Category Archives: Cultural/Ideological Divide

On the Psychology of Hate

Russian actress Olga Kormukhina – about the psychological reasons for Ukrainians’ hatred of Russians:

This is the story of Cain and Abel, this is the story of envy. We so love the people whom we have done good, and so we do not love those whom we have offended. Because this is a reminder, first of all, of our unworthiness. I think this is the reason why Ukrainians hate Russians. It is absolutely human. No matter how hard I try, I can’t hate Ukrainians. 

On the Treason of Intellectuals

by Vladimir Golstein

Brown University

In 1928, almost one hundred years ago, French intellectual, Julian Benda wrote this amazing book on the subject. A true Tolstoyan, he starts his study of this treason with quotation from Tolstoy.

Tolstoy describes two military officers, one of whom reprimands another for giving a brutal order to punish a soldier for some minor misdemeanor. Have you read Gospels, the officer asks. To which another replies, Have you read the Military Rules Book?

For Benda, the treason consists in the fact, that more and more intellectuals, keep on reading Military Rules Book, but ignore Gospels and other higher truths. Rather than appealing to the feelings of humanity, brotherhood, solidarity, son-ship to our common father, intellectuals read modern manuals, and push them further and further.

Nationalism, class and race warfare, religion, gender. Anything that can divide us further, now gets more and more intellectual support from intellectuals.

Rather than pouring cold water on common passions and obsessions, intellectuals pour gasoline, finding more and more examples or theories that would fuel these passions further.

For Benda, writing in 1928, these intellectual traitors, did all they could to support WWI, and now fueling another one, which he predicted with chilling precision.

A while ago, I published an article about Mikhail Bulgakov (author of Master and Margarita) and his horror at Ukrainian nationalism which he witnessed first hand living in Kiev on the eve of Revolution and civil war, and his anger at teachers, book-keepers, and other educated people, like Petliura, who were instrumental in organizing brutal civil war, and Holocaust before Holocaust, which took place on Ukrainian territory in 1920s.

Not much had been changed since then. I am afraid, it is the same type of semi-intellectuals, treasonous intellectuals for Benda, who keep on running things in Ukraine and elsewhere. The same promotion of hatreds, and anger, and everything else that can divide people.

Why do I say this? Say, when there is a war going on, any real military person would spent money on military targets. OK, some bastards would hit civilians to generate panic. We don’t need to approve it, but we understand it.

But look at recent attacks that happened on Russian territory. Murder of Dugin’s daughter, murder of a blogger and writer, Tatarsky, attempted murder of another writer, Prilepin, and murder of his driver instead.

What sane military guy gives orders like that? Only demented intellectuals, who came to power, and want to punish or intimidate other intellectuals. These expensive operations have zero military value.

In Lithuania, one crazy Russian intellectual and hater of Putin, pours ketchup on the face of another crazy Russian intellectual and hater of Putin, Shenderovich, for not hating enough.

Same happened during the festival of poetry in Estonia university town, Tartu. Let me repeat again, festival of poetry, when one demented Jewish Ukrainian anti-Putin poet, demanded that the festival dropped another demented Jewish-Israeli anti-Putin poet, Linor Goralik, for writing poetry in Russian.

Treasonous intellectuals came to power, and the result is ugly.

Needless to say, that the same breed of treasonous intellectuals, articulates neo-liberal and neo-conservative positions, and drives this country to more and more hatred, paranoia, and violence. They are not ordering hits on each other, yet, nor do they create kill lists, as they do now in Ukraine, sponsored by interior ministry and courtesy of the latest American technology, but we all know that Ukraine is a laboratory, where western intellectuals have a free run for their treacherous ideas. If it work there, expect it to hit the fan at home.

Are the Chinese Nice?

by Gilbert Doctorow via Gilbert Doctorow

Without mincing words, my answer to the question is that the Chinese are not nice. They are dignified, they are hard working and commercially minded. They pay all due respect to professional competence and operate a system of governance that might fairly be described as a meritocracy. But they are not nice in the sense of tolerant of the sins and transgressions of others. They are not Good Christians.

That is where the Chinese should not be confused with the Russian leadership, in which President Vladimir Putin has over the two plus decades at the helm always shown restraint and frequently turned the other cheek when he and his country were abused by the United States and its allies.

Putin’s Christian convictions and the behavior that follow from them have led his domestic critics among super patriots to harshly condemn the way the war in Ukraine or Special Military Operation, if you will, is being prosecuted. Russia has the capability to decapitate the Kiev regime at any time but has not done anything of the kind. Instead it has regularly permitted Western heads of government to visit with Zelensky at his headquarters as if the country were at peace. Russia has allowed the United States to repeatedly cross its declared red lines without punishment. All that we hear is the Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson Maria Zakharova wail “can you imagine!” She is as closely bound to that lament as Theresa May was to “highly likely.”

Regrettably, judging by the U.S. activities with respect to Taiwan over the past couple of weeks, Washington does not seem to appreciate the difference between Russia and China in temperament of the leaders and national cultures.

In his present declining state, Biden has no memory. But where is the memory of his younger circle of advisers and assistants? Why are Blinken and Sullivan and Austin ignoring the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis as they prepare to supply Taiwan with weapons that are as provocative and threatening to China as Khrushchev’s delivery of nuclear tipped missiles was to Cuba in 1962? Where is their memory of the antecedents of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor when Senator Lindsey Graham is allowed to publicly call for disruption of the sea lanes bringing oil to China from the Middle East? I have not heard or seen any criticism of this proposal from the White House.

The Chinese are not big talkers, but they are decisive actors. I have no doubt that if they believe the United States has crossed their red lines regarding aid to Taiwan and interference in the island’s domestic politics to favor independence, then the Chinese will strike. They surely have done their calculations. If they sink America’s aircraft carrier task force in the South China Sea or sink the entire U.S. Pacific fleet as Japan once did under similar circumstances, will the USA launch nuclear missiles and put its own national survival at risk? The answer is a flat no.

