Saturday, February 27, 2021

Police charge at anti-lockdown protesters in Dublin after man launches FIREWORK at officer’s face:

 DR. LLOYD'S NOTE: I am a lifelong supporter of the IRA and Ireland's 900 year long struggle against limey oppression. But tell me this; why didn't any of the protesters shoot or stab the pigs when they rushed forward? Hopefully some Lone Wolves in Dublin kill a few piggies!?!


Police charge at anti-lockdown protesters in Dublin after man launches FIREWORK at officer’s face

Published: 27 Feb 2021 | 18:49 GMT

Russia Today

Hundreds of demonstrators have gathered in Dublin to protest Ireland’s restrictive lockdown policies. But the Saturday gathering soon turned violent, as police were pelted with bottles, cans, and even fireworks.

Ireland’s first national lockdown in 2020 was the longest in Europe, and the nationwide restrictions currently in place have been ranked the fourth-toughest in the world – and the toughest in Europe – by researchers at Oxford University. With the highest level of restrictions set to remain in place until early April at the earliest, hundreds of protesters gathered in Dublin on Saturday to protest the measures.

After symbolically assembling at the General Post Office, where Irish revolutionaries declared independence from Britain more than a century ago, the hundreds-strong crowd marched to St. Stephen’s Green, a park that had been closed by police in anticipation of the protest.

The demonstration devolved into violence along the way. Police officers blocking the route to the park were heckled and shouted at by the protesters. Video footage then showed one protester shooting a firework into an officer’s face at point-blank range.

Police responded with a baton charge directly into the crowd as more fireworks were launched. Those offenders who didn’t flee in time were clubbed to the ground, and “a number of arrests” were reported by Justice Minister Helen McEntee. RTÉ News later stated that 23 people were arrested and one police officer taken to hospital.

Officers were also pelted with beer cans and bottles as they attempted to hold the crowd back from St. Stephen’s Green.

The protest was condemned by McEntee as “mindless thuggery,” and by Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and former PM Leo Varadkar as undermining the “sacrifices that millions have made in the last 12 months.”

Though Ireland’s lockdown is more severe than measures taken in most European countries, protests have thus far been small and peaceful, with the exception of Saturday’s fracas and an earlier rumble in October. Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands have all seen violent protests break out in recent weeks.

Friday, February 26, 2021

The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Regime

 The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Regime

In the night of July 16-17, 1918, a squad of Bolshevik secret police murdered Russia's last emperor, Tsar Nicholas II, along with his wife, Tsaritsa Alexandra, their 14-year-old son, Tsarevich Alexis, and their four daughters.  

They were cut down in a hail of gunfire in a room of the house in Ekaterinburg, a city in the Ural mountain region, where they were being held prisoner.

The daughters were finished off with bayonets. To prevent a cult for the dead Tsar, the bodies were carted away to the countryside and hastily buried in a secret grave. Bolshevik authorities at first reported that the Romanov emperor had been shot after the discovery of a plot to liberate him.

For some time the deaths of the Empress and the children were kept secret. Soviet historians claimed for many years that local Bolsheviks had acted on their own in carrying out the killings, and that Lenin, founder of the Soviet state, had nothing to do with the crime.

In 1990, Moscow playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky announced the result of his detailed investigation into the murders. He unearthed the reminiscences of Lenin's bodyguard, Alexei Akimov, who recounted how he personally delivered Lenin's execution order to the telegraph office. The telegram was also signed by Soviet government chief Yakov Sverdlov. Akimov had saved the original telegraph tape as a record of the secret order.

Radzinsky's research confirmed what earlier evidence had already indicated. Leon Trotsky -- one of Lenin's closest colleagues -- had revealed years earlier that Lenin and Sverdlov had together made the decision to put the Tsar and his family to death. Recalling a conversation in 1918, Trotsky wrote.

My next visit to Moscow took place after the [temporary] fall of Ekaterinburg [to anti-Communist forces]. Speaking with Sverdlov, I asked in passing: "Oh yes, and where is the Tsar?"

"Finished," he replied. "He has been shot."

"And where is the family?"

"The family along with him."

"All of them?," I asked, apparently with a trace of surprise.

"All of them," replied Sverdlov. "What about it?" He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply.

"And who made the decision?," I asked.

"We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances."

I asked no further questions and considered the matter closed.

Recent research and investigation by Radzinsky and others also corroborates the account provided years earlier by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. His account, The Last Days of the Romanovs - originally published in 1920, and reissued in 1993 by the Institute for Historical Review -- is based in large part on the findings of a detailed investigation carried out in 1919 by Nikolai Sokolov under the authority of "White" (anti-Communist) leader Alexander Kolchak. Wilton's book remains one of the most accurate and complete accounts of the murder of Russia's imperial family.

A solid understanding of history has long been the best guide to comprehending the present and anticipating the future. Accordingly, people are most interested in historical questions during times of crisis, when the future seems most uncertain. With the collapse of Communist rule in the Soviet Union, 1989-1991, and as Russians struggle to build a new order on the ruins of the old, historical issues have become very topical. For example, many ask: How did the Bolsheviks, a small movement guided by the teachings of German-Jewish social philosopher Karl Marx, succeed in taking control of Russia and imposing a cruel and despotic regime on its people?

In recent years, Jews around the world have been voicing anxious concern over the specter of anti-Semitism in the lands of the former Soviet Union. In this new and uncertain era, we are told, suppressed feelings of hatred and rage against Jews are once again being expressed. According to one public opinion survey conducted in 1991, for example, most Russians wanted all Jews to leave the country.4 But precisely why is anti-Jewish sentiment so widespread among the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Why do so many Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others blame "the Jews" for so much misfortune?

