475 The West, and together with it the Jewish Empire of the Intellect, will be eclipsed by a rising East - Andrei Burovsky

The West, and together with it the Jewish Empire of the Intellect, will
be eclipsed by a rising East - Andrei Burovsky

(1) The West, and together with it the Jewish Empire of the Intellect,
will be eclipsed by a rising East - Andrei Burovsky
(2) Burovsky defends Stalin's 1937 Purge
(3) American Sunset: Dollars and Dragons, by Eamonn Fingleton

(1) The West, and together with it the Jewish Empire of the Intellect,
will be eclipsed by a rising East - Andrei Burovsky

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/a-m-burovsky-on-the-jewish-%E2%80%9Cempire-of-the-intellect%E2%80%9D/

Monday, 26 September 2011 - 4:18

A. M. Burovsky on the Jewish “Empire of the Intellect”

May 2, 2011

Dan Michaels

Andrei Burovsky's "Are the Jews the Most Advanced People on Earth?

Professor Professor Andrei Mikhailovich Burovsky, academic, writer,
slaughterer of sacred cows, and, it must be admitted straight off, a
hyperactive revisionist, has a cornucopia of interests ranging from
archaeology, the interaction between nature and societies, the formation
of the noosphere, and cross-cultural contacts, right up to the Jewish
question in Russia and worldwide. On all of these topics the professor
has taken strong, minority opinions. Politically, Burovsky is a member
of the All-Russian Socio-Political Eurasia Movement and has authored
several very popular books about Siberia.[1]

Burovsky writes about Jews in the way H. L. Mencken wrote about certain
Christian sects and pompous celebrities, i.e., boldly and without fear
of consequences. Like Mencken, Burovsky is a well-known
disturber-of-the-peace, iconoclast, and a prolific writer on subjects
both profane and sacred. But whereas Mencken dealt with the relatively
venial offences committed by members of what he called the ‘Boobeoisie’,
Burovsky deals with much heavier issues with far more serious
consequences. Unfortunately, Professor Burovsky lacks the literary skill
and sense of humor of the Bard of Baltimore and has attracted many
enemies from the ranks of his literary targets.  But, most importantly,
it must be said that so long as the likes of Mencken in America,
Burovsky in Russia, and their like elsewhere are permitted to write and
be published, it is proof enough that freedom of speech and of the press
truly exists.

Burovsky does not write in the style of an academic but as a populist.
He does not try to convince by patient logical argument but by hammering
home his message. Sophisticated readers find his style rough and sloppy
while the common folk enjoy it.

In all, Burovsky has published some 134 works, including four monographs
and at least a dozen items on the Jewish question. The Library of
Congress has 28 of his books. Regrettably for the English-speaking
world, all are in Russian.

American readers might be somewhat uneasy about the bluntness of
Burovsky’s critical comments concerning Jewish activities that in much
of the West remain taboo under penalty of law. American writers, for the
most part establishment writers, tend to approach the Jewish question
with great caution, fear of offending, fear of retaliation, and
therefore in many cases they defer to the Jewish point of view. But not
Burovsky. Whether Burovsky is a loose cannon or a sharpshooter is
argued, but all agree that Jews are — for whatever reason — one of his
favorite topics.

Consider some excerpts and commentary from several of Burovsky’s most
recent books.[2]

In his most recent book, Are the Jews the Most Advanced People on
Earth?, Burovsky writes

Always, throughout history, you only have to give the Jews equal rights
and they swiftly move into the highest circles of their host society.
Comprising just 2–3% of the population of the particular country they
quickly represent a third, half, and at times the absolute majority of
its financial, intellectual, and even political elite. In some it evokes
delight, in others rage. It was thus in Hellenistic Egypt before the
birth of Christ, in the towns of Medieval Europe, in France in the 18th
Century, in Germany in the 19th Century, and in Russia the first half of
the 20th Century. The historical eras differed, the host countries
differed, and even the Jews were different, but the same process repeats
itself. How are the Jews able to be such keen competitors? Why under
different circumstances are they able to squeeze the Christians out of
commerce, science, art, education, and medicine? What constitutes their
advantage over all other nations? Is it their special racial
characteristics, that they consider themselves chosen by God, that they
support each other, the much talked about Jewish Masonic conspiracy, or
is it simply that the Jews are the most intellectually advanced people
on Earth? (p. 4)

In his Jewish Domination: Fabrication or Reality? he contends indignantly:

After World War II no one was supposed to be a racist, but the Jews were
permitted to be racists. Everyone was permitted to doubt the fact that
the communists murdered millions of people in Russia if they chose to,
but in many countries today a jail sentence awaits any individual who
commits Holocaust denial (imposed by the same gentlemen who devised the
law and had the chutzpah to teach us about freedom of speech!).  Imagine
what a howl would be raised if Russia dared to kidnap Berezovsky from
England and subject him to a show trial and execution! But that’s
exactly what the Israelites (sic) did in the Eichmann case! Iran is
forbidden to violate the agreement on the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, but Israel can. How about the mutual hatred of Poles and
Ukrainians, or that of Tutsis and Hutu? [The Tutsis, incidentally,
consider themselves the descendants of Israelites.] How about the
extermination of Germans by the Czechs and Poles in 1944–45? You can
talk about those events and even name the nationality of the
perpetrators. That you can do. But just try to say who was behind the
extermination of the Russian nobility and intellectuals, the priests and
the officers, during the Civil War. If you dare to give the names of
those hangmen, you will be called a “cannibal or an anti-Semite”! Why,
with all the talk about all people being equal, does mankind recognize
one people as “more equal than the others”? Have not the Jews in this
way become a privileged layer in society immune from the law? Have not
the Jews become a kind of international nobility? And what is there to
threaten this “Jewish domination,” to threaten those who seek to dominate?

