could not argue and even vigorously defend one’s opinion. If some people say differently, I maintain that their statements are a lie. Stalin had a great erudition, an amazing memory, an exceptional natural mind, and also an amazingly wide knowledge. He listened attentively, sometimes asked questions, and answered. After the end of the debate, he clearly formulated the results.”

A clear vision of the future, careful planning, the ability to ignite the people’s enthusiasm, unite people, find talented creators, asceticism and personal courage – all this allowed Stalin to turn the USSR into a “Great Civilization,” as British authors Sidney and Beatrice Webb titled their book about the USSR, after visiting the Soviet Union in 1932. Spouses Webb were convinced supporters of Stalin and the USSR until the end of their life.

Collectivization, conducted in the 1930s, is one of the objects of the most severe criticism of Stalin’s policy. Thousands of families of the “dekulakized” were sent to the regions of the Far North, Siberia and other places far from civilization. The most actively resisted owners of private farms were shot. But was it possible to industrialize without uniting small farms that did not have equipment and specialists for its maintenance, without agronomists and veterinarians, without engineers and technical specialists? The only answer is no.

The unification of farms into collective and state farms was a necessary condition for the rise of agriculture on the basis of its technical armament, the electrification of farms and rural houses, the training of rural youth in literacy and professions. It was a whole revolution in the life of the younger generation of Stalin’s times. And the opportunity to turn the richest lands of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the vineyards of Georgia and Armenia, the steppes of Kazakhstan into a single powerful economy, integrated into a rapidly growing Union.

Today, the bitter criticism of Stalin, which continues in the circle of liberal publications in Russia and abroad, plays a positive role, because it forces inquisitive minds to turn to facts and histories from the life of the country and reevaluate them in the context of what is happening today in the world and in Russia.

The trend is this: the harder the critic, the greater the recognition of Stalin, especially among young people. Young people today need ideals, heroes who inspire personal history. In search of spiritual support, Russians are increasingly turning to the experience of the generation of grandparents, seeing in those harsh tests that the generations had living under Stalin, genuine reason for pride and admiration.

Conclusion

In 2002, I wrote the book “Leadership in the 21st Century: An Outlook from Russia.” A prediction about Putin was there: “Putin’s historical mission is not really to exaggerate the role of the new Leader, not even to restore the economy. Putin’s mission is his chance to revive the spirit of the nation.

And this mission cannot be either abstracted from the everyday tasks of governing the country, or bent with the pathos of the role of the Messiah. Vladimir Putin is really lucky – history itself entrusted the Mission of the Revival of the Spirit of the Nation to his shoulders. This is the only way to raise and lead Russia from the bed of death, where the funeral team of the collective West is crowding around with sad faces.”

Vladimir Putin with Thunder at rescue sanctuary in Sochi, 2012

Realizing the depth of the national catastrophe, Putin began to cautiously move toward healing the country. The Russians responded instantly, the hardships of humiliation and disintegration aroused in them what had been nurtured by Stalin’s efforts – pride about their country and faith in a brighter future.

Stalin created the USSR not only with the creativity of designers and engineers, the labor of workers and collective farmers, he directed the whole strength of literature, cinema, the gift of artists, musicians and sculptors, to nurture the nation in the spirit of the best human qualities.

He taught his people to live for bright ideals and great goals. No Soviet film came out without viewing and approval by Stalin. And those films, most of which were created during the war years and immediately after the war, are still loved. The good seeds sown by Stalin have grown up today – through the recognition of Putin as the new savior of not only of Russia but also the world.

The memory of the Russian people, from which liberals tried to wrestle the image of heroic victory by the methods of mass lobotomy, gradually reemerged. Stalin’s image, as the mastermind of victory, the history of the people’s feat, which twice rose in the twentieth century against the forces of Evil, – was alive and healthy. It is the revival of the memory of the true history of Russia and its heroes and leaders that makes the people of Russia a great power again.

Radio Liberty asked people on the streets of Russian cities in 2017 whether Stalin was a real tyrant or just a demonized figure. Seventy-five percent answered confidently: Stalin is demonized. We were told that if the leader of the USSR was a criminal, then the state is also criminal. So, propaganda used the image of the empire of Evil to destroy the USSR. And if earlier Stalin and USSR were in the scope, today the target is Russia and Putin.

Lev Gudkov, the Director of the Levada Center, shocked by the results of his polls, bewildered that the Russians became again Stalinists, tried to find an explanation: “The society is not able to assess its past and prefers to limit itself to myths, which indicates its moral stupidity and the power of propaganda.”

On the contrary, it is the moral firmness of Russians today that allows Russia to unite in the global arena those who believe in the inevitability of victory over Satanists and Zionists. Having chosen the side of truth, after experiencing the tragedy of deceit and betrayal by the elites, in the last quarter of a century convinced of the incorrigibility of the vices of capitalism, Russians continued a path to a better society. The French philosopher Edgar Moreno prophetically uttered in the nineties, “The USSR did not die, it dissolved in the future.” Today, Russia is the nucleus of the crystal bringing this future.

American society is experiencing in these days a critical period of disintegration of the moral foundations that allow us to call ourselves a human society. The only way to heal is to find a Leader who is able to feel the pain of his people as his own tragedy, and will unite the healthy part of society around the idea of resurrecting America on the roots of morality, freedom and true democracy.

It’s a long and difficult journey, but it must be started and passed. Therefore, in the future, Russia, the country whose experience, tragedies and victories, people with great ability to create and achieve great goals, can and should become a true friend and partner of the American people.

Galima Galiullina, Ph.D.

Surging Russian-Chinese Trade Pressures Petrodollar

JANUARY 12, 2018 / TOM LUONGO

The latest trade figures on Chinese/Russian trade should be further warning to the U.S. that economic sanctions do not work. In May 2017 Russian and China agreed to increase bilateral trade to $80 billion by the end of 2018.

Well, they’re a year ahead of schedule.

The official figures for 2017 came in at $84.07 billion.

They did more than $8.1 billion in business in December alone. With the opening of the new ESPO oil pipeline connecting Siberia to China doubling the amount of oil China can import to 600,000 barrels per day we’ll see those numbers continue to accelerate.

And that’s the key. Remember, the massive $400 billion gas deal China made with Gazprom in 2014 hasn’t begun delivering gas. The first Power of Siberia pipeline isn’t due to be completed until 2019. The second Power of Siberia pipeline is on the table after this one.

And the two countries just agreed to a third pipeline to bring gas in from Russia’s far east last month.

So, despite back-biting from western media about the profitability of these projects, they are going forward and the two countries continue to strengthen fundamental ties to one another.

Power-of-Siberia

Greasing the Skids

We are now just a week away from trading yuan-denominated oil futures on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange(INE). Trading begins January 18th.

And while that won’t change the face of oil futures overnight, it will begin shifting price discovery away from U.S. dollar markets. It will also improve external yuan liquidity as well as visibility for Russian oil on the global market.

The Shanghai contract is for Medium Sour crude which is closer to the type of oil mainly produced by Russia. Russian Urals crude is considered Medium Sour. Saudi Arabia’s and most of OPEC is sour oil (higher in sulfur with a lower pH). With the OPEC production cuts which Russia agreed to emulate, mostly hit this market.

Both WTI and Brent crude are benchmarks for Light Sweet Crude like that of the U.S. shale producers, Venezuela, Nigeria and Libya. So, this contract is designed to properly price other grades of oil not tailored to U.S. refinery needs.

And for that reason alone it will be a major competitor in the long run. The current oil market is heavily fragmented because there is no direct futures market for Sour grades of crude.

Shanghai’s contract is changing that game. Between this and that profits from it can be converted to gold via the Shanghai Gold Exchange, gives this market immediate credibility.

The effects of this have been over-stated on the one hand by hard-money advocates and under-stated on the other by entrenched financial analysts.

The important takeaway is that China has created the first unassailable and above-ground challenge to the petro-dollar oil trade. To break the world’s use of the dollar as the sole settlement currency for oil required the right contract issued by a country the U.S. can’t immediately invade and conduct a regime change operation in – like in Iraq and Libya.

