Our Cold War Against Joseph Stalin
Stalin "failed to promote individual prosperity"
BUT"By 1937, after less than a decade's rule as totalitarian dictator, he had increased the Soviet Union's total industrial output to the point where it was surpassed only by that of the United States"
The best example of the futility of cold war propaganda by jews against fellow Christians in Russia, and particularly against fellow Christian Joseph Stalin, is the following article from Encyclopedia Britannica. While it decries Stalin because he "failed to promote individual prosperity" on the one hand, it acknowledges that "By 1937, after less than a decade's rule as totalitarian dictator, he had increased the Soviet Union's total industrial output to the point where it was surpassed only by that of the United States." It then goes on to claim "Stalin has arguably made a greater impact on the lives of more individuals than any other figure in history", and discounts that statement by saying "... the evaluation of his overall achievement still remains, nearly two decades after his death, a highly controversial matter". Who else other than jews can reconcile such wildly contradictory statements about Christians in their minds?
Having lived in 27 countries and traveled through 72 of them, this author fully expected to discover that such propaganda tactics had seriously misled us about Russia and Stalin, but it was a complete shock to discover that Russians to this day love Stalin as a fellow Christian. In a year and a half of travelling all over Russia, not one single Russian didn't show the utmost respect for a fellow Christian whom we Americans were told by our best and brightest jewish scholars had killed one sixth of the Russian population. Such a level of respect is not enjoyed by even one US president, not even George Washington.
It begrudgingly acknowledges that he "moved to Tiflis Theological Seminary, where he secretly read Karl Marx", as if though they were under his bed covers with him as he read, holding the flashlight for him. This is nothing but a naked attempt to belittle his being a Christian, which is his single most important characteristic in the era in which he lived. It ignores the role Stalin played in restoring SPOKEN Christian school prayer; bringing to trial and removing the Bolshevists (85% of whom were jews) from power; and exiling and eventually assassinating the jew Trotsky and condemning Lenin for their roles in the wholesale slaughter of 25-50 million White Christian Russians, none of which demonstrates much of a fondness for jews like Karl Marx.
It claims that "the drunken father savagely beat his son", which is the typical jewish charge that's easy to make but impossible to disprove--just as the jewish controlled media and legal establishment in this country do, incessantly. It notes that "Stalin also held two ministerial posts in the new Bolshevik government" but fails to note the far more important point that he was one of the only Christians to ever be permitted such an honor in Russia. It claims "the pockmarked Georgian [Stalin] was so obviously unintellectual", yet fails to even mention that his "brilliant rivals, including Trotsky and Grigory Zinoviev" were STUPID jews who killed tens of millions of Stalin's fellow Christians.
At the same time that it claims he was a devout Communist, it claims:
This single paragraph conceals three important facts:
Note: Very interesting comments and links for further reading provided in the comments section accessed by the link below. - sc
DARKMOON UPON AMERICA, BY ISRAEL SHAMIR: Response, Pictures and Captions by Lasha Darkmoon
“The world that awaits us, if our New Masters prevail, will be a grim dystopia. It will be a spiritual wasteland in which an unprincipled elite rides roughshod over the teeming masses. It will be a cruel world of exploitation, moral darkness, and unspeakable brutality.” — Lasha Darkmoon, America Vanquished
Darkmoon upon America
by Israel Shamir
Response, Pictures and Captions by Lasha Darkmoon
The gifted British poet Lasha Darkmoon recently published a new essay in two parts called America Vanquished, claiming that the US, Germany and Russia were colonised by Jews.
How close to truth is she? Being a Gothic poet, she embellished her essay a lot, but here is the important part. She says:
In short, the Jews took over America and turned it into a Jewish colony. As simple as that. Their American hosts were hoist with their own petard.
But why worry? American Jews are Americans, are they not? If they’re smart enough to take over America, as they have demonstrably done, why shouldn’t they proceed to the next logical step and take over the world—yes, dominate the world through America? No one denies this is America’s aim: full-spectrum dominance. So if the Jews control America, and if America controls the world, doesn’t it follow logically that the Jews control the world? The logic is irrefutable.
Jewish world domination takes on a different perspective when viewed through this historical prism. No “conspiracy theories” here. No hook-nosed Jews grasping the globe in their cruel talons. No Illuminati trying to sodomize your children and drink their blood. Just logic. Just history. Just America striving for full-spectrum dominance — with Jews leading the pack.
You could say the wild-eyed dreams of the Protocols have at last been realized, but not in the way their original masterminds intended.
ANTI-SEMITIC CARTOON OF THE PREDATORY JEW GRASPING THE GLOBE IN HIS TALON-LIKE CLUTCHES (French caricature, 1898). “No hook-nosed Jews grasping the globe in their cruel talons. No Illuminati trying to sodomize your children and drink their blood. Just logic. Just history. Just America striving for full-spectrum dominance with Jews leading the pack.” — Lasha Darkmoon.
Lasha Darkmoon claims, that if the Jews form an elite in the US, then US world dominance is a form of Jewish world dominance.
Her second claim is that the US has became a colony of Israel. She even claims that “America is now Israel’s slave”.
There is a huge logical leap here: even if US Jews form an important part of the US elites, why would they give away their leadership to their cousins and brethren in the Middle East?
DARKMOON: (stepping in) Good point, Mr Shamir. Now consider my logic and try to refute this: If the Israeli Jews give the orders to the American Jews, and if the American Jews control America, then clearly America has become an Israeli colony. But if, on the contrary, American Jews exercise all the power and tell the Israeli Jews what to do, then clearly Israel is an American colony. The logic is inescapable.
Let’s go to the next step.
Once it is admitted that America is controlled by its Jews, whether Israeli Jews or American Jews, America becomes in effect a JEWISH colony.
Given that American Jews were former immigrants to America who have managed to “take over” America, you could say that Jewry has colonized America. Ergo: no matter which way you slice it, America is either an Israeli colony or a Jewish colony. The logic of my argument, I put it to you, is irrefutable.
We can take this therefore as proven: if America is not an Israeli colony, taking its orders from Israeli Jews, then it is a Jewish colony, taking its orders from American Jews.
SHAMIR: World Jewry is a project rather than reality; in real life, Jews of different countries do not feel themselves a single united body though they do interact. Compare them with Catholics: these have the Pope and a single hierarchy, and still they are united in prayer only. Jews have no Pope, no hierarchy, and are even less united.