On the other hand, in The Jews: A Native People of Rus, he develops a
very non-standard account of the origin of the Jews in Russia:

Are the Jews aliens on Russian soil? Are they not the bold and clever
strangers, descendants of Semitic tribes that infiltrated Rus through
Byzantium and Poland? If so, why then are they so much like us? Why in
each Jewish generation are their children just like Slavs and Tartars?
Why do they love East Europe, its plains, forests, and rivers so much?
It is because Ashkenazi Jews are not strangers in our land, but one of
the native peoples of Russia! The many Jews in Ancient Rus are their
ancestors. Among the inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter in Medieval Kiev
were a large number of Slavs who had taken the giyur rite of conversion
to Judaism. The concept of monotheism appealed to many, Christianity had
not yet taken hold, and multitudes of people had accepted the
All-Powerful God through Judaism. Added to them came the Khazar converts
who joined the believers in a single God after the fall of the Khazar
Kaganate – a second mass source of Ashkenazi. Of course there was among
them the descendants of West European Jews. But were there many? More
than likely they were a vanishing minority. We are brothers with the
Jews by virtue of the land, history and fate we share. The expanses,
winds, sunrises and sunsets of our common Russia — enormous beautiful
Russia — are in our blood. Did you [Solzhenitsyn] say “Two hundred years
together”? No, it’s more like “1500 years together”!

And in his Jewish Pogroms: Grief Over Double Standards, his Russian
sensibilities speak:

To be sure, there is certainly no dirtier or viler word today than
‘pogrom’. It is one of the few Russian words that has been adopted by
all other languages but needs no translation. It is an ineradicable
stigma on our history. But just what is a pogrom? The Pocket Jewish
Encyclopedia defines it as “an attack on Jews by non-Jews for the
purpose of robbing or killing them.” This is to say that Jews without
exception are considered to be innocent victims of the accursed
pogromists. But is that really the case? Are there really no cases in
history in which the Jews themselves were the pogromists and hangmen?

In Truth about “Jewish Racism” he scolds Jews for their racism:

Any people who consider themselves biologically superior to others and
any state that preaches racism becomes an outcast and finds itself in
isolation, with but one exception — the Jews. Just imagine if, one day
you read that Russians must only marry other Russians and that marriages
between Russians and Jews are always unhappy. I guarantee there would be
an outburst of disapproval, protests, accusations of Russian Fascism,
and even judicial actions. However, the Hasidic journal L’Chaim openly
advocated marriage between Jews only, damning miscegenation with a rage
like that found only in Goebbels propaganda. Can you imagine Russia ever
celebrating Pogrom Day or Germany being proud of Auschwitz? Yet the Jews
openly celebrate Purim, praising the pogrom that their ancestors
inflicted on the Persians two and a half thousand years ago. Why is it
that this highly educated and cultured people are more infected with
racism than others? Why are we obliged to shut our eyes about it? How is
it possible for the Jews to do these things when they are categorically
forbidden to everyone else?

Professor Burovsky attributes much of Jewish worldly success to their
Old Testament God who commanded them to do as he ordered under threat of
cruel punishment and death. In order to learn and obey, it was essential
to be literate in Jewish writings. Thus, learning became a religious
obligation.  New Testament Christians, on the other hand, have a loving,
forgiving God whose believers are obliged to emulate Him and His
example. Believing Christians may gain Heaven, but the tougher Jews do
better here on Earth. The compulsive messianic drive Jews exercise in
their undertakings also partially derives from their religious beliefs.
Zionism and Jewish nationalism are all messianic. The Jews, the
professor believes, are not hostile to non-Jews, they simply believe
they are superior, better educated, and on a higher intellectual level
than gentiles. This belief, too, probably derives from a religious
feeling associated with the concept of being chosen by God.

Professor Burovsky discounts the idea that differences in the Jewish
persona could be attributable to racial differences. His argument is
that, of the three basic existing races recognized by most Russian
anthropologists (i.e., Europeanoids, Mongoloids, Negroids), Jews easily
fit in among the Europeans. He does believe, however, that the Jewish
intellect has been further refined through a series of mutations the
Jews underwent in their migrations, forced and voluntary, from the Near
East to almost all countries in the world, including China. These
mutations, Burovsky believes, also induced interplay between genes and
intellect, resulting in a more advanced personality. In a sense, Jews
became colonizers throughout the world. Again, it was their religion
that bound them together as a distinct people.

Professor Burovsky believes that the answer to their success basically
lies in the great importance Jews through the ages have put on literacy
and learning— indeed, to such an extent that they have often succeeded
in establishing an “Empire of the Intellect” over the native peoples of
the host nations. Throughout history, massive illiteracy was the norm
for the mass of people in most countries, often even including the
ruling class that probably gained power by brute force, intrigue,
inheritance, or through charisma — none of which required any great
amount of intelligence, only a measure of cleverness. On the other hand,
almost all Jews were literate, giving them the edge in competition for
success in economic and financial activities. There exists a saying,
“There not many Jews, but one is plenty enough.”

Rulers in the West have usually hired Jews as advisors in financial
matters, essential to the very existence of the state. Jews also control
the mass media and use it to advance their own interests. The ultimate
dream of Jewish efforts, Burovsky maintains, was to create an ideal
socialist society, with themselves in charge, such as they hoped to
realize in the now defunct USSR and the tottering state of Israel. The
USSR dream, which was actually realized for a few decades (1917–1939),
became a nightmare for Christians.

As for the other dream, a nation of their own, Israel was indeed
established. Ever since, however, the Christians of the Near East have
been forced to evacuate their homelands and to emigrate. By the end of
the 20th Century, the Jewish Empire of the Intellect had reached its apogee.