Russia wins here because now there is a path for its Urals grade to become an international benchmark like WTI and Brent. And since Gazprom prefers to price its long-term gas contracts based on underlying oil prices rather than the more volatile natural gas price, this is also a win in the long run for them.

Gold convertibility is a means to deepen China’s sovereign debt markets by making it less risky to hold Chinese bonds. The lack of true yuan convertibility is the big impediment to people holding them. So, gold convertibility creates a viable exit route.

A Means to an End

Increasing trade between Russia and China has to and will go far beyond energy for its partnership to thrive. The oil trade is simply a means to building the underlying capital flow between the two countries. It makes it easier for Russian businesses to get access to Chinese capital and vice versa.

And this rapid acceleration of bilateral trade is necessary in the face of more severe U.S. economic sanctions against Russia likely coming next month. The way to avoid sanctions is to build alternate means to do business.

We will continue to target Russian banks and financial oligarchs with the idea of curtailing economic growth by cutting out their ability to source overseas capital. And again, this is why China is so important to Russia.

Because the more we push them away the more they can turn to their Chinese partners for assistance and the U.S. doesn’t dare sanction China, no matter how much President Trump bloviates about it.

China announced last week that it would not longer be accumulating U.S. treasury assets. Presumably, this mean that it will no longer recycle its trade surplus with the U.S. to halt appreciation of the Yuan versus the dollar.

It’s had to over the past year with the dollar weakening like it has. But that wave is coming to an end with a reversal of Fed policy and Trump’s tax cut bill. Rising rates in the U.S. will allow China to divest its Treasury holdings at its leisure without overly affecting the Yuan while it also deepens Yuan liquidity through its now gold-convertible bond market.

Those trade dollars will be spent in pursuit of China’s One Belt, One Road initiative and overseas where it has business. I’m sure if Russia gets into another dollar-funding crisis with new sanctions China will be there to provide dollar liquidity, just like in 2015.

Both countries understand the stakes and continue to make the right moves to support the changing macroeconomic environment. With U.S. bonds on the verge of entering a bear market conditions are ripe for China to deploy its massive savings to resume remaking the Asian continent.

Follow more of Tom’s work at his blog Gold Goats ‘n Guns. You can support him directly through his Patreon and get the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter** for just $12/month.

America has this kill list

Former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon:

“We know that America has this kill list that is signed off by the American President every Tuesday morning, where they can go out and target so-called terrorist suspects across the North Africa, across Central Asia, across the Middle East and take them out with drone strikes. There is no due process, there is no rule of law in this – it is just what the intelligence agencies assessed to be problematic people who might well be involved in terrorist attacks in the future. And they are assassinated. We’ve seen this drone program take out whole villages, village councils, wedding parties right across great swathes of the planet. So if they are beginning to use this new algorithmic software in this way that can potentially target people, I think people need to become very much even more frightened.”

The Globalists agenda with the Zionist Evangelical “Christian” Church

January 12, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos – Translated from Nova Resistencia.

1.png

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil – The chief deceiver and Brazilian sect leader, Olavo de Carvalho, better known by the nickname Sidi Muhammad in the schismatic circles of Brazil and the world, is obsessed by the notion of “Judeo-Christian values,” “Judeo-Christian civilization,” and “Christianity.”

He is not the only one. This concept is extremely popular with a specific group of people, the neoconservatives, most of whom are Zionist Jews or Zionist neo-Pentecostal Christians, and are linked to the American Deep State, which controls its foreign policy and its intelligence sector.

This concept is ecumenical and is fundamentally distant from the religious orthodoxy of both Christianity and Judaism. It is a heterodox ecumenism that aims to erase the primordial opposition that exists between these two religions, an ecumenism that is no less damaging, anti-Traditional and globalist than that ecumenism “New Age” more common among the liberal and progressive factions of the left.

Traditional religious authorities of both religions are tired of knowing this and vehemently reject this neocon invention. Orthodox Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, for example, says that: “Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism.”

This is fundamentally evident to those who know the history of the two religions, and this perverse and globalist ecumenism would be unthinkable to the leading theologians of the two religions throughout their history.

In general, however, although the more orthodox religious authorities of Judaism insist on the rejection of this pseudo-philosophical curse, despite the fact that a large part of Zionism feeds this fraud because it is politically advantageous. Speaking of “Judeo-Christianity” and selling this fiction of a “Judeo-Christian civilization” serves as an attempt to manipulate Christians around the world to believe that their fate is inextricably tied to Jewish interests and that the two religious communities are sisters.

In this sense, anyone who chastises this perfidious and baseless propaganda must be openly denounced as a lackey of the Neocon and Zionist interests, just as Olavo de Carvalho is one of them.

There is no need to speak, we repeat, not even of “Judeo-Christian civilization,” because such a thing does not exist. The ancient Hebrew people and the modern Jewish people are two distinct things and between the two there are immense abysses, caused by diasporas, by mixing with other peoples, by cultural transformations and by the indisputable fact that Judaism is not a direct heir of the Yahwist religion of ancient Hebrews, only of the Pharisaic sect.

In this sense, Judaism already emerges as something that belongs to the periphery of European civilization, outside of it, being incapable of influencing it until the modern degeneration of that civilization, which culminated in the birth of what has been called “Western civilization.” In this sense, in fact, Western civilization has something of a “Jewish”, as Werner Sombart has pointed out, but it is not Christian. The foundational enlightenment of this civilization denies its Christianity.

On the other hand, what used to be a Western European civilization is more adequately regarded as a Greco-Roman-Catholic civilization, as a Roman-German civilization, or as a German-Catholic civilization, depending on the historical scheme one wishes to use . And this civilization no longer exists, receded into the catacombs, with the flourishing of modern, “enlightened”, western civilization.

Therefore, to speak of Judeo-Christianity, of Judeo-Christian civilization, of Judeo-Christian values ​​is to invent a theoretical Frankenstein, it is something inexistent, that never existed and that could only come to exist through the imposition of a pseudo-theological construct.

Those who doubt this, would do well to go to the primary sources of the two religions, and read about the condemnations of the Jews pronounced by Fathers of the Church and Doctors of the Church like Chrysostom, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, as well as read what is written about Jesus, his mother and his apostles in the Talmuds.

The dishonesty of Olavo de Carvalho is here. We have already seen people referring to him as if he were crazy, as if he had faltered, or something like that in dealing with these subjects. No, he intentionally errs because these and all the other lies he tells are part of a specific strategy of collective mental manipulation in favor of a neocon political and geopolitical project.

But Olavo will never win.

Prepare for More Censorship From Israel and the Deep State in 2018

“… major social media and internet service providers have … been meeting secretly with the United States and Israeli governments to remove content as well as ban account holders …”

Philip Giraldi Jan 10, 2018

Users of social media have been increasingly reporting that their accounts have been either censored, blocked or suspended during the past year. Initially, some believed that the incidents might be technical in nature, with overloaded servers struggling to keep up with the large and growing number of accounts, but it eventually emerged that the interference was deliberate and was focused on individuals and groups that were involved in political or social activities considered to be controversial.

At the end of last year a number of Russian accounts on Facebook and elsewhere were suspended over the allegations that social media had been used to spread so-called false news that had possibly materially affected the 2016 presidential election in the United States.

Even though it proved impossible to demonstrate that the relatively innocuous Russian efforts had any impact in comparison to the huge investment in advertising and propaganda engaged in by the two major parties, social media quickly responded to the negative publicity.

Now it has been learned that major social media and internet service providers have, throughout the past year, been meeting secretly with the United States and Israeli governments to remove content as well as ban account holders from their sites.

The United States and Israel have no legal right to tell private companies what to do but it is clearly understood that the two governments can make things very difficult for those service providers that do not fall in line.

Israel has threatened to limit access to sites like Facebook or to ban it altogether while the U.S. Justice Department can use terrorist legislation, even if implausible, to force compliance. Washington recently forced Facebook to cancel the account of the Chechen Republic’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov, a Putin loyalist that the White House has recently “sanctioned.”

Israel is not surprisingly most active in patrolling the Internet as it is keen to keep out any material sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or critical of Israeli treatment of Arabs. Its security services scan the stories being surfaced and go to the service providers to ask that material be deleted or blocked based on the questionable proposition that it constitutes “incitement” to violence.

