The Pete Quiñones Show - Reading Solzhenitsyn's '200 Years Together' w/ Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson - Part 95

Episode Date: December 17, 2025

56 MinutesPG-13Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a researcher, writer, and former professor of history and political science, specializing in Russian history and political ideology.Pete and Dr. Johnson continue a project in which Pete reads Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's '200 Years Together," and Dr' Johnson provides commentary.Borhy Splacheni Krovyu: The Foundations and Causes of the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022-2025Dr Johnson's PatreonDr Johnson's CashApp - $Raphael71RusJournal.orgTHE ORTHODOX NATIONALISTDr. Johnson's Radio Albion PageDr. Johnson's Books on AmazonDr. Johnson's Pogroms ArticleThe Unmentionable Genocide: New Khazaria, the Russian Revolutions and Soviet Legality in the 1920s by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonWith Friends Like These. . . Patriarch St. Tikhon, General Anton Denikin and the Defeat of the White Armies, 1917-1922 by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonThe Orthodox Nationalist: Karl Marx “On the Jewish Question” (1844)Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

...their... If you want to get the show early and ad-free, head on over to the Piquinez Show.com. There you can choose from where you wish to support me. Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me about this, even though I think on the last ad I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed, you're going to have to subscribe your sales. substack or through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website, which is right there, gumroad, and what's the other

one? Subscribe Star. And if you do that, you will get access to the audio file. So head on over to the Pekignonez Show.com. You'll see all the ways that you can support me there. And I just want to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can put out the amount of material that I do. I can do what I'm doing with Dr. Johnson on 200 years together and everything else.

The things that Thomas and I are doing together on continental philosophy, it's all because of you. And, yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough. So, thank you. The Pekingona Show.com. Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to our reading of 200 years together by Alexander Solzhenyson. Dr. Johnson, how are you doing today? I don't know. This is our cats. You know, they're getting older just like we are.

Marcel is right here. You're probably going to be going to see him very soon with this, you know, growth in his mouth. They can't do anything about. Your cat with the UTI. We have a deaf cat. We have a diabetic dog. I mean, you know, we're, you know, we're getting into heaven, I think. Well, I mean, animals are, animals are great. You know, they just, yeah, I just remember the family. Yeah, I always love being around animals. They tend to be more intelligent than most people. They tend to be more useful than most people.

Yeah, trustworthy too. Yeah, absolutely. All right. So last time I had mentioned that there was a whole list of names and descriptions of Jews who were persecuted by the Bolshe. Most of them, Mensheviks, some of them, some of this list is just, you know, regular people that, I guess, Solzheneson felt like he needed to include in this. And like I said, I think we're just going to yada yada over this. And if people want to, they can do their own reading, starting in 489, where we left off Boris DeVitovich Kamkoff cuts. and we're just going to jump forward to the beginning of 492 and right after the break.

Yeah, they are interesting people. You know, the ones that he's talking about, they're educated. There certainly were communists of one type or another. So, yeah, it's definitely, it's worth you guys reading it, but for us it would be tedious, I think. Agreed. All right. Picking up at 492. Despite the overwhelming percentage of high-placed aristocratic Jews who fell under Stalin's acts, the free Western press did not perceive the events as specifically the persecution of Jews.

The Jews were massacred simply because of their abundance and top tiers of the Soviet hierarchy. Indeed, we read such a stipulation in the collection of works of Ivreski Mir, the Jewish world, 1939. Quoting, no doubt that the Jews in the USSR have numerous opportunities which they did not have before the revolution and which they do not even now in some democratic countries. They can become generals, ministers, diplomats, professors, the most high-ranking and most servile aristocrats. Opportunities, but in no way rights because of the absence of such rights. Yakir, Garmanic, Yagoda, Zinoviev, Radik, Trotsky, and the rest fell from their heights and lost their very lives. Still, no nationality enjoyed such a right under the communist dictatorship.