In the early 20th Century, Burovsky observes, there was little
difference between those Jews determined to build socialism (communism)
in Russia and those Zionists sworn to establish a socialist Israel. The
only difference between the plans for the Soviet Union and those for
Israel was that the people in the USSR would not be required to speak
Hebrew.

The Communist state the Jews hoped to create was an entirely artificial
construct born of Jewish abstract thought. Jews, Burovsky observes, are
born ideologues and capable of creating an ideology or a religion out of
whole cloth. Communism lasted just over seventy years; it showed no
regard for non-Jewish human life, human aspirations, and most
importantly forbade any sort of spiritual life. As Burovsky notes, the
Russian people were not a flock of penguins waiting to be trained to
play a designated role in a contrived artificial society. Russia, after
all, had been a great nation for centuries before the ascendency of Jews
to power. In their pride and arrogance, the people that invented this
ideal society even hoped to impose it on all the peoples on Earth and
had agents in every country working toward that end. Another of
Burovsky’s books, Stalin’s Counterrevolution, discusses how the Red
Dictator succeeded in derailing Trotsky’s dream of world revolution in
favor of first building socialism in the USSR.

Today, however, at the dawn of the 21st Century, Burovsky continues,
traditional Jewish confidence has been sorely shaken by the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the anemic condition of Israel, now dependent on
constant financial infusions and armaments from Germany and the United
States. It has had to abandon many of its socialist dreams and face
reality. Israel has even had to abandon some of its socialist dreams and
adopt capitalism.

The professor argues that to sustain Israel the myth of the Holocaust
had to be created and supported by the victorious Allies in order to
suck more blood from what remains of Germany. Without the myth, the
state of Israel would probably never have been possible at all. Burovsky
insists that the fact that the Western Allies have had to pass laws
threatening imprisonment for anyone who dares to question the Israeli
and Allied version of the causes of World War II and the Holocaust is
proof that their proffered version cannot stand on its own feet.
Moreover, the passage of such laws makes a mockery of the West’s claim
of freedom of speech and of the press.

In this regard, Professor Burovsky introduces the concept of
“professional” Jews, referring to those thousands of Jews employed
throughout the world in institutes, museums, governments, universities,
information centers, and the like (often subsidized by the host nation)
that propagate and hope to perpetuate the official version of the
Holocaust, namely, that the Germans murdered six million innocent Jews
in homicidal gas chambers for no other reason but that they were Jewish.
These establishments are also in the business of lobbying for and
distributing “reparations” money to survivors as well as soliciting
donations. In some countries, these facilities have even succeeded in
having the government of the host country arrange for grade school
children to take field trips to visit them for indoctrination and
receive extra credit for doing so.

Burovsky identifies a new anti-Semitism. With laws already in place in
several countries in Europe to prevent their citizens from ever speaking
ill of Jews; the Jewish community has now also devised ways that make it
easier to label someone an anti-Semite. Knowing full well that citizens
living in countries with a Constitution that protects their freedom of
speech and opinion dread being labeled anti-Semitic because of possible
economic retaliation (job loss, character assassination, etc.), the
Jewish community has toughened political correctness standards. Now, any
utterance that displeases the professional Jewish watchdogs can be
declared anti-Semitic. This power is used as a truncheon to silence critics.

Ever since Hanukah was celebrated in the Kremlin in 1991 and the bevy of
newly appointed Jewish oligarchs took power, there has been no official
discrimination against Jews in Russia. Rather, Burovsky contends, if
anything, it would be more to the point to speak of discrimination
against Russians in Russia.

Professor Burovsky concludes his study of the Jews by predicting that
their domination of many spheres of Western life in the 20th century
will likely end in the 21st century — not because the Jews will abandon
their Empire of the Intellect, but because the host nations have learned
their Jewish lesson, i.e., they have tried with considerable success to
eliminate illiteracy and promote education for their own people. This
occurs when a point is reached in any particular country, where the Jews
have been dominant, that the people of the host nation decide to manage
their own affairs. The point is reached when the people finally realize
that their own traditional mores and values have been undermined and
replaced by alien values. The parting of the ways may be recognized and
peacefully accepted by both parties or it may result in expulsions or worse.

Burovsky claims that the rate of assimilation of Jews in non-Jewish
societies, especially in the United States, has been increasing and will
continue to increase through marriage with non-Jewish women because 1)
Jews now occupy the lion’s share of prestigious positions and represent
the most affluent and influential minority in the country; and 2)
because the differences between Jews and non-Jews will gradually disappear.

Furthermore, Burovsky contends, the 21st century will see the ascent of
Asian powers (China, India, Iran) to top positions in the Northern
Hemisphere, replacing Europeanoids. It is often forgotten, if ever fully
recognized, that Europeanoids have always been a small minority of the
world’s population of predominantly Mongoloids and Negroids. Chinese,
Hindi, and Farsi will soon be heard in the halls of power. English,
French, Russian, and German may still be heard faintly in the
background, no longer as power brokers but as supplicants. The West, and
together with it the Jewish Empire of the Intellect, will be gradually
eclipsed as surely as the sun rises in the East. Such is the picture
Burovsky draws of the future.

Burovsky’s writings have not been immune to criticism. In his defense,
the professor is very prolific, writes rapidly, and does not produce
elegant prose — as the saying goes, “There’s many a slip between the cup
and the lip.” Apparently, the professor’s mind works faster than his
hand can put his thoughts on paper. In some cases his very revisionism
seems more like the simple visceral contrariness of a crank as, for
example, when he argues in one book that the stagnation under Brezhnev
was actually good for Russia, and in another that Czar Peter I may be
called Peter the Great by some but to the Russian people of his day he
was the anti-Christ because of his imposed reforms and the great loss of
life in building Saint Petersburg. As yet another example, he wrote a
book with the title Napoleon the Savior of Russia.