Facebook reportedly cooperates 95% of the time to delete material or shut down accounts. Palestinian groups, which use social networking on the internet to communicate, have been especially hard hit, with ten leading administrators’ accounts being removed in 2017. Israeli accounts including material threatening to kill Arabs are not censored.

Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are all also under pressure to cooperate with pro-Israel private groups in the United States, to include the powerful Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL seeks “to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate” by blocking “hate language,” which includes any criticism of Israel that might even implausibly be construed as anti-Semitism.

Expanding restrictions on what is being defined as “hate speech” will undoubtedly become common in social media and more generally all across the internet in 2018.

The internet, widely seen as a highway where everyone could communicate and share ideas freely, is actually a toll road that is increasingly managed by a group of very large corporations that, when acting in unison, control what is seen and not seen. Search engines already are set up to prioritize information from paid “sponsors,” which come up prominently but often have nothing to do with what material is most relevant.

And the role of intrusive governments in dictating to Facebook and other sites who will be heard and who will be silenced should also be troubling, as it means that information that would benefit the public might never be seen, particularly if it is embarrassing to powerful interests. And speaking of powerful interests, groups like the ADL with partisan agendas will undoubtedly be able to dictate norms of behavior to the service providers, leading to still more loss of content and relevancy for those who are looking for information.

All things considered, the year 2018 will be a rough one for those who are struggling to maintain the internet as a source of relatively free information. Governments and interest groups have seen the threat posed by such liberty and are reacting to it. They will do their best to bring it under control.

The Crimea: American, or Russian?

January 5, 2018 – Fort Russ News –

– Thoughts on a WikiLeaks nugget by Tom Winter –

Screen%2BShot%2B2018-01-04%2Bat%2B4.29.42%2BPM.png
Screen capture from the United States Navy’s CFP for renovation in Sevastopol

“we have to conclude that it was the dream of the US Navy to replace the Russian Navy in Sevastopol”

Can you imagine US troops in the Crimea? No need to imagine. They were there. And if Russia had ignored the plebiscite of the people, the US Navy would be there today. Instead, faute de mieux, the US Navy is now ensconced at Ochakov, Ukraine on the coast of the Black Sea, thanks to the compliant regime in Kiev.

There have been US forces in the Crimea, back in those “Orange Revolution” days when Ukraine held Krushchevian sway over the Crimea.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we know about their presence in Crimea, and also about the popular reaction in the Crimea to US forces being there.

In sum, the reaction of the Russian-speaking population was what you would expect, furious. We invite you to read the the whole cable, but here is the US State Department’s own summary:

1. (SBU) Summary: Anti-Orange Revolution forces are using the occasion of a joint U.S.-Ukraine mil-mil cooperative exercise in Crimea to stir up anti-NATO sentiment in the majority ethnic Russian peninsula and smear the Ukrainian government. Demonstrators outside GOU-administered compounds in the Crimean cities of Feodosiya and Alushta bottled up U.S. military personnel (temporarily restricting access to food and water), followed the vehicles in which they were being transported, and otherwise prevented the reservists from doing the job they were sent to do — building basic facilities for participants in the joint military exercise “Sea Breeze” that is scheduled to begin in mid-July. The Ukrainian military unsuccessfully attempted to keep Sea Breeze preparations approved by the GOU low profile pending passage of legislation specifically authorizing the exercise. We have energetically engaged senior levels of the Ukrainian government to resolve the situation and ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel, our paramount concern. A positive resolution to this ongoing problem is important to the GOU to deny its opponents a political victory and to maintain its reputation as a reliable partner in joint military exercises.

End summary.

Wow. Locals prevented the US reservists from doing their job! Of course, it came to worse than that.

But the US Navy apparently got accustomed to putting US troops on Russia’s southern frontier with the easy connivance of a friendly regime in Kiev.

A touch of background, that you probably already know: since Krushchev’s illegal transfer of the Crimea to the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, then when Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union, Ukraine became a country, and controlled the Crimea.

Russia then had to lease its peninsular naval bases from the Kiev government. In 2009, the Orange Revolution government of Yushchenko said that the lease, which was to end in 2017, would not be renewed and that the Russian fleet would have to leave! Though the lease was renegotiated, this little adventure was a demo of how much Ukraine was in control of Russia’s access to the Black Sea.

The US Navy was so sure of its access to Sevastopol – of all places! – that it put out a call for proposals to renovate a school there in 2013. For local good will? Or for the use of military personnel? The US Navy’s CFPis still on the web: FedBizOpps.Gov

The title question lurks behind one of Obama’s more famous interviews. We take a close look:

On national television, February 1, 2016, President Obama admitted, in semi-opaque and lawyerly language, three big things about Ukraine and Crimea.
1. The US was behind the 2014 coup in Kiev [“we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine”]
2. The accession of Crimea to Russia was a reaction to the coup [“Mr Putin made his decision about Crimea … because he was caught off-balance … after we had brokered a deal to transition power”], and
3. Crimea then became the lever to apply sanctions against Russia. [allowed the imposition of sanctions]
Here is the relevant portion of the transcript of his February 1 interview with Fareed Zacharia:

And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine — not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine — since that time, this improvisation that he’s been doing has getting — has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions … link: CNNpressroom

Plainly, especially since the establishment of the US base at Ochakov, we have to conclude that it was the dream of the US Navy to replace the Russian Navy in Sevastopol, and that this dream was a grand over-reach, and the people of Crimea and the people of Russia had something to say about it.

They stymied it.

Review: The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews

ANDREW JOYCE • DECEMBER 26, 2017 • 6,300 WORDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SEARCH TEXT

Maryks-1

The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus
Robert Aleksander Maryks
Brill, 2010.
Free Download

Part One

“Those from the circumcision subverted the entire house of the Society. As sons of this world who are shrewd in dealing with their own, and avid of new things, they easily excite disorders and destroy the unity of souls and their bond with the government.”
Lorenzo Maggio, Jesuit Curia in Rome, 1586.

One of the more interesting aspects of Jewish group behavior is the presence of subversive strategies employing crypsis, often facilitated by a combination of deception and self-deception. To date, the most forthright and convincing theoretical framework for understanding cryptic forms of Judaism is found in Kevin MacDonald’s groundbreaking Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. A substantial portion of the fourth chapter of the text (1998/2004: 121–132) is devoted to ‘Reactive Racism in the Period of the Iberian Inquisitions.’ Here MacDonald puts forth the view (147) that the blood purity struggles of the Spanish Inquisition during the 15th and 16th centuries should be seen as “an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.” The historical context lies predominantly in the forced conversion of Jews in Spain in 1391, after which these ‘New Christians’ or conversos assumed (or indeed retained) a dominance in the areas of law, finance, diplomacy, public administration, and a wide range of economic activities. MacDonald argues (148) that despite superficial religious conversions, the New Christians “must be considered a historical Jewish group” that acted in such a way as to continue the advance of its ethnic interests. An integral aspect of this was that Wealthy New Christians purchased and endowed ecclesiastical benefices for their children, with the result that many prelates were of Jewish descent.

Indirectly, and almost certainly unintentionally, MacDonald’s arguments find much in the way of corroboration in The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (2010) by Boston College’s Robert Aleksander Maryks. Examining the same geographical area during the same period, Maryks presents an account of the early years of the Society of Jesus, during which a fierce struggle took place for the soul, fate, and control of the Order; a struggle involving a highly influential crypto-Jewish bloc and a competing network of European Christians. In this unpolished but interesting book, Maryks illuminates this struggle with reference to previously undiscovered material, in the process shedding light on some of the most important recurring themes of reactive anti-Semitism: Jewish ethnocentrism, nepotism, the tendency to monopoly, and the strategic use of alliances with European elites. Perhaps most fascinating of all, Maryks makes significant reference to Jewish responses to European efforts to stifle their influence, some of which are remarkable in the close manner in which they parallel modern examples of Jewish apologetic propaganda. As such, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews is highly recommended for anyone seeking to understand, via an easily-digested historical case study, the dynamics of the ethnic conflict between Jews and Europeans.