It was all about the ability to cling to power. Yeah, the Western academic world didn't start worrying about this until after the war, and the Holocaust issue developed. You know, Stalin, you know, as I said before, you know, American academics had a choice. You either claim that Stalin is an anti-Semite who, for no reason or for jealousy or because he's just a thug. You know, Stalinist, and even now is more or less an insult. It's not like Nazi. Nazi's so stupid anyway, but the Stalinist is kind of a, you know, like being a dinosaur. on the left um or that the early bolsheviks were overwhelmingly jewish you can't have you know so so they obviously went with the with the with the former and there's books and books

out there but it wasn't until the 1950s maybe that this this question really asserted itself And, you know, Stalin became just the other, you know, the Soviet Hitler, so to speak. And especially in the 50s and 60s with Khrushchev, in the Communist Party, didn't know what the hell was going on. It was just something that Mao, you know, despised. But, yeah, this, you know, Stalinist movement still. had Jews at its core, no matter what it did. This had nothing to do with Jewishness or anything else. This was simply a matter of power and the ability to create a faction.

That was the issue. The longtime devoted socialist emigrant S. Ivanovich, S.O. Portuguese, admitted, quote, under the Zars, the Jews were indeed restricted in their right of living, yet their right to live was incomparably greater than then than under Bolshevism. Indeed, however, at the same time, despite being perfectly aware of collectivization, he writes that the awkward attempts to establish socialism in Russia took the heaviest toll from the Jews, that the scorpions of Bolshevism did not attack any other people with such brutal forces to attack Jews. Can you imagine what planet he had to live on to come to that conclusion?

Um, you know, whole, whole villages of Russians and Ukrainians were being depopulated. Um, you know, the church was, you know, clergy were sent to the, sent to the camps in huge numbers. Um, anybody, you know, and anybody, but all they could talk about it, but, you know, that's, that's, that's, that's been telling me. I don't know, Ivanovich, you know, essentially he was Johnson in, in, uh, in Slavic. Portuguese must have been his pen name. I don't know if that doesn't sound Jewish to me, but it's really insane for them to say that. The Jews just had a far better method of communication to the outside world. They had a huge intertwining, interconnected unit of media and power in every way.

especially in Britain and America to a lesser extent France and they were able to promote their suffering as much as anybody else but even more than anybody else but then again Stalin defeated out of Hitler invasion and hence he had a certain high level of prestige for a while for that reason. You know, whenever during the Weimar Republic, for example, a lot of the sex researchers, the homosexual movement, which was out, you know, debasing the society, when they were, when the state came after them, where did they go?

They ran to the USSR as if to prove Hitler's point. you know so um not that you know that kind of thing was tolerated there um nevertheless that's a place they felt safe and then uh but because of his defeat of Hitler you know nothing solidifies a ruler's place in power no what else is going on than a defeat in war and this was one hell of a war um and but to say that that took the heaviest toll from and Jews is outlandish. It was Jews persecuting other Jews for various reasons. And as we said many times, Stalin was surrounded by them, continued to be surrounded by them.

It was just one faction against another. It's that simple. Portuguese sounds Sephardic to me. I was going to say that. Sounds like some of the names that Sombart brings up in Jews and my. Well, that's his, that's his real name and his pen name was Ivanovitch. Well, that makes sense. Okay. Well, that makes sense more so of the whole thing. All right, moving on. Yet during the great plague of decoulocization, it was not thousands, but millions of peasants

who lost both the right of living and the right to live. And yet all the Soviet pens with so many Jews among them kept complete silence about this cold-blooded destruction of the Russian peasantry. In unison with them, the entire West was silent. Could it be really out of the lack of knowledge? Or was it for the sake of protecting the Soviet regime? Or was it simply because of indifference? Why, this is almost inconceivable. Fifteen million peasants were not simply deprived of entering the institutes of higher learning or of the right to study in graduate school or to occupy nice posts. No, they were dispossessed and driven like cattle out of their homes and sent a certain death in the taiga and tundra. And the Jews, among other passionate urban

activists, enthusiastically took the reins of the collectivization into their hands, leaving behind them persistent evil memory. And who had raised their voices in defense of the peasants then? And now, in 1932 to 1933, in Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine, on the very outskirts of Europe, five to six million people died from hunger, and the free press of the free world maintained utter silence. And even if we take into account the extreme leftist bias of the contemporary Western press and its devotion to the socialist experiment in the USSR, it is still impossible not to be amazed at the degree to which they could be, they could go to be blind and insensitive