In any case, it is the author’s arguments, not his style, that are more
important in the long run. As Chekhov commented about critics, “they are
like flies that sting the horse, but do not help in the plowing.”*

Endnotes:

[1] Burovsky was born in Taganrog in SW Russia in July 1955. He majored
in History at the Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical Institute, defended his
Candidate’s Dissertation (“The Historical and Cultural Stages of the
Development of the Paleolithic Yenisei River”) at the Leningrad Branch
of the Institute of Archeology in 1987, and defended his Doctoral
Dissertation (“Problematics in Anthropo-Ecology” in 1996. He was made a
professor in 1998 and subsequently worked in Krasnoyarsk University. See
here.

[2] Aside from Burovsky’s books on Jewish topics (of which there are
about a dozen), he has written on a variety of other subjects as, for
example:  Noogenesis and the Formation of the Noosphere School, 1996;
Anthropo-Ecosophia, 2009; Myths and Truth about Stalin’s 1937
Counter-Revolution;Petersburg as a Geographic Phenomenon, 2003; Aryan
Ancestors, 2005; The Great Civil [sic] War, 1939-45, 2010; Russian
Atlantis, 2007; The Novgorod Alternative: The True Capital of Rus; Peter
the First: The Accursed Emperor, etc. Burovsky’s books are currently
being republished in a series called “The Entire Truth about the Jews
Series.”

(2) Burovsky defends Stalin's 1937 Purge

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/stalin%e2%80%99s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

Stalin’s 1937 Counter-Revolution Against Trotskyism

September 20, 2011

Dan Michaels

Glorious 1937! In that year Stalin finally came to understand that it
was Zionism, not Communism, that was being built in the USSR and he
destroyed it. After 1937, Suvorov and Kutuzov, Nakhimov and Ushakov,
Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the “Knight in Tiger Skin” became the national
symbols. And the Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians – all those whom the
Zionists had destroyed and left to rot in prisons, labeled
“nationalists” or “anti-Semites{"} – returned. General Viktor Filatov[1]

In his book Myths and the Truth about 1937: Stalin’s Counter-Revolution
(YAZA-PRESS, Moscow, 2010, 288 pp.), Andrei Burovsky assumes the role of
devil’s advocate or apologist for the crimes committed by Josef Stalin
during the time of “The Great Purge.”

{Myths and truth about 1937: Stalin’s Counter-Revolution
Burovskiy A.M / Andrej}

This is a highly revisionist point of view, so a bit of biographical
information is in order. Burovsky was born in Taganrog in SW Russia in
July 1955. He majored in history at the Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical
Institute, defended his Candidate?s Dissertation (The Historical and
Cultural Stages of the Development of the Paleolithic Yenisei River) at
the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Archaeology in 1987, and
defended his Doctoral Dissertation (Problematics in Anthropo-Ecology in
1996. He was made a professor in 1998 and since that time has had a
position at Krasnoyarsk University.

Burovsky is a prolific author (see, e.g., here). Aside from Burovsky’s
12 books on Jewish topics (I previously reviewed his Empire of the
Intellect for TOO), he has written on a variety of subjects, including
Noogenesis and the Formation of the Noosphere School, 1996;
Anthropo-Ecosophia, 2009; Petersburg as a Geographic Phenomenon, 2003;
Arian Ancestors, 2005;The Great Civil [sic] War, 1939-45, 2010; Russian
Atlantis, 2007; The Novgorod Alternative: The True Capital of Rus; Peter
the First: The Accursed Emperor, etc.

Burovsky’s view is that the events of 1937 did not represent the usual
case in which the devil under indictment is accused of crimes against
innocent victims, but rather a case in which the devil is alleged to
have committed crimes against another devil of even greater evil; it was
the war between Stalin and Trotsky. True, Stalin had succeeded in
exiling his nemesis in 1929, but the spirit of Trotskyism, according to
Burovsky, had permeated the entire communist establishment and the Red
dictator was determined to eradicate it.

The author refers to the war between the two devils as Stalin’s
counter-revolution because, until Stalin undertook the great purge, the
revolution and the Communist state had been overwhelmingly a Jewish
enterprise with Lenin and Trotsky the leading lights. The goal of the
Trotskyites, as demonstrated by the Comintern [Communist International],
was to establish a permanent worldwide revolution “to fight by all
available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the
international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international
Soviet Republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the
state.”

By this definition, it was quite obvious that Trotsky and his cohorts
were embarking upon a reckless and bloody adventure to establish a
utopia based on nothing except their own fanciful dreams. To accomplish
this, agents in every important country, usually citizens of those
countries, either volunteered or were recruited to undermine the
bourgeois government under which they currently lived and agitate for
world revolution.

According to Burovsky, because Trotsky and a plethora of fellow Jews
already held sway in the Soviet Union, many of their coreligionists in
the free world both openly (when possible) and secretly (if not
possible) admired the accomplishment of their fellow Jews and lent their
services in the establishment of the proletarian utopia. Trotsky was
idolized by a very large number of Jews on the left—an entirely
mainstream movement among Jews at the time. This is an example of the
Jewish guru phenomenon so characteristic of Jewish intellectual and
political movements.

For Burovsky and many outsiders, the internal political wars within the
Soviet Union seemed more like the falling out of a gang of thieves who
had stolen the Russian Empire and who were now fighting over the spoils.
And thieves they were. Having first hijacked the country and then looted
the Russian banks and citizens of their wealth, Lenin, Trotsky, Radek,
Kollontai, Dzerzhinsky, and a host of other non-Russians accumulated
fortunes. Only Stalin refrained. Like Hitler, his future nemesis, Stalin
lived quite modestly. The new Communist elite, on the other hand, lived
exceedingly well, frequenting the elegant shops and government offices
along Arbat Street, the Fifth Avenue of Moscow, where very few native
Russians could afford to visit. These beneficiaries of the Communist
Revolution are sometimes referred to as the “children of the Arbat.”

