Stalin’s willing executioners

Posted by John S Bolton on June 13, 2006, 03:03 AM | #

It goes utterly against the teaching of the government schools; but that is what happened. The greatest mass murder events were committed in the name of antinationalism, antifascism, international socialism and the brotherhood of all humanity, antireligion and supposed liberation of the masses.
The Ukrainian holocaust was also part of the larger terror famine extending into south Russia. One might wonder why those who like to accuse people of the northlands of special cruelty and murderous aggressive tendencies, have not interpreted the Ukrainian-South Russian holocaust as an ethnic extermination campaign by the northern peoples of that region against the southern.
Racial demonization is evidently a procedure which requires no consistency.

Posted by Andrew on June 13, 2006, 03:22 AM | #

Yep John, and one that springs to mind is “ The Peoples Republic of China”.
I wonder what people they mean?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 13, 2006, 09:43 AM | #

Steve’s version is fine as far as it goes, and he’s done a whole lot more digging into the Holodomor than I have - let that be said.  But ... the impression that he leaves is that the, let us say it, genocidal and ethnically-motivated Jewish psychopaths who executed Communist Party policy in Ukraine were but the arms and limbs of Joseph Stalin.

From whom did Stalin acquire the idea of a Ukrainian genocide?  Granted he was the dictator whose will had to be won over before such an idea could be translated into policy and thence action.  Was he the sole intellect, then?  The sole analyst and planner?  The mover and seconder of every proposition?  And if he wasn’t who was, in relation to this policy?

It seems to me that without the full provenance of the policy being known and stated, it is not possible to confine the role of any individual or any group in this genocide to that assigned by Steve.

Posted by XYZ on June 13, 2006, 10:12 AM | #

Of course, by stating certain truths Sailer has set himself up for possible arrest for “anti-semitic hate speech” should he travel to the EU, particularly Germany.

Ain’t democracy grand?

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 13, 2006, 10:42 AM | #

But ... the impression that he leaves is that the, let us say it, genocidal and ethnically-motivated Jewish psychopaths who executed Communist Party policy in Ukraine were but the arms and limbs of Joseph Stalin.

More like the gloves and boots of Uncle Joe, with nary a scuff on the cowhide. Especially nasty was the backhanded slap at KMac.

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 13, 2006, 10:54 AM | #

“But ... the impression that he leaves is that the, let us say it, genocidal and ethnically-motivated Jewish psychopaths who executed Communist Party policy in Ukraine were but the arms and limbs of Joseph Stalin.”

I think the reason why Steve Sailer did not posit an alternative narrative to the general consensus that Joseph Stalin was the dictator of the Soviet Union in 1932 is because… well, I don’t want to make a tautology. The Jewish “Opposition” in the Politburo had already been neutered with the purging of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Steve Sailer has gone much further than about 99.9% of those who are conscious of the history of the Holodomor. I know that still won’t be enough for zealots and fanatics such as Friedrich Braun and Wintermute, but most reasonable folk will have to hand it to him for a fine, even daring, piece.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 13, 2006, 11:08 AM | #

No, MacDonald’s was the fine, daring piece. Stevo is just riding in his wake!

Posted by AD on June 13, 2006, 11:33 AM | #

MacDonald’s was the fine, daring piece.

Recycling even 10% of MacDonald is daring in itself.

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 13, 2006, 11:40 AM | #

Of course, if you check out Encyclopaedia Judaica (or however it’s spelt), you’ll find plenty of meaty stuff on the early Bolsheviks without even needing to rely on MacDonald.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 13, 2006, 12:41 PM | #

Stevo isn’t even as forthright as Wiki.

According to Robert Conquest and some modern Ukrainian historians of the period, Kaganovich, in league with Vyacheslav Molotov, engineered the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine or Holodomor which was a planned genocide in which 7 to 10 million Ukrainians died and inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan, motivated by the goal of preventing the possible opposition that the relatively self-sufficient peasantry posed. On any analysis, Kaganovich, was one of the worst mass murderers in history.

And Eric Margolis, by all accounts a reasonable man strides way out there.

Among these monstrous crimes, Ukraine stands out as the worst in terms of numbers. Stalin declared war on his own people in 1932, sending Commissars V. Molotov and Lazar Kaganovitch and NKVD secret police chief Genrikh Yagoda to crush the resistance of Ukrainian farmers to forced collectivization.

Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed “anti-party elements.” Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch - virtually the Soviet Union’s Adolf Eichmann - set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot.

During the bitter winter of 1932-33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or died of starvation and cold. Cannibalism became common. Ukraine, writes historian Robert Conquest, looked like a giant version of the future Bergen-Belsen death camp.

And from Stevo we get,

Stalin’s killing sprees are a little complicated and…the Gulag labor camps weren’t by design death camps like Auschwitz.

At least Stevo is right on that account.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 13, 2006, 02:32 PM | #

The other big question about the Ukrainian Holocaust was just how intentional it was. At one end of the scale, the Jewish Holocaust was extremely intentional because the Nazis paid a price in reduced war effectiveness in order to kill Jews. Extermination was the goal..