to the sufferings of even tens of millions of fellow humans. yeah i don't know i don't know where to start with something like this um and you know it just makes a mockery of what portuguese says uh just above um yeah they were slaughtered in silence they had um no one to defend them um it was you know again they had been the enemies of the Soviet power from the very beginning, as you know. The Cossacks had long since been destroyed. Some still remain today, but, but, you know, many of them had to go underground or go into exile. But yes, the free press of the free world maintained utter silence. That's not something that gets discussed in history courses of the era today in American universities. I know this from

experience, bringing it up, just bringing it up, gives cause to call someone an anti-Semite as I was called at the time, simply bringing it up, because I knew exactly who I was talking about without saying so, without even meaning to say so. Now, my opinion is it was for the sake of protecting the Soviet regime and for a few reasons. Number one, you still had the intellectual bias that it was a wave of the future. Number two, the Jews controlled the press on both sides. And number three, the U.S. and the British were heavily invested there. This is why in the Vietnam War, you had, you know, there was no problem. The U.S. was trading with the USSR in goods that could be used by the military. It's brought to the Soviet Union

and then brought right to Vietnam. The regime, that is to say, those, you know, the bankers, those with, what we call soft power, but it includes military too, were not anti-communists. They never were. They didn't like Russians. They had the typical Crimean War era bias towards them. But, and then de-culocization, this is how it was, there's always going to be an excuse for doing this millions we're talking about millions here which is very difficult for us to you

conceive of um i don't know if you've mentioned this yet i don't think we have the word kulak means fist but if you go deeper into the history of the word in the russian language it also means ignoramus um you know and i've i've i've written, I forget exactly where. Yeah, it's in my book on the early Soviet Union. The concept of the Kulak was essentially Goyim. It's not the normal use of the word, but it is the historical use of the word, going back a bit. And I didn't know that until I started writing this book, and I had no idea that there are many meanings to that word. So this was a Jewish thing.

that Jews were the main drivers of this. You know, I like other passionate urban activists. You know, communism has always been an urban phenomenon. You know, because it allegedly bases itself in industry. Industry is urban, you know, almost by definition. And it's also where, of course, the Jews apply their trades and their scams. So the countryside has always been a bit of a problem. for communists worldwide, which is why Maoism and then Pol Pot took this to a very different level.

But yeah, the answer to the question, who raise their voices in defense of the peasants? Nobody, for all of those reasons. And it's not something, you know, today because of the idea that, well, and anti-Semite so we could we could hate him that's okay to hate him now um london was fine of course you know you know london was was starting to do the exact same thing under war communism and you know just before his death after the after the nEP you know so again i want to stress that that these dictators were almost identical um but salon was it was in a much better position position, collectivization was, this was collectivization and no one wanted it. The Jews who created

it, who knew nothing about agriculture, as we well know, you know, that they couldn't, I can't imagine they didn't know that this would lead to mass starvation. They would never be affected by it because I had to literally herd peasants to where they were going. And peasants, tend to be a rowdy bunch um they've been rebelling pretty consistently throughout not just russian history either uh no one raised their voices in the fence of of the peasantry you know these were a strictly orthodox people and um the western world jews and and some ignorant gentiles were were uh had investments there consistently and especially at this era because the economy was being controlled from one place

is very easy to decide where to go and that's that's what's going on here and to this day the peasants have not been really set by people like us and certainly wasn't the lack of knowledge it sort of may have been indifference to some extent no it was for the sake protecting the USSR. During the 1920s, the Ukrainian Jews departed from their pro-Russian statehood mood of 1917 to 1920, and by the end of the 1920s, quote, the Jews are among Ukrainian chauvinists and separatists wielding enormous influence there, but only in the cities, end quote. We could find such a conclusion.

The destruction of Ukrainian language culture in 1937 was in part, aimed against Jews who formed a genuine union with Ukrainians for the development of local culture in Ukrainian language, end quote. Nevertheless, such a union in cultural circles could not soften the attitudes of the wider Ukrainian population towards Jews. We have already seen in the previous chapter how in the course of collectivization, a considerable number of Jewish communists function in rural locales as commanders and lords over life and death. This place a new scar on Ukrainian-Jewish relations already tense for centuries. And although the famine was a direct result of Stalin's policy, and not only in Ukraine, it brutally swept across the Volga region

and the Urals, the suspicion widely arose among Ukrainians that the entire Ukrainian famine was the work of the Jews. Such an interpretation has long existed, and the Ukrainian emigre press adhered to it until the 1980s. Quote, some Ukrainians are convinced that 1933 was revenge of the Jews for the times of Kemmolnitsky. Don't expect to reap wheat where the weed was sown. The supreme authority of so many Jews, along with only a small number of Jews being touched by the grievances which afflicted the rest of the population could lead to all sorts of interpretations.