For the above acts of reckless endangerment of the Continental U.S., in addition to the violations of perjury before Congress in testimony over the preparedness of Ukraine for a counter-offensive against Russia that contradicts the Pentagon and CIA documents leaked over social media a couple of weeks ago, Biden and many of his team deserve impeachment. Now, before the Chinese show just how un-nice they can be.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

What is the Right Way to Live?

RJ Macready says: (edited by Algora)

[ . . . ] But there’s something that needs to be talked about…What is the right way to live? What is a good life?

Religion says relinquish all to God. But this is not a feasible path. Because all life, not just human life, not just modern civilization, but all life is a struggle – a fight to survive. Christianity may have its good aspects but its emphasis on spiritual hope is its undoing. It is anti nature. And this is why the white man, who is infused with morality and charity is in the state he is in. Morality and goodwill only work with like-minded human beings – call it anything you want, high-trust people, same race and blood, the untermensch kind…. It doesn’t matter. But it is the basic necessity for morality to work. If you don’t have such a system where like-minded higher people operate, morality becomes a weakness, a huge negative. Others trample on you. This is what is happening today. The blacks, the browns (I am one, myself) do not understand such concepts. They are, simply put, lesser beings. I will not elaborate on this.

Beyond morality, what a society needs is a good economic system. And this is where things get complicated. A good economy works when people have pride in their work. Because work, and whatever you create from it is the fulcrum of a fulfilling life. This is where the jew and the white man – especially the Germanic man (and the Japanese man) – come into the picture.

There is a reason both Germany and Japan have fantastic industries and their products are the finest in the world. German-made and Japanese-made are universal symbols of excellent craftsmanship be it automobiles or jeans.

Why is this the case? Ever wondered?

Because both these higher races of humans realized that great craftsmanship requires dedication and hard work. But the fruits of their labor go beyond money. It is pride and fulfilment….and above all, honor. These aspects give purpose to life beyond the bare basics of reproduction and heritage. Honor is the greatest good. Nobody knows the purpose of life, but if one lives with a strong code of honor, it gives life meaning. And an inner peace. Of course the product also brings money to live a life (food, shelter, hobbies) and the system thrives. Any system on earth operates on hard, honest work.

The Jew, because he was always been niggardly (in all of human history), became even more so when he was found out in every nation in the earlier days of history. This led to extreme ethnocentrism for self preservation.

The very fact that he went into money lending – the muckiest of professions – speaks about him. For what good is earning money by sitting on one’s own ass and lending it? The niggardly jew, inward looking as he always was, found a way to exploit and this led not only to an immense ethnocentrism but a deep-seated hatred for others, even the host on whose very land he operated. The jew is the polar opposite of the honor-driven teutonic German or the budisho-abiding Japanese. This is important to understand.

This sums up a big part of where this world went wrong…forget the wars and the blacks/trannies. This…haggling for money, bargaining….these are traits of a low race. This is anti honor and as such the opposite of good. Good isn’t believing in a higher power and hoping for salvation. Scam artist sadhus in India have been doing this for 4000 years. Good is living in a system where one must exist and live to the highest honor. To be your own God.

The haggler, the money lender, the cheap bargainer is a low organism. But this race not only runs the world today, he has infused these traits in every place today from Japan and Germany to American Wall Street and Australian outbacks. The code of honor is gone. It’s remnants still remain in some places….The german automobile factories still have traces of such ethos and they are still punctual and orderly. In Japan small businesses still operate on the honor of code. There are videos on YouTube of Japanese denim jeans and why they are so expensive. Or why a sushi chef charges so much for an afternoon’s work. What these videos don’t see is that the worker prides himself not on the money he makes but the work he does.

Capitalism, much like morality, works well amongst a higher race of human beings. And it is a necessity for the survival of any system and nation. It was the finest system ever devised for a mass of human beings. But …. It has been corrupted.

I am from India. I have put my own money and many years (two decades) into a system that is not just dysfunctional – dysfunctional isn’t bad, it can be improved – but immoral and dirty. Surrounded by low organisms, I have seen daily the struggle and pain that none of you have seen. (And trust me, to actually understand something one has to experience it first-hand; reading online or watching videos of scam artists or being taken for a ride one time doesn’t come close to actually understanding and living it daily.)

All the ills of a dysfunctional system – lack of ethics, lack of discipline, lack of punctuality, greed, avarice, jealousy – stem from this lack of honor. It surfaces physically with rudeness, haggling, pestering, ripping off the other for a small margin, etc., etc. You can see all this in any Indian or African marketplace. Go to buy a television or rice or even medicine, and you shall observe this.

I could have done a lot. I can still come to America and start a system there but…what’s the point? I come often, see the state of things and rue. You people, your system has been corrupted. And there is no returning back. This is the main crux of every problem. The trannies and lesser beings can be taken care of if a hard authoritarian system based on honor is put into place, but it won’t happen now. You should have gone the way of the Bushido samurai and the teutonic German knights but you chose the way of the jew, the slimy low-IQ Indian and the African.

Which again brings me to the question I asked above: What is the right way to live? What is a good life? Ponder over this.

Bert says:

Here is an example of the honor that you correctly identify as the principal loss that sank America.

In 1780, the British advanced their Southern Strategy, the concept of conquering the Southern Colonies after having been stalemated in the North, by besieging and taking Charles Town, South Carolina. The surrendered American Army included both Continental and militia units. The officers were paroled if they promised not to fight anymore, to go home and stay there. Colonel Andrew Pickens was one such militia officer who took parole. After a few months, a British raid into his Upcountry neighborhood involved vandalizing his home and farm. He reasoned that his oath of parole no longer applied because of the economic loss the British imposed upon him after he swore not to fight.