Maryks divides his text into four well-paced chapters. The first provides readers with ‘The Historical Context of Purity-of-Blood Discrimination (1391–1547),’ a detailed standalone introduction to the nature of the ‘New Christian’ problem in Iberia but which should be read in conjunction with MacDonald’s work on the same theme. The second chapter concerns ‘Early Jesuit Pro-Converso Policy (1540–72),’ which demonstrates the intensive manner in which crypto-Jews infiltrated key positions in the Society of Jesus, adapting its ideological positions in accordance with their interests, and eventually establishing a monopoly on top positions that extended to the Vatican. The third chapter, ‘Discrimination Against Jesuits of Jewish Lineage (1573–93),’ concerns the establishment of a movement acting against the crypto-Jewish strategy, with an analysis of the key figures and their rationale. The fourth chapter, ‘Jesuit Opposition to the Purity-of-Blood Discrimination (1576–1608),’ examines the efforts of crypto-Jewish Jesuits to fight back against the European counter-strategy, often involving the employment of tactics and stances that are now familiar to us as the hallmarks of a Jewish intellectual movement.

This sequence parallels the processes that led to the Inquisition—New Christians establishing themselves in top positions in Spanish politics, business, and culture, provoking a reaction by the Old Christians aimed at regaining power, followed by Jewish counter efforts against the Inquisition and the against the Spanish government generally, the latter typically played out on the international scene.

One of the key strengths of this fascinating book is that Maryks can rely on relatively recent genealogical discoveries to prove beyond doubt that many of the individuals once merely “accused” of being crypto-Jews were undeniably of Jewish lineage. Maryks can thus cut through a clouded period in which ancestry was vital and yet fogged with accusations, denials, and counter-accusations, with tremendous clarity. In the author’s words (xxix), “racial tensions played a pivotal role in early Jesuit history.”

Opening his book, Maryks recalls delivering a paper on converso influence in the Jesuits, and afterwards receiving an email from a man with origins in the Iberian peninsula. The email concerned the remarkably long survival of crypto-Jewish behaviors in the sender’s family:

From Friday evening through Saturday evening, his grandfather would hide the image of baby Jesus from a large framed picture of St. Anthony that he kept in his home. It was, in fact, a wind-up music box. On Fridays he would wind up the mechanism and push a button, so that Jesus would disappear out of St. Anthony’s arms, hidden in the upper frame of the picture. On Saturdays he would push the button, so that Jesus would come back out from hiding into St. Anthony’s arms. As eldest son in his family, my correspondent was told this story by his father, who also asked him to eat only kosher food. (xv)

The survival of such eccentric, and in this case apparently trivial, forms of crypto-Judaism into what one assumes to be the early twentieth century, might appear to be little more than a socio-historical curio. In actual fact, however, it is a small but memorable vestige of what was once a very powerful means of continuing the Jewish group evolutionary strategy in the Iberian peninsula after 1391 — an overwhelmingly hostile environment. In a political, religious, and social context devoid of the synagogue and many of the most visible aspects of Judaism, small reminders of group difference, even otherwise trivial ones like hiding images of Jesus or adhering to discreet dietary rules, became vital methods for retaining group cohesion.

For some time, these methods were largely successful in facilitating the continuance of Jewish life ‘under the noses’ of the Christian host society. During this successful period, conversos were able to expand nepotistic monopolies of influence in a wide range of civic and even (Christian) religious spheres. When it failed, however, the consequences could be catastrophic. Maryks points out (xxii) that from its founding in 1540 to 1593, the Society of Jesus had no discriminatory legislation against individuals of Jewish heritage, and that during this period converso Jesuits “held the highest administrative offices, and defined the Society’s institutional development and spirituality.” However, significant resistance to this crypto-Jewish monopoly had developed by the latter date, and from 1593 to 1608 a power struggle resulted in the defeat of the crypto-Jewish element and the introduction of laws prohibiting the admittance of members of ‘impure blood.’ From 1608 until 1946 this involved a review of the ancestry of any potential member of the Society of Jesus, up to the fifth generation.

The Jewish Origins of the Jesuits

41555q3LtrL.jpg

On 15 August 1534, Ignatius of Loyola (born Íñigo López de Loyola), a Spaniard from the Basque city of Loyola, and six others, all students at the University of Paris, met in Montmartre outside Paris, in a crypt beneath the church of Saint Denis, to pronounce the religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Ignatius’ six companions were: Francis Xavier from Navarre (modern Spain), Alfonso Salmeron, Diego Laínez, Nicolás Bobadilla from Castile (modern Spain), Pierre Favre from Savoy, and Simão Rodrigues from Portugal. At this point they called themselves the Compañía de Jesús, and also Amigos en El Señor or “Friends in the Lord.” The Spanish “company” would be translated into Latin as societas, deriving from socius, a partner or comrade. This soon evolved into the “Society of Jesus” (SJ) by which they would later be more widely known. In 1537, the seven travelled to Italy to seek papal approval for their order. Pope Paul III gave them a commendation, and permitted them to be ordained priests. The official founding of the Society of Jesus occurred in 1540.

The presence and influence of conversos in the Society of Jesus was strong from the beginning. Of the seven founding members, Maryks provides categorical evidence that four were of Jewish ancestry — Salmeron, Laínez, Bobadilla, and Rodrigues. In addition, Loyola himself has long been noted for his strong philo-Semitism, and one recent PhD thesis[1] has even advanced a convincing argument that Loyola’s maternal grandparents, (his grandfather, Dr. Martín García de Licona, was a merchant and financial advisor at court), were full-blooded conversos — thus rendering the ‘Basque nobleman’ halachically Jewish. Jewish scholar of the Inquisition, Henry Kamen, who had earlier argued that the Inquisition was “a weapon of social welfare” used mainly to obliterate the conversos as a distinct class capable of offering social and economic competition to ‘Old Christians,’ once voiced his own personal view that Loyola was “a deep and sincere spiritual Semite.”[2]

Straightforward assessments of the reasons for Loyola’s philo-Semitism are, as Maryks admirably elucidates, complicated by the ubiquitous presence of converso propaganda. More specifically, Loyola’s reputation as an ardent admirer of the Jews rests predominantly on a series of anecdotes and remarks attributed to him — and many of these derive from biographies penned shortly after his death by converso Jesuits aiming to promote and defend their interests. For example, the only source for the argument that Loyola had an overwhelming desire to be of Jewish origin so that he could “become a relative of Christ and his Mother” is the first official biography of Loyola — penned by the converso Pedro de Ribadeneyra. Ribadeneyra is described by Maryks as “a closet-converso” who distorted many now-established facts about Loyola’s life, including a concealment of the fact that “the Inquisition in Alcalá had accused Loyola of being a crypto-Jew.” (43) An important aspect of Ribadeneyra’s biography was thus the promotion of the idea that being Jewish was desirable and admirable — Loyola’s philo-Semitism (real or imagined) was intended to be emulated. Meanwhile the sinister aspects of crypto-Judaism, and their suppression by the Inquisition, were excised from the story altogether.

Whether Loyola was in fact a crypto-Jew, or whether he indeed was a European but possessed a strong desire to be a Jew, remains unconfirmed at time of this writing. However, it is certain that Loyola surrounded himself with many converso colleagues and that he opposed any discrimination against converso candidates within the Society of Jesus. Maryks argues that, issues of crypsis and philo-Semitism aside, Loyola was probably “motivated by the financial support that he had sought from their [converso] network in Spain.”(xx) In this reading then, Loyola was fully aware of the elite position of the conversos within Spanish society and was prepared to accept their money to establish his organization in exchange for adopting a non-racial stance in its governance.

The question of course remains as to why the crypto-Jewish elite in Spain would back, both financially and in terms of manpower, a Christian religious order. The important thing to keep in mind is that religion and politics in Early Modern Europe were intimately entwined, and that, through spiritual confraternities and their relationships with local elites, even poverty-espousing religious orders like the Franciscans could exert a strong form of socio-political influence. This was often made even more sharply evident when religious orders engaged in missionary work in foreign lands, often taking pioneering roles in colonial regimes, and even assisting with their economic enterprises. William Caferro notes that in Renaissance Italy “the Florentine political elite was closely tied to the church. Government officials often held high church office and benefice, which aided their local political power.”[3] Involvement in religious orders was thus a necessary aspect and extension of political, social, and cultural influence.