DARKMOON: Jews less united than the goyim? Wow! I never thought any group could be less united than the goyim, or more united than the Jews in knowing “what is good for the Jews”. If you are trying to convince us that the Jews are DISUNITED just because no two Jews think alike, some preferring Buddhism to Judaism and others preferring kippas to hats, then you are on very shaky ground indeed! We are well aware that no two individuals, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, think alike; just as we are aware that no two individuals have identical fingerprints. It doesn’t follow from this, however, that people with different opinions are going to be disunited, any more than it follows that people with different fingerprints are going to be disunited.
To say that Jews lack unity is almost like saying America lacks military power. Or the Queen of England is short of cash. The Jews have far more unity, I put it to you, than any other other ethnic group in the world. This fundamental cohesion of the Jews is something I have pointed out in my recent essay America Vanquished:
“The extraordinary success of the Jews, who make up only 2.5 percent of America’s population, can be attributed to meticulous organization, coordination and networking. This advantageous cohesiveness derives from an evolutionary characteristic of the Jews: an exceptionally strong ethnocentricism which has enabled them to infiltrate almost every single organization that could possibly threaten them as a group.” (See here)
Despite the superficial differences between various types of Jews, the Jews are surely a paradigm of unity and cohesion compared to other ethnic groups.
You yourself, Mr Shamir, have written: “Palestine is not the Ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is.” Consider that statement. Can you seriously tell me that the Jews are likely to achieve this grandiose goal of world domination by being disunited and disorganized? by lacking coordination? No, of course not!
One could supply countless arguments to demonstrate the remarkable unity of the Jews in achieving “what is good for the Jews”. Pray tell: how did the Jews manage to take over the mass media, Hollywood, academia, the judiciary, the executive branches of government, Wall Street, the world’s banking system, the lavishly funded Think Tanks, even the porn industry, if they were disorganized and disunited?
The major Jewish organizations that crisscross America like a spider’s web—AIPAC being only one of them—can hardly be accused of ineffective disunity.
You’ve heard of mesira, the code of honor among Jews that make them stick together through thick and thin, never betraying an organ-stealing rabbi or even a serial killer to the goy authorities. Isn’t sticking together the ultimate form of unity?
You’ve heard of the Sayanim, Mossad’s one million worldwide helpers. How these faceless individuals, all Jews living in lands outside Israel, work away for Israel in providing “safe houses”, transportation, access to communications networks and other facilities for Mossad spies. Full details of the existence of the Mossad Sayanim network were given in the 1994 book The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky, himself a renegade Mossad agent.
The Jewish Sayanim remind me of bees, all buzzing away for the common good, all united by a common purpose: to cram the hive full of honey.
One final point, Mr Shamir, which I know will make you graciously concede victory to me on this vitally important issue: in saying that “the Jews have no Pope, no hierarchy, and are even less united” than the goyim, you are guilty of a glaring contradiction. Wasn’t it only a few years ago that you argued the very opposite? Far from implying that the Jews were a disunited group, you stated that they possessed an almost supernatural unity, comparing them to locusts that moved in ordered formation to achieve their common goal.
“It is hard to swallow that the Jews have a strategy,” you said, “but no strategist. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are popular precisely because they posit such a supreme strategist.” And then, to drive home the point, you added the famous quotation from the Bible: ‘The locusts have no king, yet they attack in formation’ and devastate whole countries as if by plan.” (Cabbala of Power, p.13)
That last phrase—“and devastate whole countries as if by plan”—is your own. You are daringly comparing the Jews to locusts who have an uncanny and almost supernatural ability to act in unison.
CAN JEWS BE COMPARED TO LOCUSTS, ACTING IN COORDINATION? “The locusts have no king, yet they attack in formation” (Proverbs 30:27) and devastate whole countries as if by plan.
SHAMIR: Israel is a very important element of Jewish life, Lasha, but this does not mean an Israeli Prime Minister can order Jews around.
Granted, politically active Americans think that one can’t succeed without Jewish support. This much we can learn from the incredible reception of Netanyahu in the Capitol and from Obama’s capitulation. And US politicians think that the US Jews love Israel; that is why they express their love of Israel. However, the American Jews’ feelings towards Israel are not that straightforward. Remember a prominent American Jewish politician Henry Kissinger? He facilitated the greatest Arab attack on Israel in 1973 in order to take Israel down a notch.
So, US Jews are certainly an important part of the US elites. Consequently they influence world politics, while the Israeli Jews are just family and friends of these powerful American Jews. This is the secret of Israeli influence: without the support of American Jews, Israel would shrink to its normal size.
“Without the support of American Jews, Israel would shrink to its normal size.” — Israel Shamir
The US Jews’ position in the US is so strong because US society has been formed and influenced by the Jewish spirit of predatory capitalism, as expounded by such diverse thinkers as Karl Marx, Werner Sombart and Milton Friedman. Defeat of financial predatory capitalism could undo the Jewish hold. It would de-Jewify the Jews and society in general.
And here we come to your second claim, Lasha: namely, that Russia and Germany are colonised by Jews. Even granting your poetic licence, this is far from the truth. Germany is not colonised by Jews; it is still occupied by the US troops.
DARKMOON: I’m not disagreeing with you, Mr Shamir, about Germany being under US occupation. In fact, I quote Eustace Mullins in Part 1 of my essay saying exactly the same thing. But I certainly never said that Germany had been “colonized by Jews”. Where did I say that? I would never have made such a ridiculous statement. I said that about America, but not about Germany.
SHAMIR: Jews play a negligible part in modern German life, Lasha. Even after the the defeat of the Third Reich, there was no resurgence of the Jewish spirit. Germany has a strong social security structure. Predatory financial capitalism has made few inroads. Germany is not a neoliberal state. The Germans pay tribute to Israel, that’s true; but this is only a result of American occupation. The West Germans are indeed indoctrinated in guilt feelings towards Jews, but East Germans have no guilt feelings whatsoever, and they influence the totality of German feelings. If and when US troops leave Germany, Germany will reassert itself.
