Stalin as Psychopath — Robert Conquest


The distinguished historian Robert Conquest, who died recently at the age of 98, is credited by many as being the first modern writer to reveal the full extent of the horrors of Stalin’s regime. His books had a powerful effect in tarnishing Stalin’s image by dragging into the harsh light of day the horrific crimes against humanity for which Stalin alone was responsible.

. . . by Stephen Evans

If you were brought up in a communist home, Robert Conquest’s books really were a revelation.

In my case, two of my grandparents were members of the Party (as it was invariably called without ever needing to say which party). My father’s father joined not that long after 1917’s October Revolution in Russia and stayed faithful (it’s the right word) through the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, unshaken by every revelation and counter-revolution.

At my grandfather’s dinner table in Bedlinog, south Wales, debate was intense but futile. It was like arguing with the most devout of religious believers. Whatever came down as the line in Soviet Weekly or the Morning Star stood as gospel.

He had the collected works of Stalin on his shelf (not obviously worn with reading). When my grandmother opined at the dinner table that there must be at least some crime in the Soviet Union, her husband told her to “stop her bloody lies”.

My father remembered the relief he felt as a young boy in the mining village when Hitler turned on Stalin in 1941 and invaded the land of his former partner-in-crime. Before that, the family had feared internment. But now the Red Army suddenly became allies of Britain and communists became the most vociferous supporters of the cause. According to his son, my grandfather, a communist councillor, received extra petrol rations to tour the Valleys drumming up support for the war effort.

This religious atmosphere continued, and it was not un-typical during the Cold War. Any doubt cast on the achievements of the Soviet Union was simply dismissed as “Cold War propaganda”. When a notable dissident was imprisoned in a mental hospital, the view was that he must be mad if he doubted the merits of Soviet socialism.

So for those of us who did have doubts, Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties was an extraordinary work.

It was a book which changed minds and dispelled doubt (mine included) when it was published in 1968, the year of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in response to the liberalisation of the Prague Spring.

It laid out facts without adornment so they could speak for themselves, spelling out in clear language the detail of the purges and the executions. Fellow travellers of the Soviet Union sneered – and perhaps still sneer – but they couldn’t find factual errors because Conquest’s research was so meticulous.


  • Born Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili he adopted the name Stalin which meant “man of steel”
  • He studied to be a priest but left the seminary after failing to turn up to his exams
  • After Lenin’s death he ruthlessly promoted himself to become dictator of the Soviet Union
  • In Stalin’s Great terror around 750,000 people were summarily killed
  • Stalin played a decisive role in Nazi Germany’s defeat in WW2

Was Stalin a national hero or a cold-blooded murderer?

When Soviet archives were finally opened up, Conquest’s descriptions remained unimpaired. There could be debate about numbers – the precise number of millions of Stalin’s victims – but not about the bulk of the facts presented.

Even into the 1960s, it had seemed to many like there was a battle of equal ideas. But then came Robert Conquest’s descriptions of Soviet reality.

We were told clearly how hundreds of thousands of people were shot by the Soviet secret police in a matter of months in 1937 and 1938. We learned how the purges of officers by a paranoid Stalin were so fierce that the fighting ability of the Red Army was jeopardised.

Conquest described how on a single day, 12 December 1937, Stalin and his henchman, Molotov, personally approved death sentences on 3,167 people – and then went to the cinema.

The detail was unanswerable.

And then Conquest did it again, with The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine about the famine in Ukraine in 1932-33, caused by a foolish and vindictive agricultural policy driven beyond destruction by Stalin.

Conquest documented coolly what happened in individual villages. He described the cannibalism and starvation.

In the pre-war era, the great Welsh journalist, Gareth Jones, travelled through Ukraine and saw the truth of the famine, publishing articles in 1933. But bigger voices were against him, like the New York Times Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, who parroted Stalin’s propaganda.

Duranty wrote in that august newspaper that there was no famine: “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine”. And then of Stalin’s policy, he invoked the notorious phrase: “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.”

When Robert Conquest’s books came out, it became undebatable that Duranty was wrong and Jones was right.

There was about the Cold War an element of faith — disillusioned communists talked of the god that died. But for the ultra-faithful, no doubt could dent the belief even as the evidence mounted before their own eyes.

When Stalin was finally denounced by Nikita Khrushchev in 1956, my grandfather became ill with a nervous condition. The collected works of Stalin were moved behind the television.

My grandfather died just as the Soviet Union collapsed. He was too confused in his old age to realise that his god had died. He never read Robert Conquest’s books — he would have seen them as the most despicable Cold War propaganda.

It is said that the Mexican writer Octavio Paz said that Conquest’s books “closed the debate” on Stalinism. They ended the argument. That isn’t true. Nostalgia for the monster remains, even in Russia today.

But Conquest’s books did open the eyes of those with minds to open. I know. I remember.


87 thoughts to “Stalin as Psychopath — Robert Conquest”

  1. Thank you, Stepan Evans, for bringing Robert Conquest’s books to light. I had never heard of him (I am not that well-read), but I shall keep an eye out for his work. Your essay, here, should lay-to-rest some arguments found on this site. It is well and timely the Administration published your article. I look forward to reading the resultant commentary.

  2. Excellent article. Thank you. You can like and admire Stalin only if you get your information from the internet alone. Try reading a single biography of the man and you will be cured of your admiration.

  3. This SITE is controlled opposition ! Dare I say – for the same thing they are against and against the same thing they are for or Ratio Studorium or Hegels Diaelectic ! The horse is DEAD ! Will it help to keep beating him ? History is good if it is used to educate ! It is useless without seeing in the present context ! ESAU Is kicking our ass and all that is said is whoa is me ! WAKE UP and smell the stench of the WHITE MANS DYING CIVILIZATION ! ! ! ! ! ! !

    1. It sure appears there are many in “WHITE MANS DYING CIVILIZATION”… who feel the need to psycho-analyze Stalin’s karmic ghost…. as if it helps understand Russia’s Pharisee Oligarch Bankers controlling Putin today…. which supposedly do not exist.

    2. Carl, you are right. Indians of Dacota tribe say: “If you discovered, that your horse is dead, the best strategy is to dismount it.” But you are much pessimistic. Maybe not all is lost. Modern statesmen are people of sophisticated mind and cannot overlook, that: first, if the horse is dead, there is no need to feed her, second,it is possible to try to harness one more dead horse, to double traction, and third, dispatch delegations to other countries to investigate what they are doing in such cases. So, if you can change nothing, change yourself – cheer up!

  4. Some consider Stalin to have been a brilliant statesman. He may well have been.
    With that being said, his regime was the most murderous, by far, in the history of the Soviet Union. Stalin was certainly a ruthless man.
    But debate remains; particularly re the number of victims but even re Stalins responsability in certain events. For example, there are scholars who maintain that the famines were the result of mishandling the agriculture, natural factors, etc.
    The number of victims of Communism in the former USSR is disputed; who should be considered a victim?
    After the partial opening of Soviet archival materials, there remained too many gaps in the information, so the victims numbers have to be estimated.
    They are usually in the range of between 10 to 25 million, depending on which scholar one uses.

    1. @ Luca K

      As to the number of people who died under Stalin in the Soviet Union, Lasha Darkmoon has dealt with this fascinating question in a detailed comment attached to an article by Kevin MacDonald on this site. See here:

      The comment gives various scholarly estimates.

      † LASHA DARKMOON notes: MacDonald gives the total number of Russian Christians killed during the Jewish-led Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath as 20 million, as opposed to Solzhenitsyn’s 66 million mentioned in the quote above. 20 million, however, is the lowest conservative mainstream figure, the exact number of casualties often being put much higher. In a private email to me, Mark Weber confirmed the 20 million figure, but drew my attention to a footnote in one of his essays:

      “Russian professor Igor Bestuzhev-Lada, writing in a 1988 issue of the Moscow weekly Nedelya, suggested that during the Stalin era alone (1935-1953), as many as 50 million people were killed, condemned to camps from which they never emerged, or lost their lives as a direct result of the brutal “dekulakization” campaign against the peasantry. “Soviets admit Stalin killed 50 million,” The Sunday Times, London, April 17, 1988.

      R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, has recently calculated that 61.9 million people were systematically killed by the Soviet Communist regime from 1917 to 1987. R. J. Rummel, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (Transaction, 1990).”

      Mark Weber, The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime, n. 35.

      In his introduction to the 800-page compendium “The Black Book of Communism“, published in 1999 by Harvard University Press, editor Stéphane Courtois states that “Communist regimes turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government.” He calculates a total death toll of 94 million, with two countries claiming a total of 85 million between them: 20 million in the Soviet Union and 65 million in Communist China. The remaining 9 million victims of Communism came from Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Eastern Europe and Cuba.

      1. Hi Julian, nice to see you back, you were last reported on a fishing holiday…..hope you caught some whoppers. 😉

    2. Brilliant statesman ? Are you insane ? Debate on the number of victims ? Alexander is probably close to the right number, but who cares if it is 10 or a 100 million ? If it was you or your family member would that be enough ? Mishandling of agriculture ? Are you a Jew or is your IQ just under that of a worn out shoe ? Too many gaps in the Soviet archives ? My worn out work boots would win a debate with you ! The ENEMY is ESAU people and he controls everything on this planet ! He has names and faces in real time and is not a fictional individual or group who commits evil in a vacuum ! HE IS OUT TO KILL THOSE OF THE BOOK ( Bible ) ( not Jews ) and any who stand in his way ! He is the DESTROYER of ALL that is good, for he can do no other ! Fly the flag upside down for our country is and has been in distress for ALL of it”s existence ! THE ENEMY IS WITHIN THE GATE ! History is only for educational purposes ! If this site will not write about those committing the evil TODAY and put NAMES on it, then I say it is controlled opposition and useless ! The odds that I am wrong are 2 ! None and even less ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Even worse than him is his aider and abettor ! If you have only 1 bullet, use it on the traitor ! ! !