Unsurprisingly then, it can be demonstrated that crypto-Jews straddled the interconnected networks of royal administration, the civic bureaucracy, and the Church. Citing just some examples, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh note in their history of the Inquisition:

In 1390 the rabbi of Burgos converted to Catholicism. He ended his life as Bishop of Burgos, Papal legate and tutor to a prince of the blood. [Burgos’s son would later become an important pro-converso activist and will be discussed below]. He was not alone. In some of the major cities, the administration was dominated by prominent converso families. At the very time the Spanish Inquisition was formed, King Ferdinand’s treasurer was converso in his background. In Aragón, the five highest administrative posts in the kingdom were occupied by conversos. In Castile, there were at least four converso bishops. Three of Queen Isabella’s secretaries were conversos, as was the official court chronicler.[4]

For the crypto-Jewish elite of early modern Spain, the founding of an influential religious order headed by a philo-Semite (if not a fellow crypto-Jew), staffed predominantly by a converso leadership, and constitutionally tolerant of conversoapplicants, would undoubtedly have been an attractive prospect. That a bargain of some form existed between Loyola and his crypto-Jewish sponsors is suggested, as noted above, by the nature of the early Jesuit constitution and by early correspondence concerning the admission of candidates of Jewish ancestry. The founding of the Jesuit order had coincided with the rise of a more general Spanish anti-converso atmosphere that reached its peak in 1547, “when the most authoritative expression of the purity-of- blood legislation, El Estatuto de limpieza [de sangre], was issued by the Inquisitor General of Spain and Archbishop of Toledo, Silíceo (xx).” Pope Paul IV and Silíceo’s former pupil, King Philip II, ratified the archbishop’s statutes in 1555 and 1556, respectively, but Ignatius of Loyola and his converso successor, Diego Laínez (1512–65) vigorously opposed the Inquisitor’s attempts to preclude conversos from joining the Jesuits. In fact, in a letter addressed to the Jesuit Francisco de Villanueva (1509–57), Loyola wrote that “in no way would the Jesuit Constitutions accept the policy of the archbishop (xxi).”

Seeking to quell rising tensions over the issue, in February 1554 Loyola sent his plenipotentiary emissary, Jerónimo Nadal (1507–80), to visit the Inquisitor. Nadal insisted that the Jesuit Constitutions did not discriminate between candidates of the Society on the basis of lineage, and even personally admitted a number of converso candidates during his visit to Iberia. In a heated debate with the Inquisitor over the admission of one of them, Nadal replied: “We [Jesuits] take pleasure in admitting those of Jewish ancestry.” In what would become a striking pattern, most of the pro-converso arguments were made by crypto-Jews claiming to be native Spaniards. Maryks notes that his historical investigations suggest that Nadal was “most probably a descendant of Majorcan Jews (77).”

Jewish attempts to alter Christian thinking about Jews, from within Christianity, were already well-established by the date of Nadal’s intercession with the Inquisitor. An excellent example is the classic work of Alonso de Santa María de Cartagena (1384–1456) — Defensorium unitatis christianae [In Defense of Christian Unity] (1449–50). Alonso de Cartagena had been baptized (at the age of five or six) by his father Shlomo ha-Levi, later renamed Pablo de Santa María (c. 1351–1435), who— as chief rabbi of Burgos—converted to Christianity just before the anti-Jewish riots of 1391 and later was elected bishop of Cartagena (1402) and Burgos (1415). The fact that the wife of this Bishop of Burgos remained an unconverted Jewess does not appear to have impeded the latter’s career in the Church is interesting to say the least.

Meanwhile his son, Cartagena, like many other conversos, studied civil and ecclesiastical law at Salamanca and went on to a highly influential career straddling royal, civic, and religious spheres. He served as apostolic nuncio and canon in Burgos. King Juan II appointed Cartagena as his official envoy to the Council of Basel (1434–9), where he contributed to the formulation of a decree on “the regenerative character of baptism without regard for lineage (4).” Like other examples of pro-converso propaganda, however, Cartagena’s arguments always went beyond mere appeals for ‘tolerance.’ According to Cartagena, “the faith appears to be more splendid in the Israelite flesh,” Jews naturally possess a “civic nobility,” and it was the duty of rough and uncouth native Spaniards to unite with the “tenderness of the Israelite meekness.” (14, 17)

Conversos thus emerge in the works of the earliest crypto-Jewish activists as more special than ordinary Christians, as naturally deserving of an elite status, and, far from being the worthy objects of hostility, were in fact uniquely blameless, ‘tender,’ and ‘meek.’ One is struck by the regular use of similar arguments in our contemporary environment, a similarity that only increases when one considers Cartagena’s attribution of anti-Jewish hostility solely to “the malice of the envious.” (20)

Against this backdrop of crypto-Jewish apologetics, Maryks demonstrates, whether he intends to or not, that the early Jesuits were largely a vehicle for converso power and influence (both political and ideological). Loyola continued to be “surrounded” by conversos throughout his leadership (55). Enrique Enríques, the son of Portuguese Jews, even authored the first Jesuit manual of moral theology, Theologiae moralis summa, in 1591. (65) Maryks describes Loyola as having an unlimited “trust” in candidates of Jewish heritage, citing his decision to “admit in 1551 Giovanni Battista Eliano (Romano), the grandson of the famous grammarian and poet Rabbi Elijah Levita (1468–1549) …. He entered the Society at the age of twenty-one, just three months after his baptism (66).”

In explaining Loyola’s lax requirements for converso applicants, and resultant acquiescence in flooding the Society with crypto-Jews, it is strange that Maryks should abandon his own prior suggestion that the founding of the Jesuits may have rested on a quid pro quo with the converso elite in favor of a less convincing theory based on a putative and ill-explained “trust” that Loyola possessed for Jews. Unfortunately this is a common theme throughout Jewish historiography, where the facts and conclusions presented in the same text are often on entirely different trajectories. In a similar vein, Maryks’s skeletal explanation that crypto-Jews flooded the Jesuits simply because Loyola had “numerous contacts with the converso spiritual and merchant network” before he founded the Society of Jesus, seems woefully inadequate and lacking in context.

Despite the best laid plans of Loyola and his colleagues, and just 32 years after its founding, the Society of Jesus would undergo a revolt from below against a rapidly expanding crypto-Jewish elite. The features of this revolt represent a fascinating case study in the reactive nature of anti-Semitism. Maryks narrative of how two competing ethnic groups struggled for the future of the Jesuit Order, outlined in his second and third chapters, is certainly the greatest strength of the text. It is to this European counter-strategy that we now turn our attention.

Part Two

“Being children of this world, pompous, cunning, fake, self-seeking, etc., it is certain that they fit religious life very badly and that it is impossible to maintain union with them. If those of this blood are made superiors, they employ almost all their government in external things: they promote genuine mortification and solid virtues very little, and seem to be merchants, seeking first seats and being called rabbis; they are hardly eager to seek perfection that is described in the parts 5 and 6 of the Constitutions; and readily admit others of the same blood who are very unworthy.”
Manuel Rodrigues, Jesuit curia in Rome.

The Racial Struggle for the Jesuit Order

Everard Mercurian (1514-1580)
Everard Mercurian (1514-1580)

The complaints of native Spanish members of the Society of Jesus, regarding the crypto-Jewish Jesuit elite, are remarkably uniform. Predominant among their concerns was the Jewish tendency towards monopoly, nepotism, arrogance, aggressive ambition, and an air of insincerity in the practice of Christianity. Of particular concern was the fact that the Spanish Jesuit Order was becoming an exclusive enclave of influential Jews that stretched out even into the heart of Rome.