However, rather than simply reactivating his militia (the Long Canes Regiment), he rode to the nearest British post and informed the captain in command of the losses at his farm and of his decision to rejoin the Revolution (forthrightly explaining why he considered that he was not breaking his word but that the agreement had been annulled by the British side). He could have been seized and imprisoned, but because the captain was honorable also, Pickens left the post and became the most important militia leader in driving the British from South Carolina. Here were two men displaying honorable behavior that would be unthinkable today.

On Dying

by Gleb Georgevich Gerasimov, Slavyangrad (edited by Algora)

Many people like to say that they do not fear death, especially online. Many also mock death, again especially online. I do not quite understand the nature of what it takes to numb oneself to it, or to dehumanize someone simply because you’re viewing it with a glass barrier between you and them. But I have seen enough of these comments now to try and gather my thoughts on it and share this.

Death is pure terror.

The overwhelming majority of commentary on human behavior under life and death situations, combat stress, adrenal response, acute combat stress syndrome, and especially mockery of the dead, including the enemy, likely comes from folk who have never experienced a moment in which they truly believe they are about to die.

It doesn’t matter if it takes place in a fraction of a second in which one simply realizes that he is about to die on the spot, or takes place in the hospital where you know you’re dying and nothing can be done, or the interim period between these two.

The vast majority of human beings are not ready to die. We remain in denial to our final moments, even as our hearts and livers begin to fail, even as a matrix of prescribed medication keeps us alive. Then there comes a moment. The heart finally gives out and one wakes up in the hospital with a tube down the throat.

  • You’d want to ask so many questions – “what happened, am I ok, am I about to die, can I talk to my family?”
  • You’d want to tell them that you love them, but you cannot.
  • You’d want to apologize for every wrong you made to them, but you cannot.
  • You’d want to give them some final wise words to carry on after you’re gone, but you cannot.

You cannot speak. People are talking at you, perhaps your family is in the very room, but you are too weak to lift an arm or communicate more than perhaps a nod. You’re thirsty, extremely thirsty, but cannot ask for water. Your throat hurts. You are about to go away, about to disappear, and everything you ever were and ever could have been is about to vanish into the ether, and all the things you wish you could have left behind will be lost.

A man is shot. In that moment he likely feels no pain whatsoever, the adrenaline dulls it. But his body is no longer working as it should. He felt the “slap” of the round go in, but can’t quite tell where. He is unsure if it punctured his chest or stomach, and the fear comes that it may have been a vital organ. There is blood, but he is unsure if it’s arterial. He wants to stand, but finds that every time he gathers his legs under him he simply falls over again.

He knows that he is bleeding out. He cannot tourniquet it, he cannot call his wife, he cannot even thank his comrades and wish them well. He only has time to realize that he’s about to be dead, slur out, “I’m wounded, help”, and then go still – though still conscious, but unable to move his mouth.

A man is blown over by a shell. The pain is dulled, but he cannot stand. He does not know where he has been injured. He tries to do as trained and hooks his fingers and rakes them across his chest to look for blood. There is no hand present to do so. He tries to speak; his mouth will not move, and he reaches to assess with his other hand – there is no other hand either. He may not know it, but there is no jaw.

A man takes a grenade strike from a drone while traversing a river, and he is now underwater. He has already inhaled water from the shock and trauma when struck, he’s already coughing and gasping while underwater and inhaling more liquid as he does. His head is just centimeters below the surface, he need only sit up – but his legs do not work.

His arms instinctively thrash out for help, some part of his fading consciousness hoping on instinct that someone will be there to grab his hand and lift him out. No one does.

A man falls off an APC struck by fire. He strikes the back of his head and either loses consciousness or is rendered immobile. A man whom he knew by name sees him just as the APC is reversing in position, reaches out to try and grab him and drag him out of the way, too late, and the APC runs him over and crushes him.

A civilian driving in town feels a hammer-force blow to his head, his ears are deafened, there is a ringing. He opens his car door, thinking perhaps he was in an accident, only to fall out the door. He tries to stand, falls over again.

When he looks down, he sees that his legs are no longer there. He crawls his way to the sidewalk, takes a seat, and in that moment has no comprehension of what happened. He can only see that his legs are not there. He had been going to the store, and then to visit someone he knew. That someone he was going to visit will never know what he was thinking when he died, or what he could have hoped to say to them. He himself had to realize that his legs had been torn off, then understand that he was going to die, and in those very few seconds before losing consciousness, thought over everything he wished he could have said before to those he loved and every wasted moment that he did not.

A part of him wondered how his family would afford the rent in that moment.

Death is the inability to speak. Death is the inability to make up for past mistakes. Death is a flailing, desperate fear in which you realize that no matter how hard the spasm, no matter how hard your muscles work, no matter how loudly you scream, or how softly the whimper comes from your throat when you try to scream, that it is all about to end and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

It is pain, it is terror, it is undignified; it is the fear of knowing what is about to come next and fear of that coming pain.

There is a sound I still hear sometimes in my bad dreams. It is a very particular sound, one I cannot quite properly describe or explain – but when wounded men scream, there is sometimes a very particular tone to their voice. If you have not heard it before, you cannot imagine it, and I cannot comprehend how anyone hearing it could proceed to execute such a voice – and yet, men do.

Men in this state, already shot and wounded and down, scream for help, for mercy; and begging, they cry “Stop!”

As they are being shot to death, in their final panicked moments, they are not trying to communicate “Please don’t kill me” but instead are trying to communicate, “Please, stop killing me.”


Imagine all that from the mind of a child. A child who is used to, when hurt, crying for an adult and Mom and Dad will be there instantly to make it stop hurting.