      1. He was a man of the times like the bought and paid for Churchill and FDR……all doing their Masters bidding. Here today gone tomorrow…….Next !!!!!

  5. All I can do is weigh not just the evidence but also the quality of evidence, the anecdotal kind being on the second to last rung, just above Jew witnesses.

    While not doubting at all Conquest’s integrity, the fact is that even the best among us can be fooled and is as often as not fooled by preconceived notions and resulting emotional baggage.

    So, again, let me for the sake of the argument try to accept all of the article.
    However, I cannot accept anything in totality if there is even one hard fact that cannot be explained by the historical theory, no matter how well put together.
    Because the truth brooks no contradiction, not even on atomic scale, any such contradiction demands revision, if only on a small scale.

    Having said all that, let’s see whether the foregoing (article) is indeed waterproof.

    My problem, as always in discussing Stalin’s legacy is this:
    Stalin’s Conversation with A.M. Kollontai
    (November, 1939)

    Read the following words, spoken in NOVEMBER OF 1939, to say, way before Stalin’s biography was revised by Jew, while he was still lionized in Jew press, yet what he says resonates with prophetic clarity – ask yourself, does it invoke in your mind Ted Bundy, or Grannibal lecter or Son of Sam or Jack The Ripper (Joe Silver)?

    I wanted to speak about Stalin’s role in history, but I could just say: ‘Your name will be inscribed…’ that Stalin raised his hand and stopped me and I stopped. Stalin continued:

    ‘Many matters of our party and people will be distorted and abused, above all in foreign countries and, yes, even in our country too. Zionism, in a tearing hurry for world supremacy, will be harsh on us, be vengeful on account of our successes and achievements. They still consider Russia as a barbarous country, as a raw material adjunct. And my name will also be slandered; it is being slandered even now. To me they shall attribute many a crime.

    International Zionism shall by all means attempt to destroy our union, so that Russia could never rise again. The strength of the USSR lies in the friendship of the peoples. The sharp edge of the struggles will be directed, first of all, towards the destruction of this friendship, to the severance of the periphery from Russia. [Imagine: EXACTLY what transpired 2 years ago in Ukraine] On this count it has to be acknowledged that we have yet not done much. Here is yet a large field of work.

    Nationalism shall raise its head with special force. For some time it will dominate internationalism and patriotism; however, only for some time. Groups of nationalities within the nations shall emerge and shall enter into conflicts. Many pygmy-leaders shall emerge in these nations.

    On the whole, in the future the developmental process shall proceed in ways more complex and in ways even more rabid and furious and the turns and twists shall be extremely sharp. It shall come to pass that the Orient will be in violent turmoil. Sharp contradictions with the West shall arise.

    And nevertheless, the events, no matter how these were to develop, a time shall come, that the sight of the new generations will turn to the accomplishments and victories of our socialist fatherland. Year after year the new generations shall be born. They shall again think about the banner of their fathers and grandfathers and they will give to us full credit. They will build their future on our past.’

    Words of a cruel, blood quaffing monster, concerned only with personal power?
    Remember, this was a full decade before the Satanic creation known as Israel came into being by a fiat of venal cowards, didn’t Evans himself say how Duranty was at that time pseudo-polishing Stalin’s image for the benefit of NYT, yet at all times the rabbinical sacrificial knife was poised over the sheep – and Stalin knew it full well.
    Read his last couple of lines, he talks about the future of Russia, the coming smear in the shabbo Western media.
    And what are we seeing today? Exactly that.
    So allow me my grano salis, because as far as I am concerned, this tale is far from closed.
    I will accept whatever truth shakes out – WITHOUT SUCH INCONTESTABLE CONTRADICTIONS.

    Because this interview happened in 1939, not 2011, after Putin’s return to Kremlin.

    1. @ Lobro

      Stalin’s Conversation with A.M. Kollontai
      (November, 1939)

      The link you give doesn’t work.

    2. Focus on this statement by Stalin:

      International Zionism shall by all means attempt to destroy our union, so that Russia could never rise again.

      First note that he says RUSSIA, repeatedly.
      And yet, he was a born and ethnic Georgian but considers himself as Russian as Hitler considered himself German, despite birth in Steiermark, Austria.

      Why is he foreseeing the all-out attack by international Jews on Russia, is he so stupid not to know that the Bolshevik revolution and early leadership were 90% Jews, that more than half of the 367 original commissars were AMERICAN JEWS?
      He was there and yet he is not aware of it?
      For all the crimes and brutality of his, real and imagined, no one ever accused Stalin of stupidity, he was no Dubya Bush with flies crawling all over him.

      So what happened?
      He booted them out after his palace coup, that’s what happened and Russia was once more in the hands of Russians and Jews were just waiting for the war to end before doing a Putin on him.

      He knew that Die Juden were deathly scared of real Russia, just as they were deathly scared of real Germany, the only two nations Jew couldn’t eat for breakfast.

      Let that fact inform your thinking instead of fantasizing about who raped whom, how many times and in what manner.

      1. @ lobro
        (request for Stalin source information)

        I see you express a certain admiration for Stalin which is obviously based on extensive background reading. I myself have a very superficial knowledge of Stalin based on reading only two biographies. Both of these were anti-Stalin.

        Anyone reading these two books, both by well-known historians with deep specialist knowledge of Russian history, would have been left with the strong impression that Stalin had no redeeming features.

        These books were packed with closely documented facts, not anecdotal evidence, as far as I could see. One book gave extensive quotes from Solzhenitsyn who had witnessed Stalin’s gulags at first hand. I am sure, in your zeal to defend your hero Stalin, you would not dismiss Solzhenitsyn as an ill-informed fool inventing fairy tales and false anti-Stalin anecdotes? Or would you? Please clarify.

        I’m not attacking Stalin, mind you, in making these cautious neutral comments, given that I’ve already admitted to a profound ignorance of Stalin based on a superficial reading of two biographies. As a matter of interest, if you don’t mind me asking, what biographies of Stalin have you read that have impressed you so much that you have decided to make Stalin your hero?

        The reason I ask is that I would like to buy the book (or books) that you yourself must have read. I hope thus to get a more balanced view of Stalin. Can you recommend at least ONE Stalin biography (or more if you can) that you think might help me to view Stalin in a kindlier and rosier light?

        Thank you.

        JE Darlington

      2. (Warning: a huge one, 990 words, couldn’t shorten it without crippling the message)
        First a couple of corrections in how you view me.
        How many Stalin’s biographies have I read?
        How many of anyone’s biographies have I read?
        What, if anything, have I read?
        Precious little.
        I have been (informally, by friends and former coworkers in medicine and psychiatry) diagnosed with pronounced dyslexia that makes any kind of reading, especially anything that inflicts an even small dose of boredom, almost impossible, ie, I have to be highly motivated in order to pursue the topic for even a short bit at a time.
        So, what I do is read between the lines, and due to the said condition, have become quite proficient at it.
        Which is to say, I question the circumstances and possible motives under which the writer says what he says, how it fits the bigger picture in time as well as cultural and political space.
        With this approach, it is hard to accept the existence of true heroes, the genetically born ones as if popping out of Zeus’s forehead, born perfect.
        Aside from some inborn aptitude, intellect and talent for ethics, heroes are made by circumstances of their lives and are therefore only part of the scheme.
        Adolph Hitler comes as close as I can think of to being such a hero, based on excerpts of Mein Kampf that I picked up in passing as well as numerous samples of his actions, speeches and attitudes.

        As for Stalin, please don’t call him my hero, that kind of rankles.
        I used to accept all that was laid at his doorstep in a sort of reflexive way, “if everyone says so, it must be so”.
        But, being scientifically minded, I insist that nothing, no fact or logical contradiction is allowed to violate the construct and if it cannot be accommodated by small or moderate revision, the construct heads for the compost heap and a new one must be assembled, that brooks no irredeemable imperfection.
        Thus, for me that Kollontai interview is something that CANNOT live side by side with all the learned biographies that paint Stalin as incapable of making statements that he clearly did in that interview, where he comes off as someone with profound understanding of the secret truth behind the smoke screen of officially sanctioned history as well as powerful wish for his homeland to remain strong and prosper in future beyond his own lifetime.
        I try to imagine how Kollontai may have invented these statements and put them into Stalin’s mouth at the time of the publication, during the iron-fisted wartime rule?
        What about Jews talked of in that interview?
        “Anti-semitism”, in any form whatever was punishable by death instantly in the aftermath of the October 1917, so how does that square with what was said?
        This is “between the lines” stuff and I find it sufficiently convincing to toss the previous picture of Stalin out the window.
        He may well have acquiesced in murder of millions, fully aware that Jews still held the ultimate power and anything other than show of blind shabbo obedience would result in his own demise.
        Is this hard to accept, knowing what we know of Jews when in power?
        What would be a true hero in those days, someone who stood up and spoke truth to power?
        Answer: an instant corpse, disposed of and fed to dogs, he and his extended family obliterated from Earth and history, in other words, an idiot whose grandstanding won absolutely nothing.
        We don’t know of how many idiot-heroes went by the boards in those days, at least Rachel Corrie made couple of headlines outside the States.

        I think that “The Man Of Steel” (Stalin) is an apt moniker, he did have that almost inhuman self-control, impervious to lesser considerations such as flattery or cajoling, so if he put his mind to climb the Party ladder to ultimate power and victory over Jews, without them being aware of his goals, he did in the end pull it off.