The epigraph above, from Manuel Rodrigues, highlights all of these themes, some of which have been empirically demonstrated. For example, the body of research compiled by Maryks and other scholars, and discussed in Part 1, more than provides sufficient evidence in support of the accusation that crypto-Jews were “readily admitting others of the same blood.” Moreover, Benedetto Palmio, an Italian assistant to two native European Jesuit Superior Generals (Francisco de Borja and Everard Mercurian), complained of the “multitude and insolence of Spanish neophytes,” whom he described as a “pestilence (133).” Stressing that “where a New Christian was found, it was impossible to live in peace,” he added that “those who governed in Rome were almost all neophytes. … This sort of people and almost no other were being admitted in Spain (133).” King Phillip II of Spain had by the 1570s taken to describing the Jesuits as a “Synagogue of Hebrews.” (133)

The method of leadership employed by this crypto-Jewish elite was further described by Palmio as despotic. The crypto-Jewish elite in Rome was behaving “not as fathers but as masters (135).” Reflecting age-old Jewish ethnic networking, there were gross ethnic disparities in promotions to high office, with Palmio stressing that “the neophytes want to dominate everywhere and this is why the Society is agitated by the tempest of discords and acrimonies (138).” Conversos were “overly ambitious, insolent, Janus-faced, pretentious, despotic, astute, terrible, greedy for power, and infamous.” (142) Lorenzo Maggio, an Italian Jesuit curia in Rome, complained that “those from the circumcision subverted the entire house of the Society.” (117)

Regardless of the actual origins of the Jesuit Order, which were heavily Jewish and intertwined with the search for political influence from the beginning, many native European members seem to have perceived the Society of Jesus as an essentially good religious movement that had been founded on idealist and pious terms, but had been corrupted along the way by the infiltration of power-seeking crypto-Jews. It is of course essential to note that such perceptions were not unique to the Society of Jesus. Around the same time that agitation was building within the Jesuit Order, Bishop Diego de Simancas of Zamora urged his parishioners to combat the machinations of the conversos and their activities in “deceiving the pope and his ministers (31).” Simancas, like Rodrigues, Palmio, and Hoffaeus, concluded that conversos were prone to “ambition, conspiracy, and greed for power” as demonstrated by the fact they had “infiltrated the offices of importance in the Church of Toledo.” (34–5)

In order to combat crypto-Jewish nepotism and extensive ethnic networking, native European Jesuits developed very interesting counter-strategies that in many respects mirrored their Jewish counterparts. Again, the patterns seen here should be regarded as broadly supportive of Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the reactive nature of anti-Semitism in Separation and Its Discontents, where one of the key chapters concerns National Socialism as a mirror image strategy. What non-Jewish Jesuits essentially did in the early stages of the revolt from below, was, like their crypto-Jewish opponents, to establish their own secretive networks based on racial exclusion, and the selection of their own preferred candidates based on ethnic preference.

The stage for this clash was set following the death of the third Superior General, Francisco de Borja, in 1572. Until this date, non-Jewish Jesuits had endured the philo-Semitic leadership of Loyola and the rampant ethnic nepotism of the converso Diego Laínez. Borja was himself described as a “protector of conversos” during periods of rising tension (115). After Borja’s death, it was readily apparent that the crypto-Jewish Jesuit elite had already contrived to select the converso Juan Alphonse de Polanco as his successor. (xxv) Polanco had already been appointed Society secretary by Loyola in 1547, before becoming senior administrator in the general curia in Rome. Incredibly influential, and “the most prominent figure in the Society of Jesus,” his selection should have been “open and shut.” However, as Maryks discusses, by this date “a close-knit anti-converso party [composed mainly of the Jesuit representatives from outside Spain] gained ground within the society.” (xxv)

In spite of the significant pro-converso presence at General Congregation 3 [General Congregations are “the supreme legislative body of the Society of Jesus consisting of major (‘provincial’) superiors and locally elected representatives”], the close-knit Italo-Portuguese lobby gained ground in the assembly and was crafty enough to successfully conspire against Polanco’s election and his pro-converso supporters. (120)

As well as forming a close-knit group based on ethnicity, the counter-strategy mirrored Jewish tactics by appealing for support from elites. The Portuguese delegation led by Leão Henriques “secretly carried to Rome a letter that Henriques’s penitent, Cardinal Infant Henry of Portugal (1512–80), had written to Pope Gregory XIII on 22 January 1573. In it, the Grand Inquisitor of Portugal and future king (1578–80) demanded that neither a converso nor a pro-converso candidate be elected superior general of the Society of Jesus, and he warned that if no measure against the converso evil is taken, the Society would risk destruction.” (121)

Pope Gregory XIII soon disclosed his support for a non-Spanish alternative to Polanco, who, in turn, indicated that he would step aside but refused to prohibit other “Spanish” candidates from being elected superior general. After the congregation opened, Gregory XIII inquired about the procedures of the congregation, about the number of Spaniards among the voters, and about the national background of the previous superiors general. Gregory “remarked that somebody should be chosen from a nation other than Spain, and, in spite of Polanco’s protest against limiting freedom of conscience of the electors, the pope specifically suggested the name of the Walloon Everard Mercurian, then dismissed the delegation with his blessing (122).” Consequently, while the converso Antonio Possevino was “addressing the congregation with an opening discourse, Cardinal Gallio of Como arrived and informed the congregation that he was representing the pope’s will to prevent the election of any Spanish candidate.” (122) The next day the assembly chose Everard Mercurian as the next superior general on the first ballot by a majority of 27 votes.

From the very first years of his office Mercurian proceeded, in his own words, to “cleanse the house.” He “removed from Rome (and possibly from Italy or even Europe) many converso Jesuits.” (123) Polanco, after almost three decades in office, “was moved away from Rome and sent to Sicily, a measure that seemed too harsh even to his major enemy, Benedetto Palmio.” (123)

However, in the aftermath of the removal of crypto-Jews from influence throughout the upper echelons of the Society of Jesus, a new movement emerged within the Spanish Jesuits called the memorialistas or memorialists. The group got its name from ‘memorial,’ which was a literary genre consisting of a written statement of facts presented in conjunction with a petition to a royal or religions authority. The memorialistas gained their name by sending “secret memorials to the Spanish Court and Inquisition, and the Holy See, asking for the reform of the Jesuit Institute, and, especially, for the autonomy of the Spanish Jesuit provinces.” (125–6) These memorials were highly divisive and destructive, seeking essentially to fracture the Society and to allow the conversos to recoup their power base in Spain.

This movement was little more than a damage-limitation exercise by the crypto-Jewish elite. Ousted from Rome, and suspected by the Portuguese, the goal was to consolidate their power in Spain and prevent further anti-converso measures from encroaching on their long-held power positions. As Maryks points out, “it must be admitted that many of its members, if not the majority, were of converso background.” (125) The memorialist movement was certainly widely perceived by contemporaries as a Jewish revenge movement, and Maryks clearly agrees with this perception. One of their key leaders was the converso Dionisio Vázquez, and Maryks remarks that “one could argue that Vázquez’s active role in the memorialistas movement was a sort of revenge for the discriminatory policy of Mercurian.” (126).” The anti-converso Benedetto Palmio “never doubted that conversos were behind the vindictive memoralistas movement.” (128)

As the struggle began to intensify, in 1581 another Italian anti-converso, Claudio Acquaviva, was elected as Mercurian’s successor. Acquaviva appointed a number of leading anti-converso Jesuits (including Manuel Rodrigues, Lorenzo Maggio, and the Rhinelander Paul Hoffaeus) to key positions in Rome, tasked with extending the anti-converso measures employed by Mercurian beyond the Roman power structure and into the wider Jesuit network. Maryks writes that the decade-long activities of Hoffaeus, Maggio, and Rodrigues, “effectively led to gradual restrictions in the admission into the Society of candidates of Jewish ancestry.” (146)

It is particularly interesting that much of this activity was carried out in a cryptic and secretive manner in which the ethnic aspect of the struggle was always kept just out of view — again mirroring the nature of the converso strategies to gain and extend influence. For example, in 1590 Acquaviva sent “secret instructions” to Spanish provincials operated by native Spanish, or ‘Old Christian,’ Jesuits in which he made clear the necessity of secrecy:

In regards to the offices of government, we should be careful not to give them to these people [conversos] in certain key places.… In what regards the admission of this people in order not to give occasion of bitterness to many in the Society, we have judged to be inappropriate to prohibit universally the admission of those who somehow have this defect. It is necessary to use more selectivity and diligence in the admission.… At any rate, [genealogical investigations] should be done quietly and when somebody has to be excluded, it would be convenient to give some other apparent causes and reasons for his dismissal, so that it could not be understood or affirmed with certainty that a person is barred from admission because of his lineage (147).