That just doesn’t agree with the facts.  One can come up with more effective extermination plans on a napkin during a lunch break.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 13, 2006, 03:01 PM | #

Margolis goes further:

The mass murder of seven million Ukrainians, three million of them children, and deportation to the gulag of two million more (where most died) was hidden by Soviet propaganda. Pro-communist westerners, like The New York Times’ Walter Duranty, British writers Sidney and Beatrice Webb and French Prime Minister Edouard Herriot, toured Ukraine, denied reports of genocide, and applauded what they called Soviet “agrarian reform.” Those who spoke out against the genocide were branded “fascist agents.”

The U.S., British, and Canadian governments, however, were well aware of the genocide, but closed their eyes, even blocking aid groups from going to Ukraine.

The only European leaders to raise a cry over Soviet industrialized murder were, ironically and for their own cynical and self-serving reasons, Hitler and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. [That punch was pulled]

Because Kaganovitch, Yagoda and some other senior Communist party and NKVD officials were Jewish, Hitler’s absurd claim that communism was a Jewish plot to destroy Christian civilization became widely believed across a fearful Europe. [Barely a love tap but he puts it out there.]

Posted by James Bowery on June 13, 2006, 03:08 PM | #

There is a conflict between Sailer and Holocaustian theology here.  It is widely recognized by the elites of Holocaustian theology that it makes no sense to describe the actions of Nazis as optimized to kill Jews—else there wouldn’t have been so many “Holocaust Survivors”.  The fallback position from Sailers provided by theologians is that the Nazis were keeping Jews alive as slave laborers and problematic facts regarding the “death” camps, such as infirmaries and other assorted features to preserve life were there merely to preserve slave laborers.

The final resort of the theologians is to explain the “death” marches, when Jews were relocated between camps on foot, as attempts by the Nazis to fianally exterminate all Jews during the final days when the Nazis realized they couldn’t win and needed to kill the rest of the Jews without being seen as exterminating them.

The whole thing looks very much like a Gulag situation rather than a “price paid in reduced war effectiveness”.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 13, 2006, 03:21 PM | #

Funny thing is now that Ukraine is free of Soviet domination, there’s a chance the Ukrainians could start seeking and documenting forensic evidence for the Holodomor (e.g. mass graves), something jews have never done.  They could probably get sizeable tribute from jewry to refrain.

Posted by Matra on June 13, 2006, 03:50 PM | #

And Eric Margolis, by all accounts a reasonable man

Only if you consider Muslim apologists and haters of Orthodoxy and Anglo-Saxons to be reasonable men.

I don’t see anything wrong with his comments on the Holodomor but given his track record let’s just say it would be unwise to accept Margolis as sole source.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 13, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

Only if you consider Muslim apologists and haters of Orthodoxy and Anglo-Saxons to be reasonable men.

Ok, I’ll bite, for instance?

Oh and M, how about the street brawl in Little Portugal? Don’t ya just luv this city?

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 13, 2006, 04:15 PM | #

Oh that’s right - Margolis backed NATO’s anti-Serb pogrom, didn’t he?

Posted by Anon on June 13, 2006, 05:13 PM | #

Here’s his piece on deporting the Mexican illegals for the Toronto Sun
link

Illegal aliens and their families should be deported in an orderly, humane manner. A tightly monitored “guest worker” program must be implemented that excludes families until permanent residence status is given.

I am not anti-immigration. In the 1960s, I ran a line of West Indies freighters out of Miami. After decades of decline, this city was dying, a ghost town of shuttered businesses, boarded up stores and crime-ridden streets.

Then waves of Cuban refugees landed, and in only a few years turned Miami into one of the hemisphere’s most vibrant, colourful, booming cities. Cocaine played a role, of course, but it was the energy and determination of Cuban immigrants that restored Miami and south Florida to life.

Immigration is highly beneficial, provided it is legal and controlled.

As expected, the “my grandfather was an immigrant” story is found in the last couple of paragraphs

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 13, 2006, 05:23 PM | #

He is however a great admirer of Le Pen and gives his views full play:

Le Pen’s politics have not changed a whit since we spoke, though they have been modulated for the recent election. Witty, charming, and provocative, Le Pen is a master of one-liners. ‘Immigration,’ his bete noire, ‘is invasion,’ quips Le Pen. ‘Look at California. The Americans conquered it from Mexico. Now Mexico is getting it back through immigration.’

‘Our system of social support encourages the lowest elements of society to breed like rabbits…why should we spend our tax money to pay for unwed black mothers to produce more babies who will grow up into illiterates?’

‘Immigration from the Third World brings crime and disease,’ warned Le Pen. He blames France’s surge in violent crimes squarely on emigrants from North and West Africa. France’s colonial past has left it with over 5 million Muslim and black African inhabitants, almost 10% of the population, third class citizens who live in squalid conditions and form a restive, crime-prone underclass.

‘Stop immigration totally, stop letting family members in,’ says Le Pen, ‘deport all illegal immigrants.’