Only this time, Mom and Dad don’t come – because Dad’s face has been torn off and he is trying to comprehend through the pain why he cannot see or speak, and the nine-year-old girl lying in a street in the city of Donetsk cannot process that she has been torn apart at the pelvic girdle, for she has no concept of anatomy, death, or terror – and whatever her father’s final thoughts may have been I do not know, but that the girl’s final thoughts were cries for “Mommy, Daddy,” I am certain.

I saw the footage of this girl’s mother, almost driven mad, screaming that her daughter is here and her daughter’s legs are there.

One can harden one’s heart and steel himself to such, in war. But I will say this – it ain’t funny, and it ain’t entertainment, and anyone who finds it such should check their own headspace.

To Confiscate or Not to Confiscate?

Any Western attempts to transfer seized Russian assets to Ukraine would be “barbarism,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has claimed. If necessary, Moscow is ready to impose a tit-for-tat response, she added.

Speaking at a press briefing on Friday, Zakharova noted that EU nations had invested heavily in Russia, meaning a significant amount of European-owned assets remain in the country. Their value is larger than that of the Russian assets seized by foreign nations, the spokeswoman argued.

Zakharova insisted that Russia wants to operate within the law and would give the US and its allies “every last chance” to reconsider any plans to confiscate Russian property. However, she added that Moscow was fully prepared to defend its interests, including through the use of “equal compensatory measures.”

The remarks referred to a new EU working group, established to explore ways to make Russia fund the future reconstruction of Ukraine.

“This must be done in accordance with EU and international law, and there is currently no direct model for this,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said, commenting on the new group. Stockholm currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council.

Western nations have frozen hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Russian sovereign reserves, as well the assets of Russians whom they consider close to the government. Moscow has branded the measures an act of robbery.

Zakharova stressed that property rights should not be subject to the whims and geopolitical needs of a handful of nations, adding that US foreign policy was often prone to wild swings. She claimed that a case in point is Venezuela, where Washington previously referred to Juan Guaido as a legitimate leader with the right to manage the nation’s wealth.

“Now Western delegations visit [Nicolas] Maduro, whom we always considered the legitimate president, as if nothing happened,” Zakharova said. “So everything they say now about Russia, their accusations, threats, and blackmail… can flip-flop in a moment. Mark my words.”

The spokeswoman warned that the international community should oppose the push for the expropriation of Russian property. Countries could otherwise find themselves on the receiving end of the “ostensibly impartial” Western-controlled financial system, Zakharova cautioned.

Suicide ? Biden? Secret Documents?

An aide to US President Joe Biden has been found dead outside a three-story building in a Washington suburb.

The body of Frances Underwood, one of US President Joe Biden’s aides, was found this morning by neighbors, who reported it to the police. The main version of the death was suicide. Underwood was known to have been taking antidepressants and suffering from bipolar disorder for the past few years.

He was also known to be one of those who discovered secret documents in Joe Biden’s garage.

Social Darwinism Didn’t Die, It Just Evolved

by Emmet Sweeney

Nazism has been characterized, rightly, as a form of Social Darwinism, and Social Darwinism can be described as the political application of the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest.” Darwin himself denied (publicly, at least) that this meant, or should mean, the elimination of the “unfit” in human society. Nonetheless, in the Darwinian system, Natural Selection was indubitably the driving force behind evolution and the development, ultimately, of intelligent human beings — and it achieved this by eliminating the unfit. Some years after the publication of the Origin of Species Darwin was to write:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit…. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters Vol. 1 (ed. Francis Darwin, 1888), p. 316)

If Darwin himself was a bit coy in spelling out the consequences of his ideas in public, his greatest champions and defenders were most certainly not. Racism was almost universal among the early evolutionists, many of whom believed the races had evolved separately. Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” expressed his belief that blacks would not be able “to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival [i.e., whites], in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places within the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins…” (Thomas Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York, 1870), p. 20)

Ernst Haekel, the great popularizer of Darwin in Germany, wrote:

The mental life of savages rises little above that of the higher mammals, especially the apes, with which they are genealogically connected…. Their intelligence moves within the narrowest bounds, and one can no more (or no less) speak of their reason than that of the more intelligent animals…. These lower races (such as the Veddahs or Australian negroes) are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives. (Ernst Haekel, The Wonders of Life (New York, 1904), pp. 56-7)

Darwin’s theory did not, of course, appear in a political and cultural vacuum, and the intellectual classes of 19th century England (i.e., the wealthy and comfortably off) were happy to believe that the crushing poverty endured by the urban working classes and rural poor of that time — with an average life expectancy of around 35 years — was part of the natural order of things and even beneficial for the future progress and development of humanity. If the poor died off before they could breed, so much the better: they were obviously mentally and intellectually “unfit.”

There is no question that the increasingly post-Christian mindset of the ruling elites in Britain, France and the US during the latter years of the 19th century hastened the triumph of Darwin’s theory, yet by the final years of the 19th century those same elites had a problem: improved medical care, diet and housing meant that more of the “great unwashed” were surviving — and so were their children. Social welfare programs, usually funded by churches and other charitable institutions and eventually, to some degree, by the state, meant that more and more of these “mentally defective” denizens of the slums were living beyond their childhood and they too were having children — large numbers of them. Polite society at the time was full of talk of the danger this phenomenon might pose for the future. What to do? In 1883, one years after Darwin’s death, his half-cousin Francis Galton coined a new term, “eugenics,” (from the Greek words eu “good” and genes “birthing” or “creating”). Galton was an influential polymath as well as an enthusiastic admirer of Darwin. Over the next two decades he applied himself energetically to promoting what he regarded as a new scientific discipline, publishing a plethora of papers outlining and popularizing the concept. His words fell on fertile ground; Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from various sources. Organizations were formed to win public support and sway opinion towards what was described as responsible eugenic values in parenthood. Such groups included the British Eugenics Education Society, founded in 1907, and the American Eugenics Society, founded in 1921.