A Taboo Subject

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population,5 they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.

A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins."

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical.

Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik "October Revolution" of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party's Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews.

To direct the takeover, a seven-man "Political Bureau" was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev).10 Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet -- whose chairman was Trotsky -- established an 18-member "Military Revolutionary Committee" to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews.11 Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man "Revolutionary Military Center" as the Party's operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

"The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment.17 Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."

Historians' Views

Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes.

Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."20 In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history.21 (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)

In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order.

Igor Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician of world stature, has sharply criticized the Jewish role in bringing down the Romanov monarchy and establishing Communist rule in his country. Shafarevich was a leading dissident during the final decades of Soviet rule. A prominent human rights activist, he was a founding member of the Committee on the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR.

In Russophobia, a book written ten years before the collapse of Communist rule, he noted that Jews were "amazingly" numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Jewishness of the Bolshevik executioners, Shafarevich went on, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II.

This ritual action symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.

In his 1920 book, British veteran journalist Robert Wilton offered a similarly harsh assessment.

The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.

In the struggle for power that followed Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin emerged victorious over his rivals, eventually succeeding in putting to death nearly every one of the most prominent early Bolsheviks leaders - including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev. With the passage of time, and particularly after 1928, the Jewish role in the top leadership of the Soviet state and its Communist party diminished markedly.

Put To Death Without Trial

For a few months after taking power, Bolshevik leaders considered bringing "Nicholas Romanov" before a "Revolutionary Tribunal" that would publicize his "crimes against the people" before sentencing him to death. Historical precedent existed for this. Two European monarchs had lost their lives as a consequence of revolutionary upheaval: England's Charles I was beheaded in 1649, and France's Louis XVI was guillotined in 1793.

In these cases, the king was put to death after a lengthy public trial, during which he was allowed to present arguments in his defense. Nicholas II, though, was neither charged nor tried. He was secretly put to death - along with his family and staff -- in the dead of night, in an act that resembled more a gangster-style massacre than a formal execution.

Why did Lenin and Sverdlov abandon plans for a show trial of the former Tsar? In Wilton's view, Nicholas and his family were murdered because the Bolshevik rulers knew quite well that they lacked genuine popular support, and rightly feared that the Russian people would never approve killing the Tsar, regardless of pretexts and legalistic formalities.

For his part, Trotsky defended the massacre as a useful and even necesssary measure. He wrote.

The decision [to kill the imperial family] was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of this punishment showed everyone that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar's family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay either total victory or total doom This Lenin sensed well.

Historical Context

In the years leading up to the 1917 revolution, Jews were disproportionately represented in all of Russia's subversive leftist parties.26 Jewish hatred of the Tsarist regime had a basis in objective conditions. Of the leading European powers of the day, imperial Russia was the most institutionally conser-vative and anti-Jewish. For example, Jews were normally not permitted to reside outside a large area in the west of the Empire known as the "Pale of Settlement."

However understandable, and perhaps even defensible, Jewish hostility toward the imperial regime may have been, the remarkable Jewish role in the vastly more despotic Soviet regime is less easy to justify. In a recently published book about the Jews in Russia during the 20th century, Russian-born Jewish writer Sonya Margolina goes so far as to call the Jewish role in supporting the Bolshevik regime the "historic sin of the Jews."28 She points, for example, to the prominent role of Jews as commandants of Soviet Gulag concentration and labor camps, and the role of Jewish Communists in the systematic destruction of Russian churches. Moreover, she goes on, "The Jews of the entire world supported Soviet power, and remained silent in the face of any criticism from the opposition." In light of this record, Margolina offers a grim prediction.

The exaggeratedly enthusiastic participation of the Jewish Bolsheviks in the subjugation and destruction of Russia is a sin that will be avenged Soviet power will be equated with Jewish power, and the furious hatred against the Bolsheviks will become hatred against Jews.

If the past is any indication, it is unlikely that many Russians will seek the revenge that Margolina prophecies. Anyway, to blame "the Jews" for the horrors of Communism seems no more justifiable than to blame "white people" for Negro slavery, or "the Germans" for the Second World War or "the Holocaust."

Words of Grim Portent

Nicholas and his family are only the best known of countless victims of a regime that openly proclaimed its ruthless purpose. A few weeks after the Ekaterinburg massacre, the newspaper of the fledgling Red Army declared.

Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies by the scores of hundreds, let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritskii let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie -- more blood, as much as possible.

Grigori Zinoviev, speaking at a meeting of Communists in September 1918, effectively pronounced a death sentence on ten million human beings: "We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."

'The Twenty Million'

As it turned out, the Soviet toll in human lives and suffering proved to be much higher than Zinoviev's murderous rhetoric suggested. Rarely, if ever, has a regime taken the lives of so many of its own people.

Citing newly-available Soviet KGB documents, historian Dmitri Volkogonov, head of a special Russian parliamentary commission, recently concluded that "from 1929 to 1952 21.5 million [Soviet] people were repressed. Of these a third were shot, the rest sentenced to imprisonment, where many also died."

Olga Shatunovskaya, a member of the Soviet Commission of Party Control, and head of a special commission during the 1960s appointed by premier Khrushchev, has similarly concluded: "From January 1, 1935 to June 22, 1941, 19,840,000 enemies of the people were arrested. Of these, seven million were shot in prison, and a majority of the others died in camp." These figures were also found in the papers of Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan.