        And I think that Putin has learned that lesson well.
        He will do what needs to be done, no more, no less, no bullets wasted, no empty gestures and grimaces, thus, if throwing open the archives to expose Holocaust sham is unlikely to yield major results at a given time, he will hang onto it until the time is right.
        Just as Stalin played the Holocaust game in his day and went along with the charade in order to maximize the leverage for his own purposes, The Great Patriotic War Continued Into Cold War and whatever other propaganda was being cooked up.
        All to say, it is an unbelievably murky period and precious few have ever had deep insight into it.
        Solzhenitsyn was in the thick of the Gulag action and has every right to speak of what he saw and experienced, he researched the fairly available data on Jew history in Russia and can speak like an expert on it.

        But he didn’t know Stalin personally, he cannot speak of shady backroom dealings first hand and those who were present and knew are generally not to be trusted because of their own disreputable involvement.

        So, it leaves me with slim pickings but those that are beyond dispute, eg, the said interview or some poorly investigated statistics, such as that during Stalin’s rule, the average lifespan was historically at its peak, that Russian people today see him in favorable light.
        Why, what motive might they have to extend such feelings of warmth and trust to a psychotic murderer as he is described in the West?
        You must understand that while the masses are easily misled at outset, with time they start gleaning understanding into the leaders psyche, his character and personality, despite all the official output spewed down the bullshit pipeline.
        So, something is up and I am trying to figure it out.
        (Moscow Does No’t Believe In Tears – and Lobro doesn’t believe in heroes)

      3. Back in the day, identifying and isolating the enemy was fairly straightforward, Julius Caesar could see clearly the painted shields of Gauls and Germans across the battlefield.

        But Jew changed the game rules, now the enemy shares your office space, eavesdrops on every conversation, he may be the very person you confide in.
        Think of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, how he soundlessly mouthed that he couldn’t get any private space in the White House due to infestation of Mossad gadgets in every nook and cranny, counting his bowel movements in washrooms … and yet, his confidante, Monica Lewinsky was a Mossad agent.

        The war zone is your mind and Jew has made enormous territorial gains there, turfing him out requires thinking in the stark terms of exorcism that Jesus spoke of.

        Do you think that Devil cares about the state boundaries of Ukraine?
        (Kind of interesting that Stalin was once a seminarian and walked out on them, probably just as I would too … bears considering the possibilities, all unprovable of course)

        Think of what Stalin must have been thinking when in negotiations with FDR and Churchill at various conferences, knowing full well that they were nothing but agents of Talmud, through and through, do you see that he realized full well just who the Enemy was?
        And the said Enemy realized that he had lost ground in USSR and that the Soviet Union was actually the hated old Russia in all but the name, despite the dynastic rulers having been exterminated to the last.
        In that war, Hitler’s Germany was but a side interest.

      1. As I fell off my horse on the road to Damascus, I woke up with the thought to grow up and write like a grown up.

      2. Actually, lobro, those who are excellent at reading between the lines are the very ones who not only read every word, they think about every word they read. So no, you do NOT have dyslexia, and yes, you DO read every word, and you think about every word you read. That’s the only way to read between the lines, really.

        If you don’t read anything to begin with, how can you possibly read between the lines if you don’t even read the lines?, LOL LOL LOL To read between the lines requires first one actually reads the lines, then second, think about every word one is reading.

        This latest comment of yours, lobro, is a GIANT FAIL. Try again.

        Just because you’re a two-faced lying bastard and a hydra-headed jew hebe chameleon snake — it doesn’t naturally follow you have dyslexia and doesn’t naturally follow you can’t be bothered to read. What naturally follows is you’re absolutely excellent at the ancient language of two faced bastards, the twilight language. Though you failed miserably in your native twilight language with your latest post. GIANT FAIL.

        I’m surprised with you, lobro. You’re more intelligent than that. Come on, don’t let Franklyn Ryckaert down! We know you’re just excellent at speaking that good old time Twilight Language. I’ll consider your latest post some sort of an anomaly, 🙁 , and please don’t disappoint me again, 😉 . Thank you, TROJ.

  6. “It was like arguing with the most devout of religious believers.” This is because it is arguing with the most devout of religious believers. Karl Marx’s father was a rabbi who left the usual, indelibly Jewish impression upon his son. Karl founded his communist theoretical philosophy on Judaism’s sacrificial system, so inducing religious fervor into secular communism is perfectly in keeping with Jewish methodology. Under Jewish communism, neither god nor state can be questioned. It is tragic that so many gullible goyim minds have been co-opted into this particularly massive and murderous lie.

    “My father remembered the relief he felt as a young boy in the mining village when Hitler turned on Stalin in 1941 and invaded the land of his former partner-in-crime.” Hitler turned on Stalin his partner in crime? Hardly. Hitler made his attitudes about communism quite clear from the very beginning. Hitler never considered himself allied with Stalin in any way. He simply used the political expediency of the non-aggression pact to stave off the inevitable conflict with communism. He allowed Stalin to take half of Poland because the portion ceded to the Soviets had not been part of Germany before the Versailles treaty and because he felt a tasty regional morsel might keep the hungry wolf at bay until he could strengthen his forces. However, the mask came off when German intelligence showed Soviet troops massing on the border to stage an invasion into Romania and Germany. Romania’s Ploesti oil reserves were paramount to Germany’s industry and its war effort. Had Stalin successfully taken Romania, it would have been game over for Germany.

    “And then Conquest did it again, with The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine about the famine in Ukraine in 1932-33, caused by a foolish and vindictive agricultural policy driven beyond destruction by Stalin.”

    While vengeance murder from the Jewish perspective, i.e. a Jewish policy of torturing the Christian masses of Kulaks to death by starvation, from a Soviet standard, the policy was neither “vindictive” nor “foolish” but intentional, cold-blooded murder by design that would force the entire population to become wholly dependent on the state for their survival. It is this type of history that makes me wonder how stupid American goyim can fail to realize what the Jews have in store for them. Yet Mr. Evans’ account of the religious reverence with which his family embraced communism serves to explain what has happened in the USSA. The Jews are by far a race of master propagandists. In fact, the Torah is nothing more than religious propaganda used to control a nation of illiterate shepherds. If Jews could convince the gullible goyim of the wonders of communism in the age of radio, what could not be accomplished by them in the age of TV?

    As for a comparison of Stalin and Hitler, Stalin was clearly a megalomaniac. Take a look at all the Stalin iconography versus that of Hitler. How many massive statues and murals featured Hitler as their focus? Stalin was a cold-blooded murderer, his track record leads to this conclusion. Stalin was behind the mass murder of his own people. Where did Hitler ever conduct any mass murder campaign, let alone that of his own people?

    The Stalin regime produced the Soviet Gulag, a system of death camps purposefully designed to starve and work inmates to death. Hitler’s concentration camps spanned a twelve year period from 1933 to 1945. In 1937, there were only 7,500 prisoners in four concentration camps: Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Lichtenberg. Note that war at this point was less than three years away. German camps were originally designed to rehabilitate the inmates, hence the sign “Arbeit Macht Frei” i.e. learning a trade and becoming a productive German citizen led to the inmate’s release. According to Bernadac, Reichsführer Himmler “wanted the concentration camps to be primarily re-education centers, genuine courses that should result in lasting conversions.”

    Before the war, German inmates were released from the camps after satisfactorily completing their rehabilitation process. Of course, the release process ceased with the beginning of the war. By contrast, only a tiny percentage of inmates ever returned from Stalin’s death camps during a 71 year period spanning both side of WWII. Soviet camps were first established in 1919 under the Cheka. By the early 1930s, camp populations had already reached significant numbers and by 1934 the Gulag, or Main Directorate for Corrective Labor Camps, now under the NKVD, had several million inmates. A peacetime incarceration rate of several million inmates versus several thousand, how do these two leaders compare on this point alone?

    Murderous Stalin felt the need to have his troops backed by “blocking units” tasked to execute anyone retreating from the front. He also branded anyone captured as a traitor and later executed these former prisoners, while sending family members to the camps. Where did Hitler ever have such policies? Hitler stated his intentions openly and never planned nor used the “sneak attack.” Unlike Stalin and his communists, who openly stated their intent for world conquest and domination, Hitler never had any known design for world conquest or domination.

    Hitler tried repeatedly to prevent war by offering peace terms. These terms were rejected in toto by the allies who wanted war. Stalin sought a bloody global revolution that would lead to a communist victory and domination over the world. He planned the sneak attack on Germany after signing a non-aggression pact. Stalin had 22,000 poles murdered in the attempt to decapitate the Polish government and thereby any possibility of a Polish counter revolution. He then blamed this atrocity on the Germans. Where did Hitler ever order the mass murder of a country’s leaders and intelligentsia? When did he ever blame any actions, taken by himself or his government, on others?

    The Soviet regime under Stalin considered a citizen insane if they did not recognize communism as the political paragon of virtue and slavishly support the “workers paradise” without question. Where did the National Socialists ever consider people crazy for not slavishly following their system? When did they ever incarcerate citizens in insane asylums for disagreement with their policies?

    Unlike the sole example provided by Stalin’s Conversation with A.M. Kollontai, there are far too many other examples of these differences to list. The difference between German National Socialism and Soviet Socialism were that of day and night.

    As for the number killed by Stalin and his soviet henchmen, never – ever – give the Jew, or his shabbos goy, the benefit of the doubt, for they will most assuredly repay balanced fairness with a knife to the back or a slash to the throat. Instead assume the worst imaginable possibility and then multiply a thousand fold. How many lies might it take to balance the scale of lies Jews have been feeding the goyim for centuries?