To begin with, the eugenecists contented themselves with trying to encourage the more “intelligent” members of society to have more children, whilst simultaneously discouraging the less intelligent from having children at all. To this end, Britain’s first birth control clinic, founded in the early 20th century by ardent eugenicist and racist Marie Stopes, sought to normalize the use of contraception among the poor. However, it soon became clear that such measures would have little impact, and calls for more coercive measures were quickly heard. Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for exchanging ideas, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. By the early 1920s active and influential eugenics groups in Great Britain, France, and Germany, were calling for the forced sterilization of the mentally “unfit,” and by the late 1920s and early 1930s, similar policies were implemented in other countries including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Sweden. Frederick Osborn’s 1937 journal article “Development of a Eugenic Philosophy” framed sterilization as a social philosophy. Osborn, who was widely influential at the time, advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits (“positive eugenics”) and reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (“negative eugenics”).

The Nazi Party assumed power in Germany in 1933, inaugurating there an extremely active eugenics policy. This resulted, by the late 1930s, not only in forced sterilization on a large scale, but killing (euthanasia) of the mentally and physically disabled. These were, infamously, designated as nutzloser Esser (“useless eaters”). In his Mein Kampf, Hitler had outlined his support for an extremely proactive application of eugenics, and made his debt to Darwin and Darwinism in this regard very explicit. Darwin is cited throughout the book. It should not be imagined however that the extreme policies inaugurated by the Nazis, which included stud farms for producing genetically improved Germans, were confined to Germany and uniquely Nazi. On the contrary, as the 1920s gave way to the ’30s, the position of eugenicists everywhere, including in democracies such as Britain and France, as well as in the Communist regime of the Soviet Union, became more and more radical. In 1931 for example, British author and Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw argued that “If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight … then clearly, we cannot use the organizations of society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to you.” (BBC interview, 1931). He also noted that, “[I]f we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.” This included a whole range of “defectives.”

The defeat of Nazi Germany and the revelation of the horrors inflicted by the Nazi Party on populations throughout Europe during the War had the effect, by the late 1940s, of discrediting eugenics as a philosophy — though even then Shaw and a few other enthusiasts unapologetically stuck to their position. By the 1960s,however, few public figures dared go on record promoting anything that smacked of forced sterilization or selective breeding. Yet the fundamental premise of eugenicism, the Darwinian interpretation of evolution, was never discarded. On the contrary, it embedded itself ever deeper into the minds of the European and American elites, and as the 20th century came to its close those same elites moved ever further away from the Christian roots of their civilization, whilst embracing utopian scientism. If God is not in control of the world, then Man — meaning of course the ruling elites themselves — must take control. Billionaire “philanthropists” began funding think tanks and pressure groups of various kinds which campaigned for extensive access to both contraception and abortion, especially in poorer parts of the world. In a hugely influential book published 1968 Professor Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University warned that mankind faced a crisis of exploding populations, which would cause, he predicted, devastating famines around the Earth by the 1980s. Eugenicists had of course been warning of “overpopulation” for nigh on a century, but little had been hitherto done to counter population growth. Now however governments in many countries, but especially in Europe and America, began to aggressively promote birth-control programs. These were followed, in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the legalization of abortion in almost all of Europe and North America.

Ehrlich’s predicted famines did not of course materialize, and food production easily outstripped population increases in every part of the world in the decades between the 1960s and ’90s. This did not, however, lessen calls for population control, and in a 1976 book entitled The Final Days, the Nazi term “useless eaters” was once again applied to the sick, elderly and infirm; this time by Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger. By the early 1980s the need for massive population reduction became a constant theme of the burgeoning environmentalist movement. Human beings were increasingly portrayed as a plague on the Earth, a plague that needed to be controlled. Despite the fact that birth-rates in Europe and North America (as well as Australia) had dropped below replacement levels by the mid-1990s, and had begun to go the same way in Asia and Latin America by the early 2000s, the calls for population reduction only intensified.

The need to reduce the numbers of “less desirable” humans was of course a long-standing theme of the eugenics movement — as was the need to increase the numbers of the “more desirable” type. In this spirit, the first sperm-banks were opened in 1964 in the US and Japan. Such faculties, which have now spread throughout the world, allow women whose husbands are infertile, as well as single women and lesbian couples, to select genetic material from men who are strictly vetted in terms of health, intelligence, etc. Only men with the highest IQs and in the best health, free of all genetic disorders, are selected as donors. These modern sperm-banks are therefore close cousins to the Nazi Lebensborn stud-farms.

A chief goal of the eugenicists of the 1920s and ’30s was the elimination of all those unfit or unable to contribute economically to society, and this too has its parallel in the modern world, where euthanasia, the deliberate killing of the very old and infirm, has again raised its ugly head. The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia (in 2001) and it was followed by several other countries in Europe and Canada, was well as most of Australia. As might be expected, in all these places it is stipulated that the decision to die must be made by the patient him/herself. However, as might also be expected, actual practice in hospitals has moved ever closer to simply killing the patient whethere he or she desires it or not. And just this, as we shall see, has now been put into practice on a truly colossal scale throughout the West.

As noted earlier, the modern iteration of the eugenics movement ties it closely to environmentalism (note; the Nazis were also enthusiastic environmentalists), which views humanity as something close to a destructive plague on the Earth. One of the most vocal voices in this regard is Microsoft CEO and billionaire “philanthropist” Bill Gates. In a TED Talk speech delivered in 2010, Gates argued that the Earth could comfortably support half a billion people (500 million) but that the world’s population was on the way to nine billion. It was necessary, he said, for the good of humanity, to drastically reduce that number. This, he felt, could be achieved by the use of vaccines in the poorer parts of the world. Gates of course always claimed that what he meant by this statement was that vaccination campaigns would produce better health for children and that, sure of the survival of their existing children, poor couples would not feel the need to have large families. Yet it is curious that as early as 1993 the World Health Organization had announced the development of a “birth-control vaccine,” whilst in the same year the Catholic Church in Kenya announced that such a vaccine was already in use there. This claim, it should be noted, resurfaced again in 2014.