Faced with bitter responses from within the Spanish Jesuit Order, a few years later Acquaviva’s stance had hardened further, prompting him to issue a decree that those

who are descendants from parents who are recent Christians, routinely and habitually inflicted a great deal of hindrance and harm on the Society (as has become clear from our daily experience)…The entire congregation then decided to decree, as is affirmed by this present decree, that in no case may anyone of this sort, that is to say, one of Hebrew or Saracen stock, be admitted to the Society in the future. And if by error any such person is admitted, he should be dismissed as soon as the impediment is revealed, at whatever time before profession this occurs, after first notifying the superior general and awaiting his reply. (149)

Maryks states that at this point “the lineage-hunting season began,” and the removal of all persons of Jewish ancestry from the Society of Jesus commenced in earnest.

Early Modern Jewish Apologetics

Defeated and marginalized, the crypto-Jewish elite turned to issuing a long series of memorials that in many respects resemble prototypes of modern Jewish apologetics/propaganda of the kind issued by the ADL. For example, in a previous essay I noted the importance of the modern tactic of rhetorically displacing ‘foreignness’ away from Jews and onto the hostile movement itself:

Jews have regularly relied upon a fall-back tactic of presenting the troublesome movement as a foreign import…An excellent example of this, of course, would be Hillary Clinton’s ludicrous claim that the Alt Right has somehow been spawned by Putin’s Russia. Since most of her speech originated with the SPLC, we may assume that this particular accusation may be traced to a Hebraic hand. Another bizarre theory of the Alt Right’s foreign origins originating with the SPLC: Mark Potok has weighed in with the strange contention that the Alt Right “began as an anti-Muslim movement in Europe and has been spreading in this country since about 2008.”

And the list goes on. UK-based Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland, who has a long history of activism against Whites, has penned an article titled “Donald Trump’s achilles heel is that he is truly un-American.” Freedland argues that America’s founding principle is “the belief that national identity did not reside in blood or soil, but in loyalty to the nation’s constitution and its bill of rights”—a clear indication that he has little acquaintance with American history. He continues that, “these moves by Trump are not just reactionary or bigoted or dangerous. They contradict the ideals that all Americans are meant to regard as sacred. Perhaps this is the way to attack Trump: as truly un-American. He says he wants to make America great again. The truth is, he would stop America being America.”

Further Jewish participants in the effort to portray Trump as un-American include but are not limited to: the editorial board of the Washington Post led by the Jewish Martin Baron; the Jewish journalist Franklin Foer; and Jewish talk show host Jerry Springer. Jewish businessman Josh Tetrick also purchased a number of expensive full-page ad spaces in the New York Times aimed at pushing the ‘Trump as un-American’ meme…In all cases, both Trumpism and the Alt Right are portrayed by Jews as a foreign incursion into American political life. As with other tactics, these have a long lineage. Kevin MacDonald writes that “Jewish organizations in Germany in the period 1870–1914 argued that anti-Semitism was a threat to all of Germany because it was fundamentally ‘un-German.’’”[5] In nineteenth-century Germany, anti-Semitism was often described by Jews as a French import. Conversely, Paula Hyman writes that, faced with a rise in anti-Jewish feeling in nineteenth-century France, Jews spread the message that anti-Semitism was “un-French” and a “German import.”[6] Thorsten Wagner reports that it was a common refrain among Jews in Denmark that anti-Semitism there was “a German import — without autochthonous roots and traditions.”[7]

There are countless more examples from countless other countries. The tactic therefore relies on convincing the population that Jews are not the foreign threat but rather that it is the growing volkisch movement that is the foreign entity threatening the nation. Although it’s an absurdly perverse claim, and hard to imagine as being successful, Jews are able to spread the message because of their superior media and political power (as seen with Tetrick’s efforts). This power has ensured that portrayals of nationalist movements as ‘foreign’ have been tactically effective in the past.

Crypto-Jewish Jesuit responses to the European counter-strategy are strikingly similar to these modern instances in that they also heavily relied on attempts to displace the sense of foreign threat away from themselves and onto the movement hostile to their interests. For example, the most ferocious and prolific written responses to the ousting of the conversos were penned by the converso and high-ranking Italian diplomat Antonio Possevino, who had been removed from office by Mercurian and sent to remote Sweden. Isolated and powerless in the cold north, Possevino declared that it was figures like Benedetto Palmio who were truly ‘un-Christian’ and in fact little more than “pagans (164–5).” Remarkably, and with much chutzpah, Possevino attributed all of the disruption within the Society of Jesus to the “overweening ambition of the Portuguese Jesuits (171–2).” Possevino blatantly lied in his propaganda about the nature of the memorialistas, suggesting the movement was part of a “Portuguese conspiracy” to undermine Jesuit unity (171–2). Maryks comments bluntly on Possevino’s text that the majority of memorialists were in fact “undeniably conversos.” (172) Finally, Possevino’s apologetics also contain another aspect that prefigures modern propaganda — the idea that Jews are a natural and moral elite, typically combined with contempt for the rural masses. Possevino blamed “envious and talentless men from poor, rural backgrounds” (168) for the agitation against the conversos, while asserting that “in terms of their virtue and dedication, [conversos] represent an elite within the Society.” (172)

Conclusion

The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews is an important contribution to the study of religion and ethnic conflict in early modern Spain. Although not suited for beginners to any of the themes under discussion, the book is concise, and its four chapters are filled with new information sure to fascinate the reader with some prior knowledge of the Jesuits, Spanish history, or the Jewish Question in Europe.

My only real criticisms rest on matters of style and structure. Maryks’ writing style is often mechanical, and one sometimes feels that, while the material lends itself to a dramatic narrative, that potential is lost amid bland observations and repetitive recourse to lamenting the “bias” and “discrimination” of the “Old Christians.” Certainly this is a book in which the facts, rather than the author’s analysis, lead the way. As regards structure, the text has an irritating habit of repetition, particularly in terms of persistently re-introducing characters we would already be familiar with. I found this especially disappointing because of a normally high quality of editing from Brill.

These minor irritations aside, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews was a page-turner. Perhaps best of all, it’s now been made available to download for free as part of Brill’s open source initiative. Enjoy.

References

[1] See Kevin Ingram, Secret lives, public lies: The conversos and socio-religious non-conformism in the Spanish Golden Age. Ph.D. Thesis (San Diego: University of California, 2006), pp. 87–8.

[2] Quoted in Maryks, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews, p.xx.

[3] W. Caferro, Contesting the Renaissance (Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p.158.

[4] M. Baigent & R. Leigh, The Inquisition (London: Viking Press, 1999), pp.75-6.

[5] K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1st Books, 2004), 232.

[6] A. Lindemann & R. Levy (eds.), Antisemitism: A History (Oxford University Press, 2010), 136.

[7] T. Wagner,’Belated Heroism: The Danish Lutheran Church and the Jews, 1918-1945,’ in K. Spicer (ed), Antisemitism, Christian Ambivalence, and the Holocaust(Indiana University Press, 2007), 7.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

The Dead Sea scrolls Hoax.

Slack Jack Dec 25, 2017 10:02 PM

The Dead Sea scrolls are a mixture of old documents that were hidden in a number of caves to be miraculously found and used to support the establishment of Israel, a country intended for Jews only.

The main document “finds” were in 1946 and 1947 in caves near the tiny ancient settlement of Qumran.

Israel was created in 1948.

The Dead Sea scrolls are the only really old (well supposedly really old) documents, in the Hebrew characters, that have ever been found. No other really old documents in the Hebrew characters have ever been found.

All other documents in Hebrew characters date from later than 800 AD.

Previous to the “finds”, critics had pointed out the late date of all documents in Hebrew characters, and deduced that the Hebrew Old Testament must have been translated from the Greek Old Testament and not the other way round.

Then, low and behold,… a very timely miracle occurs.