The theme of wealthy elite Jews under Soviet communism also occurs in
Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century: “Slezkine describes the life of the
largely Jewish elite in Moscow and Leningrad, where they attended the
theater, sent their children to the best schools, had peasant women for
nannies, spent weekends at pleasant dachas, and vacationed at the Black
Sea” (see here, p. 88).

Stalin, aside from his determination to eliminate any possible threat to
his sole leadership, also feared that the Trotskyite approach would
endanger Communism by alerting the capitalist countries to the threat it
represented. Instead, he thought it would be much more prudent to first
establish communism in Russia, protect and nurture it, and during this
incubation period build the most powerful armed forces in the world
ready to pounce on and take the countries of Europe at the most
opportune time, namely, when the capitalist states were exhausted from
the inevitable next world war. He therefore sought to remove all
Trotskyite-infected and other potentially dangerous elements from the
Soviet State in a major purge before that war occurred. This, according
to Professor Burovsky, was the main reason for Stalin’s Purge of 1937.

For Professor Burovsky the unending bitter political squabbles following
the revolution were evidence that the Civil War waged between the White
and Red Russians (1918–1922), between the former rulers and the
usurpers, was simply followed by an internal civil war between communist
internationalist intellectuals who viewed the whole world as their
oyster (Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and the rest) and the more
conservative, nationalistic Stalinists who favored stability. (For
example, at a Party Conference in 1918, Zinoviev proclaimed: “We have to
get 90 out of 100 million of the population of the Soviet Republic to
follow us. Those left over have nothing for us. They will have to
liquidated.”)

To be sure, Jews were prominent in both factions, but Stalin insisted
their loyalty be directed exclusively to his concept of a “socialist”
Soviet Union while their own interests and unrealistic goals be set
aside. When, in his eyes, they did not comply, he had them killed.

Burovsky describes how the crimes committed by the usurpers of power in
Russia far exceeded anything known to date, including even the French
Revolution. During the usurpation of power in the revolution, no fewer
than two million met their death. In the continuing period of the
internal civil war, Burovsky estimates, 9–13 million eventually lost
their lives. Yet, the crimes of the Lenin-Trotsky faction were either
glossed over or simply not mentioned in the press or on the radio, while
the Western media concentrated on and exaggerated those committed by
Stalin during the “Great Purge.” Whereas the French Revolution had
pitted Frenchmen against Frenchmen, and the American Revolution,
Englishmen against Englishmen, the so-called Russian Revolution was
entirely different. This was a case of minorities, mostly Jews, in the
Empire usurping power from the majority Russians and destroying
previously existing Russian elites.

According to Burovsky, the Leninists and Trotskyites made no secret of
their intent to create a new world on the ashes of the old. In their
anthem, The Song of the Destroyers, they sing:

We shall burn everything, we shall destroy everything,
We shall wipe everything from the face of the Earth,
We shall extinguish the old Sun,
We shall ignite a new Sun. (p. 155)

Lenin and Trotsky, Burovsky maintains, invented and practiced genocide
freely in what they termed the “zoological milieu”, i.e., the Russian
people, ruthlessly murdering entire layers of Russian society. As soon
as members of the former ruling class (high government officials,
generals, intellectuals, clergy, etc.) were eliminated, their positions
were filled with Jewish revolutionaries. The children of the former
upper classes were forbidden to attend the best schools and
universities; only the children of the revolutionaries were granted
access. According to Jewish World, 1939, Jews, representing 1.8% of the
total population, constituted 20% of the students in higher institutes
of learning in the USSR in 1939.[4] (p. 230)

The destruction of Christian civilization was high on Lenin and
Trotsky’s hit list. All displays of Christian belief were outlawed.
Churches were first looted of their art treasures and then converted
into warehouses, theaters, recreation centers, and worse. Priests, nuns,
and all other officers of the Church were either murdered or sent to the
GULAG. Celebrations of Christmas, Easter, and Holy Days were forbidden.
The icon corner in most Russian homes was banned. Because Jews were
prominent among the new rulers and enforcers, all acts of anti-Semitism
were made punishable by death. In a speech Trotsky announced the
unveiling of the first statue in the world of Judas Iscariot, a man, the
Communist leader said, who understood that Christianity was a phony
religion and had the courage to break the bonds that bound him to it.
Similar statues appeared in other cities. The people, however, could not
protest because of the laws against anti-Semitism.

Burovsky proceeds to describe how the revolutionaries tried to gradually
replace the civilization achieved under the Orthodox Church and the
Czars with something entirely alien to the native people. Under the
Czars Russia gave the world Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and other
giants of literature. By way of contrast, the Communist regime produced
a bevy of poets and short story writers. Burovsky singles out Osip
Mandelshtam, Yevgenia Ginzburg, and Isaak Babel, who lent their services
to the new regime. Mandelshtam, who was a friend of Bukharin, had worked
in the ministry of education of the new regime. Babel had actually
served in the Jewish-dominated Cheka for many years and wrote almost
autobiographically about his experiences in his stories. He was also the
mentor of Ilya Ehrenburg, World War II’s most notorious propagandist.
Both enjoyed life and indulged in the pleasures of the Arbat. Both were
executed in Stalin’s 1937 counter-revolution. Burovsky and the mass of
Russian people would maintain that they got what they deserved.