Again, Russia is not colonized by Jews. Some Jewish oligarchs were expelled, and others were imprisoned by Putin. Russia usually votes against Israel in the UN and supplied enemies of Israel with its advanced weaponry. Russia now has fewer Jews than Scotland: about two hundred thousand altogether by official census, and twice that much by overblown Jewish organisations’ estimate. Granted, Russia has no anti-Semitism, and it has some influential Jews, but the important decisions are not made by them.
Was Russia “colonized by Jews” after the October 1917 revolution? This is the weakest part of your essay, Lasha. I’m afraid you know little about this subject and just repeat the silly claims of others.
DARKMOON: Again, Mr Shamir, I must point out with all due respect that at no time did I ever claim that Russia was “colonized by Jews”, nor did I even imply it. The same with Germany. However, if that is the impression I gave you, then I must apologize for not making my meaning clearer.
SHAMIR: You tell us that important Bolsheviks used pseudonyms; true, but this is not always connected with their Jewishness. Lenin’s real name was Ulyanov, but this is not a Jewish name. The early Bolsheviks were guerrilla fighters, and they used all sorts of names to evade surveillance. This is also a part of underground ethos.
DARKMOON: Again, I am in full agreement with you, Mr Shamir. So there’s no point ticking me off for disagreeing with you!
What I said in my article was that almost every single revolutionary Jew in Bolshevik Russia hid behind a non-Jewish name. This was either because they were engaged in subversive activities or because they were anxious to avoid being the victims of the virulent anti-semitism of those times.
Pseudonyms were adopted by non-Jews just as frequently if they were involved in seditious activities. Stalin, whose real name was Joseph Djugashvili, had at least 40 pseudonyms. See Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Young Stalin, p.395, for a list of his false names. Lenin, who was half Jewish, not only had over a hundred bogus names, but also went in for glued-on wigs and giant spectacles!
SHAMIR: Abu Jihad, Abu Ammar and Abu Mazen are nicknames, but surely they are not Jews. You and your readers, Lasha, should read Lindemann’s book Esau’s Tears. This deals extensively with the question of the Bolshevik leaders Jewishness.
These crazy numbers you quote— “66 million Russian Christians killed by Jews”��� “out of 388 members of the new revolutionary government in Russia, only sixteen were real Russians”—were invented by anticommunists.
DARKMOON: Good point, Mr Shamir. I concede that the 66 million figure is probably a gross exaggeration, just as the SIX MILLION FIGURE is often alleged to be. (Note, I myself make no comment on this figure, since mathematics is not my forte.) However, both figures have been advanced by their respective propagandists. I decided to quote the 66 million figure for two reasons: (a) because I believe it was mentioned by the great Solzhenitsyn who was not given to lying; and (b) because the 66 million figure is actually mentioned in the title of Eustace Mullins’ classic essay, “The Secret Holocaust”, which I quoted extensively in my article. (See here). Since I was quoting from Mullins, I decided to quote his figures also, giving my readers his viewpoint.
The most conservative figure for the Russian Holocaust, now agreed upon by specialist historians and even cited in the Times newspaper (UK) is 50 million dead Russians. This figure was achieved within a 36-year period of mass murder (1917-1953), initiated by Lenin the half-Jew and continued by Stalin, a Georgian non-Jew, who surrounded himself on all sides by Jewish commissars and sexy young Jewesses he liked to bed.
If you think fifty million deaths is an inflated figure, I assure you it is not.
One Jew alone, the infamous Lazar Kaganovich, personally claimed responsibility for killing twenty million. It was he who stood atop the rubble of a Christian church and proclaimed, “Mother Russia has been cast down! We have torn away her skirts!”
Apart from Kaganovich, there were other Jews who contributed to the massacre of Christians under the cruelest circumstances: Ilya Ehrenburg, Natalfy Frenkel, Mathias Berman, Genrikh Yagoda (lingerie pervert), and, last but not least, Lavrenti Beria—though Beria may or may not have been Jewish. Mainstream historians assert that he was not. But they would, wouldn’t they? — given that Beria was not only a mass murderer of peasants, but also a bloodthirsty sex maniac and pedophile who buried children in his basement — probably alive. (See here and here, pp. 516-519 ).
At no other time in the history of the world has a country been so saturated with Jewish influence as it was between 1917 and 1953 in the Soviet Union: the time of the great gulags and the merciless slaughter of the peasants.
America now faces a similar saturation problem. There have been no Soviet-style massacres in America — not yet, thank God. But who knows what grisly surprises history has up its sleeve?
If the Jews can kill 50 million people in Russia and get away with it, they can kill 50 million people in America too, but maybe they won’t get away with it so easily next time. If they can do it once, they can do it twice — unless the leopard changes its spots.
SHAMIR: We know that imperialist propaganda is able to utilize anti-Jewish prejudice in its own interests: thus, when the Empire bombed Libya, its propagandists improbably claimed that Qaddafi is a Jew and a sympathiser of Israel. When the Empire hunted Julian Assange, its fifth column claimed that he is a Mossad agent. For this reason one should be cautious at accepting such claims: they can be done by enemies with subversive purpose.
Jews played an important part in Soviet Russia’s life, and they paid for that by their obedience and strict observance of Russia’s interests. If they strayed, they were severely punished by Stalin; if they played ball, they were allowed to stay in positions of power.
The lesson of Soviet Russia and Jews was directly opposite to that read by Lasha: even if Jews play an important role in the country, a determined ruler can correct and limit their influence.
This can be done by undoing financial capitalism. Not in vain, some Jewish pundits describe Occupy Wall Street as an “anti-Semitic movement”. Though the participants surely harbor no evil thoughts about the Jews, their goal of destroying the neoliberal model is at variance with Jewish power structures. Without their money, the Jews will shrink into mere shadows of themselves, and the nightmare will be over.
THE ROTHSCHILDS AT PRAYER: “Without their money, the Jews will shrink into mere shadows of themselves, and the nightmare will be over.” — Israel Shamir
“More than one family friend has mentioned that, for every meal, the Rothschild family sets a place at the table for Lucifer.”
— Fritz Springermeier, quote and picture found here.
DARKMOON: (summing up): I am not really in disagreement with you on most important points. Even though I have accused you of being guilty of a “glaring contradiction” — your apparent U-turn on the unity of the Jews, once united like a swarm of locusts flying in ordered ranks, now disunited and split into several conflicting groups — this need not in fact be a contradiction at all. It could be a development or new nuance to your views, an added complexity; indeed, a kind of paradox in which the Jews are united and disunited at the same time, just as the universe is filled with light and darkness at the same time, and just as good and evil exist simultaneously in the same heart.