Robert Conquest, the distinguished specialist of Soviet history, recently summed up the grim record of Soviet "repression" of it own people.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the post-1934 death toll was well over ten million. To this should be added the victims of the 1930-1933 famine, the kulak deportations, and other anti-peasant campaigns, amounting to another ten million plus. The total is thus in the range of what the Russians now refer to as 'The Twenty Million'."

A few other scholars have given significantly higher estimates.

The Tsarist Era in Retrospect

With the dramatic collapse of Soviet rule, many Russians are taking a new and more respectful look at their country's pre-Communist history, including the era of the last Romanov emperor. While the Soviets -- along with many in the West -- have stereotypically portrayed this era as little more than an age of arbitrary despotism, cruel suppression and mass poverty, the reality is rather different. While it is true that the power of the Tsar was absolute, that only a small minority had any significant political voice, and that the mass of the empire's citizens were peasants, it is worth noting that Russians during the reign of Nicholas II had freedom of press, religion, assembly and association, protection of private property, and free labor unions. Sworn enemies of the regime, such as Lenin, were treated with remarkable leniency.

During the decades prior to the outbreak of the First World War, the Russian economy was booming. In fact, between 1890 and 1913, it was the fastest growing in the world. New rail lines were opened at an annual rate double that of the Soviet years. Between 1900 and 1913, iron production increased by 58 percent, while coal production more than doubled.37 Exported Russian grain fed all of Europe. Finally, the last decades of Tsarist Russia witnessed a magnificent flowering of cultural life.

Everything changed with the First World War, a catastrophe not only for Russia, but for the entire West.

Monarchist Sentiment

In spite of (or perhaps because of) the relentless official campaign during the entire Soviet era to stamp out every uncritical memory of the Romanovs and imperial Russia, a virtual cult of popular veneration for Nicholas II has been sweeping Russia in recent years.

People have been eagerly paying the equivalent of several hours' wages to purchase portraits of Nicholas from street vendors in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities. His portrait now hangs in countless Russian homes and apartments. In late 1990, all 200,000 copies of a first printing of a 30-page pamphlet on the Romanovs quickly sold out. Said one street vendor: "I personally sold four thousand copies in no time at all. It's like a nuclear explosion. People really want to know about their Tsar and his family." Grass roots pro-Tsarist and monarchist organizations have sprung up in many cities.

A public opinion poll conducted in 1990 found that three out of four Soviet citizens surveyed regard the killing of the Tsar and his family as a despicable crime.38 Many Russian Orthodox believers regard Nicholas as a martyr. The independent "Orthodox Church Abroad" canonized the imperial family in 1981, and the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church has been under popular pressure to take the same step, in spite of its long-standing reluctance to touch this official taboo. The Russian Orthodox Archbishop of Ekaterinburg announced plans in 1990 to build a grand church at the site of the killings. "The people loved Emperor Nicholas," he said. "His memory lives with the people, not as a saint but as someone executed without court verdict, unjustly, as a sufferer for his faith and for orthodoxy."

On the 75th anniversary of the massacre (in July 1993), Russians recalled the life, death and legacy of their last Emperor. In Ekaterinburg, where a large white cross festooned with flowers now marks the spot where the family was killed, mourners wept as hymns were sung and prayers were said for the victims.

Reflecting both popular sentiment and new social-political realities, the white, blue and red horizontal tricolor flag of Tsarist Russia was officially adopted in 1991, replacing the red Soviet banner. And in 1993, the imperial two-headed eagle was restored as the nation's official emblem, replacing the Soviet hammer and sickle. Cities that had been re-named to honor Communist figures -- such as Leningrad, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Kalinin, and Gorky -- have re-acquired their Tsarist-era names. Ekaterinburg, which had been named Sverdlovsk by the Soviets in 1924 in honor of the Soviet-Jewish chief, in September 1991 restored its pre-Communist name, which honors Empress Catherine I.

Symbolic Meaning

In view of the millions that would be put to death by the Soviet rulers in the years to follow, the murder of the Romanov family might not seem of extraordinary importance. And yet, the event has deep symbolic meaning. In the apt words of Harvard University historian Richard Pipes:41

The manner in which the massacre was prepared and carried out, at first denied and then justified, has something uniquely odious about it, something that radically distinguishes it from previous acts of regicide and brands it as a prelude to twentieth-century mass murder.

Another historian, Ivor Benson, characterized the killing of the Romanov family as symbolic of the tragic fate of Russia and, indeed, of the entire West, in this century of unprecedented agony and conflict.

The murder of the Tsar and his family is all the more deplorable because, whatever his failings as a monarch, Nicholas II was, by all accounts, a personally decent, generous, humane and honorable man.

The Massacre's Place in History

The mass slaughter and chaos of the First World War, and the revolutionary upheavals that swept Europe in 1917-1918, brought an end not only to the ancient Romanov dynasty in Russia, but to an entire continental social order. Swept away as well was the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany, with its stable constitutional monarchy, and the ancient Habsburg dynasty of Austria-Hungary with its multinational central European empire. Europe's leading states shared not only the same Christian and Western cultural foundations, but most of the continent's reigning monarchs were related by blood. England's King George was, through his mother, a first cousin of Tsar Nicholas, and, through his father, a first cousin of Empress Alexandra. Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm was a first cousin of the German-born Alexandra, and a distant cousin of Nicholas.

More than was the case with the monarchies of western Europe, Russia's Tsar personally symbolized his land and nation. Thus, the murder of the last emperor of a dynasty that had ruled Russia for three centuries not only symbolically presaged the Communist mass slaughter that would claim so many Russian lives in the decades that followed, but was symbolic of the Communist effort to kill the soul and spirit of Russia itself.

This is who they are: Paedophile Biden’s Syria strike is a stark reminder of American Empire!