Under the Czars and the Orthodox Church Russia gave the world the
paintings of Repin, Rublov, and other such immortals. The Communist
regime, on the other hand, introduced abstract “art” produced by such
worthies as Kandinsky, Malevich, Altman, Chagall, Shterenburg, and other
such. Again, Stalin, like Hitler, preferred socialist realism in art.
Whatever the objective merits of the works produced by the artists and
literary figures in the early Soviet Union, they reflected the Jewish,
not the Russian spirit.

Proceeding then to Stalin’s purge of the Red Army leadership and the
NKVD, Burovsky finds much to be applauded. Although Generals Zhukov and
Rokossovsky believed that Stalin’s purge had broken the spine of the Red
Army and was responsible for the losses in the first years of World War
II, Burovsky leans more to the views expressed by Viktor Suvorov in his
book The Purge,[5] namely that the purge or cleansing actually improved
the Red Army by removing toxic and incompetent elements. Moreover,
Trotsky, as first head of the Army and Navy, had appointed many of the
top military leaders. Obviously, Stalin considered them tainted and
their loyalty to him questionable.[6]

Stalin purged the organs of State security (Cheka, NKVD), notoriously
Jewish strongholds, with a particularly heavy and rough brush. According
to Burovsky, about 20,000 members of these organs were purged, including
almost all the leaders of the Dzerzhinski era: A. Kh. Artuzov, G. I.
Boky, M. Ya. Latsis, M. S. Kedrov, V. N. Mantsev, G. S. Moroz, I. P.
Pavlunovsky, Ya. Kh. Peters, M. A. Trilisser, I. S. Unshlikht, and V. V.
Fomin. Of this Burovsky comments: “It would be difficult to imagine a
more repulsive, criminal, and dangerous group of people.” (Diky, p. 240)
Nikolai Yezhov, known to insiders as the “bloody dwarf” because he was
only five feet tall, was commissar general of state security in charge
of both the NKVD and the GRU. He was arrested in January 1939 and shot
in April 1940.

As for the crimes attributed to and indeed committed by Stalin, author
Burovsky contends that had any of his political adversaries achieved
total power, the crime levels would have even been higher. After all, it
was Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin, who laid the cruel and bloody
foundations of Communist rule in Russia. The secret police organization,
the Cheka, the predecessor and model for the later NKVD and sister
agencies, were established in December 1917, as was the GULAG.
Literally, armies of secret police ensured that the GULAG would not want
for slave labor. In 1919, at the onset of the Civil War (1917–1922)
Trotsky was made Peoples Commissar of Army and Navy, head of the Red
Army. For a decade in that and other high posts Trotsky was in a prime
position to fill the armed forces and government with his own people,
mostly Jews, often despite Stalin’s disapproval. During the same period
Stalin by virtue of his position as Party Secretary, a less prominent
but equally important position, had also been putting his own people in
critical posts. In 1929, after Lenin’s death, Stalin finally succeeded
in exiling Trotsky, but the shadow of his competitor for leadership
lingered on in the persons and policies of the government. Thus, the
Communist Party and state in the late 1930s still remained, as most
objective observers noted, essentially Jewish.

For example, in 1937 almost without exception the plenipotentiaries
(ambassadors) of the Soviet Union to the rest of the world were Jews:
Maisky in England, Surits in France, Yurenev in Germany, Shtein in
Italy, and Rubinin in Belgium. The Soviet Delegates to the League of
Nations were with one exception Jews: Finkelshtein-Litvinov, Rozenberg,
Shtein, Markus, Brenner, Girshfeld, Galfand, and Svanidze who was
Georgian. Litvinov was also head of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.
(Diky, p. 222)

At the time of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), the Soviet Ambassador
was Marcel Rozenberg; the military attaché was Lvovich (pseudonym Loti).
The Red Army officers commanding the international brigades were:
Division Commander Lazar Shtein (Emil Kleber); other Jewish commanders
were Grigori Shtein (Grigorovich), Corps CommanderYakov Smushkevich
(Duglas), Red Army General Batkin (Fritz), and others. Abram Slutsky
(Chernigovsky), head of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, NKVD,
also came and joined with resident NKVD agent General Aleksandr Orlov
who supervised a private jail in Alkalade. (Diky, p. 223)

There were three million Jews living in the Soviet Union in 1939. By
early 1941, following the division of Poland and pursuant to
population-transfer provisions of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, there
were 5.4 million Jews inside the USSR. Operation Barbarossa, the German
attack on Russia occurred on 22 June 1941 when half the Jews in Poland
were under the protection of the Red Army.

Burovsky notes that the end goal of both devils, Stalin and Trotsky, was
the same — world communism, but the means chosen by Trotsky to achieve
it would have caused worldwide mayhem and countless millions more
deaths. It was not long after the purge that Stalin succeeded in having
Trotsky himself murdered in 1940 in Mexico by which time war had already
broken out in Europe. In the same year of 1940 the Anti-Comintern Pact
was signed by a dozen nations with the statement,

   recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the
Comintern [Trotsky’s organization] is to disintegrate and subdue
existing states by all means at its command; convinced that the
toleration of interference by the Communist International in the
internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace
and social well-being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world
desirous of co-operating in the defense against Communist subversive
activities.

Countries signing the Pact were: Germany, Japan, China (Nanjing), Italy,
Denmark, Finland, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia,
and Turkey.

The United States, Great Britain, and France abstained from and even
objected to the Pact, believing (or saying they believed) Germany to be
the greatest threat. The line between the Axis powers and the Western
Allies in World War II was thereby drawn. It would take the West fifty
years to correct this mistake.