On one point, however, I am forced to take issue with you: I never said that Germany and Russia were “Jewish colonies”.
America, yes; but not Germany and Russia. And America only in a metaphorical sense. To all intents and purposes, America has become a Jewish colony.
Jews did not emigrate to Germany and Russia en masse as they emigrated to the United States. They were already well entrenched in Germany and Russia, part of the unassimilated population of those two nations for several centuries. They sprung to prominence in Germany, reaching their maximum degree of influence in the time of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), just before the ascent of Hitler to power.
In Russia, the Jews sprung to similar prominence at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, led on by the Jew Lenin and his Shabbat goy henchman, Stalin, who was later to become the world’s greatest mass murderer—aided and abetted by his closely knit contingent of court Jews.
See Simon Sebag Montefiore’s sensational 2-part biography Young Stalin and Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.
Never before have I read a biography with so many Jews in the forefront, all seething like maggots in the rich soil of Mother Russia, all thirsting like vampires for the blood of their Christian victims.
Full marks to Simon Sebag Montefiore, himself a Jew, for having the courage to draw our attention to these frightening freaks of nature.
They belong in the seventh circle of Dante’s hell.
“ANOTHER PEOPLE WILL POSSESS YOUR LAND…” — Lasha Darkmoon, ‘The Coming Doom’.
Life is too short and precious to waste it on “anti-Semitism”. One has to move beyond this puerile response to Jewish world supremacy. Perhaps the role of the Jew in human affairs is to be the beast of prey that teaches the rest of us to run a bit faster.
Dr Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic with higher degrees in Classics. She is also a poet and translator. Her articles can be sampled here, her poems here.
The major area of suffering by Christians in the last century has
been in Russia. Although the persecutions affected other Roman
Catholic and Protestant communities, it was the Orthodox Church which
bore the brunt of it. In 1917
there were over 80,000 Orthodox Churches, Chapels and Monasteries in
Russia. By 1939, probably the nadir of the fortunes of the Russian
Orthodox Church, there were only 200-300 left.
By 1939 over 80,000 bishops, priests, deacons and religious had been
murdered. The suffering of the laity was both economic and political.
Famine took at least 7 million in 1922, and more than 7 million in
1930. The purges of Stalin in 1934 killed at least 19 million
Russians, including millions of Orthodox believers. Stalin in his
five year plan of 1932 made it his open objective to eradicate the
whole Church. In 1914 there were 163 bishops; by 1939 there were only
4 active bishops left. In 1914 there were 51,000 priests, in 1939 a
few hundred. In 1914 57 seminaries. In 1939
Encyclopedia Britannica on Joseph Stalin [caution: this scanned article may contain scanning errors]. Note that this photo is the one in a million which makes Joseph Stalin appear to be sitting in his pajamas.
During the quarter of a century preceding his death in 1953, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin probably exercised greater political power than any other figure in history; Stalin industrialized the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, forcibly collectivized its agriculture, consolidated his position by intensive police terror, helped to defeat Germany in 1941-45, and extended Soviet controls to include a belt of eastern European states. Chief architect of Soviet totalitarianism and a skilled but phenomenally ruthless organizer, he destroyed the remnants of individual freedom and failed to promote individual prosperity, yet he created a mighty military-industrial complex and led the Soviet Union into the nuclear age. Stalin's biography was long obscured by a mendacious Soviet-propagated "legend" exaggerating his prowess as a heroic Bolshevik boy-conspirator and faithful follower of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union. In his prime, Stalin was hailed as a universal genius, as a "shining sun," or "the staff of life," and also as a "great teacher and friend" (especially of those communities he most savagely persecuted); once he was even publicly invoked as "Our Father" by a metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church. Achieving wide visual promotion through busts, statues, and icons of himself, the dictator became the object of a fanatical cult that, in private, he probably regarded with cynicism.
The young revolutionary. Of Georgian-not Russian -origin, Stalin was born on December 21 (December 9, old style), 1879, as Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, son of a poor cobbler in the provincial Georgian town of Gori in the Caucasus, then an imperial Russian colony. The drunken father savagely beat his son. Speaking only Georgian at home, Joseph learned Russian-which he always spoke with a guttural Georgian accent-while attending the church school at Gori (1888-94). He then moved to the Tiflis Theological Seminary, where he secretly read Karl Marx, the chief theoretician of international Communism, and other forbidden texts, being expelled in 1899 for revolutionary activity, according to the "legend"-or leaving through ill health, according to his doting mother. The mother, a devout washerwoman, had dreamed of her son becoming a priest, but Joseph Dzhugashvili was more ruffianly than clerical in appearance and outlook. He was short, stocky, black haired, fierce eyed, with one arm longer than the other, his swarthy face being scarred by smallpox contracted in infancy. Physically strong and endowed with prodigious willpower, he early learned to disguise his true feelings and to bide his time; in accordance with the Caucasian Mood-feud tradition, he was implacable in plotting longterm revenge against those who offended him.
In December 1899, Dzhugashvili became, briefly, a clerk in the Tiflis Observatory, the only paid employment that he is recorded as having taken outside politics; there is no record of his ever having done manual labour. In 1900 he joined the political underground, fomenting labour demonstrations and strikes in the main industrial centres of the Caucasus; but his excessive zeal in pushing duped workers into bloody clashes with the police antagonized his fellow conspirators. After the Social Democrats (Marxist revolutionaries) of the Russian Empire I had split into their two competing wings-Menshevik and Bolshevik-in 1903, Dzhugashvili joined the second, more militant, of these factions and became a disciple of its leader, Lenin. Between April 1902 and March 1913, Dzhugashvili was seven times arrested for revolutionary activity, undergoing repeated imprisonment and exile. The mildness of the sentences and the ease with which the young conspirator effected his frequent escapes lend colour to the unproved speculation that Dzhugashvili was for a time an agent provocateur in the pay of the imperial political police.