All right. You know, I also have a book called Ukrainian nationalism, and I deal with these issues, and this is, again, this is a very heavy paragraph. I don't know what he means, first of all, by the pro-Russian statehood mood. I don't know what they mean. I think, you know, but essentially, Ukrainian chauvinist, no, what we're talking about. And that's a quote that's not Sheldon, that's not Sheldon. Stalin's policy, sorry, Lennon's policy was to promote the Ukrainian language and some of its literature as a way to get the Ukrainians on their side.

They did this throughout all of the republics, except Russia. And, but that really didn't work. I mean, there are very few Ukrainians lived in cities. So once Ukraine was then, not the Ukraine we know today, but a piece of Ukraine became a part of the Soviet Union and was speaking Ukrainian, okay, that was no longer, you know, they didn't have to do that anymore. So then Stalin smashed it and everything that London had promoted, Stalin banned. It wasn't a matter of contradiction. It was just one policy. That was just, and you know, they do that all the time.

They're doing it now. You know, they promote Ukrainian nationalism because they're fighting the Russians. Like they did, you know, Albanian stuff in the 90s and, you know, all of that. even Turkish, the Western world backed Turkey to fight the, the Slavs, you know, 100 years ago. And for the same reason, the British controlled the Turkish economy before World War I. So this is only one policy. You try to get them on your side to some extent. And then once that's the case, then you reverse yourself.

And there has to be, you know, given the command economy, there has to be, you know, one language, one center, and that was going to be, and that was going to be Moscow. So they certainly were not chauvinous. I think they were well aware of what they were doing. I don't believe they ever, ever was a genuine union with Ukrainians. No way. And with the same reason we've already mentioned, some Ukrainians are convinced that 1933 was the revenge of the Jews for the times of Kimonetsky. Well, I've been saying, in that for years, which is why in the current war, which, by the way, I have a book on, which just came on, they win no matter what. You know, because Ukraine is being depopulated,

Russia is being damaged to some extent. They win either way. You know, there's no way that Jews could ever make a common cause with a group of people. who were formed by the Cossack hosts. They'll pretend to be. If you remember in the beginning of this war, they pretended to be. And more than anywhere else in the U.S.S.R., the Jews dominated Ukraine in this era. And so it wasn't, and we go, the anti-Jewish ideas go way back. amongst the Ukrainian peasantry and for very good reason.

And we've discussed those reasons. I don't know. When was that when we first started eight years ago? Seems like a Polish Empire. We've dealt with it on our own, on a separate topic on your show. But to consider there to be a genuine union, it's utter nonsense. Ukraine was created by the Klosanikos, was created by the orthodox rejection of the Unionia, which was promoted by Poland. And it was only promoted in the 20s as a strategic measure, period.

Then once it wasn't necessary, it was smashed. And again, the same thing is going on today. I mean, to see that disgusting Jew Zelensky hold the Cossack Mace in his hand, pretending that he's Ukrainian or even cares about Ukraine. It's one of the most, for a historian, it's one of the most vile sites I could imagine in this war, pretending to be, you know, one with the nation, when in fact despises the nation, when he in fact is being used to deposition. populate the nation. You know, as far as the Jews are concerned, they win either way. The Russia wins or Russia loses, or if Ukraine wins or if Ukraine loses. And it was no accident that, of course, during the invasion, 1941, the peasantry, especially in Ukraine, was very, very pro-German and had been, and the church had been very pro-German.

and had been, and the church have been very pro-German. I'll have a paper on that floating around somewhere. We're very pro-German. Jewish authors who nervously kept an eye on anti-Semitism in the USSR did not notice this trampled ash, however and made rather optimistic conclusions. For instance, Solomon Schwartz writes, from the start of the 1930s, anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union quickly abated. and in the mid-1930s, it lost the character of a mass phenomenon.