 DR. LLOYD'S NOTE: We stand with Assad and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. DEATH TO AMERIKA!

This is who they are: Biden’s Syria strike is a stark reminder of American Empire that’s back to its old tricks

Published: 26 Feb 2021 | 21:08 GMT

Only someone who hasn’t been paying attention could have been surprised by the US airstrike on Syria, now that an establishment committed to a globalist Empire rather than a constitutional republic is back in charge in Washington.

Democrats love proclaiming one can’t “turn back the clock,” usually to argue against even attempting to undo whatever domestic policies they’ve rammed through when in power. Yet everything about the Joe Biden administration has been about just that: erasing the past four years of Donald Trump and picking up where Barack Obama left off.

Trump also bombed Syria, mind you – launching cruise missiles on two occasions, spurred by spurious reports of “chemical attacks” – as well as the “Iranian-backed militias” in Iraq. Just over a year ago, he ordered the drone assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani outside the Baghdad airport.

However, he was denounced at the time by congressional Democrats, Biden himself, and his now-spokeswoman Jen Psaki, as well as nearly all US media outlets – the same ones now praising Biden’s bombardment. It’s literally different when they do it, the narrative goes.

That may seem baffling. After all, the American Empire isn’t a partisan thing. The Obamas, Bidens and Clintons have eagerly been on board as much as the Bushes and the Cheneys. That is, until Trump came along and mocked the “endless wars,” spoke of “America first” and rejected the pompous platitudes used to sell overseas imperialism to the rapidly declining American heartland.

For that 'crime' he was denounced and rejected by the US establishment, which has repeatedly demonstrated it doesn’t give a damn for the little guy in “flyover country” but prefers the globalist agendas of coastal elites and the military-industrial complex. 

One can’t blame Americans for not remembering that the only time Congress overrode Trump’s veto was to keep troops overseas forever, when the media they rely on for their opinions, feelings and values hardly bothered to mention that bit. Make no mistake, though, endless foreign wars is what Biden meant when he said last week that “America is back” and promised a crusade on behalf of “democracy,” whatever that may be.

Also back is the manufacturing of consent. When Trump bombed someone, he just tweeted about it. The “new” administration acts just like the ones of yore, first leaking the talking points to the media. Instead of Trump’s “cowboy” language, Biden’s people use carefully selected propaganda terms, such as “defensive precision strike” and “proportionate military response” that “aims to de-escalate” the situation. The media dutifully follow along, stenographers all.

This kind of smoke-and-mirrors perception management is how war has become normalized for Americans. Trump’s rejection of it – whatever his motivation – is one of the reasons he was so hated by the establishment. Biden was sold to the American people as a return to normal – and for the establishment, this is precisely what “normal” looks like.

This normalization of behavior that ought to be illegal, immoral and unacceptable is, frankly, quietly horrifying. Almost no one seems to care that the US has no legal right to be in Syria, or bomb Syria, or even keep troops in Iraq anymore. 

Legal concerns? How quaint. The US bombing whomever, whenever and wherever has become the “dog bites man” of the old journalism joke – that’s not news, editors would say, come to me when “man bites dog.”

Instead, we have otherwise serious people dispassionately describing the strike as “solid persuasion” and noting – correctly – that it “probably doesn’t matter” who gets attacked.

There is another disturbing dimension to the “Obama restoration” the US establishment is so bent on effecting. It was the Obama-Biden administration that backed “moderate rebels” – many of whom turned out to be Al-Qaeda affiliates – in Syria in hopes of regime change in Damascus, kicking off a war there almost ten years ago.

Trump focused instead on defeating Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorists, letting the same people who lied to him about troop numbers deceive him about abandoning (but not really) the regime change agenda.

If someone with a solid predictive record who claims to have sources within the Biden-Harris administration is to be believed, they want Syrian President Bashar Assad “gone by any means necessary and have no concern for the consequences.”

After all, those consequences are almost always borne by the foreigners that get bombed and the 'flyover' Americans who end up in the military – including the very same “underprivileged communities” the Democrats claim to be so concerned about – and not the powerful. 

This obviously leaves those Americans who hoped for $2,000 stimulus checks, universal healthcare or higher minimum wage – those who believed the “that’s not who we are” Obama-era hype about empathy and decency – holding the empty bag and scratching their heads. 

Which is why perception managers will no doubt feed them another manufactured outrage as a distraction, any moment now. Because that is who they are. Always have been.

Faggots In UK Attack Mothers With Insaner Bill:

 A simple piece of legislation – and the growing use of woke trans terminology – exposes the irrationalism of Western politics

Published: 26 Feb 2021 | 16:19 GMT

By Graham Hryce, an Australian journalist and former media lawyer, whose work has been published in The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Sunday Mail, the Spectator and Quadrant.

Replacing the word ‘mother’ with terms like ‘birthing bodies’, ‘uterus holder’ and ‘chestfeeders’ is not only an assault on women – it reveals the divided and parlous state of many liberal democracies.

This week debate commenced in the UK House of Lords over a bill dealing with paid maternity leave for members of parliament – an insignificant piece of legislation that would normally have attracted little or no attention. 

The bill, however, includes provisions that compel the use of woke transgender terminology, and this has provoked a fierce debate in the Lords between supporters of the new globalised world order and defenders of the older nation-state based regime.

It is this intractable, ongoing clash – and its concomitant ideological manifestation, the so-called “culture wars” – that is the primary cause of the increasingly divided and parlous state of many liberal democracies – in particular the UK and America. 

Think Remainers and Brexiteers; think Democrat elites and Trumpist populists. 