The Dead Sea scrolls are “found” and dated to hundreds of years earlier than the oldest previously known documents in Hebrew characters.

Then, it is widely claimed that all the scrolls were produced and hidden in the Qumran caves before 70 AD (the supposed time of the mythical sack of Jerusalem by the Romans).

The critics are not given access to the scrolls nor even photographs of the text, lest they spoil the party.

In fact, for decades, only seven scholars are given access to the scrolls.

This goes on till certain critics are dead and the scrolls have been purged of all anachronisms (like Arabic numerals).

Then, in 1991, only 45 years after their “discovery”, the Huntington Library, in San Marino, California, without consent, makes facsimile copies of the scrolls available to all.

So that, in brief, is the Dead Sea scrolls Hoax.

More, however, can be deduced….

One can even guess where the Dead Sea documents came from.

It turns out that some of the Dead Sea documents, for example, the “Damascus Document,” are nearly identical to documents from the Genizah collection of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo, Egypt. So, it is likely that many of the Dead Sea scrolls had their source there.

Worldwide, there are ten manuscripts of the “Damascus Document” from the Dead Sea scrolls and two manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. This strange distribution is a result of the fraud. The “Damascus Document” was first published in 1910 by Solomon Schechter in “Fragments of a Zadokite Work.”

The Ben Ezra Synagogue was established around 900 AD.

Now, the Arabs have ruled Egypt since they defeated the Greek armies around 635 AD.

Now, the synagogue (and its Jews) existed happily, undisturbed, in Cairo, in the midst of the Islamic world.

So, maybe the original Jews were a group of Arabs.

This would explain why Hebrew and Arabic are nearly identical languages.

This would explain why the Hebrew and Islamic religious traditions are very similar.

And, it would also explain why Jews turned up in Spain with the Arabs (Moors).

Another couple of points:

It should also be noted that a few Jewish scholars (in particular, Solomon Zeitlin) have long insisted that the Dead Sea scrolls were a Medieval production. [Zeitlin was a well-known Talmudic scholar and would not claim this unless convinced it was true.]

Internal evidence from the scrolls themselves indicates a Medieval production. See, here.

And, the fact that many scrolls are written on vellum (90% of them) proves these are indeed a Medieval production.

It is estimated that 20 people occupied the site of Qumran (estimated by the number of inhabitants for whom there was room in the buildings). Now these 20 people were not just ordinary people, they read and wrote Greek, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, and Hebrew documents, like natives, and managed to write learned works on numerous religious topics (about 900 manuscripts were “recovered,” about six hundred separate works), while gathering enough water, and raising enough food, for their survival, in a desert.

Some have tried to claim that as many as 200 lived at Qumran, but most have considered that number ridiculously high.

Anyway, I think it is clear that the Dead Sea scrolls are a bunch of old documents that have been thrown together and sold to a gullible world.

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1175

Russian Blogosphere “Reveals” True Identity of Bitcoin Founder Satoshi Nakamoto

A convicted Russian fraudster, who once ran the country’s biggest Ponzi scheme, Sergei Mavrodi, has announced plans to relaunch his digital currency ‘mavro’ on the Ethereum platform.

“The time for change is now! We can do a lot!! Financial apocalypse is inevitable,” Mavrodi posted on his website, with a countdown before the launch of the new digital token, scheduled for December 29.

The decision to relaunch the virtual currency, which first saw the light at the end of 2016 with nearly 33,000 followers, was reportedly fueled by the unprecedented surge of cryptocurrencies this year. The new mavro was trading at 14 cents per token at 9:00 GMT on Friday, marking nearly a 75 percent decline since March 2017, when CoinMarketCap started tracking it.

Mavrodi is offering to replace “outdated” cryptocurrency with the “new mavro,” based on blockchain Ethereum, “which is almost impossible to destroy,” Russian media quote Mavrodi as saying. The founder is reportedly urging investors to get rid of old tokens by selling them at $0.50 per coin.

Sergei Mavrodi achieved notoriety after founding MMM (Mavrodi Mundial Moneybox), a financial pyramid in post-Soviet Russia in the early 1990s. Up to 15 million people thirsting for easy cash reportedly fell victim to the scheme losing all their savings. Investing in MMM shares promised returns of up to 300 percent per month. At least 50 investors in the scheme reportedly committed suicide after the pyramid collapsed.

Mavrodi was arrested in 1994 after a lengthy police investigation was eventually sentenced to four-and-a-half-years in jail. He was released from prison in May 2007.

In January 2011, the fraudster tried to relaunch the pyramid but failed. After Mavrodi’s second attempt to set the scheme in 2012, Russian authorities opened another criminal case. He is currently on the law enforcement wanted list.

 Sergei Mavrodi's face

Sergei Mavrodi © Iliya Pitalev / Sputnik

In 2014, Mavrodi launched the MMM Global Republic of Bitcoin, the so-called social-financial network. The scheme promised monthly returns of 100 percent. Mavrodi suspended the project in 2016, but his other projects like MMM South Africa, MMM China, MMM JAPAN and MMM Global USA are reportedly still functioning. They promise investors a return of 30 percent per month.

Russian Blogosphere “Reveals” True Identity of Bitcoin Founder Satoshi Nakamoto

© REUTERS/ Dado Ruvic/Illustration

Self-appointed troll “detectives” from the recesses of the Russian internet say they’ve discovered the true identity of Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto, posting a screenshot of the mysterious figure’s face online.

Bitcoin, the digital currency which has been on a rollercoaster ride of explosive growth followed by spectacular collapse over the past few weeks, has rocked the financial world, making and shattering fortunes in an instant and leaving analysts concerned that the Bitcoin craze is all just one big speculative bubble.

Eight years have passed since the decentralized cryptocurrency’s introduction, and probably biggest mystery surrounding it is still the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym used by its founder or founders. Now, Russian trolls say they have uncovered the digital currency pioneer’s true identity, posting a screenshot of the shadowy figure they say is Nakamoto online.

MMM shares, featuring Sergei Mavrodi's face

“The founder of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, becoming the richest man on the planet, has finally appeared in public.”

The image immediately led a stream of users born after the year 2000 rushing to try to figure out the identity of the man in the photo. But older users instantly remembered him as Sergei Mavrodi, the infamous conman and founder of MMM, a pyramid scheme which wiped out the savings of millions of Russians in the mid-1990s.

Established in 1989 as an office equipment importer, MMM switched to full-time Ponzi scheming in 1994. Mavrodi, a mathematician and programmer by trade, set up his MMM pyramid promising fantastical yearly returns of up to 3,000%, leading upwards of 10 million Russians, struggling to make ends meet in the economic chaos following the collapse of the Soviet Union, to put the last of their savings in the scheme.

MMM shares, featuring Sergei Mavrodi's face

© SPUTNIK/ VLADIMIR FEDORENKO
MMM shares, featuring Sergei Mavrodi’s face

MMM came complete with an aggressive advertising campaign, featuring ‘ordinary Russian guy’ character Lyonya Golubkov.

“I’m not a freeloader, I’m a partner! — That’s right Lyonya, we’re partners. AO MMM.”

Bitcoin coins
© AFP 2017/ JUSTIN TALLIS
Bitcoin Rollercoaster: What Happened, and Why?

The scheme attracted an estimated $15 billion in cash from unwitting investors and short-term speculators before the Russian government intervened, listing MMM as an illegal issuer of unregistered securities and charging the company with tax evasion. The chaos in the aftermath of the company’s downfall led to mass protests, lawsuits, and even threats of self-immolation. MMM declared bankruptcy in 1997 and Mavrodi went on the lamb, creating several more pyramid schemes, including an online scheme called “Stock Generation,” until his arrest in 2003. In 2007, he was sentenced to four and a half years in a penal colony. Released in 2011, he started up several new classic pyramid schemes, in Russia, India, and China, and has attempted to expand into Europe and the Western Hemisphere.

In the run-up to Bitcoin’s spectacular rise and fall this month, several blog writers and forum users actually compared Bitcoin to Mavrodi’s scheme, or suggested that Bitcoin’s rapid rise earlier this month was driven by the Russian conman’s efforts.

Nonfiction for the Nonplussed