Gates is of great interest. He is an influential member of the rather sinister World Economic Forum, a talking-shop for the super-rich and super-powerful; a body which, like Gates himself, actively campaigns for population reduction and de-industrialization in the name of the environment. The two goals are inseparable. Bill’s father, William H. Gates, was an outspoken and unapologetic eugenicist, and there is unambiguous proof that Bill has adopted core principles of his father’s beliefs. Through the “charitable” “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” Gates has helped fund research into developing new forms of biotechnology aimed, allegedly, at alleviating disease in poorer countries and improving the quality of life. The Foundation also funds genetic engineering of foods and Gates himself has been a keen supporter of and investor in Moderna, a pharmaceutical corporation which was founded specifically for the purpose of developing mRNA technology. The latter is a gene-altering process aimed at humans which, as Gates and others have repeatedly stressed, could help mankind eliminate hereditary incurable illnesses such as Cystic fibrosis and Type-1 diabetes. Such has always been one of the primary goals of the eugenicists. In fact, an mRNA-based “vaccine” was finally rolled out by Moderna and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer in late 2020, and the use to which the mRNA jabs were put would confirm that only with difficulty can we defend a benign interpretation of Gates’ 2010 claim that vaccination could help dramatically reduce the Earth’s population.

Which brings us onto what will surely be seen by future historians as the biggest event of the past 70 years: the alleged “COVID pandemic.” Along with his good friend Anthony Fauci, Gates was extremely influential in facilitating the totalitarian and completely unprecedented “lockdowns” in the US and throughout much of the world. These two of course by no means acted alone: It seems that the entire billionaire and trillionaire class, who own all the media (and all the politicians), co-ordinated efforts to produce what can only be described as a deliberate campaign of deception and terror in order to deprive billions of people of their freedom and millions of their lives. There was of course no deadly virus around in 2020, a fact proved by the failure of this alleged “killer” to produce mass deaths in countries such as Belarus and Sweden which did not lock down and which did not implement any special measures. In fact, both the latter countries had negative excess deaths in 2020, meaning that COVID-19, whatever it was, was not even as dangerous as an average ’flu. However, in many countries which did lock down, including much of Western Europe and North America, there were many excess deaths in 2020. It is now clear that the vast majority of these deaths were of elderly and frail people who were actually euthanized in hospitals and care homes. This was effected by refusal to provide proper and effective treatments for respiratory illness (such as vitamins D and C, as well as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine), and instead subjecting patients to doses of such lethal drugs as Midazolam (in UK and Europe) and Remdesivir (in US and Canada). These two drugs, plus improper use of ventilators, deprived millions of the elderly and sick of their lives in the Spring of 2020, in what can only be described as the largest act of mass murder in modern history. But the modern totalitarian eugenicists were by no means finished.

Throughout the first year of the COVID “emergency,” Gates, as well as Fauci and other spokespersons for the new tyranny, proclaimed continuously that the “pandemic” would never be over until a vaccine could be developed to control it. I will not go into the utterly unscientific nature of such as statement, as it has already been dealt with at length by others much better qualified than me. Suffice to say that it is now perfectly clear that the coordinated campaign of terror in the media throughout 2020 and 2021 was designed to frighten as many people as possible into taking the mRNA “vaccine” which Moderna and other pharmaceuticals had already, it seems, developed.

It is a fact that the introduction of the COVID-19 “vaccines” was accompanied by an immediate increase in death rates in every country with large uptakes in the injections. Countries which tended to reject the “vaccines” had no significant increase in death rates. In the West (Europe, North America, Australasia, Japan and South Korea), where “vaccination” rates were highest, most of the huge increase was blamed on COVID. However, there was also an immediate and quite dramatic rise in heart-related and cancer-related deaths. These, however, were ignored by the controlled mass media. There was also — and this calls to mind Bill Gates’ chilling words in 2010 — a massive increase in miscarriages among women and a dramatic decrease in the birth rate.

And thus it has remained since the spring of 2021. The death rates in all Western countries have continued to be far above average, and it is now admitted that the vast majority of these have nothing whatsoever to do with COVID-19. Almost all are heart- or cancer-related. The numbers dead, throughout Europe, America, Australasia, and the Pacific Rim, is now in the tens of millions. In those same regions the birth rates, already well below replacement level, have dropped noticeably, and it is clear that the “vaccines” are acting as a sterilizing agent. The eugenicists have done their work well.

(Note: The author of this article accepts that “natural selection” or the “survival of the fittest” does indeed operate in the natural world. Sick or frail animals die quickly in the wild. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this can produce new species, and it needs to be stated that the rise of new species throughout Earth’s history is as much a mystery now as it was in the time of Darwin. Finally, it should not be forgotten that the protection of the sick and the frail is one of the defining characteristics of civilized humanity; one of the remarkable features differentiating us from the savage beasts).

Emmet Sweeney is the author of several works dealing with problems in the ancient history of Egypt and the Near East.

The Making of the Soviet Union, Lenin and Stalin on Opposite Sides

By Alexander Nepogodin, an Odessa-born political journalist, expert on Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Exactly 100 years ago, on December 30, 1922, the largest country in world history was created. At the First All-Union Congress of Soviets, representatives of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) and Belarusian SSR, and the Transcaucasian Federation all signed Declaration and Treaty on the Formation of the USSR.