So what caused this week’s unseemly ruckus in the normally sedate, indeed sometimes soporific, House of Lords?

It was the provisions in the bill to erase the use of terms such as “women” and “mothers” and instead use words like “the person is pregnant” and “the person has given birth to a child” that provoked uproar, mirroring the fashionable woke jargon that panders to the trans lobby, like “birthing bodies”, “uterus holder” and “chestfeeders”.

Female peers from both sides of traditional politics reacted with unconcealed outrage.

Lady Noakes, a Tory, said: “There is no malice in wishing to maintain the biological facts of womanhood ….. if this bill passes unamended, there will be yet another precedent on the statute books for the elimination of women”. 

Baroness Helene Hayman, Labour, complained: “The price of so-called gender neutrality in this bill is an awkward and ugly distortion of the English language and an affront to common sense”. 

Baroness Claire Fox, an independent, warned: “Our laws and words must never treat people as non-human things. These new language codes and norms are mandating us to adopt doublespeak…. I am a woman, that is it – enough. I am not a uterus holder…… nor a chestfeeder. These are linguistic abominations”.

The outcry eventually forced the government to amend the wording of the legislation, removing the word person from the bill and replacing it with “mother or expectant mother”. 

But how does such virtue-signalling ‘woke’ language get to be in legislation put forward by a Conservative government in the first place? It is because the globalised elites comprise a significant faction within the Tory party (Boris Johnson is one, notwithstanding being a Brexiteer, a position people now forget he adopted very late in the day), and they dominate the post-Corbyn Labour party completely. They also control most large corporations, the bureaucracies, the NHS and the medical establishment, universities and schools, and the bulk of the media in the UK.

The problem with the so-called “culture wars” is that no matter how many intellectual debates defenders of the old liberal nation-state world order win, the new globalised elites are almost always victorious.

This should surprise no one, given that this entire process involves the protracted replacement of one elite by another, and that both elites are firmly opposed to any kind of fundamental economic reform in the West.

Some conservative critics of woke ideologies characterise them as “left-wing” doctrines. That view is completely mistaken. These ideologies are deeply conservative in their economic operation, which is why even the older ruling elites in Western democracies ultimately acquiesce in their dominance. Even this week's critics in the Lords will no doubt go quietly into the night. 

Despite their differences, the competing ideologies of both elites have much in common. In fact, the woke ideologies of the globalised elites are nothing more than the irrational progeny of the older liberal ideologies that they are so rapidly supplanting in the West.

And it is precisely in the irrationality of these ideologies that lies the danger for Western liberal democracies.

Western liberal elites have always been prone to resort to irrationalism in order to preserve their economic interests. Richard Hofstadter, the American historian, wrote about this phenomenon in the USA in his 1944 book “Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860-1915” and “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” in 1964, detailing how fringe groups can influence and derail the agendas of parties. Gyorgy Lukacs dealt with the same topic in relation to Germany in “The Destruction of Reason” in 1952. Perhaps one day a history of the decline of Western democracies from the 1960s to the present will be written.

But let us get back to the particular topic debated in the House of Lords this week.

What drives the compulsive need to replace traditional fixed gender categories and terms with fluid ones that permit the appearance of easy change between categories – facilitated in grim reality by invasive surgery and long-term drug treatments?

The answer to that question lies in the fact that, whereas the basic categories of traditional liberal ideologies were social and economic and focused on the individual, woke ideological categories are primarily biological (e.g., gender, race and sexual preference).

Progress in traditional liberal terms meant social and economic advancement for the individual, which presupposed genuine social and economic reform.

But progressively since the late 1960s, liberal elites in the West have completely turned their backs on genuine social and economic reform. Does anyone believe that “Davos man” really wants to improve the lot of anyone in the West other than himself?

In the late 1960s, after the collapse of the student revolts, biological categories were utilised by Western elites to confer privileges on particular disadvantaged groups that that had been excluded from full participation in Western societies in the past (e.g., feminism, the civil rights movement, gay rights and so on). 

But woke ideologies today, in their most extreme form, have moved far beyond that kind of social engineering, which still had a progressive social and economic component and was grounded in the notion of individual rights. 

The most extreme woke ideologies now define progress in purely biological terms. (This position, oddly enough, harks back to the discredited late nineteenth century liberal “science” of eugenics, which also redefined progress in purely biological terms). 

Social and economic progress as a goal has, therefore, been replaced by gender transitioning, the latter goal being a more conservative, irrational variant of the former.

The irrationality of this ideology is confirmed by the fact that it seeks to abolish the category of “women” entirely. Not even the most rabid nineteenth century misogynists ever sought to do that, as many older feminists and lesbians are now realising to their cost and utter dismay.

The issue of gender-inclusive terminology is one that arises in all contemporary Western democracies. This week in France an MP of President Emmanuel Macron's ruling party introduced a bill into parliament designed to outlaw such language (called “novlangue”, after Orwell’s newspeak, in French) in government communications. The Académie Française supported the bill, saying that gender-inclusive language “puts French in mortal danger”.

The economic order in some Western democracies has been preserved, at least for the time being, by such irrational means – other woke ideologies like catastrophic climate change, identity politics and critical race theory also have irrational cores – but at what cost and for how long?

And “cancel culture”, by abolishing intellectual debate altogether and destroying individuals who protest at this development, adds an additional layer of irrationality to this entire historical process. All totalitarian regimes, as Orwell pointed out long ago, are compelled to introduce some form of “cancel culture” in order to survive.

Nevertheless, it is very difficult to envisage Western societies in which the notion of social and economic progress has been completely replaced by fundamentally irrational doctrines surviving in any civilised fashion in the long term.