Soon after World War II and the founding of the state of Israel, Stalin,
following a policy of Russification and rejuvenation of the victorious
Communist State, attempted once again to reduce the number and power of
Jews in the Soviet Union. To this end, he planned another purge, one
that would necessarily involve many of his old Jewish comrades. Before
he could implement his plan, he was dead. Officially the Soviet leader
was reported to have died a natural death, but many speculate that he
was killed by the people he had planned to kill.[8]

The devil’s advocate, author Burovsky, rests his case in the defense of
Stalin with the words:

   Of course Stalin’s regime was awful! But in politics it is very often
necessary to choose, not between the good and the better, but between
the bad and the worse. The alternatives to Stalin would have been even
worse nightmares.…The entire history of the USSR may be seen as an
attempt to establish a utopia, and the civil war {w}as the rejection of
the utopia by the people.… Like Mandelshtam and Ginzburg, the “children
of the Arbat” had not the slightest reason to repent; nor the slightest
interest in whom they destroyed…. It is a pity that Stalin did not have
another 10 years of life in which to say, like Napoleon, “ the
revolution is over”, but we can be especially grateful that Stalin
killed the revolutionary bastards, the foul-smelling fungi that
accumulated on Arbat Street and that he prevented the fungus from
spreading to the rest of Russia and the world. That which has gone down
in history as “1937” was in fact the most brilliant and glorious event
in the Stalin era. Farewell Comrade Stalin! Thank you! (Burovsky, pp.
280, 284–285)

The verdict for Stalin, according to Professor Burovsky, must be “not
guilty” because of mitigating circumstances. The events and crimes so
described and attributed to Stalin must be seen as simply ugly episodes
of ongoing criminal violence perpetrated by one gangster against another.

Endnotes:
[1] “Glorious 1937!”, Zavtra, 9 September 1997. The Russian national
heroes are: General Aleksandr Suvorov, General Mikhail Kutuzov, Admiral
Pavel Nakhimov, and Admiral Fyodor Ushakov. The Knight in the Tiger’s
skin is Prince Tariel of India, from the famous Georgian poem
Vephkhviskhaosani.

[4] Andrei Diky. 200 Years Together: Jews in Russia and the USSR.
Algoritm Publishing, Moscow, 2010, 320 p.

[5] Suvorov uses the Russian word ischishchenie instead of the usual
chistka for “purge.” The former has more the meaning of “cleansing” or
the removal of toxic, dangerous elements; the later has more the meaning
of total housecleaning. Robert Conquest preferred to use the expression
The Great Terror rather than The Great Purge. Like so many of his
contemporaries at Oxford, Conquest himself joined the Communist Party in
“glorious 1937.”

[6] Dan Michaels. Stalin’s 1937 Purge of the Red Army. The Barnes
Review, No. 3, 2000, pp. 49-55.

[8] Dan Michaels [aka as Robert Logan]. Was Stalin Assassinated? The
Barnes Review, No. 4, 2003, pp. 35-40.

(3) American Sunset: Dollars and Dragons, by Eamonn Fingleton

http://www.fingleton.net/?p=1285

Dollars and Dragons

Posted on September 19, 2011 by Eamonn Fingleton

I have just published the article below in the American Conservative.

TOKYO—In the mid 1990s, I published a book entitled Blindside: Why Japan
Is Still on Track to Overtake the U.S. By the Year 2000. The prediction
in the subtitle did not, as they say, pan out. But it was more soundly
based than casual readers of the U.S. financial press might imagine. The
book offered a view on exchange rates: I argued that a huge devaluation
was desperately needed to save America’s already fast-sinking
manufacturing sector.

Had the Clintonites taken my advice, they would not only have halved the
dollar’s yen value—taking it from around 100 yen as the book went to
press to well below 50—but they would have made similarly aggressive
devaluations against other East Asian currencies. Basically, I was
advocating another Plaza accord; the original one, drastic though it had
been, was not enough. The Clintonites did the opposite, with results
that are now abundantly clear to anyone familiar with global trade
figures. Japan’s current account surplus, already disconcertingly high
in 1990, multiplied more than fivefold by 2010. America’s experience was
the mirror opposite: its current account deficit ballooned nearly sixfold.

The Clinton administration’s dollar policy was to “let market forces
take their course.” This sounded fine, but in practice it gave the East
Asians free rein to keep the dollar ridiculously overvalued, thereby
delivering the coup de grace to America’s once peerless manufacturing base.

The Blindside experience taught me two things: don’t bet against East
Asian financial bureaucrats, and don’t overestimate American
commonsense. As far as the second point is concerned, there has been
progress since the 1990s. It is fair to say that many thinking Americans
now realize there is no substitute for a strong manufacturing base. It
is a bit late, however, as that base is gone.

In fact, the consensus among astute Americans has rarely, if ever, been
darker. Certainly this was my impression at Mark Skousen’s FreedomFest
gathering in Las Vegas this July. The event’s attendees—a mix of
economic thinkers, libertarian political activists, and wealthy private
investors—share a common interest in sound money. It was clear that
their faith in the dollar has never been lower. Their forebodings are
evidently shared in Washington and on Wall Street and have hardly been
assuaged by the recent debt-ceiling crisis.

As a panelist in a FreedomFest discussion on China, I was asked how long
the dollar might stay aloft before its final flameout. I guessed another
five to ten years. I did not advance this with much confidence, however.
We are in uncharted territory, and the case for the dollar’s continued
role as lynchpin of the world currency systems hardly rests on solid
fundamentals—at least not on “fundamental fundamentals” such as trade.
On the contrary, the only thing saving the dollar from oblivion is an
ardent desire throughout East Asia to keep it on life support.

Even this desire sometimes seems in question. Chinese spokesmen, with
their occasional hints that they might abandon the dollar, like to kick
sand in Uncle Sam’s face. But in East Asia more than elsewhere, what
matters is not what people say but what they do. Having now invested
more than $1.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds and other U.S. government
securities, the Chinese are clearly walking the walk, even if they don’t
always talk the talk. As for the Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and
Singaporeans, they too have been doing their considerable best to
forestall a dollar collapse.