    1. Unlike the sole example provided by Stalin’s Conversation with A.M. Kollontai, there are far too many other examples of these differences to list.

      This would be like saying
      “Just because at the time of crime,the defendant was captured on timestamped closed circuit camera miles away doesn’t mean that he is innocent, because he fits the witnesses description of black, 200 pounds, wears the Angels baseball cap and pants riding low on his ass, as you can see, the evidence pro outnumbers the evidence against, therefore he is guilty.”

      Or me saying, “Listen, buy this horse and forget about looking inside his mouth, I counted the teeth and there are 800 of them, all in perfect condition”.

      I could go on, with the sale of the Saddam’s WMD tale which the majority of Americans bought and swallowed whole and so forth, the fact that not a speck was ever found means nothing, because he was swarthy, with mustache, his sons accused of torturing and raping numerous white women.

      Unless you or anyone else can provide a plausible explanation for the single interview, which in quality, while not quite an alibi, comes pretty damn close – that he was not quite what published historians say.
      Man or monster, he is certainly due for some honest revisionism.

      So, convince me that that interview is a canard, I am willing to be persuaded.
      To be wrong is one thing, to knowingly lie is another and while I can be guilty of the former, I refuse to indulge in the latter.

      1. Not a canard, lobro.

        Late this P.M. I’ll be writing a post giving my take on this conversation.

        Stay tuned

      2. Stalin’s conversation with Kollontai needs to be put in a proper perspective. This starts with the fact that Stalin was a high-level mason (and not a spy as I believe Franklin and Paine were), inferring that his first priority was to serve the “The Brotherhood”. And in many ways Masonry DEFINES psychopathology.

        The common denominator of the operation also known as “The Syndicate” is that its members are inculcated with the belief that they are serving the common good. When this perspective is operating at the highest levels, particularly at the 33rd Degree, this is where murder is rationalized. A perfect illustration being one whose practitioner beseeches the heavens with cries of “why must we kill and kill and kill?”

        Stalin was no different in this regard, although I think his personality suggests an impassivity in rationalizing the necessity for wholesale killing. Was this a form of denial with the realization that if he opposed these virulent jews, then he too would become one of their victims? Which he may have been in the end anyway when they allegedly poisoned him in 1953.

        In which case, chalk it up to that old adage about Russian fatalism.

        I think Stalin’s words to Kollontai reflect a genuine desire FOR, and resulted in actions contributing TO a nationalistic preservation. They also represent a position which shows a recognition of the International Jewry entity influencing worldly matters. But I suspect that his ego lent itself to believing he was in charge, and didn’t realize the extent to which he was being successfully used in accomplishing the aims as set forth in the Protocols. Ones whose primary concern starting in 1917 calls for utilizing a strong military to be involved in keeping with the long-range plan for World Govt.

        In looking at the big picture, what is being done is deja vu to what was done by using Germany in the last century. And like all high-level masons such as FDR, Churchill, and Truman, essentially Stalin held no real power, but was played like they ALL are. This is what I mean by their being “steered” towards a desired end by those who are really controlling events IN GENERAL from behind the scenes.

        Hitler tried to be the “immovable object” going up against an “irresistible force”, and failed. Putin is similarly inclined, but he has to overcome that Russian proclivity for being fatalistic as the pressure mounts in goading the ex-KGB man into another all-out war.

      3. @lobro

        Just to follow up

        Perhaps Stalin WAS well aware of his having been used in “accomplishing the aims as set forth in the protocols”. This is probably what our old friend Cir_assian was being so cryptic about, which, if we have an understanding of the eyes being the “window to the soul” enables us to read what Stalin is thinking with that look he’s showing the camera.

        But this in no way legitimizes the psychopathic reasoning of masonry where wholesale killing is rationalized for the “greater cause” of creating a one-world government.

        “Useful idiocy” exists in layers. Stalin may have seen all there was to see regarding the relentless scourge of Int’l Jewry, but did he really believe he was a genuine steward of the Russian nation when in all probability it was more a matter of his being deemed as the best idiot for performing a useful task?

      4. Arch you know as well as I this site is FAKE ! FOR THE SAME THING THEY ARE AGAINST AND AGAINST THE SAME THINGS THEY ARE FOR ! Waste of time ! Goodbye

      5. @lobro

        Trying to get to the bottom of Stalin reminds me of Churchill’s quote on Russia:

        “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”

        That he was a high-up mason I have little doubt, with all that may imply. That he secretly wished for an Alliance with Hitler also rings true to me.

        My last post on the subject is where I stand, but it feels like there’s still something missing that I haven’t quite put my finger on……or maybe I already have?

  7. The above should read: “How many TRUTHS might it take to balance the scale of lies Jews have been feeding the goyim for centuries?”

    Here is more information on the German camps. Massage the URL for even more info.

    “Another category of German citizens, who were persecuted by Himmler, in his capacity as Chief of the German Police, was homosexuals. Paragraph 175 of the German criminal code, which had been in effect since 1871, made it a crime for men to publicly engage in gay sex or for male prostitutes to solicit men for sex. Himmler began enforcing this law and a total of about 10,000 homosexuals were eventually sent to concentration camps such as Dachau, Sachsenhausen and Mauthausen for at least 6 months of “rehabilitation.” According to Bernadac, they “received regular visits from the medical commissions” who attempted to change their sexual orientation because the Nazis believed that these prisoners were gay by choice.”

    Is this persecution, prosecution or an attempt at rehabilitation? The Nadzees actually believed faggotry was a choice? How utterly repugnant and disgusting those evil Nadzees entertained such thoughts.

    Here’s my favorite:

    “The Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Bible students, were sent to concentration camps because they refused to serve in the German Army or because they distributed pamphlets discouraging others from joining the Army. The first Jehovah’s Witness to be registered at Mauthausen was Franz Bräuchle, who was Prisoner No. 337. The Nazis referred to the Jehovah’s Witnesses as “volunteer” prisoners because they could leave at any time if only they would change their minds about serving in the Army or stop distributing pamphlets against the German government. According to Bernadac, none of them ever recanted.”

    Gosh those camps must have really been terrible. Think of the horror withstood by this group of religious fanatics who to a man, refused to recant. Funny how no Quakers are mentioned in this group, as they too refused to serve in the military. One can only wonder how many Gulag inmates would have availed themselves of a similar offer made by Soviet commissars.

    Judaism, Christianity, Muhammadanism, Communism – All based on the very same gullible, religious fanaticism.

    1. “Judaism, Christianity, Muhammadanism, Communism – All based on the very same gullible, religious fanaticism.”

      Freemasonry belongs on the list.

    2. @ Arch Stanton

      Good comment until your last sentence.

      Judaism and communism do go hand-in-hand and do fit your description of religious fanaticism and gullibility.

      I am not an expert on Islam, so I have no opinion on it on way or the other.

      On Christianity, I hopefully assume that you are speaking of the Judaized, adulterated “Christianity” sometimes referred to as Judeo-Christianity that also operates under numerous other sects, denominations, etc., many of which are quite fanatical and gullible. A person would have to be gullible not to be able to see the basic differences between what Jesus taught in the Gospels compared to what is contained in the Old Testament, Acts, and Revelations.

      True Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus as laid out in the Gospels and does not fit your description. The essence of true Christianity according to what Jesus taught is that each person can save themselves, not that God would save them from themselves. True Christianity has no place for fanaticism since it is based on individual choice and commitment, not group pressure or enforcement.

      Did I assume properly?

      1. Ungenius –

        “The essence of true Christianity according to what Jesus taught is that each person can save themselves, not that God would save them from themselves.”

        I like that….. seriously. Where can I find that quote in NT?

      2. Each person can save themselves ? Where can you find that in the New Covenant ? You can not and will not ! What the hell is wrong with you ? You can not be that uneducated or that STUPID , can you ? You will never find it , for it is not there ! You are all Jews or brain dead ! I am sorry for insulting any who do not know , but come on ! Talking out your butt does not leave one thinking that you are looking for the truth or trying to help those who do not know any better ! I think most on this site are astrologist”s for you are speaking out Uranus ! ! ! ! ! ! !

      3. @ Pat

        There are far too many to quote. Flush everything that you have been told from the pulpit. Start at Matthew 1:18 and read through John 21:25 (KJV). Think about what you read. It will become clearly evident assuming you really want to know. Jesus taught about what man has TO DO, positive – the Gospels, not what man must not do, negative – most of the rest of the book. Basically, God decided what man had to do when he created the joint and, since perfection is always perfect, there is no need for God to change his mind about anything. It has always been all about what man has to do each day. Seriously.

      4. Ungenius –

        That is a poor answer from you. Weak. ‘Seriously.’

        Since there are so many, as you claim……

        ……Just give me THE one(s) to make your point.

      5. @ Pat

        I admit to being an optimist. I actually thought that you really had an interest in the teachings of Jesus. Your reply demonstrates that my optimism was misplaced.

        You do not want to take my advice because you have already made up your mind concerning Jesus not being the Son of God if you even think that he exists at all. I strongly doubt that a sound-bite, out of context scriptural quote would make any difference in your opinion.

        If a sound-bite is what you want, check with Carl above. I’m sure he can provide you with the sound-bite that you need to prove that I am wrong after he exhausts his insults. Better yet, do your own research to find that sound-bite.

        I see no reason to waste more Darkmoon space as you chase your shadows. I have dusted off my feet with you on the topic of Jesus.

      6. Ungenius –

        I was serious. If it was written as you stated… I have missed it for over five decades.

        Your advice was 50 years too late.
        I did it in reverse order from your hints, though. I rejected the pulpits AFTER I read the NT all the way through several times. That’s when I found out that Christians, especially the ones in pulpits, do the opposite of Christ’s teachings.