And more recently,

Europe’s old political order is on its last legs, but there is nothing new to replace it. Unless, of course, one counts Le Pen’s National Front, with its calls for racial and ethnic purity, ending immigration, restoration of `Christian values,’ and `cleansing foreigners and criminals.’

Do not underestimate ex-paratrooper Le Pen. This writer spent a good deal of time with him and found him brilliant and charismatic however much he was a racist and anti-Semite. Le Pen yells what others only whisper. There’s even an outside chance France’s next election might end up pitting the little pit bull Sarko against the menacing Monsieur Le Pen

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 13, 2006, 06:03 PM | #

More Margolis:

‘The USS Liberty’: America’s Most Shameful Secret

The attack on ‘Liberty’ was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the ‘Liberty,’ electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.

Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because ‘Liberty’s’ intercepts flatly contradicted Israel’s claim, made at the war’s beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel’s massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.

Far more shocking was Washington’s response. Writes Bamford: ‘Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked the ship and killed American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson Administration and Congress covered up the entire incident.’ Why?

Domestic politics. Johnson, a man never noted for high moral values, preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party.

Posted by john on June 13, 2006, 06:49 PM | #

One of the few nazi documents directly pertaining to jews shows they weren’t interested in reducing their war effectiveness.
““Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers’ opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party.”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/DocItself0342.html

Posted by Matra on June 14, 2006, 12:32 AM | #

Eric Margolis is part Albanian and thus his seething hatred of Slavic Orthodox Christians.

I used to be a fan of Margolis and I still have cut out articles of his from as far back as 1988 - an anti-Serb piece. Even after his predictions about Desert Storm became a big joke (to this day his “expert” military analysis of that conflict is cannon fodder to letter writers to the Sun) I still continued to think he was a reliable writer. But during the wars in Yugoslavia I lost all respect for him as he churned out lie after lie about Slobo being the new Hitler and Serbs being entirely responsible for everything that happened there. As anyone who followed the war knows many of the atrocities originally blamed on the Serbs turned out to be propaganda attacks by the Muslims or at the very least were questioned by independent observers. Margolis led a jihad against such people (including Lewis Mackenzie) claiming at one point that all opponents of bombing the Serbs were “Bobbitized” (as in John Wayne Bobbitt) or Nazis.

Even when NATO started bombing the Serbs Albanian Margolis complained that they were being cowardly and that they needed to hit them much harder.

His claims about French intelligence trying to assassinate him because of his vocal support for the FLN in the 1950s also strike me as being somewhat outlandish.

Then there’s his pro-German anti-British, French, and Russian worldview. Needless to say he never informs his readers of his own ethnic background when he writes about such things.

As for Canada he regularly ridiculed Canadian manhood for refusing to fight HIS war in Bosnia and Kosovo. On TVO’s Diplomatic Immunity he called for more Latin American immigration into Canada in order to “spice things up a bit” because, you see, Canada is too boring (ie. Anglo-Saxon).

His last appearance on TVO’s Studio Two was surreal. He shouted down all the other guests (drunk perhaps?) crying about how the British were racists who shot Indians out of cannons during the 19th century. Trying to point out to the American-born Margolis that Canada was a product of the British Empire was a waste of time as Margolis insisted on shouting down everyone else. (This was a couple of years ago. Margolis had been a regular on the programme since it started in the mid-90s but never again appeared on it after his hysterical outburst against the British).

Despite his Albanian mother and Jewish? father being lucky to live in the Anglo-Saxon created nation called the USA he ridicules the Protestant whites of that country, particularly the South, for their fundamentalism. Yet he’s spent two decades making up excuses for Islamic fundamentalists.

I agree with Steve Edwards that anyone who supported the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999 is an enemy of the white Christian West. Eric Margolis made CNN’s Christianne Amanpour seem moderate in his decade long support for war against the historic enemy of his own people.

Posted by Sigurd on June 14, 2006, 12:47 AM | #

I don’t know why I’m infinitely more irritated by Sailer than with even our most explicit enemies.  I don’t count it a virtue.  After all, like a Buchanan (who at least has a manly bearing), he occupies a place on the spectrum above ground and such people, may, theoretically, serve to attract braver and stronger men to the path of truth, even if they only mark a path next to it.  On the other hand, its possible also, they mostly lead them down that nearby but still deadly path.  Maybe it’s his perpetual squire status among knights. Sometimes I am amazed that someone actually has the patience to refute so silly an idea as “Citizenism”: a saint of patience no doubt.

Posted by Matra on June 14, 2006, 12:52 AM | #

Eric margolis:

I am not anti-immigration. In the 1960s, I ran a line of West Indies freighters out of Miami. After decades of decline, this city was dying, a ghost town of shuttered businesses, boarded up stores and crime-ridden streets.

Then waves of Cuban refugees landed, and in only a few years turned Miami into one of the hemisphere’s most vibrant, colourful, booming cities. Cocaine played a role, of course, but it was the energy and determination of Cuban immigrants that restored Miami and south Florida to life.

I wonder if those Anglos who were displaced by Cuban refugees feel the same way.