The huge country left an ambiguous legacy, and most of the Bolsheviks’ promises were never fulfilled. However, despite its collapse in 1991, to this day the history of the Soviet Union remains relevant for residents of Russia and the former Soviet republics. In fact, it was the beginning of Bolshevik rule that marked the national revival of minorities and the creation of republics that received not only autonomy, but also the right to secede from

RT recalls how the decision to create the USSR was made and why its structure was determined by a dispute between the “red chiefs” – Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

According to Lenin’s original plan, the USSR was not really meant to be a “state” from the point of view of “state structure.” It was supposed to be a free confederation of independent states (republics), each having nearly full sovereignty. That’s where the phrase “self-determination up to secession” came from. The unity of this formation was ensured not by “state” or “supranational” mechanisms, but by a single ruling Communist party.

Such a model assumed the possibility of the USSR’s unlimited expansion, up to a global scale. Any country could merely recognize the Communist Party as a “ruling and guiding force” and integrate into the Soviet Union as a new republic. That is why the formula of self-determination up to secession did not particularly concern the leader of the world proletariat, Vladimir Lenin. After all, if communism won over the whole world, where and for what reason would its republics secede? “We still have to conquer five-sixths of the earth’s landmass to have the USSR all over the world,” proclaimed chairman of the 5th Congress of the Comintern, Grigory Zinoviev, in June 1924.

This logic applied not only in the 1920s, but also after the end of World War II, when the Belarusian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR became co-founders of the UN, having their own foreign policy departments. When the “global growth” model was transformed during perestroika, it became apparent that the Soviet republics were held together within the Soviet Union only by a bureaucratic management system. The concept of a single space was doomed. As a whole, the USSR could only exist within the framework of its historical mission, “the construction of communism.”

FILE PHOTO. © Sputnik

Autonomy or federalization?

In June 1919, the RSFSR, Belarusian SSR, and Ukrainian SSR officially united their armed forces, economy, finance, transport, and mail services. The role of national authorities was assigned to the Russian people’s commissariats – analogues of ministries. Republican communist parties joined the Russian Communist Party-Bolsheviks, or ‘RCP(b)’ as territorial organizations. A paradox then arose: the entire territory controlled by the Bolsheviks was governed as a single state, while the republics formally remained independent.

For the Bolsheviks, this meant little – the Communist Party held a monopoly over politics and decision-making anyway. However, following the end of the acute phase of the Civil War, the problem of external representation arose. On the eve of the international debut of the new government, at the Genoa Conference in April-May 1922, it was decided that a delegation of the RSFSR would speak for all the republics. But in the future, foreign partners wanted to clearly see who they were dealing with. Moreover, the country’s own population had to understand where they lived.

Joseph Stalin was the party’s specialist in interethnic relations (although, according to rumors, Nikolai Bukharin could have been involved in writing his main work “Marxism and the National Question”). As the RSFSR People’s Commissar of Nationality Affairs responsible for working out the issue, he proposed to include the remaining republics in the RSFSR as autonomous entities. In autonomization, Stalin saw a means of solving several problems at once. Firstly, it could strengthen a single national space and create a rigid vertical alignment of power. And secondly, it would weaken local nationalists and “social-independents” who advocated the full sovereignty of the Soviet republics and were annoyed by the interference of the central government in their affairs. At the same time, the central power and the all-Russian legislation would extend to new territories. Essentially, the plan did not envisage the unification and formation of a new state, but an absorption of the national Soviet republics by the RSFSR.

In September 1922, Joseph Stalin sent his project to Vladimir Lenin and soon presented the program of “autonomization” before the preparation commission for the Central Committee Plenum on the Relationship Between the RSFSR and Other Soviet republics. The commission, chaired by Vyacheslav Molotov, met on September 23-24, 1922, and managed to approve the plan developed by Stalin. Now it had to be approved at the plenum of the Central Committee, which was scheduled for October 5. However, Lenin, who was in an unstable condition at the time due to deteriorating health, refused to accept the project and demanded the creation of the USSR according to the model of maximum federalization – that is, with semi-independent Union republics.

Vladimir Lenin.

His proposal would not only create tension within the party, but also show the world an example of a “fundamentally new solution to the national question.” Lenin insisted on the creation of equal treaties between the republics with the possibility of other non-capitalist countries around the world joining the Soviet Union in the future. This included creating a new constitution and forming federal authorities with representatives from all republics. The Soviet Union was conceived by its ideologists as a global communist project, open, among other things, to the accession of those countries that were never part of the disintegrated Russian Empire. This was a serious argument for those who criticized Stalin’s plan of autonomization. After all, focusing on the world revolution as a global project, the federation was seen as the most convenient structure of the state, since it would be easier to include new subjects.

Lenin's Yugoslavia: How a plan to create a 'Soviet Switzerland' was shot down by Stalin and other locals

At the same time, appeasing some of the nationally oriented Bolsheviks was also an important issue. Some influential national communists, who were especially strong in the Ukrainian SSR and Transcaucasian SFSR (especially among Georgians), opted for the prospect of confederation since they wanted a greater degree of freedom.

This is most clearly evidenced by the so-called “Georgian incident.” On October 20, 1922, at a meeting of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee of the RCP(b) a dispute arose between Grigory (Sergo) Ordzhonikidze and the Georgian Bolsheviks on whether Georgia should enter the USSR as part of the Transcaucasian SFSR or independently. When Ordzhonikidze called his opponents “chauvinistic rot,” one of them, Akaki Kabakhidze, called Ordzhonikidze “Stalin’s donkey,” and Ordzhonikidze hit him in the face.

The central power had to intervene, and a Central Committee commission headed by Felix Dzerzhinsky headed to Transcaucasia. Without even talking to the other side, its representatives sided with Ordzhonikidze. Lenin, however, no less strongly supported the Georgian Bolsheviks and demanded that Ordzhonikidze be expelled from the party for assault. At the same time, both Stalin and Lenin understood that the incident, spurred by feelings of nationalism, was a serious issue that could have consequences for the future of the state.