        I found that public prayer and ‘table thanks’ and prayer in churches… and all the other hypocritical rituals… etc… was against the teachings of Jesus.

        Matt 6: 5-6
        5″When you pray, you are not to be like the HYPOCRITES; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6″But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 7″And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.…”

        I ALSO found Christians open savings accounts and buy insurance, against Christ’s teachings.
        Matt 6:19-20
        19″Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20″But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;…”

        That’s when I tossed man-made religions.

        Don’t blame Carl. YOU made the claim. He did not.

        The proponent of the claim has the burden of proof. You.

      7. @ Pat

        Seek the truth and you will find it.

        Congratulations! You found a sound-bite substantiating my statement all on your own.

        Matthew 6:20 “″But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven,…”

        Please note that it is not God that is storing up treasures in heaven. It is man by his belief and action while here on earth.

        Keep looking. There are tons more.

        Man is responsible for his beliefs and actions, not God. Consequently and most logically, it is man that can save himself.

        I understand your decision concerning the religious bullshit that is peddled from the pulpit disguised as approved by Jesus. I made the same decision that you did 45-years ago. I stuck with being an atheist for about 10-years until it became obvious to me that I had made an incorrect decision while sipping wine on a mountain top viewing the incredible valley below. It was 25-years later before I really wanted to know the truth of Jesus’ teachings even though I had received many nudges toward the truth during that time. It took me 10-years of serious researching on the teachings of Jesus before I really began to catch on to the actual teachings of Jesus.

        I am as hardheaded as they come. Maybe even more so than you. I sincerely wanted a solution and thankfully realized the solution is God through the teachings of Jesus. As I said before, it took me a very long while, but it is never too late.

        Carl did the typical troll routine of ranting insults. That is all I blamed him for since that is all he did. Maybe I was wrong to indicate that he had sound-bites.

        Take my initial advice and start logging down how many scriptures that quote Jesus indicating that man is responsible and you will understand why I replied the way I did. The whole story is much more valuable than the sound-bites.

      8. Ungenius –

        “Take my initial advice and start logging down how many scriptures that quote Jesus indicating that man is responsible and you will understand why I replied the way I did.”

        I have probably done that more than you have, especially in the decades before 1985. The NT was around back then. 🙂

        I made reams of notes on the NT and the quotes, when I was teaching and lecturing, almost preaching, on evils of communism and benefits of Christianity to organized groups, some of which I headed. There used to be blank pages in my bibles. They were filled with notes and references by 1975. In short….. I took your advice decades ago. In the 70s.

        In my lectures I even made the point that Jews hate Christianity because it is a personal religion and not a group religion. No need for churches…. known as synagogues and temples 2000 years ago. The earliest archeologically identified Christian church is a house church, the Dura-Europos church, founded between 233 and 256 AD.

        That is all in the past. In part because I realized that Christ did not start Christianity’s religious practices…. the ones denoting a group religion…. like going to the church to worship. All of that was man made…. mainly by Constantine…. and his official churches. Jesus would not recognize the Christian ‘religion’ today. He would likely tell all those hypocrites to tear down the churches.

        It was my wish that you could help me find more than what I already found when you claimed:
        “The essence of true Christianity according to what Jesus taught is that each person can save themselves, not that God would save them from themselves.”

        I am my own style of Christian, unknown to anyone but me…. just what was intended. Out of churches. Not praying in public…. etc. As told in NT. I do not proselytize… or ‘witness.’

        My way of learning more quickly is through interrogation by intimidation to get the most out of people when I put them on the defensive. I want to know right quick… “What’cha got, biggun..!!”

        BTW…. Please notice… I never claimed you were wrong. I challenged you to prove it. I’m still waiting.

        AND…. The term ‘sound bites’ is unbecoming… too ‘MSM-ish’ for me and my pre-1985 mindset. 😉

      9. pat,

        good stuff, Pat, i am the same way and unfortunately we are but a few.
        True christian, ie, one that takes time to deal with words of christ by way of independent thought, rather than bleating after the preacher is a solitary creature not a head of cattle in a herd.
        A half dozen comments ago in 2-3 topics ago i said pretty much the same thing and claimed that it is the only way to defeat the jew, namely, accept the direct teaching of jesus, no substitutes.

        when you think about it, this is the secret of the temporal, profane power of the jew monolith.
        People wonder how is it possible for just 15 million jews to wield such diabolical power over the rest of the world.
        The answer is what i always maintained: there is just one jew, comprised of 15 million particles under the central scheme of talmud.
        What few, single digit “good jews” exist have just been sloughed off the unitary body, like dandruff.

        therefore the secret of earthy power is not to follow Jesus but The Adversary, in every word, thought and action.
        The choice is binary but most people don’t realize this, they drift aimlessly and sluggishly like blobs of mud rolling across the bottom of a swamp.

        Dura-europos: a fortified city on the right(?) bank of euphrates that stood guard for Parthia against roman incursions in the days of Caesar, where the greedy, crass Crassus, he who had what, 20,000 rebelling gladiators crucified after the defeat of spartacus, met his own, inglorious defeat and execution by the parthian general Surena around 55bc.

      10. Lobro –

        I have observed that ALL organized religions exhibit Pharasaism in action. They also enable and promote the word “chosens.” Follow the party line.

        Dura-Europos (Greek: Δοῦρα Εὐρωπός), also spelled Dura-Europus, was a Hellenistic, Parthian and Roman border city built on an escarpment 90 m above the right bank of the Euphrates river. It is located near the village of Salhiyé, in today’s Syria.

      11. @ Pat

        Let me see if I understand you properly.

        You think you have me on the defensive. You think that I fell for your interrogation by intimidation technique. You are sorely lacking in your perception skill. You have the “list” and I do not, nor did I produce one that you were challenging me to produce. I am not dumb enough to be your or anyone else’s gofer.

        You say that you are your own brand of Christian, but most posters on Darkmoon seem to think just the opposite based on your past posts. You appear to be happy with that which makes you a deceiver. Now I know for sure whose side you are really on. You have exposed yourself.

        You have earned what I call the 827 award. Many years ago, I worked with a group of people who had developed a three digit numerical code system for different expressions that were better not verbalized. The only code I remember the definition for was 827 which stood for “Pardon me, you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about what you think.”

        Please hold your breath while I work on the proof you deceitfully desire. I will enclose the proof with the 827 award plaque.

      12. Take it easy, Ungenius! It’s possible you are misjudging our Pat. There’s more to him than meets the eye! 🙂

      13. Pat is very opposed to organized religion, but I don’t think he is opposed to the Logos. You can see by his comments that he has made a very deep study of the New Testament.

      14. Ungenius –

        “Pardon me, you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about what you think.”

        HA!!! But…. YOU cared SO little…. YOU still replied MANY TIMES in DEFENSE of lack of proof of your claim…….

        AND you still have evaded proving your ORIGINAL CLAIM.. by spending time attacking ME….. personally….. when I never attacked you. Your religious learnings are showing.

        So… That’s how LITTLE you care..??? The opposite is evident..

        Then you want to reference ‘other commenters’ who are total strangers, who do NOT know me… with their own motives..??

        You are not very good at this. No wonder you cannot understand scriptures…..
        ….. written pre-1985. 🙂

  8. Man of Steel?

    There was another “Man of Steel” – Superman. Like Stalin, this “Man of Steel” was also a Jewish creation.

    “The Superman character was created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster in 1933.”

    The Jews have been waiting for a Messiah long before Jesus was assigned the title. Their idea of a Messiah was, and is, a great military leader, a “man of steel” a “superman” who will deliver the world into the hands of the Jews, thus forever eliminating what little well deserved persecution they have earned from their actions.

    Like a naughty child hopes grandma or grandpa will intercede for their setting the house on fire, Jews hope their God YHVH, in the form of a Messiah, will deliver them from the wrath of the goyim after their destructive polices become evident to the host population.

    Judaism is a patriarchal religion; its god is a father figure. The classic portrayal of “God” is the male figure. After all, God created Adam in his own image while woman was merely a ribbed afterthought. Taking up this theme, Christian painters portray “god” as a powerful old man with long white flowing hair and lightening bolt fingers. Such portrayals are not only reserved for Judaism’s God, but also applied to other human religious saviors like Moses, a patriarchal male father figure who led the Israelites out of their imagined bondage.

    Like their comic book characters, Jews live an imaginary, bizarro world where everything is upside down, viewed through a looking glass darkly. They have always looked to a supernatural influence for their salvation and this is where the creation of their superman character and their communist “man of steel” comes into play. The golem is an earlier version of superman, but one that is controlled by its Jew masters. In this regard, Stalin was much more like the golem than Superman.

    This Jewish patriarchal fetish points to one of the historically fundamental differences that separate Jewish character from the European character. While recognizing the influence of intelligent design, i.e. “God”, Europeans have always relied on their inner strength of character to overcome the adversity they encounter in this world. This reliance on inner strength is what has led to the European’s independent nature and accounts for why white men and women have been willing to strike out on their own into unknown wilderness regions and develop the land.

    Jews on the other hand have learned to depend on the masses of humanity for their survival. Like the Children of Israel, they have always followed a leader and followed the masses in order to survive. As with other oriental cultures, Jews are most comfortable in dense urban environments where others are relied upon to provide their sustenance. Like children, they are terrified of both the unknown and open spaces. This fear and dependency has led to weakness in the Jewish character. This weakness explains the Jew’s intense desire for a father figure to rescue them from adversity; for example, when they have finally alienated themselves from their host culture.