Rise to power. Dzhugashvili made slow progress in the party hierarchy. He attended three policy-making conclaves of the Russian Social Democrats-in Tammerfe (now Tampere, Finland; 1905), Stockholm (1906), and London (1907)-without making much impression. But he was active behind the scenes, helping to plot a spectacular holdup in Tiflis (now Tbilisi) on June 25 (June 12, O.S.), 1907, in order to "expropriate" funds for the party. His first big political promotion came in February (January, O.S.) 1912, when Lenin-now in emigration-co-opted him to serve on the first Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which had finally broken with the other Social Democrats. In the following year, Dzhugashvili published, at Lenin's behest, an important article on Marxism and the national question. By now he had adopted the name Stalin, deriving from Russian stal ("steel"); he also briefly edited the newly founded Bolshevik newspaper Pravda before undergoing his longest period of exile: in Siberia from July 1913 to March 1917.
In about 1904 Stalin had married a pious Georgian girl, Ekaterina Svanidze. She died some three years later and left a son, Jacob, whom his father treated with contempt, calling him a weakling after an unsuccessful suicide attempt in the late 1920s; when Jacob was taken prisoner by the Germans during World War II, Stalin refused a German offer to exchange his son.
Reaching Petrograd from Siberia on March 25 (March 12, O.S.), 1917, Stalin resumed editorship of Pravda. He briefly advocated Bolshevik cooperation with the provisional government of middle class liberals that had succeeded to uneasy power on the last tsar's abdication during the February Revolution. But under Lenin's influence, Stalin soon switched to the more militant policy of armed seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. When their coup d'etat occurred in November (October, old style) 1917, he played an important role, but one less prominent than that of his chief rival, Leon Trotsky.
Active as a politico-military leader on various fronts during the Civil War of 1918-20, Stalin also held two ministerial posts in the new Bolshevik government, being commissar for nationalities (1917-23) and for state control (or workers' and peasants' inspection; 1919-23). But it was his position as secretary general of the party's Central Committee, from 1922 until his death, that provided the power base for his dictatorship. Besides heading the secretariat, he was also member of the powerful Politburo and of many other interlocking and overlapping committees-an arch-bureaucrat engaged in quietly outmanoeuvring brilliant rivals, including Trotsky and Grigory Zinoviev, who despised such mundane organizational work. Because the pockmarked Georgian was so obviously unintellectual, they thought him unintelligent: a gross error, and one literally fatal in their case.
From 1921 onward Stalin flouted the ailing Lenin's wishes, until, a year before his death, Lenin wrote a political "testament," since widely publicized, calling for Stalin's removal from the secretary generalship; coming from Lenin, this document was potentially ruinous to Stalin's career, but his usual luck and skill enabled him to have it discounted during his lifetime.
Lenin's successor. After Lenin's death, in January 1924, Stalin promoted an extravagant, quasi-Byzantine cult of the deceased leader. Arch-priest of Leninism, Stalin also promoted his own cult in the following year by having the city of Tsaritsyn renamed Stalingrad (now Volgograd). His main rival, Trotsky (once Lenin's heir apparent), was now in eclipse, ousted by the ruling triumvirate of Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, and Stalin. Soon afterward Stalin joined with the rightist leaders Nikolay Bukharin and Aleksey Rykov in an alliance directed against his former co-triumvirs. Pinning his faith in the ability of the Soviet Union to establish a viable political system without waiting for the support hitherto expected from worldwide revolution, the Secretary General advocated a policy of "Socialism in one country"; this was popular with the hardheaded party managers whom he was promoting to influential positions in the middle hierarchy, His most powerful rivals were all dismissed, Bukharin and Rykov soon following Zinoviev and Kamenev into disgrace and political limbo pending execution. Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Soviet Union in 1929 and had him assassinated in Mexico in 1940.
In 1928 Stalin abandoned Lenin's quasi-capitalist New Economic Policy in favour of headlong state-organized industrialization under a succession of five-year plans. This was, in effect, a new Russian revolution more devastating in its effects than those of 1917. The dictator's blows fell most heavily on the peasantry, some 25,000,000 rustic households being compelled to amalgamate in collective or state farms within a few years. Resisting desperately, the reluctant muzhiks were attacked by troops and OGPU (political police) units. Uncooperative peasants, termed kulaks, were arrested en masse, being shot, exiled, or absorbed into the rapidly expanding network of Stalinist concentration camps and worked to death under atrocious conditions. Collectivization also caused a great famine in the Ukraine. Yet Stalin continued to export the grain stocks that a less cruel leader would have rushed to the famine-stricken areas. Some 10,000,000 peasants may have perished through his policies during these years.
Crash industrialization was less disastrous in its effects, but it, too, numbered its grandiose failures, to which Stalin responded by arraigning industrial managers in a succession of show trials. Intimidated into confessing imaginary crimes, the accused served as self-denounced scapegoats for catastrophes arising from the Secretary General's policies. Yet Stalin was successful in rapidly industrializing a backward country-as was widely acknowledged by enthusiastic contemporary foreign witnesses, including Adolf Hitler and such well-known writers as H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw.
Among those who vainly sought to moderate Stalin's policies was his young second wife, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, whom he had married in 1919 and who committed suicide in 1932. They had two children. The son, Vasily, perished as an alcoholic after rising to unmerited high rank in the Soviet Air Force. The daughter, Svetlana, became the object for her father's alternating affection and bad temper; emigrating after his death, she wrote memoirs that illuminate Stalin's well-camouflaged private life.
The great purges. In late 1934-just when the worst excesses of Stalinism seemed to have spent themselvesthe Secretary General launched a new campaign of political terror against the very Communist Party members who had brought him to power; his pretext was the assassination, in Leningrad on December 1, of his leading colleague and potential rival, Sergey Kirov. That Stalin himself had arranged Kirov's murder-as an excuse for the promotion of mass bloodshed-was strongly hinted by Nikita Khrushchev, first secretary of the party, in a speech denouncing Stalin at the 20th Party Congress in 1956.
Stalin used the show trial of leading Communists as a means for expanding the new terror. In August 1936, Zinoviev and Kamenev were paraded in court to repeat fabricated confessions, sentenced to death, and shot; two more major trials followed, in January 1937 and March 1938. In June 1937, Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, at the time the most influential military personality, and other leading generals were reported as court-martialled on charges of treason and executed.