FILE PHOTO. Leaders of the Russian revolution, from left to right, Joseph Stalin, Nikolai Bukharin, Grigory Ordzhonikidze and Janis Rudzutaks from reviewing stand in Red Square, circa 1930 in Moscow, Russia. © Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

A ticking time bomb

Discussions on autonomization and federalization lasted throughout the autumn of 1922 and ended with the victory of Lenin’s project. Shortly before the signing of the treaty, Lenin summoned Stalin to his Gorki residence near Moscow and demanded he change the first paragraph. Soon, he wrote the note “On the formation of the USSR” to politburo members in which he expressed the opinion that the RSFSR should recognize itself as equal with other republics and enter the union “together and on an equal footing with them.” Lenin made concessions, and both political and territorial compromises.

The Russian Civil War ended 100 years ago: Here's how Western powers played a significant part in the outcome

This was motivated by the fear that a single administrative apparatus would lead to bureaucrats discriminating against peoples in remote parts of the union. “It is necessary to distinguish between the nationalism of an oppressive nation and the nationalism of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a large nation and the nationalism of a small nation. In relation to the latter nationalism, almost always in historical practice, we, the nationals of a large nation, find ourselves guilty of an infinite amount of violence. Moreover, we commit an infinite amount of violence and insults without noticing it,” he wrote. Stalin, however, stood by his opinion and in a note to the members of the politburo called Lenin’s position “national liberalism.” Yet the authority of the leader of the world proletariat, despite his serious illness, remained unquestionable.

The morning of December 29, 1922, was lively outside the Bolshoy Theater in Moscow. Figures in overcoats, commissar’s leather uniforms, and national costume floated out of the frosty fog. Delegates of the First All-Union Congress of Soviets were gathering to establish a new state. On the same day, the delegations of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Belarusian SSR, as well as the Transcaucasian SFSR signed an Agreement on the Formation of the USSR. A day later, it was approved, and December 30 became the day of the formation of the Soviet Union, which existed for almost 69 years.

Except for issues concerning foreign policy and foreign trade, finance, defense, and communications, which were transferred over to the Union authorities, each republic had jurisdiction over all remaining areas. The All-Union Congress of Soviets became the supreme body of the country. Between its convocations, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, consisting of two chambers – the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities, was established.

Soviet poster reading “The USSR is a new type of state”

The adopted declaration outlined the reasons, principles, and goals for the unification of the Soviet republics. The most important principle was the right of peoples to self-determination, and the ultimate goal was the creation of a World Union of Communist Republics.

“Access to the [Soviet] Union is open to all socialist Soviet republics, both existing and future. The new Union State will serve as a stronghold against world capitalism and a decisive step towards uniting the working people of all countries into a World Socialist Soviet Republic,” stated the first Constitution of the USSR, adopted on January 31, 1924.

Do Russians want the Soviet Union back?

The new state was deliberately given supranational character, so that in the future any “Soviet socialist republic” could be accepted into it. Advocating the liquidation of the state as such, the Bolsheviks saw only a temporary solution in such a state structure. Initially, Lenin even proposed to call the state the “Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia,” but eventually it was decided to avoid geographical references. The USSR coat of arms is the only example of its kind where the entire globe is depicted but state borders are not marked in any way.

A failed project

However, the hopes of the “Old Bolsheviks” for a world revolution were not fulfilled, and the system created with this perspective in mind could not resist the onslaught of new realities. The thesis of “peaceful coexistence” with the capitalist world was established soon after the Second World War in the mid-1950s, although Vyacheslav Molotov found it “disorienting” until the end of his long life. This wasn’t incidental, since Molotov saw the USSR enter into another race with the United States, in addition to the “arms race” – the race for “quality of life” – also lost by the Soviet system. It turned out that outside of the task of spreading communism in the world, the Soviet Union, as a whole, was an impossibility.

FILE PHOTO. © Sputnik/Ramil Sitdikov

Ultimately, the practical fulfillment of the right of nations to self-determination played out as a cruel joke. Shortly after the creation of the USSR, a process of nation-building was launched in the new Soviet republics. The 185 nationalities of the Soviet Union were divided into union republics directly subordinated to the central authority. These included autonomous republics within the Union republics, autonomous regions within the territories, and national districts. At the same time, it was determined which of the subjects should have rights and privileges, and which should not. For example, each national republic had its own Communist Party and academy of sciences, but Russians were not allowed to have these. Following the foundation of the USSR, the RSFSR was entirely sterilized of state infrastructure.

The new borders between the republics, largely drawn up with economic needs and Communist rationality in mind, also caused discontent. For example, Abkhazians and Ossetians did not want to be part of the Georgian SSR, and the Russians who lived in Donbass did not want to be governed by the Ukrainian SSR. Some majority Tajik regions became part of the Uzbek SSR, and Nagorno-Karabakh, with a predominantly Armenian population, was included in the Azerbaijani SSR.

Subsequently, all these issues caused the aggravation of interethnic conflicts and the implementation of the republics’ right to secession, preserved in all Union constitutions. This right was first invoked in 1990 by the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Georgian SSRs. Their example was eventually followed by almost all the other republics, of which there were fifteen in the “classic” composition of the USSR. The attempt made in 1991 by the first and last President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, to prepare and agree on a new version of the Union Treaty was unsuccessful not only because of the attempted coup by part of the leadership in August, but also because of cardinal disagreements on the division of powers between the central authority and the republics, including the budget issue.

In December 1991, the Supreme Soviets of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia announced the denunciation of the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR. The corresponding resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR was canceled by the State Duma of Russia in March 1996, but the deputies clarified that their decision did not affect the sovereignty of Russia and other former Soviet republics.