This is hardly to suggest the East Asians see U.S. Treasury bonds as a
great buy. If anything they are more bearish even than the attendees at
FreedomFest. So why do they keep loading up? They could, after all,
invest in Europe—there are still some nations there that are not
bankrupt. And, of course, there are plenty of hard assets around, not
least land and natural resources in promising developing nations such as
Brazil, Indonesia, and Russia.

The truth is that the East Asian governments’ investment strategy serves
their industrial policy. To keep exporting to the United States, they
must finance American consumption, and therefore they must keep adding
to their already gigantic dollar stockpile.

It helps that East Asian financial systems are highly regulated, and
indeed in considerable measure government-owned. Top regulators
evidently lay down quotas for the size of dollar-asset holdings the
various institutions should maintain. But even East Asian bureaucrats
aren’t all-powerful and, as they are undoubtedly aware, their
Canute-like stand against the waves of economic history will soon enough
prove futile. The higher they keep the dollar in the short run, the
lower it will eventually fall when the fix is in.

Moreover the pressures they must overcome are far greater than in the
1990s, when even the sharpest Americans—not least George Soros and other
financial titans—credited greatly exaggerated American press reports of
Japan’s problems and placed bets against the yen. What was not
sufficiently understood was that Japanese leaders had a strong motive
for understating their nation’s strengths and exaggerating its
weaknesses. Not the least of their objectives was to keep the yen as low
as possible. They also found that their sob stories had a magical effect
in persuading a “chivalrous” Washington to cut Japan some slack in trade
diplomacy.

Of course, the decisive factor in the late 1990s was that everyone from
the Clinton administration to the editors of the Wall Street Journal
bought into the story that the rise of the New Economy constituted a
sort of perpetual free lunch for the United States. As for the
ill-starred Japanese, not to mention the Koreans and Taiwanese, the
consensus among the American establishment was that, still stuck in the
Old Economy, they were destined forever to come off second best against
a low-wage China.

The trade figures have not quite followed the script. America’s vaunted
new advanced service industries have proved disastrously weak exporters.
This helps explain, among other things, the fact that America’s current
account deficit hit $561 billion last year, and its bilateral deficit
with China alone reached $176 billion.

The contrast with Japan could hardly be sharper. Japan’s trade with
China last year was actually in the black to the tune of $46 billion.
And Japan’s overall current account surplus, at $194 billion, was a new
record. Not bad given the state of global demand.

Key to Japan’s trade success has been that, with the help of a grossly
overvalued dollar, it has quietly advanced to leadership even in
strategic industries that as recently as the early 1990s were considered
impregnable American fortresses. Examples notably include
telecommunications and aerospace. You may have missed Japan’s success in
telecommunications, but then you probably haven’t studied the innards of
your cell phone. According to a study by Deutsche Bank some years ago,
there are nine critical components in a cell phone, and Japan dominates
them all. Thanks to leadership in laser diodes as well as optical
fibers, the Japanese also enjoy a lock on making the physical networks
that have made possible our light-speed cyberworld.

Meanwhile, everywhere you look in aerospace, the Japanese dominate in
the most advanced components and materials. Only the most obvious
example is Japan’s 30 percent share of the new super-advanced Boeing
787. The Mitsubishi group and Toray will make the 787’s super-light
carbon-fiber wings, which are its comparative advantage. (What about the
70 percent of the plane that is not Japanese? It would be nice to say it
is American, but the officially acknowledged American share is only 30
percent, and that is undoubtedly an overstatement as it counts only top
contractors. Many of those contractors rely heavily on foreign sources,
not least Japanese ones, for key inputs.)

All this has not gone entirely unnoticed in foreign exchange markets.
Indeed, the yen is up 33 percent against the dollar since the collapse
of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Even more interestingly, it is up
almost 80 percent since December 1989, the last month before the great
Tokyo stock market crash. The yen now rivals the Swiss franc as a
safe-haven currency. Even talk of Japan’s vertiginously high government
debt ratio has done little to discourage hot money flows.

The world’s money men know something the American press does not:
Japan’s debt problem is greatly exaggerated. As the prominent
Tokyo-based economic analyst Nicholas Smith points out, there are major
accounting problems in calculating a nation’s debt, and adjustments have
to be made to published figures to arrive at the real position.

In Japan’s case, the adjustments generally reduce the ratio; the true
ratio of debt to GDP, he reckons, is only slightly higher than Italy’s.
More important, Japan borrows from itself—only about 5 percent of its
debt is held abroad compared to about 25 percent for the United States.

One thing is certain: even at its recent level below 80 yen to the
dollar, the yen remains greatly undervalued. Certainly there is likely
to be no meaningful improvement in America’s trade position. Nor will
Japan’s surpluses diminish.

The present currency system is obsolete and, the best efforts of East
Asian bureaucrats notwithstanding, we are headed for a total upheaval in
the not too distant future. Of course, there are no obvious candidates
to replace the dollar. The major East Asian nations—China, Japan, South
Korea, Taiwan—all see the reserve-currency role as a poisoned chalice.
So does Switzerland. As for Germany, in the days when it was fully in
control of its foreign-exchange destiny, it too always fought the
internationalization of the mark. To the extent that the Germans enjoy a
veto on European economic policymaking—and they do—they are likely to
restrain any move by the euro to replace the dollar.

In the end a compromise will have to be reached, and it will probably
take the form of a new unit based on a basket of currencies. The
renmimbi, the euro, and the yen will weigh heavily in that basket. The
U.S. dollar will also be there, of course, as will the Korean won, the
Taiwanese dollar, the Australian dollar, the Swiss franc, and various
lesser currencies. That may fix some of the world’s problems. The
problem for the United States is that at this stage no amount of
currency engineering will bring back its industrial base.