    Today Jews have turned these character traits upside down. The once strong self-reliant male character that struck out to settle the wilderness has become a thoughtless, evil, racist, sexist, bully while the urbanized, soft, weak, effeminate character of the Jew has become the thoughtful, kind, compassionate, tolerant member of mass culture seeking equality for all humanity.

    With the world virtually fully developed into an urbanized culture, there is no longer any need for the European’s strong, independent character to explore and settle the unknown. The Jews sensing and feeding this change and have now taken the upper hand to turn the world into a dependant, child-like, culture more in keeping with their weak character beset with fear and childish desires. Naturally, the Jew’s Tikkun Olam upon the world produces people that have their same weak character. Thus, we now find European men who have turned themselves into women, while other adult males act like children with childish pursuits. How many adult males are seen carrying skateboards these days? To be fair, such childish pursuits are pretty much all that remain for modern European males to pursue.

    Is humanity destined to become a world of helpless children, dependant on a mother or father figure for not only parental type guidance, but for their daily sustenance as well? Will America become another Soviet Union whose citizens are totally dependant of the state to meet their needs? If Jews are allowed to dominate the world, then most assuredly this will be the fate for whatever remains of European culture. Of course, this will only happen after they have finished off whatever male character strength remained among these host cultures.

    1. They were hoping Oliver Cromwell would pick up the baton… of ‘Messiah’ he declined. (Douglas Reed – The Controversy of Zion…

    2. “Judaism is patriarchal religion”
      Judaism – political, but not ethical community. As a matter of fact, it is not religion, but joining up of the mass of people. (Emmanuel Kant)

  9. It seems that not many have an intuitive grasp of the principles of judicial evidence, something that Faurisson spotted in the charter (article 21, I think) of the Nuremberg Tribunal, where they said up front that they will not be bound to the rules of judicial evidence, eg, such sick jokes as “commonly accepted views” and previous convictions in courts of allied states were accepted as iron clad evidence against the defendants and no alibi or legally grounded arguments would sway the outcome.

    And it also seems that we have this phenomenon here, in statements such as “numerous reputable historians and researchers said that …” or “witnesses of high integrity said this …”, everything second hand, Conquest interviewed so-and-so, and so on.

    Just as Avatar The Jew might argue that Elie Wiesel, the multiple Nobel Prize winner for Peace, Literature and Tear-Jerking as well as many other brother Nobel and noble Jews like Kissinger, Begin and so on, all stated with neither doubt nor proof that 6 million Jews got lampshaded or cooked into soap, millions of newborns tossed into open flames, they were there and saw it all, and who am I to dare question any of this with mere physical, rather than spiritual and metaphysical arguments.
    Crocodile tears by the rivers of Babylon.

    I am not impugning anyone’s earnest beliefs, only pointing out that they are just that, beliefs, not physical evidence, and beliefs are subject to persuasion, self-delusion and brainwashing.
    Nor am I offering competing theories, I will arrive at mine in good time, after rejecting all the faulty ones, what is left must be the truth.
    Otherwise it is like NASA guy boasting about the Space Shuttle they assembled, what an incredible flying machine it is, such precision and genius and I point out that the heat tiles are held together with chewing gum.
    So he blows his cool and starts screaming at me: “Oh yeah, just because of one such tiny detail you think this wonderful piece of high tech machinery is unsafe? Where is your Space Shuttle, Lobro, have you got a better one?”
    Well, no, good luck with yours, Mr Nasaman and I must admit that you picked the best quality bubble gum too.

    How do such well meaning theories rise (and fall)?
    Like a jigsaw puzzle where after many hours of hard labor, the historian figures he’s got the picture and given his investment is unwilling to consider alarming little bits and ends to the contrary, it is human that he would be unwilling to let his prize be torpedoed by mere facts, too beautiful to fail.

  10. Alternative view

    On August 23 Europe marked a so-called “European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism” coinciding with the date of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; one of the purposes of this “day of remembrance” is to equate Stalin with Hitler, the USSR with Nazi Germany, Professor Grover Carr Furr told Sputnik.

    By attacking and stigmatizing the Soviet past the US and its NATO allies are targeting today’s Russia and its leadership that is unwilling to bow before the West; anyway, the USSR never did anything remotely comparable to what major Western countries did in the last century — the US and NATO have been by far the most aggressive and murderous power in the world since WW2, US expert in Soviet history Professor Grover Carr Furr of Montclair State University told Sputnik.

    Illogical as it may seem, despite the fact that the USSR collapsed decades ago the Western propaganda machine continues to vilify Soviet Russia; first British-American historian Robert Conquest and later American scholar Timothy Snyder have contributed a lot to the anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

    “Why [there is] so much anti-Stalin and anti-communism? Anti-communism because communism is the antithesis to capitalism. And anti-Stalin because the Stalin period in the USSR was the period when the world Communist movement did so much that was good. Also, anti-Stalinism and anticommunism because of the huge atrocities of capitalism and imperialism in the 20th century, which continue today,” Professor Furr emphasized.

    The professor pointed out that historian Robert Conquest (the author of “The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purges of the 1930s” who passed away on August 3, 2015) had been working for the British Information Research Department (IRD) since its establishment and up to 1956. The IRD, originally called the Communist Information Bureau, was founded in 1947, when the Cold War era began.

    “[The IRD’s’] main task was to combat Communist influence throughout the world by planting stories among politicians, journalists and others in a position to influence public opinion,” Professor Furr explained.

    Conquest’s work was to contribute to the so-called “black history” of the Soviet Union, the professor noted, “in other words, fake stories put out as fact and distributed among journalists and others able to influence public opinion.”

    “His book The Great Terror, a basic anti-communist text on the subject of the power struggle that took place in the Soviet Union in 1937, was in fact a recompilation of text he had written when working for the secret services. The book was finished and published with the help of the IRD. A third of the publication run was bought by the Praeger Press, normally associated with the publication of literature originating from CIA sources,” Professor Furr pointed out.

    The professor remarked that to our days Conquest remains one of the most important sources of material on the Soviet Union for anti-communist and Russophobic historians.

    The propagandist activity, masquerading as scholarship, was aimed against the USSR and coordinated by US/British intelligence.

    Furr noted that Conquest periodically met with heavy criticism from prominent Western scholars, which blasted him for “consciously falsifying information” about the Soviet Union. In fact Conquest just used any source that was hostile to Stalin and the USSR, turning a blind eye to the fact whether it was reliable or not.

    Needless to say that British-American historian Robert Conquest has lots of “followers,” especially today, when Western-Russian relations have deteriorated tremendously. The blatant falsification of history used as a traditional Cold War tool has caught a second wind.

    “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past,” as George Orwell wrote in his famous book “1984.”

    Unsurprisingly though, the Western historical discourse is currently flooded with politicized myths about the USSR and Joseph Stalin.

    One of those who contribute a lot to the blackening of Soviet Russia is Timothy Snyder, the Housum Professor of History at Yale and author of Bloodlands. Like Conquest, he is a celebrated Western author praised by both American right-wing and liberal sources.

    While attacking Stalin, Snyder is trying to convince his readers that Hitler was no worse but in some sense “less evil” than the Soviet leader. Snyder goes even so far as to suggest that “in order to carry out the murder of the Jews [the Holocaust],… Adolf Hitler depended on Joseph Stalin [and his methods],” as Professor David A. Bell remarked in his recent review of Snyder’s “Black Earth” for the National Interest.

    Remarkably, Snyder is largely following in the footsteps of Conquest — his narrative is based on controversial sources, rumors, semi-truths always hostile to the USSR, as Professor Furr exposed in his book “Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False.”

    Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, far right, General Secretary of the Communist Party Josef Stalin, second from right, and German Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, third from right, pose together after signing the German-Soviet non-aggression pact in Moscow, August 23, 1939

    “They say that in the treaty ‘the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany agreed to divide astern Europe between themselves.’ This is false. The treaty, in a secret clause, marked all of Eastern Poland as the ‘Soviet sphere of influence.’ This meant that when the German army defeated the Polish army, (a) the German army would have to withdraw from Eastern Poland, remaining hundreds of miles away from the pre-1939 Soviet border; (b) Poland would remain in existence, and hopefully be willing to ally with the USSR against Hitler,” Professor Furr stressed.

    Furr pointed out that the USSR had been trying hard to get Poland, the UK and France to agree to “collective security,” that would oblige each country to declare war on Germany if Hitler attacked Poland. Alas, Warsaw and London refused to conclude any such treaty.

    “The ‘Munich Accords’ of October 1938, where the UK and France had given Hitler a large part of Czechoslovakia (later they also gave Hitler all the Czech gold reserves too) had proven that the capitalists wanted Hitler to attack the USSR. The anti-communist and anti-Semitic Polish government also snatched a piece of Czechoslovakia at this time,” Grover Furr emphasized.

    In September 1939 the German army occupied Poland and the Polish government fled the country to Romania. When there is no government, there is no state.

    “Hitler’s men told the Soviets they were ready to permit a pro-Nazi, anti-communist Ukrainian state in the former Eastern Poland. So the Soviets had no choice but to occupy Eastern Poland. ‘Eastern Poland’ was not really Polish anyway. It had been seized by force from Soviet Russia by imperialists in 1921. Most of the population was Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Jewish,” the professor underscored.

    Professor Furr stressed that the significance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is enormous: it helped to save the USSR, and therefore all Europe, from Hitler’s domination:

    “If the German army had been able to start their attack 300 miles closer [to the Soviet border] the Nazi hordes would have taken Moscow. If Hitler had conquered the USSR he would have had the immense material and human resources of this gigantic country to turn against England. Hitler had already conquered almost all of Europe,” he emphasized.

    So why do Snyder and his associates refuse to admit it?