In their fascinating book City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami Alex Stepick and Alejandro Portes claim, like Margolis, that Miami was dying and was dominated by “racist” white Southerners before the Cubans arrived bringing life to it. I’ve never been there and I’m not in a position to say whether this is true or not. But their assertion reminds me of the things Italians, Jews, and others have said about Toronto before the place became diverse. Yet those I know who lived in Toronto before multiculturalism tell me an entirely different story about old Toronto. I suspect old Anglo Miamians would be similarly unimpressed with the new hip Hispanic Miami.

Posted by XYZ on June 14, 2006, 05:29 AM | #

“Sometimes I am amazed that someone actually has the patience to refute so silly an idea as “Citizenism”: a saint of patience no doubt. “

Taylor or Holliday,or both?

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 14, 2006, 05:43 AM | #

“As anyone who followed the war knows many of the atrocities originally blamed on the Serbs turned out to be propaganda attacks by the Muslims or at the very least were questioned by independent observers.”

The body counts were a massive fabrication. Before the air-war, Cohen, Clinton et al claimed there were at least 100,000 Albanians killed in Kosovo - after the war the ICTY figure was far less than 3,000, and that included Serbs.

Margolis is a disgraceful individual for supporting NATO’s attack on Serbia. Anyone who still supports that war, now that all details have emerged of its criminality, is not only a worthless individual, but is objectively guilty of treason.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 14, 2006, 12:50 PM | #

His last appearance on TVO’s Studio Two was surreal. He shouted down all the other guests (drunk perhaps?)...

Damn, that would have to qualify as the greatest DI episode of all time. It would be priceless to watch just to see the looks on the faces of Paikin, Stein and Gwyn.

Then there’s his pro-German anti-British, French, and Russian worldview.

It makes sense when viewed through the prism of ethnic interest.

He claims,

Albanians are direct descendants of ancient Illyrians, a Germanic people, the original inhabitants of the Balkans. Albanians were gradually pushed into the Dinaric Alpine highlands by waves of Slavic Serb invaders in the 6th Century AD.

From Stormfront:

The significance of our study of the Illyrian peoples is as follows: on the plains of south central Germany and Lower Austria, where the Hallstatt culture arose, the racial type involved was skeletally a Nordic one. By this term we must understand that the Illyrian central type was similar in cranial dimensions, proportions, and general form to that of the Germans of the Völkerwanderung period.

That accounts for the Russian/Slav hatred. As for the British and French:

Yugoslavia, a political Frankenstein, was created by the victorious Allies after World War I to reward Serbia, and uproot German influence from the Balkans. The Allies forced Croats, Serbs and Muslims into one unworkable nation, and handed over wholly Albanian regions to the new Yugoslavia.

For Margolis, Albanians are a Germanic people, (his hero Skenderberg fought the Turks to a standstill for 25 years) who’s naturally enemy is the Slav, who were sold out after WWI by the British and French.

Posted by Amalek on June 14, 2006, 01:42 PM | #

I would counsel all true conservatives to beware of Robert Conquest: a ‘Congress for Cultural Freedom’ type and former Foreign Office Cold Warrior. His USSR histories are not strong on documentation or quantitative analysis. He belongs to the same school of pageant-like, expostulatory exposition as William Shirer.

There are sound reasons for thinking that the Ukrainian famine, like the ‘Holocaust’, was both less planned and less murderous than propaganda has made out. Deductions from defective censuses and sheer statistical confusion lie behind much ‘Holodomor’ stuff.

In general, figures for ‘crimes against humanity’, like the assailants in buckram, tend to grow in the retelling.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 14, 2006, 07:39 PM | #

“There are sound reasons for thinking that the Ukrainian famine, like the ‘Holocaust,’ was both less planned and less murderous than propaganda has made out. Deductions from defective censuses and sheer statistical confusion lie behind much ‘Holodomor’ stuff.  In general, figures for ‘crimes against humanity,’ like the assailants in buckram, tend to grow in the retelling.”  (—Amalek)

The great Holodomor denier himself, Walter Duranty, when he wasn’t deliberately lying( * ) in his dispatches to the New York Times, put the figure possibly as high as ten million dead, in a private conversation at the time with a Brit attached to the U.K. embassy in Moscow:

”[Walter] Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932–33. In an article in the NYT, August 24 1933, he claimed ‘any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda,’ but admitted privately to William Strang (in the British Embassy in Moscow on September 26, 1933) that ‘it is quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year.’ “

I doubt Duranty, who of course had spent years right there “on the scene,” was making this estimate based on “defective censuses, sheer statistical confusion, and growth in the retelling.”  He made it based on what he was seeing and hearing all around him as things unfolded from Soviet officials, bureaucrats, doctors, and Army officers both in Moscow and without any doubt in Kiev and elsewhere.  The thing is he couldn’t say it because the deal was he had to toe the official propaganda line to be able to report from the Soviet Union.  (He sold his soul for a mess of potage.)