Such were the main publicly acknowledged persecutions that empowered Stalin to tame the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet elite as a whole. He not only "liquidated" veteran semi-independent Bolsheviks but also many party bosses, military leaders, industrial managers, and high government officials totally subservient to himself. Other victims included foreign Communists on Soviet territory and members of the very political police" organization, now called the NKVD. All other sections of the Soviet elite-the arts, the academic world, the legal and diplomatic professions-also lost a high proportion of victims, as did the population at large, to a semi-haphazard, galloping persecution that fed on extorted denunciations and confessions. These implicated even more victims until Stalin himself reduced the terror, though he never abandoned it. Stalin's political victims were numbered in tens of millions. His main motive was, presumably, to maximize his personal power.
Role in World War II. During World War II Stalin emerged, after an unpromising start, as the most successful of the supreme leaders thrown up by the belligerent nations. In August 1939, after first attempting to form an anti-Hitler alliance with the Western powers, he concluded a pact with Hitler, which encouraged the German dictator to attack Poland and begin World War II. Anx* ious to strengthen his western frontiers while his new but palpably treacherous German ally was still engaged io the West, Stalin annexed eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania; he also attacked Finland and extorted territorial concessions. In May 1941 Stalin recognized the growing danger of German attack on the Soviet Union by appointing himself chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (head of the government) : his first governmental office since 1923.
Stalin's prewar defensive measures were exposed as illcompetent by the German blitzkrieg that surged deep into Soviet territory after Hitler's unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union of June 22, 1941. Khrushchev claimed that Stalin was shocked into temporary inactivity by the onslaught, but, if so, he soon rallied and appointed himseU supreme commander in chief. When the Germans menaced Moscow in the winter of 1941, he remained in the threatened capital, helping to organize a great counter-offensive. The battle of Stalingrad (in the following winter) and the Battle of Kursk (in the summer of 1943) were also won by the Soviet Army under Stalin's supreme direction, turning the tide of invasion against the retreating Germans, who capitulated in May 1945. As war leader, Stalin maintained close personal control over the Soviet battlefronts, military reserves, and war economy. At firat overinclined to intervene with inept telephoned instructions a la Hitler, the Soviet generalissimo gradually learned to delegate military decisions. '
Stalin participated in high-level allied meetings, including those of the "Big Three" with Churchill and Roosevelt at Teheran (1943) and Yalta (1945). A formidable negotiator, he outwitted these foreign statesmen; his superior skill has been acclaimed by Anthony Eden, then British foreign secretary.
Last years. After the war Stalin imposed on eastern Europe a new kind of colonial control based on native Communist regimes nominally independent but in fact subservient to himself. He thus increased the number o( his subjects by about a hundred million. But in 1948 the defection of Titoist Yugoslavia from the Soviet camp struck a severe blow to world Communism as a Stalindominated monolith. To prevent other client states from following Tito's example, Stalin instigated local show trials, manipulated like those of the Great Purge of the 1930s in Russia, in which satellite Communist leaders confessed to Titoism, many being executed.
Far from continuing his wartime alliance with the United States and Britain, Stalin now regarded these countries -and especially the United States-as the archenemies that he needed after Hitler's death. At home, the primacy of Marxist ideology was harshly reasserted, Stalin's chief ideological hatchet man, Andrey Zhdanov, the secretary of the Central Committee, mounting a reign of terror in the Soviet artistic and intellectual world; foreign achievements were derided, and the primacy of Russians as inventors and pioneers in practically every field was asserted. Hopes for domestic relaxation, widely aroused in the Soviet Union during the war, were thus sadly disappointed.
Increasingly suspicious and paranoid in his later years, Stalin ordered the arrest, announced in January 1953, of certain-mostly Jewish-Kremlin doctors on charges of medically murdering various Soviet leaders, including Zhdanov. The dictator was evidently preparing to make this "Doctors' Plot" the pretext for yet another great terror menacing all his senior associates, but he died suddenly on March 5, 1953, according to the official report; so convenient was this death to his entourage that suspicions of foul play were voiced.
Assessment. A politician to the marrow of his bones, Stalin had little private or family life, finding his main relaxation in impromptu buffet suppers, to which would invite high party officials, generals, visiting foreign potentates, and the like. Drinking little himself on these occasions, the dictator would encourage excessive indulgence in others, thus revealing weak points that he could exploit. He would also tease his guests, jocularity and malice being nicely balanced in his manner; for such bluff banter Stalin's main henchman, Vyacheslav Molotov, the stuttering foreign minister, was often a target. Stalin had a keen, ironical sense of humour, usually devoted to deflating his guests rather than to amusing them.
Foremost among Stalin's accomplishments was the industrialization of a country which, when he assumed complete control in 1928, was still notably backward by comparison with the leading industrial nations of the world. By 1937, after less than a decade's rule as totalitarian dictator, he had increased the Soviet Union's total industrial output to the point where it was surpassed only by that of the United States. The extent of this achievement may best be appreciated if one remembers that Russia had held only fifth place for overall industrial output in 1913, and that it thereafter suffered many years of even greater devastation-through world war, civil war, famine, and pestilence-than afflicted any of the world's other chief industrial countries during the same period. Yet more appallingly ravaged during World War II, the Soviet Union was nevertheless able, under Stalin's leadership, to play a major part in defeating Hitler while maintaining its position as the world's second most powerful industrial-and now military-complex after the United States. In 1949 Stalinist Russia signalized its arrival as the world's second nuclear power by exploding an atomic bomb.
Against these formidable achievements must be set one major disadvantage. Though a high industrial output was indeed achieved under Stalin, very little of it ever became available to the ordinary Soviet citizen in the form of consumer goods or amenities of life. A considerable proportion of the national wealth-a proportion wholly unparalleled in the history of any peacetime capitalist country-was appropriated by the state to cover military expenditure, the police apparatus, and further industrialization. It is also arguable that a comparable degree of industrialization would have come about in any caseand surely by means less savage-under almost any conceivable regime that might have evolved as an alternative to Stalinism.
Stalin's collectivization of agriculture did not produce -either during his lifetime or during the decades immediately following his death-positive economic results remotely comparable to those attained by Soviet industry. Considered as a means of asserting control over the politically recalcitrant peasantry, however, collectivization triumphantly justified itself and continues to do so, remaining one of the dictator's most durable achievements. Moreover, the process of intensive urbanization, as instituted by Stalin, continued after his death in what still remained a population more predominantly rural than that of any other major industrial country. In 1937, 56 percent of the population was recorded as engaged in agriculture or forestry; by 1958 that proportion had dropped to 42 percent, very largely as a result of Stalin's policies.