As an editorial in the Australian newspaper correctly stated this week, “If culture lives in language, the full-frontal assault against the natural order of childbirth and motherly affection posits a bleak future for Western civilisation”.

An Interview with Leon Degrelle

 DR LLOYD'S NOTE: I recently purchased Degrelle's book. It is an excellent source of info on the Holy Third Reich from an outsider who was an insider. A nice in between viewpoint. Almost all books on the Holy Third Reich are either from anti-Nazi bigots, or from fellow NS Komrades with a touch or 3 of the grandiose…. This is a good centralist book. I recommend it. Amazon and B&N still sell it.

An Interview with Leon Degrelle

Léon Joseph Marie Ignace Degrelle (15 June 1906 – 31 March 1994) was a Belgian Walloon politician and one of the most important National Socialist leader and later, one of the founding fathers of Holocaust revisionism from Belgium.

Degrelle rose to prominence Belgium in the 1930s as the leader of the National Socialist Rexist Party. During the German rule in World War II, he enlisted in the German army and fought in the Walloon Legion on the Eastern Front. After the collapse of the Greater German Reich, Degrelle went into exile in Francoist Spain, where he remained a prominent figure in National Socialist politics. He died 50 years after being sentenced to death and losing his Belgian nationality for "collaboration" in 1944.

NAME: Leon Degrelle

NATION: Belgium

DATE (S) OF INTERVIEW: March 1984, April 1993 (Telephonic)

PLACE OF INTERVIEW: Barcelona, Spain

LANGUAGE (S) CONDUCTED: English, German, French

SIGNIFICANCE OF SUBJECT: Leader of the Belgian Socialist Rexist

Movement; German volunteer, Waffen SS General and 28th Waffen SS Division Commander.


FORMAT: Q & A standard.

Q: When and where were you born?

A: I was born in Bouillon, Luxembourg on 15 June 1906.

Q: What was your family like?

A: My father was a brewer, a good Catholic man, and my mother was the most wonderful woman in the world.

Q: What was your education like?

A: My family had been Jesuit educated for many generations, and I went to the College of Notre Dame de la Paix. I studied the classics and theology, but was seriously drawn to politics. The Jesuits taught us to expand our mind and pursue knowledge, which I did. Unfortunately some of my fellow countrymen took a dim view of my independent writing and publishing on certain political thoughts. I had a tough time.

Q: You were arrested, were you not?

A: Yes, I was arrested in 1940 by French troops, beaten, and moved around from damp jail cells where I was tortured until finally freed by German troops. They knew who I was since I was a leader of the Rexist Party, which was a Socialist anti-Communist political party. Seeing that I would not receive any help, let alone justice from the authorities in Belgium I knew that that government was illegitimate, and I decided that the corruption must be challenged.

Q: How did you join the German army?

A: My brother had been murdered, my parents and wife killed after torture, and my eight children were taken away and scattered to the winds, a situation that would not be resolved for many years. I basically had some additional political problems, and until the Germans invaded and captured the country I was not safe. I felt that Belgium would only be a great and sovereign nation again once Germany won the war and eliminated the dangers of Communism. I formed the first group of volunteers from the Flemish and Walloons, and we were formed in our own battalion. Later we were assigned to the training centres, and then deployed to Army Group Center at first. Many of our men were sent to the Demyansk region as support in late 1941 to early 1942, but were then recalled and joined 5th SS ‘Wiking’ in the Ukraine later. We later became our own independent Waffen SS unit, the 28th der Waffen SS-Panzergrenadier Division ‘Wallonien’ in April 1944 at a ceremony in Brussels. ‘Sepp’ Dietrich, Max Wünsche and other notables were there for the induction ceremony. We started with 400 men in 1940, later growing to about 15,000, but only about 400 would be around after the war, including myself and two other original members. Of the original 6,000 men in the regiment before becoming a division 2,500 were killed. We had a great combat record, and Hitler personally congratulated me and gave me the Oak Leaves. I believe that we had the greatest number of Knight’s Crosses of any foreign unit, but I am not sure.

Q: What was it like for you, fighting on the Russian Front?

A: Well, that was where the real war was. The greatest threat was from Communist Russia and the Western Allies discovered this only too late; we live in the world created by this today. As far as Russia, it must be the weather, especially the bitter winters, and the endless steppe that goes forever. We were not prepared for this environment. The Russians were used to it and were well clothed to resist the cold. The greatest assets we had were the opportunity to strip Russian dead and take their padded clothing and felt boots, as well as those marvelous fur hats. They were very adapted to ski warfare, which we also used, and were perhaps even better at since we were Edelweiss trained as well. The partisan war was the worst, we had to adapt immediately to very situation, and the situation always changed. This was especially bad since they did not wear uniforms and could blend into any village. A typical day was when we moved all night on foot, sometimes with trucks and always looking for the next ambush. The Soviets sent artillery in to try and channel us into their killing zones, but we hit the earth and pushed through, taking casualties every time. The largest partisan fighting I was involved in was near the road at Cherkassy, where the partisan cavalry attacked and withdrew quickly. I ordered my men not to pursue, as it was not our mission. When we linked up with members of 4th Army we felt safer. But that was just the beginning.

Q: You wrote about Soviet atrocities in you your book, Campaign in Russia. Would you describe some of the things you witnessed during the war on both sides?