( *  Lying in his official dispatches was what Duranty was apparently bound to do by agreement between the New York Times and the Soviet government—see the last sentence of this June 4, 1931 memorandum forwarded to the State Department in D.C. by the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Moscow.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 14, 2006, 07:45 PM | #

“forwarded to the State Department in D.C. by the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Moscow”  (me, above)

Excuse me, it was the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Berlin who forwarded it, not Moscow.

Posted by Sigurd on June 14, 2006, 08:41 PM | #

XYZ,

I was thinking of Taylor.  I hadn’t heard of Holliday until you mentioned him.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 14, 2006, 10:24 PM | #

Yes, Sailer’s piece on citizenism was mostly fluff and fallacy.  There was almost nothing of substance there.  I view it as squid ink, regardless of its intent.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 14, 2006, 10:36 PM | #

I’m a huge fan of Steve Sailer’s and have read everything he’s written since October, 2000 (except I’ve skipped a lot of his movie reviews—he’s a great reviewer but I’m just not a movie buff and it passes right over my head—and some of his more involved sports-statistics stuff—I’m not into sports that much either).  I can say that his “Citizenist” idea is the only thing of his I’m unable to comprehend.  I cannot quite get what it is that he’s talking about with that.  When I think I’ve got it, I see contradictions or obvious difficulties, and realize I haven’t got it.

Posted by Sigurd on June 14, 2006, 10:57 PM | #

Svyatoslav,

You are right.  The truth is he’s a dilettante not worth anyone’s anger.  And maybe that’s being a bit too hard on him as he does seem to care about something…exactly what, perhaps he doesn’t even know.  Certainly if it were his own people he wouldn’t have such a love of half measures and rationalizations against real measures. Though maybe he’s still wondering who his people are.

Posted by Sigurd on June 14, 2006, 11:24 PM | #

The only acceptable reason he should be permitted for forming the “Citizenism” thesis, was merely as a means of floating up a home run “tater” for Taylor to knock out of the park so as to demonstrate unequivocally the superiority of Taylor’s thinking. However, having gained a sense from his personality through his writing (it was actually quite typical) I very much doubt this to be the case.  He actually seems to invest quite a bit of time and cleverness in his delusions. 

Though of course it could have been subconscious.  Indeed, among monkey’s, smaller monkey’s will initially challenge the alpha-monkey for breeding rights, presumably out of a sort of self-delusion, as clearly the larger one will emerge victorious.  Yet nevertheless it serves the purpose of testing the legitimacy of the alpha-monkey and making certain the monkey’s breed stronger, and thus the smaller monkey in his way contributes to the breeding of stronger and more fit monkeys.  So perhaps in this way we should be thankful for Sailer’s thinking. I am obviously just having a little fun at Sailer’s expense.  Doesn’t seem like a bad guy really.

Posted by Sigurd on June 14, 2006, 11:31 PM | #

Apologies for the apostrophes on monkeys.  Clearly showing myself to be an Omega monkey of grammar and proof reading.

Posted by Matra on June 15, 2006, 12:11 AM | #

Damn, that would have to qualify as the greatest DI episode of all time. It would be priceless to watch just to see the looks on the faces of Paikin, Stein and Gwyn.

It wasn’t DI but the Wednesday night Studio Two and former Canadian ambassador to the US (Gottlieb) was defending Britishness or something like that and Eric Margolis threw a tantrum. Anyway I’d say you’re right about the reasons for his political outlook. But he should be up front with his readers about his ethnicity. In this respect he is just like the Jews who pass themselves off as “regular Americans” (as Archie Bunker’s Jewish script writers would have him say).

I’ll say one positive thing about Margolis: he isn’t a chickenhawk. Unlike wimpy office warrior Bill “crush Serb skulls” Kristol or Jorge “Alabama AWOL” Arbusto, Margolis not only travels to dangerous places but fought for the US army in Vietnam.

Anyway…back to ‘Stalin’s willing executioners”.

I’d be curious to read more from Amalek on supposed exaggeration with regards to the Holodomor. Since I’ve only read Conquest and knee-jerk pro-Stalinist Holodomor deniers on the subject I’m not qualified enough to make much comment on the death toll. But, though I’ve always been anti-communist and sympathetic towards the captive nations of the old USSR, including Ukraine, my Ulster Protestant background makes me suspicious of nations (especially their diaspora) claiming a famine was a deliberate genocide by imperialistic neighbours. That said, the Ukrainian case appears to be much stronger than that made by Ireland’s perennial victimologists.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 15, 2006, 01:59 AM | #

Amalek is correct. The numbers very widely. He is, however, also a Russophile.