The most lasting of all the dictator's achievements may prove to be his elaborately bureaucratized administrative machinery based on the interlinking of the Communist Party, ministries, legislative bodies, trade unions, political police, and armed forces, as also on a host of other meshing control devices. During the two decades following the dictator's death, these continued to supply the essential management levers of Soviet society, often remaining under the control of individuals who had risen to prominence during the years of the Stalinist terror. But the element of total personal dictatorship did not survive Stalin in its most extreme form. One result of his death was the resurgence of the Communist Party as the primary centre of power, after years during which that organization, along with all other Soviet institutions, had been subordinated to a single man's whim. Yet, despite the great power wielded by Stalin's successors as party leaders, they became no more than dominant figures within the framework of a ruling oligarchy. They did not develop into potentates responsible to themselves alone, such as Stalin was during his quarter of a century's virtually unchallenged rule.
That Stalin's system persists, in all its major essentials, after the death of its creator is partly due to the very excess of severity practiced by the great tyrant. Not only did his methods crush initiative among Soviet administrators, physically destroying many, but they also left a legacy of remembered fear so extreme as to render continuing post-Stalin restrictions tolerable to the population; the people would have more bitterly resentedmight even, perhaps, have rejected-such rigours, had it not been for their vivid recollection of repressions immeasurably harsher. Just as Hitler's wartime cruelty toward the Soviet population turned Stalin into a genuine national hero-making him the Soviet Union's champion against an alien terror even worse than his own-so too Stalin's successors owed the stability of their system in part to the comparison, still fresh in many minds, with the far worse conditions that obtained during the despot's sway.
Stalin has arguably made a greater impact on the lives of more individuals than any other figure in history. But the evaluation of his overall achievement still remains, nearly two decades after his death, a highly controversial matter. Historians have not yet reached any definitive consensus of opinion on the worth of his accomplishments, and it is unlikely that they ever will. To the United States scholar George P. Kennan, Stalin is a great man, but one great in his "incredible criminality ... a criminality effectively without limits," while Robert C. Tucker, a United States specialist on Soviet affairs, has described Stalin as a 20th-century Ivan the Terrible. To the British historian E.H. Carr, the Georgian dictator appears as a ruthless, vigorous figure, but one lacking in originalitya comparative nonentity thrust into greatness by the inexorable march of the great revolution that he found himself leading. To the late Isaac Deutscher, the author of biographies of Trotsky and Stalin-who, like Carr, broadly accepts Trotsky's version of Stalin as a somewhat mediocre personage-Stalin represents a lamentably deviant element in the evolution of Marxism. Neither Deutscher nor Carr has found Stalin's truly appalling record sufficiently impressive to raise doubts about the ultimate value of the Russian October Revolution's historic achievements.
To such views, each illuminating a facet of Stalin's personality, may be added the suggestion that Stalin was anything but a plodding mediocrity, being rather a man of superlative, all-transcending talent. His special brilliance was, however, narrowly specialized and confined within the single crucial area of creative political manipulation. Outside the realm of pioneering political manoeuvre, in which Stalin's flair remains unsurpassed, his qualities appear in no way superhuman, apart perhaps from the dogged persistence with which he was accustomed to pursue to the death both his manifold goals and his innumerable enemies.
BOOKS: Anarkhizm ili sotsializm? (1949, Russian version of articles published serially in Georgian periodicals, 190607; Anarchism or Socialism?, 1950); Natsionalny vopros i marksiwi (1914, based on article "Natsionalny vopros i sotsial-demokratiya" in periodical Prosveshchenie, 1913, and reissued as Marksivn i natsionalnokolonialny vopros, 1934;
Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, 1935); Na putyakh k Oktyabryu (1925; selections translated as The Road to Power, 1937); Voprosy lenmiuna (1926, llth ed., much enlarged, 1939; Leninism, 1940, or Problems of Leninism, 1940 and 1953), a monumental collection of treatises, articles, reports, and speeches including "Ob osnovakh leninizma" (1924; Theory and Practice of Leninism, 1925, and Foundations of Leninism, 1932); "K voprosam agrarnoy politiki v SSSR" (1929); "0 proyekte konstitutsii Soyuza SSR" (1936; On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R., 1936, and The New Democracy, 1937); and "0 dialekticheskom i istoricheskom materializme" (1938; Dialectical and Historical Materialism, 1941); Ob oppozitsii (1928), a massive collection of writings of the period 1921-27; 0 pravom uklone v VKP(b) (speech of 1929 published integrally as a separate book in 1954); 0 nedostatkakh partiynoy raboty i merakh likvidatsy Trotskistskikh i inykh dvurushnikov (1937); Istoriya Vsesoyuznoy Kommunisticheskoy Partii (Bolshevikov): Kratky kurs (1938, ostensibly the work of a party committee, but wholly Stalinian in inspiration; Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1939);
losif Vissarionovich Stalin: Kratkaya biografiya (1940, 2nd ed. 1947, likewise ostensibly a collective production; Stalin, 1943); 0 Velikoy Otechestvennoy Voyne Sovetskogo Soyuza (1942, 5th ed., much enlarged, 1946-52; The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1945, or War Speeches, Orders of the Day, and Answers to Foreign Press Correspondents during the Great Patriotic War, July 3, 1941-June 22nd, 1945, 1946); Marksiw i voprosy yazykoznaniya (1950; Marxism and Linguistics, 1951); Ekonomicheskie problemy sotsialiima v SSSR (1952; Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., 1952); Perepiska Predsedatelya Sovieta Ministrov SSSR s preddentami SShA i premler-ministrami Velikobritanii vo vremya Velikoy Otechestvennoy Voyny (1957;
Correspondence with Churchill, Attlee, Roosevelt and Truman, 1941-45, 2 pt., 1958).
BIBLIOGRAPHY. The standard Soviet edition of Stalin's works in Russian is his Cowimemia, 13 vol. (1946-51), covering publications up to January 1934; an American-published continuation of this edition and containing later works (vol. 14-16) in Russian has been issued in similar format by the Hoover Institution (1967), ed. by ROBERT H. MCNEAL.
An annotated bibliography by ROBERT H. MCNEAL, Stalin's Works (1967), considers the authenticity of material in Russian attributed to Stalin. Bibliographies more useful to the general reader will be found in the works of Deutscher, Payne, Souvarine, and Smith cited below.