A: The partisans were usually the worst group to be captured by; they gouged out eyes, cut off fingers, genitalia, toes, and would butcher a man in front of his comrades before beginning their field interrogation. This was confirmed from both soldiers who escaped captivity and defecting partisans who were sickened by the sight and later joined the anti-Stalinist cause. One even had photographs that were turned over to the intelligence section of 2nd SS Panzer Army. I saw them. I saw a young German soldier, part of a reconnaissance patrol that had disappeared who had his legs crudely amputated at the knees with a saw or knife. We could see that even dying after this procedure he had managed to crawl several meters with his fingers. Another SS man had been crucified alive and his genitals removed and stuffed in his mouth. Several times we witnessed the Soviets and partisans retreating after a battle, stopping long enough to kill our wounded, usually by smashing their heads with their weapons or using a bayonet, shovel, ax handle, or knife. This did nothing to engender a more humane attitude towards the partisans when captured.

Q: What was the atmosphere like fighting next to the other European volunteers?

A: Well, the Russians hated the Italians certainly, I think even more than they hated the Germans, which I wrote about. I remember Italians being killed and tortured in horrible ways. Once a group of prisoners was stripped of their clothes and dowsed in ice water and were allowed to freeze to death. This was during the winter, and they died frozen alive. They even killed doctors and the chaplain. We discovered these events after recapturing a couple of villages. It was absolutely horrible.

Q: How were the peasants’ attitudes towards your unit and the Germans?

A: The peasants were just simple people who had suffered under Stalin and the great promises of Communism, and they were, for the most part very supportive of us. This was most evident when we attended their religious services. I attended regularly whenever possible, although I am a Catholic, the Russian Orthodox services were handled by priests who had either been in prison, sent to Siberia, or living in hiding for many years. We supported their religious freedom and they responded very well. It was very moving to see parents bring their young children for Baptisms and Christenings, and the old people holding their icons and crucifixes. They prayed for an end to Stalin and his measures, they also prayed for us to win. Another thing that must be remembered is that we also assisted the peasants in bringing in their crops, protected them from partisan reprisals and gave them jobs. They lived a better life under us for three years than under the Communists during their entire lives. They also gave us great intelligence on partisan and Red Army activity, and worked as translators and scouts. This was especially true in the Ukraine, although sometimes the Germans in charge would do stupid things and destroy the support we had gained. One village I remember was called Baibusy; we had a great relationship with these Ukrainians and others who fled there. They were marvelous. In the Caucasus the anti-Soviet feeling was incredible, especially among the Kalmucks and Armenians, and they fought with us and for us in a fanatical way. Another great memory was an entire village turning out to welcome us as we entered. The people brought out their religious icons and gave us information and valuable intelligence, food, places to stay, everything. The orders from the upper command were to treat the locals humanely; they were our allies. These people became a second family for many of us, and when we left there was a great deal of sadness. Once Paul Hausser and I attended a religious mass; the people knelt before him as if he were a Patriarch, blessing him for his presence and for restoring their religious freedom. With the candles and gilt images it was quite an impressive scene.

Q: You fought the partisans; what was this type of warfare like?

A: Well, it was the worst. First, there were many different types of partisans. There were the Communist fanatics who were the most dangerous and could not be bargained with. Then there were the peasants, conscripts who had little choice in the matter, and then there were the former Red Army men who joined the partisans due to their units having been cut off and destroyed, although many of the last two groups defected to us at some point. They moved quickly in their pig skin sandals as light infantry and in small groups, usually at night, using hit and run tactics and creating turmoil in general. They placed mines in roads, killed sentries, kidnapped officials and forcibly conscripted recruits, and they were very difficult to catch. In the Caucasus the terrain was a jungle, very thick with valleys and great forests where we had a very difficult time against the partisans; snipers climbed trees in the very dense forests, they had bunker complexes, underground hospitals, weapons manufacturing centres, everything. They had dug live graves; holes in the ground where they shared body heat and were well camouflaged. They lived like animals and fought the same way. Many were freed criminals, even murderers who were brought from jails and placed into units. Their snipers were very deadly and were difficult to locate, let alone capture or kill. This type of fighting was the worst; it wore on the nerves of the men and reduced humanity to the lowest level. I would rather face the Red Army than these people. The one thing my men and I knew was that however large and present the threat presented by the Red Army, the partisans were the worst enemy to fight. Since they did not wear uniforms, unless they were in German clothing sometimes, and they blended well with the local population, which created a problem in choosing who was and was not a partisan. Unless you caught one with a weapon or were actively engaged against them it was impossible. Later during the war they were absorbed into Red Army infantry and tank units, and sometimes they were given uniforms. I would say the most disturbing aspect of fighting the partisans was that, unlike the Soviet military, the partisans adhered to no set doctrine, used no set order of battle that we could study, and basically struck where it was the most opportune. If we caught and cornered them they were dead, and they knew it. That was why they fought like fanatics.

Q: What was your impression of the Red Army?

A: Very undisciplined and suicidal in their tactics, but very determined in the fight. They had men and women of all ages and racial backgrounds, teenagers to pensioners, it was incredible. I once saw a boy no older than nine years old who had been killed in action, and it made me hate the Communists even more for their disregard for human life. It was also difficult for our men (Walloons) to shoot women and children; we were not accustomed to this, but it became necessary since they fought just as hard as the men.

Q: What were the prisoners you captured like?

A: Most Russians only wanted to surrender; these were usually peasants who had been caught up in the war and were hoping for something better. Many carried the safe conduct passes distributed along the front, guaranteeing safe passage to anyone surrendering. Thousands deserted carrying these passes.

Q: You mentioned the wearing on the nerves of the men. What was the typical condition of the men?