Alan S. Rosenbaum writes, in his Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide;

There has been a great deal of debate over the number of people who died in the 1932-1933 famine from starvation or from diseases resulting from widespread malnutrition. When the population totals in the All-Union Census of 1937 fell far short of expectations, the three statisticians directly responsible for the census were arrested as “enemies of the people,” and the entire census was suppressed. M. Maksudov uses 1939 census data to argue that not less than 4.4 million, or one-tenth of the population of Ukraine, perished between 1927 and 1938.  11 Mace asserts that the figure of 5-7 million deaths in the famine for Ukraine alone is a conservative figure.  12 Conquest gives a figure of about 11 million premature deaths between 1926-1937, of which approximately 7 million can be attributed to the 1932-1933 famine. He claims that 5 million of the famine deaths were in Ukraine.  13
[...]
A Russian writer recently [1996] attempted to calculate the number of victims using data from the files of the USSR Central Statistical Administration and National Economic Records. She estimates that the total number of deaths in the USSR in 1933 was 6.7 million, of which half were victims of the famine. In 1933, the only year in which statistics reveal a net population loss for the Soviet Union, the European part of the USSR lost 1.7 million people, of which 1.5 million were in Ukraine. A slow recovery began only at the end of the summer in 1933, after crops were harvested.  15 Wheatcraft, using the 1937 census figures, argues that the scale of excess mortality for the Soviet Union as a whole in 1932-1933 might be as high as 4-5 million.  16 Alec Nove, using figures cited by V. Tsaplin, a Soviet scholar, in the April 1989 issue of Voprosy istorii, estimates that in 1933 there were 3.1-3.2 million famine deaths in Ukraine alone.  17

Posted by XYZ on June 15, 2006, 06:03 AM | #

” I hadn’t heard of Holliday until you mentioned him.”

Some guy who was anti-Asian and anti-Mexican.

Doesn’t belong here.

Posted by Sigurd on June 15, 2006, 02:52 PM | #

If you are using “Anti-Asian” and “Anti-Mexican” as the term “Anti-Semitism” is frequently misused i.e. these groups have rights and deserve protection but whites don’t, he sounds like my kind of guy.  Though maybe you’re being facetious.

Posted by XYZ on June 15, 2006, 04:33 PM | #

Sigurd, by “anti-Asian” and “anti-Mexican” I do NOT mean some sort of irrational animus towards those peoples, but, merely, being against the immigration of those peoples into western nations, and being against their presence in western nations.  As well, being against the racial double standards that you allude to.

In other words, being for *Majority* Rights in western nations.
Or, simply, pro-white.

Thus, he doesn’t belong here.

Instead, we would like to see more John Ray posts concerning the positive nature of the inevitable hispanicization of the United States.  After all, Central American Indians built, like, *really* big pyramids centuries ago.

Therefore, we should welcome the flood of today’s mestizos and Amerindians in the USA.  And, they cook up one mean breakfast.

And, as well, the great barriers to illegal immigration to America - Bush being vehemently anti-Mexican and the border guarded more tightly than that of the old USSR - mean that the illegals who do make it across the border, fighting such difficulties, are high-IQ productive future citizens.

In any case, the carrying capacity of the USA is, roughly, 10 trillion people, give or take several hundred billion.  If every white American yob would have one million children apiece, no problem.

Posted by Sigurd on June 15, 2006, 05:52 PM | #

XYZ,

I enjoyed your parody. You’ve captured the tone of neo-con, pro-immigration psychotics.  Not to mention their love of dissenting opinion.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on June 15, 2006, 05:59 PM | #

Sigurd: with reference to your attitude toward Sailer, you should take the advice you offered to me regarding my attitude toward Mark Richardson. 

I cut Sailer what little slack he needs because he has a pretty high profile and is doing a hell of a job.  I simply ignore his rare dumb idea, of which citizenism is the dumbest.  In contrast, I don’t think Mark’s perspective can be excused on the basis of any imputed need to protect his public standing.

It’s frustrating to see dumb ideas espoused by people whose views are very close to your own because you naturally expect them to agree with you.  By contrast, it’s not nearly so frustrating to encounter bonehead ideas in the MSM, since it’s replete with bonehead ideas. 

To denigrate Sailer just because he’s not 100% on board with your agenda is a mistake.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 15, 2006, 06:19 PM | #

Luke, a lot of dissent amongst our ranks is well described by a Nice White Fellow:

There also is what Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, calls ‘the law of group polarization.’ Bauerlein explains: ‘When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs.’ They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.

(from a George Will piece)

The wranglings are the dynamics of that.  Most of this is heat and not light, since a quick reference to the 14 words or EGI shows everyone to be on the same side.  But, Sailer cares for neither fundamental; he is a race-realist though and many mistake that for fundamental agreement.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 15, 2006, 06:21 PM | #

But I do agree we gain nothing by giving Sailer a hard time.  Just remember that the line between Sailer and ourselves is very different from the line between, say, ourselves and Jared Taylor.  Taylor is one of us, Sailer is not, but the latter is still by far the best of the rest.

Posted by Sigurd on June 15, 2006, 07:44 PM | #

My only serious post was wondering if a) his cult is merely a pain killer (and therefore Siren) for people intelligent enough to see the more obvious illusions and double standards of the Multi Cult (so as not to constantly feel liked duped asses) yet not brave enough to take a position that actually opposes the Multi Cult in any real way or b) close enough to our own position to act as a lure for those not yet “awoken” (as they say.) 