There is no definitive biography of Stalin. The most useful among scores of published studies include: ROBERT PAYNE, Rise and Fall of Stalin (1965), readable, but verbose; ISAAC DEUTSCHER, Stalin: A Political Biography, 2nd ed. (1966), one-sidedly Marxist in its approach; LEON TROTSKY, Stalin:
An Appraisal of the Man and His Influence, 2nd ed. (1946), an eloquent and witty but biassed and uncompleted study;
also denunciatory, BORIS SOUVARINE, Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism (1939), still commands some respect, as does BERTRAM D. WOLFE, Three Who Made a Revolution (1956). Stalin, ed. by T.H. RIGBY (1966), is an excellent short anthology of biographical and critical material.
Reliable, detailed firsthand accounts of Stalin's domestic background are few, the only family memoirs not subject to Stalinist censorship being those published by the dictator's daughter, SVETLANA ALLILUYEVA, in emigration: Twenty Letters to a Friend (Eng. trans. 1967) and Only One Year (Eng. trans. 1969); for Soviet-censored memoirs by Svetlana Alliluyeva's grandfather and aunt, see The Alliluyev Memoirs, trans. and ed. by DAVID TUTAEV (1968); the most valuable full account of Stalin in his role as dinner-party host is that of MILOVAN DJILAS, Conversations with Stalin (Eng. trans. 1962); on this subject the memoirs of Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Charles de Gaulle, and many others may be consulted (see also the bibliographies in works by Payne and Deutscher cited above).
On Stalin's pre-revolutionary career, EDWARD ELLIS SMITH, The Young Stalin (1967), unsuccessfully but informatively attempts to prove that the subject was an agent of the Tsarist political police; erring far more in the opposite direction, LAVRENTY BERIA, On the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in Transcaucasia (1949), mendaciously glorifies Stalin's role as an anti-Tsarist political conspirator and is the chief classic of Stalinist legend-building.
For the political background of Stalin's mature career, LEONARD SCHAPIRO, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2nd ed. (1970), is especially valuable, as is JOHN A. ARMSTRONG, The Politics of Totalitarianism (1961); a more subjective version of the same events by a former participant is ABDURAKHMAN AVTORKHANOV, Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party (1959). BORIS i. NICOLAYEVSKY, Power and the Soviet Elite (1965), is an illuminating collection of essays bearing on Stalin's activities from 1934 onward by the leading Russian emigre authority on Soviet conspiratorial politics.
ROBERT CONQUEST, The Great Terror (1968), is the fullest and liveliest account of the persecutions of 1937-38, on which ZBIGNIEW K. BRZEZINSKI, Permanent Purge (1956), is also helpful; see further The Great Purge Trial, ed. by ROBERT c. TUCKER and STEPHEN F. COHEN (1965). F. BECK and w. GODIN, Russian Purge and the Extraction of Confession (1951), remains a classic account of Stalin's terror; on this see also W.G. KRIVITSKY, / Was Stalin's Agent (1939); and ALEXANDER ORLOV, Secret History of Stalin's Crimes (1953), informative primary sources, but they cannot always be cheeked against other material.
On Stalin's role as wartime leader, SEWERYN BIALER'S as thology of Soviet memoir material, Stalin and His General (1969), is outstandingly useful; so too is HERBERT FBI! Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin (1957); see further, ALEXANDE WERTH, Russia at War, 1941-1945 (1964), and The Memoh of Marshal Zhukov (1971).
On post-war and posthumous Stalin, ROBERT CONQUBSI Power and Policy in the U.S.S.R. (1961), plausibly unravel many mysteries. On the controversy surrounding Stalin' image after his death, see The Anti-Stalin Campaign an International Communism: A Selection of Documents, e( by the RUSSIAN INSTITUTE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (1956) BERTRAM D. WOLFE, Khrushchev and Stalin's Ghost (1957) and The Stalin Dictatorship: Khrushchev's "Secret Speech and Other Documents, ed. by T.H. RIGBY (1968).
The point here is that your own government LIED to you about the role played by jews in causing wars between White Christian Israelites, keeping us in a "cold war" with Russia for half a century, and getting us into yet another war in Afghanistan. Russians are Christians, they were massacred by the tens of millions by jews who were funded by "American" jew Jacob Schiff, and the very same jews are now employing the very same tactics against Afghanistan. You won't find much at all about Schiff in our history books, but throughout the rest of the world, his name is known as the American jewish banker who used our money to fund many sides of all wars, including the Japanese attack against Russia, as well as the Russian attack against Japan. Lenin, Trotsky, all the way back to Marx, were jews, and 85% of Bolshevists were jews who were funded by the American jew Jacob Schiff.
It's correct that the muds in this country can't be counted upon to uphold Christianity, even though they answer "Christian" in any poll about religion. Not even nigger Alan Keyes upheld Christianity when the chips were down in the Elian Gonzalez situation, because he voted to kidnap Elian from his father.
Americans who accept the false claim that the rest of the world "envies" us are stupid for accepting this LIE of centuries, the one that's used by our own presidents as an excuse to attack anybody they dam. well please to attack, for any squirrelly "raison du jour". Any American who's been to Cuba and Russia can guarandamntee you that fathers in both countries are light years ahead of American fathers in their ability to exercise *fundamental* religious freedoms. Both Cuba and Russia have spoken Christian prayers in their public schools (thanks to Stalin, a Christian, who had Trotsky, the jew who killed millions of Russians, rightfully and deservedly executed in Mexico).
There's a memorial in St. Petersburg right across from the Pulkovskaya Hotel to FOUR MILLION WHITE CHRISTIAN RUSSIANS who died, fighting, with guns in their hands, to defend their city from the Germans during WWII. If you spent a day wandering around there, the sheer magnitude of the LIES that pitted us against fellow White Christians in Russia, in Palestine, and in Kosovo, would begin to sink in. Even Vietnamese are Christians, yet we slaughtered 2 million of them for a reason that we'll never understand.
Taking on 1.2 billion Muslims in order to "protect" the jews is sheer suicide. Even IF they took down the World Trade Center, a big IF in the light of Silverstein's new massive insurance policy on the building, then there is only ONE reason they did it--the jews.
If we don't ship them out, now, our entire cities will be rubble, just like 20% of Manhattan is already, within one year.