    “Conquest was, and Snyder is, a propagandist. I call their work “propaganda with footnotes.” The footnotes and scholarly apparatus are necessary to fool the media and those intellectuals who will help to propagate their anti-Stalin and anti-communist lies,” he told Sputnik.

    “Snyder’s aim — and it is not only he, by a long shot, there are many others — is to equate Stalin with Hitler, the USSR with Nazi Germany, and communism with Nazism. That is also the purpose of this “day of remembrance” of August 23, and the position taken by the Polish, Ukrainian, Hungarian, and other far-right governments,” Furr underscored.

    “I try to point out at the end of “Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False,” with some help from Prof. Domenico Losurdo, that it is accurate to compare Churchill with Hitler, or Daladier, or Chamberlain, but not Stalin. The USSR was as different from Nazism as could be, while Hitler and the Nazis were quite popular with Western politicians,” he added.

    President Ronald Reagan meets in the White House Oval Office with conservative leaders of Washington’s national defense establishment. (File)

    But why is Washington so anti-Russian?

    The professor explained that unlike Gorbachev or Yeltsin, President Putin does not bow before Washington and NATO, adding that the US’ capitalist competition will inevitably lead to imperialist competition and war.

    “In my experience — limited, I admit — there is a lot of naivete about US foreign police. The USA has been by far the most aggressive and murderous power in the world since WW2, and it continues to be. Military bases in well over 100 countries, the largest military machine in the world by far. We should not be naive. No country builds such a military without intent to use it. So they are preparing for the next war,” Professor Furr told Sputnik.

    “My point is this: the USSR and world communist movement never did anything remotely comparable to what the capitalists and imperialists did in the last century. And this is unacceptable [for capitalists]. They must show communism and Stalin to be worse than, not better than, what the capitalists and imperialists were doing. Lying is the only way,” Professor Grover Furr concluded.

    From Sputnik News

    1. Didn’t know any of Conquest’s links to US/British intelligence, which I don’t doubt was bent on manufacturing the “black history” of Soviet Union at behest of the Boss Jew.

      These days I simply don’t buy any history as a heat-and-serve TV dinner package (The History Channel is the best example of Monsanto approach to history).

      Even with best intentions, historians can be led astray not only by misinterpreting available evidence but also omitting anything that contrary to their pet theory.
      I like Faurisson and Bradley Smith of CODOH the best because they seem the most balanced and moderate in their speech, many others tend to hyperventilate, eyes bloodshot, spittle spraying and I just back off to the zone of safe skepticism.

      Solzhenitsyn was not trained as a historian, although he did his honest best but as I recall, he was a wartime officer who grew disgusted with the regime, was tossed into the Gulag system and he had every authority to describe it up close and personal.

      On the broader subjects of politics and demographics, he was out of his depth.

      Over a period of some years, what an actuary would do is calculate the expected mortality and birth rates based on historical trends and comparable to surrounding countries, and compare to the observed headcount to see whether there are outstanding anomalies.
      There are also other kinds of epidemiological surveys and census data (like Jews showing equal number of living Jews worldwide in 1938 and 1948 – this is an incontrovertible proof of Holocaust mythologizing).

      This is how Lancet was able to establish that something like 1.4 million Iraqis were killed by Bush neocon regime (I think published in 2006) and I would certainly lend greater weight to such methodology than breathless accounts of individual torture and rape.

  11. I grew up in an anti-communist household. I couldn’t comprehend how anyone could be an atheist since religion dominated our lives from Sunday school to church seasons throughout the year. I was horrified that in the Soviet Union children were taken from their parents. Still, my father defended a communist who had been charged under the Smith Act. His defense was that communism was a religious belief system and therefore was protected by the First Amendment. Stephen Evans agrees that communism was a religion. I wonder what he thinks of neo-liberalism, whether he sees it as a religion too?

    I entered college the year before the Summer of Love (1968) and so I arrived in time for the “revolution” (that is the orchestrated revolution via the Frankfurt School, and other institutional propaganda efforts). I knew many communists of all stripes, you know Leninists and Trotskyites, and so forth. The communists were Jewish kids who were raised by self proclaimed “reds” and it wasn’t really a question of being a communist but what denomination to choose. I hate to say how ugly the lifestyles of the communists got after awhile with the women fairing the worst, living underground from safe haven to safe haven where they were perpetually raped. Where are they now? I will never know. Are the former communists now on Facebook or living in some suburb, or are they in mental hospitals or dead?

    It’s amazing how lethal political ideology can be. I adopted some of the radical language to appease these people who were in my social circles, but eventually I left it all behind. You could say that I attended the church services and gave lip service to the dogma only to revert to my former religion. I was surprised, though, when the real revolution never happened. Instead we have neo-liberals. Like the communists of yore the neo-liberals like to take away people’s children, only they call it “Child Protective Services.” They want to take away freedom of speech, that is “hate speech.” They seem oblivious to murder, as long as it isn’t murder by a hunting or assault rifle, mass murder of civilian in colonized countries doesn’t bother them. I think they might even have arguments like the communists did over various points of the liberal creed–Clinton would be like the Leninists and Bernie Sanders would be like a Trotskyite.

    Of course the communists were wrong and so are the neo-liberals but finding out always comes too late after nearly everyone is too damaged for it to matter.

    1. @ Kapoore

      Brilliant! And very thought-provoking. The only point I would disagree with is your statement that Communism is a “religion.” If you are speaking metaphorically, however, then of course I agree with you. In the same metaphorical sense, Holocaustanity can be described as a “religion.”

      Religion, in its strictest sense, entails a belief in God or the Logos; it also entails moral self-restraint, for the word “religion” comes from the Latin word “religare” = to bind back, to restrain, to control (one’s baser instincts). Communism was founded on atheism. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, all had one thing in common: a blind hatred of God and especially of the Christian religion. You could say they were all virulently “anti-religious.” They liked to quote Nietzsche’s “GOD IS DEAD!” and Marx’s “RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE.”

      In one very real (metaphorical) sense, both Communism and Holocaustianity are “religions”, and this is the fanatical zeal and evangelical ardor with which they are pursued. The devotees of these two related religions use maximum force and violence to convert the rest of the world to their viewpoints. They killed millions in the Soviet Union to coerce the Christian population into accepting their godless creed. It was all in pursuit of a grandiose ideal: a one-world Utopia in which all nations had been abolished and everyone lived in peace and harmony, presumably under Jewish rule. The end goal was tikkun olam — “the healing of the world.”

      It was only when mankind was finally cured of its pathological anti-Semitism and came to recognize the fact that the Jews were God’s Chosen People that the Jewish Messiah would come and confer all his blessings on mankind. This is the Jew’s religious belief, and he believes in it with every ounce of his being: that Jews are truly God’s gift to mankind, their destiny being to cure man of his pathological anti-Semitism and to usher in a Golden Age under benevolent Jewish rule.

  12. History could be considered as true of such a writer, which would be of enlightened reason, which would possess the gift of inventive, but not imitative spirit, which would be eyewitness of the cases described, which would recognize for himself neither father- nor foreign land, which could write well, but wouldn’t fall in love with his eloquency to substitute strict truth with the beauty of his style, which would be able to bring his passions in consent with the laws of justice, which would know neither fear for truth nor hope for the lie.
    But as it is difficult to find so many gifts copulated in one man, so it is difficult to find precisely righteous history.

  13. As for comparison between Hitler and Stalin: there are much differences, more in favour of the former, with the exception of moustaches, but to understand the subject one has to see what is in common. Here is the first obstacle. Different people have different eyesight and could be divided into 3 categories;
    1) who see (miserable minority)
    2) see when are shown
    3) do not see (most numerous)
    Moreover, even looking at the same thing, different people see different.
    Much depends on from what height people watch events: from the height of bird’s fly, from the top of the hill or from the mouse hole.
    One man scrutinized the matter and found out what is most common between Hitler (fascism) and Stalin (communism): both they are crutches of Zionism – left and right.(Now right crutch in action in Ukraine) It happened more than a half-century ago, but produced not much effect. This man was Douglas Reed. In favour of this spoke also rabbi Stephen Wise, big authority among Jews:”Some call this marxism. I call this judaism.”( I join him) Presently Karl Marx being praised in sinagogues.
    What else in common? – Both are Christians, and Stalin is more educated, 11″classes” of jewish “spiritual sciences” outweighed “Gott mit uns” on the belt-buckles of German soldiers (150 000 of them were jews). Stupido and simpleton was convinced that Jewish God would help him, but “He” trecherously took side of atheists.
    And what is most interesting, both are sons of shoemakers. Both were absent on conference in Kasablanka, were the fate of Germany was decided (unconditional capitulation).
    …One day Bulgarian poet Bozhidar Bozhilov visited Georgia. Coming back to hotel after good drinking-snacking, he saw shoemaker at the entrance, nailing heel-tap. He stopped and started scrutinizing him intently. Georgians, that accompanied him, asked him with surprise:
    – Bozhidar, what are you examining? What is interesting here? Shoemaker as shoemaker.
    Bozhidar replied:
    – But maybe he is father of new Stalin?

  14. Comrade Stalin, we have found a man looking like You: the same age, height and moustaches in particular.
    – Liquidate him.
    – Comrade Stalin, … maybe to shave him?
    – That would be OK also. ( not much difference)

  15. I would like to present my case in defense of Zionism at the risk of being identified (wrongly of course) as a Jew, but the ban on my comments has to be lifted unconditionally for me to be able to do that.

    Go ahead, moderator, do it, and you’ll learn something useful and new.

    1. @ Circassian

      You were banned for your abusiveness, not for anything controversial you had to say. Please remember that. You were banned not for WHAT you said but because of HOW you said it. So welcome back, Circassian, and speak your mind freely.