The other thing I’ve wonder is whether Sailer believes b) to be the case, thus only half believes his own clap-trap and sees himself as simply serving a post “above ground” as I described early.  Certainly this will turn out to be the case if we are in any way victorious in his life time.  But come on, I wasn’t being serious with the monkey analogy.  And I did say he seems like a nice guy.  And, yes, he is closer to our way of thinking.  And there are degrees of terribleness.

And Luke I don’t think that I was taking the other guys position over yours.  He seemed to be in denial about the consequences of certain Jewish behavior.  My only comment was that outward anti-Semitism doesn’t seem to be the successful model for contemporary nationalist parties. While at the same time, neither does being unaware of Jewish behavior.  In the white world, Russia might be the exception to this.  They might actually be positioned to gain a degree of freedom by explicitly opposing Jewish groups or “Zionist groups” in any case.

Posted by Amalek on June 18, 2006, 09:28 AM | #

Desmond Jones—Thank you for finding that citation for me. I would only add that *all* extrapolations from censuses in countries such as the USSR are ipso facto dubious. We ‘Holocaust deniers’ do not accept the logic behind the subtractive deductions of Six Million Dead in the Shoah—see Walter Sanning’s critique. There is no more reason to think that Soviet head counts, either before or after the famine, could yield reliable conclusions about the numbers who perished in the ‘Holodomor’, let alone the degree of oppressive intentionality as opposed to ‘dizziness with success’.

The Bengal famine of 1943 is an instructive and chastening comparison—and an episode virtually unknown in the Britain which feasted on ‘The Jewel in the Crown’.

Moreover, ‘premature’ and ‘excess’ deaths are highly elastic concepts. One notes that the definition of Holocaust survivor has expanded exponentially and now seems to be ‘any Jew, anywhere on earth, who was alive both in 1939 and in 1945’.

Fred Scrooby seems to think that because Walter Duranty lied in one direction to some people, he must be trusted when speaking about the same matter sub rosa to other people. Might it be more prudent to write Duranty down as a blowhard know-nothing who habitually said what he judged others wanted to hear (a qualification for all journalists on embalmers of orthodoxy such as the NYT). Duranty did not spend months prowling round the Ukraine. He was no better position than anyone else—perhaps even including Stalin’s doomed census-takers—to know how many or few really died.

I am quite content to be shot at from both sides when pouring cold water on atrocity yarns. Indeed I never feel happy otherwise. There is so much parti pris, so much lying and jumping to conclusions, so much shroud-waving and victimological self-righteousness in this fallen world, that the fence in No Man’s Land is the only honourable place to be. No doubt I shall get my reward in Heaven, or in the hottest place in Hell

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 18, 2006, 06:08 PM | #

There is no more reason to think that Soviet head counts, either before or after the famine, could yield reliable conclusions about the numbers who perished in the ‘Holodomor’, let alone the degree of oppressive intentionality as opposed to ‘dizziness with success’.

Yes, arguing death counts from censuses is absurd, but it’s a relative thing; arguing death counts from WWII censuses, when jewry was migrating eastward en masse, is more absurd than arguing death counts from Soviet censuses.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 18, 2006, 06:09 PM | #

I strongly suspect Cowan is Jewish—just to make that official.

Your suspicion is entirely reasonable, since Cowan is probably an Anglicization of Cohen.

Posted by Matra on June 18, 2006, 07:44 PM | #

Fred Scrooby seems to think that because Walter Duranty lied in one direction to some people, he must be trusted when speaking about the same matter sub rosa to other people.

He had ideological reasons for denying the Holodomor. What would motivate him to lie in private conversations? I suppose it’s possible he just told people what they wanted to hear (though that’s not very convincing) but it’s not as if evidence of the Holodomor happening is entirely based on a private conversation between Durranty and a British ambassador.

Desmond Jones—Thank you for finding that citation for me.

Maybe those Alan S Rosenbaum refers to are correct. Then again maybe Mr Rosenbaum is being selective with his citations for his own reasons.

I’ve an open mind regarding the famine and I certainly wouldn’t dismiss out of hand the view that Robert Conquest’s numbers are suspect or more importantly that he exaggerated the degree to which it was planned - it wouldn’t be the first time a cold warrior had gone overboard with regard to Soviet malfeasance. But until we see a serious challenge to Conquest’s version (from a non-communist or Russian nationalist source) there is no reason to doubt his widely accepted version.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 19, 2006, 12:37 AM | #

Matra is correct. Rosenbaum has an agenda and it appears to support his ethnic interest. He concludes that Ukrainians, unlike Armenians, Jews and North American aboriginals (the American Holocaust) were not targeted for extermination as a race of people. In that way it mitigates the responsibility of ‘Stalin’s Willing Executioners’.

Rosenbaum concludes that the Turks targeted the Armenians as a race from the get go. The extermination of the Jews, in contrast, according to Rosenbaum. was not an immediate objective.