Anti-Semitism reached an all-time low point. He explains this in part as the result of the end of the NEP, and thereby the disappearance of Jewish businessmen and petty Jewish merchants. Later, forced industrialization and lightning-fast collectivization, which he favorably compares with a kind of shock therapy, i.e. treatment of mental disorders with electric shocks, was of much help. In addition, he considers that in those years, the ruling communist circles began to struggle with great Russian chauvinism. While they did not begin, they just continued the policy of Lenin's intolerance.

Schwartz soundly notes that the authorities were persistently silent about anti-Semitism in order to avoid the impression that the struggle against great Russian chauvinism is a struggle for the Jews. That's a very odd statement. it doesn't really work. We've come across Solomon Schwartz before. This is the guy who left the USSR because it wasn't destroying anti-Semitism quickly enough that it didn't have the Jews specifically in its constitution as protected, which is really what he wanted, even though of all of these, the legislation, you know people went to jail sometimes during warfare they were killed

for uttering a uh a word about about the bad word about the jews um i like the use of shock therapy what did they call in the 1990s the austerity measures imposed when they were privatizing um the old soviet industries the the phrase was shock therapy had Jews at the beginning of the revolution, you had Jews in the Stalin era, they kind of went away under, probably certainly under Brezhnev in the 80s, and they came back for shock therapy where they were able to manipulate the privatization for their own benefit, and that's what created the almost exclusively Jewish oligarchs that rule Ukraine today. And thank God for, you know, Putin and Lukashenko, who put a stop to it.

But remember, it does get somewhat complicated. But the authority is persistently silent. You know, to him, you know, unless you're slaughtering people who may be anti-Semitic, you're silent. He is one of the most obnoxious, ridiculous authors have ever come across. And we've dealt with him before. And so what he says, you kind of have to take with a grain of assault, but he was there and he represents at least a probably a substantial faction of Jewish opinion. In January 1931, first of New York Times and later the entire world press published a sudden

and ostentatious announcement by Stalin to the Jewish Telegraph Association. Association. Quote, the communists, a consistent internationalist, cannot help but be an irreconcilable and sworn enemy of anti-Semitism. In the USSR, anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted by law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet order. Active anti-Semites are punished, according to the laws of the USSR, with the death penalty. See, he addressed the Democratic West and did not mind specifying the punishment. And it was only one nationality in the USSR that was set apart by being granted such a protection. And world opinion was completely satisfied with that. Oh, my God. Yeah, world opinion. That was fine. And so long as those laws were

on the books, the USSR was fine as far as the Western world was concerned. This quote from Stalin, which he did believe, which he repeated in other context many times, proves that he was no anti-Semite, as the regime would love you to believe. This is one of many quotes promoting this. He truly believed that he was in the line of Lenin on all issues, including the prosecution of anti-Semites. What constitutes an anti-Semite was always very arbitrary. I think we've dealt with this before.

It's not merely, you know, the physical violence, but also words. Referring to them as jids rather than a Jewish man, even the word Jew, even the word Jew, even in our era, is seen as almost too blunt. So, especially when Germany began to be very, very successful under Hitler in the late 1930s, they had to be very, very vigilant about this amongst their own party members in many ways. But in USSR, he says, in the USSR, anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted by law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet order. Now, Lenin said that. We've mentioned it a hundred times.

Of course, the Soviet order is inherently Jewish. And again, there is no other group that has that kind of... And this is being said at a time where, again, where Russian peasants are being slaughtered, churches are burnt to the ground, the gulags are being filled, people are suffering in ways that we can't imagine, and this was a big issue in the West. How many anti-Semites have you shot? And the West, which is usually, the regime is usually anti-death penalty, except when it comes

to anti-Semitism. The only time the death penalty is used in Israel legally in civil cases is when, or criminal cases, is when, if you had anything to do with national socialism, you'll, you'll camp guards and stuff like that. So this is all you need to know. This has been, this is not, you know, yeah, it was sudden ostentation. But, you know, he just continued Lenin's policy.