A: We had a few suicides and some went mad. It was a type of war that cannot be described, it must be experienced, but once experienced it still cannot be described. Does this make sense? I know it seems vague, but that is the best I can do. The exhaustion, hunger, fear, and pain, not to mention the cold of the winter all played their part. Seeing the brutality only made the situation worse. The men were walking ghosts; skeletons that had not eaten a hot meal in weeks, or even a solid meal unless we came across a dead horse or a village that offered us assistance. The orders were that no one would steal or commit any crime against the people. We needed their support, and anything that reduced that support would return to haunt us ten fold. Unfortunately, many German units did not observe this reality. We served with the 5th SS ‘Wiking’ Division during this period [1943], and they generally observed the rules. However, there were exceptions.

Q: How did the authorities handle desertions?

A: Those who were caught, and bear in mind that nearly everyone deserting was caught, were hanged, shot, or executed in some fashion and displayed for public viewing. Many were just children who had been sent into a war that was too much for them. They broke and they were killed by their own men for it. It was better to stay and face the enemy with the chance of surviving, than to desert and definitely be caught by the German Field Police, who were a judge and jury of their own. It was very sad.

Q: Did you ever work with the Freiwilligen?

A: Yes, many times, and it was both a success and a failure. There were some former Communists who re-defected to the Soviets, but I think most stayed and fought until the end. They knew what their fate was if captured by the Communists, and many were anti-Communists who were loyal to us. The best volunteers were generally the Western European units, such as our own Walloons, the French ‘Charlemagne’, and the Dutch and Norwegian units. The ‘Wiking’ was perhaps the most notable and we served with them. They were perhaps the best of all, and were actually the only foreign unit to be designated as an actual SS division, not an auxiliary unit, and they were also made a full panzer division as well.

Q: Were you ever exposed to Soviet propaganda?

A: Yes, quite often. The Reds knew who were and they would broadcast in French to us, asking us to come over and fight for De Gaulle. This did not work of course. We actually found it quite amusing.

Q: Tell us about your meetings with the Nazi elite, such as Hitler and Himmler, and what you thought of them.

A: I met Himmler only four times during the war, if my memory is correct, and Hitler I met several times, besides the Knight’s Cross and Oak Leaves awards. I once had a meeting with both of them at one time, when I made a request in 1943 that my men be allowed to have Catholic chaplains, and they agreed. I also refused to have my men partake in anything that we deemed un-soldierly, and Paul Hausser, ‘Sepp’ Dietrich and others supported me. Hitler once told me that if he had ever had a son, he wished that he would have been like me. I am not exactly sure why he said this, but I know he respected me, and I think Himmler did as well, although I never trusted him, and I was not quite comfortable with him as the supreme commander of the SS, including the Waffen SS, which we had joined. I believed that Germany could have won the war even after the Americans came into it if the mass of the eastern peoples had been rallied to our cause.

Q: Hitler decorated you with the Knight’s Cross personally, didn’t he?

A: Yes, in February 1944, following the Cherkassy battle, which was quite rare. I think only perhaps twenty men received the Knight’s Cross from Hitler personally, and twelve of those were for the Eban Emael operation in 1940. I received my Knight’s Cross at the same ceremony where General Herbert Gille received the Oak Leaves, as both of us were at Cherkassy together, and General Herman Fegelein and Himmler were in attendance as well. Josef Goebbels made a great propaganda exploit out of the situation, which was meant to assist the foreign recruiting effort. Gille would later be awarded the Diamonds, while Fegelein would be shot on Hitler’s orders.

Q: When did you first arrive in Russia?

A: We entered the Ukraine beginning in October 1941, after finishing basic training and mountain warfare school, although some of our troops had been diverted to the Demyansk region under Olivier Thoring, a Knight’s Cross winner who was later killed. They were assigned to 9th Army, then later joined us in the south the next year. It was his detachment that captured Andrei Vlasov in July 1942, for your information.

Q: How did you escape to Spain?

A: This was an interesting situation. After a crazy course through Germany, Belgium, and Denmark, where I met with Himmler in Kiel for the last time, we ended up in Oslo, Norway by ship, and we knew that this situation would not last after my meeting with [Vidkun] Quisling. We refueled the aircraft and took off on our flight. We ran out of fuel and crashed on a beach in Spain, and I have been here ever since. My own government condemned me to death, but they have not pursued those who murdered my family and killed in the name of their own causes. Justice is determined by those in power, nothing else.

Q: What was your final rank?

A: My rank was Oberfuehrer, which is one rank above a full colonel and just below a brigadier general, so there is no Allied equivalent. I was promoted to general in the last week of the war, but I never [personally] received the promotion to Brigadefuehrer.

Q: How has your life been since the war?

A: I spend my time writing about the war and meeting old friends, and now making new ones. I think that people need to understand that there is always another side to a story. If people in your country had suffered the loss of their families due to a political party that was in conflict with your beliefs, then many of your countrymen may find themselves on the other side. Your American Civil War is a prime example.

Q: What do you see yourself doing for the rest of your life?

A: Hopefully still writing, as long as my mind is sharp and I can see; always reading books, and wondering at the great changes that have taken place in my lifetime. The collapse of Communism in Europe has proven that we were right; we just needed validation, and now we have it. I think that what we may write is important, but the history as it unfolds will prove who was right, and who was wrong. I never believed in the purging of Jews and civilians in general, and that was not my war. My war was to fight for my country, which would have been an independent partner of Germany in a Communist free Europe. This is only now a reality, but we fought for it fifty years ago all the same.

Q: Do you feel that Communism will eventually die in the rest of the world as well?

A: Yes, it will fall. Governments are the most intangible structures made by man, they change shapes, and are altered by the forces of time and nature. However, I am an optimist; I am hopeful that we as a species will learn from our mistakes, and perhaps there will be hope for us all. But then again, I could be wrong.