From 1938 to 1940, Hitler made extraordinary and unusual attempts to bring about a vast emigration scheme. The biggest expulsion project, the Madagascar plan, was under consideration just one year before the inauguration of the killing phase. The Jews were not killed before the emigration policy was literally exhausted.  12

Notwithstanding the sporadic pronouncements of Hitler (including those in Mein Kampf) and of his cohorts, it is clear that Nazi antisemitic activities were not necessarily on a genocidal track. However coercive and brutal, the measures of expropriation and expulsion were not exterminatory. In a recently publicized document, it is revealed that even beyond the year 1940 the Nazis, led by Hitler, were intent on resettling rather than literally exterminating the Jews. Here is a portion of that document explained; the event described refers to December 1941.

Heydrich revealed that the Führer had authorized Himmler to resettle Jews from all German-controlled territories into certain Russian areas in the northeast. Bühler believed that Heydrich had spoken of eleven million Jews. To accomplish this task, Heydrich said, Himmler would need exclusive control of resettlement, and he would forbid any interference with the task given him by the Führer. Bühler wanted to know if this new policy meant that there would be no more dumping of Jews into the Generalgouvernement, and that those Jews already brought there would soon be removed. Heydrich said that he hoped so. Apparently mollified, Bühler agreed to report this information to Frank. 13

No such options were considered by the Young Turk Ittihadists for the emigration of the Armenian population. In discussing the doom of “two million or more Armenians” slated for wholesale “deportation,” Ambassador Morgenthau observed, “As a matter of fact, the Turks never had the slightest idea of reestablishing the Armenians. . . . When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race;

Rosenbaum, to his credit, does give play to the advent of Ukrainian nationalism as a potential reason for targeting.

Robert Sullivant contends that the pressures of collectivization and industrialization led the central leaders to regard any expression of independence in culture as an attack on the party. Their suspicions were exacerbated by the rebirth of German militarism, since Germany had earlier been the sponsor of Ukrainian nationalism. This led them to regard all nationalist manifestations as signs of subversion. He states that, therefore, it was not unreasonable for party leaders to conclude that, for both security reasons and the success of Soviet programs, Ukrainian nationalists had to be restricted or destroyed.  78

In support of the conclusion that the famine resulted from the regime’s determination to use grain procurements as an instrument to crush the Ukrainian people, Mace and Conquest point to the fact that the famine stopped at the Byelorussian-Ukrainian border in the north and the Russo-Ukrainian border in the northeast. The Russo-Ukrainian border was closed by security troops to prevent Ukrainian peasants from getting out to find food. If they did manage to leave, they were not allowed to return with food. However, the border with Byelorussia apparently was not closed. Many Ukrainians went there seeking food since the famine was much less severe. 79 Fitzpatrick writes that the flight of starving peasants toward the towns in the winter led to a crisis. The towns were already overcrowded from the influx of previous years and were unable to cope. The urban rationing and supply systems threatened to break down. Steps were therefore taken to cordon off the towns. Those not engaged in productive work were given ten days to leave. About 300,000 were deported from Moscow alone. 80

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 20, 2006, 01:01 AM | #

Re-reading MacDonald’s original piece at Vdare, he makes it clear that it really does not matter what the numbers are, which appear important to Mace and Conquest, nor that Ukrainians as a group were targeted, which is Rosenbaum’s measuring stick, only that Slezkine’s work clearly, if inadvertently, shows that the actions of the disproportionately large number of Jews were motivated by revenge against the white gentile Christian peasantry and elite of Czarist Russia.

It strains credulity to suppose that these migrants completely and immediately threw off all remnants of the Eastern European shtetl culture—which, as Slezkine acknowledges, had a deep sense of estrangement from non-Jewish society, a fear and hatred of peasants, hostility toward the Czarist upper class, and a very negative attitude toward Christianity.

In other words, the war against what Slezkine terms “rural backwardness and religion” — major targets of the Revolution — was exactly the sort of war that traditional Jews would have supported wholeheartedly, because it was a war against everything they hated and thought of as oppressing Jews.

Posted by JB on June 21, 2006, 12:07 AM | #

Sailer:

Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad—for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms.
(...)
Ironically, Jewish writers themselves are obsessed with Jewish influence, even in fields where Jews have virtually no influence, such as soccer. I’m reading How Soccer Explains the World: An (Unlikely) Theory of Globalization by Marty Peretz’s latest young man to edit The New Republic, Franklin Foer. This Jewish soccer fan’s book is hilariously obsessed with the Jewish role in soccer, even though that role is almost nonexistent. The great majority of Jews live in America and Israel, two countries that are almost irrelevant to the story of soccer.

Did you know that a Jewish team won the Austrian national championship in 1925? Isn’t that the most fascinating thing you’ve ever heard in your life? Well, Foer seems to think so, as he travels to Vienna to interview elderly Jews about their memories of that amazing team, but it turns out that none of the old Jews in Vienna can remember it or, for that matter, ever had any interest in soccer. But Foer still scrapes together a full 10 pages on this epochal team. Similarly, his chapter on English soccer hooligans is based on the perhaps not quite reliable memories of one middle-aged yobbo who is (surprise!) half-Jewish.

As you’d expect, references to the Jewish Holocaust pop up throughout this book on soccer. On the other hand, Foer’s 26-page chapter on soccer in Ukraine never mentions the Ukrainian Holocaust of 1932-33. I wonder why?