      If you are the bearer and messenger of precious truths, we would be very foolish indeed to turn you away.

    2. Thank you, Tobin, for lifting the ban. I’ll do my best to abide the rules of the house.

      My “defense” of the Jews is based on the following theses:

      (1) The problem at hand is not merely a Jewish problem – it is a Jewish-Western (primarily American and English) alliance problem.
      (2) Jews as a nation is not a psychopath nation – psychopath nation is nonsense.
      (3) The problem is a natural one and it should treated as such without emotional overload.
      (4) Hitler was not part of the solution – Hitler was part of the problem whish was solved successfully by Stalin.
      (5) Stalinism was the most successful solution of the overall problem so far.
      (6) Putinism is Stalinism of the 21st century whish has a better chance of solving completely the problem.
      (7) There is a good Zionism and there is a bad Zionism.

      1. correction: whish –> which

        Now let’s get down to business.

        Thesis (1): The problem at hand is not merely a Jewish problem – it is a Jewish-Western (primarily American and English) alliance problem.

        To defend this thesis all I need to do is to refer you to my comment of Dec 2009 where I was trying to raise money for Glenn Miller’s campaign for Senate:

        P.S. Google “Frazier Glenn Cross Found Guilty of Murder in Kansas Jewish Center Shootings” if you wish to find out what happened to Glenn Miller for voicing openly the crux of the problem. I have no doubt in my mind that Glenn has been framed, just like has been framed another man of valor Edgar J. Steele.

      2. Circ –

        Zionism is a Rothschild invention and problem.

        There is NO ‘good Zionism’…. just as there is no ‘good Rothschildism.’

        The 1829 article exposes the fact that NEITHER William E Blackstone (born in 1841) nor Theodore Herzl (born in 1860) were not in any way, shape or form – the originators to “gather a large nation” and/or “re-building of the temple“, as the “narrative” goes.

        Just the 1829 wording of connecting “Rothschild“, “Jerusalem“,”gather a large nation“, and “re-building of the temple” throws any and all previous held ideas of some sort of “miraculous thing” out the window. Obviously this has been percolating for quite some time.

      3. Pat,

        Since you jumped right to the last

        Thesis (7): There is a good Zionism and there is a bad Zionism

        here is a couple of questions for you:

        (a) Do you agree with the first six theses?

        (b) Do you know the name of the young man who was instrumental in converting Einstein into ardent Zionist? The same person was close to convincing Einstein in 1955 that neither Newton’s nor his ( Einstein’s) theory of gravitation is potent enough to explain things that happened in the solar system in historical times (i.e. just a few thousand years back).

      4. @Circ

        You’re obviously trying to get across something very controversial, to say the least. In the spirit of giving benefits to doubts however, there is NO doubt that the true nature of “Zionism” is, as Pat states, and I’m paraphrasing, “virtual Rothschildism”, of which there is no good.

        If you want to further your thesis on Stalinism and gain any credibility with readers, then it can’t really be “Zionism” being referred to if you are sincerely trying to convey it as resembling something in a positive light.

        Remember, the ways of masonry can be totally blinding in this treacherous world of all-pervading cognitive dissonance

      5. Let me also suggest, Circ, that you may be like New Song in her (his? I forget) usage of “jew”. The equivalent for you would be “zionism”. You both need to find a new mode of expression

        Although i think I know where you’re going with this cosmological take on it – it has to do with “Zios”

        The plot thickens

      6. Pat, thanks for the straight and short answers – they are in line with my anticipations.

        The name of the fellow who had shuttered Einstein’s belief in his own theory in 1955 (shortly before his demise) was Immanuel Velikovsky – a Russian-born Jewish medical doctor. I am almost certain that none of you have ever heard of him even though a controversy of enormous proportions has been raging around his name for almost 30 years – since 1950 (the year of the publication of his “Worlds in Collision”) till his death in 1979.

        But what does he have to do with my thesis 7? Let me first introduce you to the guy (be warned of heavy Russian accent):

      7. Circ –
        Thanks for the vid.

        I first heard of Immanuel Velikovsky in the 70s, through the works of Donald W. Patten who offered an overview of the catastrophist ideas, and suggests that Mars used to follow a very different orbit that brought it close to the Earth from around 9900 B.C. to 701 B.C., at different times causing the Deluge and other events.

        Patten offers books and essays which invoke an errant planet Mars and nova-like solar episodes as the cause of several episodes of catastrophism during the Holocene.

        I enjoy Velikovsky’s ‘guesses’ about the universe, as I enjoy Patten’s. Both try proving biblical records through observations today.
        I do not accept Uniformitarianism. I believe the present is no key to the past…. nor the future.

        BTW.. Times change… so do meanings of words and word groups…..
        “Triple A Convention” today might be a meeting of automobile vehicles…. rather than Astronomers’ established thoughts.

        (I did not know Einstein personally. I choose to believe nothing about him…. or any of his friends and claims. He was a total fraud in every aspect of his life and legacy.)

  16. THE TRUTH is your Lasha is a jew cunt : In this case, there’s NOTHING “precious” about THE TRUTH, but you Darkmooners already know that.

  17. Venus wasn’t on the star maps of the ancient astronomers, pre 1900 BC. Venus is the only planet where the sun would rise in the west. Venus is an oddball in the solar system. Venus is your Nibiru.

  18. You will not allow my comment for I have struck a nerve and YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF TRUTH or you would not have cut me off ! For much more course comments have been made than what you have just not allowed ! UP YOURS !

    1. @ Carl

      We have not blocked any of your comments. Why should we? What could you have said that was so controversial that we should wish to block it? Try posting it again, you paranoid prat! 🙂

      1. Not paranoid ! My comment yesterday disappeared off the screen ( took me an hour ) never to be seen by me again and then a message came up saying I can follow the conversation without making a comment ! If not you , WHO ? It happened on your reply so who shall I blame ? No it is not in my head for I already know that what I am saying will not be believed by any so I have no illusions nor do I need your sympathy ! If you are not in control of your site who is ? I can only guess ! Have a nice day and by the way people I apologized for my rude comments right after I made them ! As I said this site is disinformation – part truth, part lie ! P. S. time will prove every comment I have made for it is not me ,but the God of Abraham ,Isaac and Jacob !

      2. Listen Carl, I’m sorry you lost your comment but this has nothing to do with this website. We are not responsible for technical glitches like this. Dozens of people have complained about the same problem. You post a comment and it suddenly disappears into think air. It happens all the time.

      3. Toby , this will be my last comment on this subject ! This is the problem I have with EVERYONE I speak with and is why there is so much confusion on all levels of human interaction ! You cannot for some reason understand what I said so I will tell you again ! I NEVER posted the comment as I was not finished so it did not get lost in hyber-space as you presume ! It disappeared as I wrote the line saying that it is such a coincidence that after I made the comment that this site is controlled opposition and do not name names of those committing the evil in real time ! Within 2 days you put up your FAKE list ! ( taylor swift – come on , a bimbo rules the planet – LOL ) So my comment vanished BEFORE I posted it and in 2 seconds a message appears on the screen saying – I can follow the conversation without making a comment ! Go figure ! Have a nice day and I will bother you no more !

      4. Carl –
        Those issues are not peculiar to this site. It is likely an ISP issue.

        This may help:

        I have had several WordPress sites for years.

        To help me with those types of issues… even though I am ‘admin’ on my sites…. I write in a Word document and copy and paste.

        That is a way for you also, to not be interrupted by online spikes and connection bugs.

  19. Guessing is great fun

    Especially when one chooses to believe that Creator intended for It’s Beings to be joyous in experiencing the awesomeness of it’s Creation…..then along came these damned anal control freaks to spoil the party.

    Here’s what I know:
    1) that my present existence is NOT being experienced in a full embrace of the Divine.
    2) that I DO know when it IS. Call it re-membering.
    3) that the reason it isn’t is NOT entirely of my own doing.

    “Karma” needs to be seen in a proper light. There is no “past” to pay a karmic debt to. Time is a false illusion. I choose the Divine Light NOW, and act accordingly. This is my only concern insofar as THAT goes.

    “People get ready, there’s a train a comin’. Don’t need no ticket, you just get on board.”

    The debt is paid….in full….forgiven….Don’t get on?……keep payin’

    My sense is that the “train” is code for another “shift” in the Solar System as it would pertain to what cosmologists like Velikovsky are seeing. Destination: Holytown. It’s not a non-stop trip, though. Along the way will be where you leave your baggage. Call it a purging “half-way house”.

    I interpret this coming shift in its SPIRITUALl ramifications to mean that Saturn (Satan) and Venus (Christ) will be the major players in the great cosmic dance unfolding.

    Mythology in high animation

    Cayce said, “the hope of the world will come through Russia.” The trick is in knowing what is meant by “come through”. I would say Russian Orthodoxy has much to do with this in terms of any aftermath. Call it a reward for keepin’ the faith. And for the record, what personages like Hitler, Stalin and Putin all have in common constitutes attempts at thwarting the protocolian agenda, in whatever way was/is availed to them, which is to say however they were/are so inclined – with any moral judgments notwithstanding. Relative to Hitler and Stalin, Putin MAY prove to have some measure of worldly success.

    But it will be a new, cosmic shake-up that has the last word in breaking the Satanic (Saturnic) spell cast by this haunted spectre.

    The World is in the homestretch, with a sprint to the finish line.

    1. BH,

      I am pleased to sense that the Indian blood dominates over the other half of it in you whatever that other half might be. Your ancestors believed that the spirit is eternal. It does not disappear when the housing molders away, it simply dissolves down into the lower levels of fractal structure of the universe.

Comments are closed.