Nothing changed in that regard. The laws were on the books. He was never anti-Semitic. But there was a change, which I guess we'll talk to about at some point in the 1970s, where the Soviet anti-Zionism, became that because the Jews had largely disengaged from the Soviet Union. But up until that point, Jews were held in honor and even referring to them verbally in a certain way can get you a one-way trip to the gulag. But characteristically, the announcement by the

leader was not printed in the Soviet press because of his cunning reservations. It was produced for export and he hid this position from his own citizens. In USSR, it was only printed at the end of 1936. Then Stalin sent Molotov to make a similar announcement at the Congress of Soviets. I can only imagine that that has to have something to do with the fact that, you know, we talked about this weeks ago. People notice the power that the Jews have in the USSR. Even if they're communists themselves and they like the party and want to be a part of it and they support what's going on, they notice there's this click of people and they're in specific areas and specific areas of power that none of us have any access to. They tend to be doing very

well financially, which is, you know, not even, shouldn't even be relevant to a Marxist state. I think that's why he kind of held back. But by 36, the national socialist phenomenon I think kind of forced his hand and and then he but you know he there was no at no point the that he he didn't he didn't believe that and he didn't promote that and he said it all the time but it was only hidden for you know a short time and but that's I think is why I think we've been talking about you know Gentile communists being worried but there's a there's a new bourgeois class developing in their Jews, but they're not allowed to talk about that.

So I think that's part of the reason why it was hidden, and those guys, you know, if they spoke their minds in a public setting, ended up being arrested. A contemporary Jewish author erroneously interpreting Molotov's speech or purpose, that I added that part, suggests that speaking on behalf of the government, he threatened to punish anti-Semitic feelings with death. Feelings. No, Molotov did not mention anything like that.

He did not depart from Stalin's policy of persecuting active anti-Semites. We are not aware of any instance of death penalty in the 1930s for anti-Semitism, but people were sentenced for it according to the penal code. People whispered that before the revolution, the authorities did not push as harshly even for libeles against the czar. But now S. Schwartz observes a change. In the second half of the 1930s, these sentiments, people's hostility toward Jews, become much more prevalent, particularly in the major centers where the Jewish intelligentsia and semi-intelligentsia were concentrated. Here again, the legend about Jewish domination gradually began to, to come back to life, and they began to spread exaggerated notions about the role of Jews in the middle and top ranks of government. Well, whether or not it was really a legend, he immediately attempted to explain it, though

in a quite naive manner, suggesting the same old excuse that the Jewish intelligentsia and semi-intelligentsia simply had almost no other source of livelihood under Soviet conditions except government service. they were forced into Bolshevism. Yes, this is the second time we've come across something like that. And so they use that excuse so often that it becomes just a trope. And they use it in the Soviet era where obviously that wasn't true. They could do whatever they wanted in the Soviet Union.

But they still have, it's so common for them to say that, We were forced into this stuff. We have no agency. It's at least, you know, it's somewhat better than the jealousy argument, which Schwartz also makes. Remember, that stuff was, the legend, et cetera, that was from Swartz, not from Zoldunitsyn. These were not exaggerated notions. People realized it. Why would you spread exaggerated?

Why did you exaggerate this thing? you experience it yourself, especially if you got in any kind of trouble. But the fact that they're using this same trope that they used in, you know, non-Marxist societies. That's why the Jews became traitors and usurers, because they had no other choice, which is usually nonsense. They're so used to using that that they said it here. And he knows that that's not the case. he knows that the Soviet Union had Jews everywhere.

So it was almost just like a conditioned response in his case. This is so shameful to read, what oppression and despair. See, they had almost no other sources of livelihood, only privileged ones. And the rest of the population was absolutely free to toil in Kolkos fields to dig pits and to roll barrows at the great construction projects of the five-year plans. In official policy, nothing had changed in the 1930s in the Jewish question from the time of the revolution. No official hostility towards Jews existed. Indeed, they used to dream and proclaim about the impending end of all national conflicts. Yeah, the Marxist point of view

about nationalism, and specifically the Soviet point of view, was that once all of the republics are equalized. They all have the same, you know, basic income, the same level of, you know, education and industry, the same economic opportunities. Nationalism will disappear. That was their, to some extent, that's the capitalist point of view, too. It's very, very similar. Now, he's very careful to say no official hostility towards, oh, that's certainly true. With the end of nationalism, which of course they were completely wrong on, not that it's changed their minds at all, it's one huge area where they were dead wrong. Nationalism is based on economic deprivation, which was a creed of theirs that even now they still can't get

rid of. Capitalists, you know, your free trade libertarians on the one hand, the markets and the other both believe this. So, yes, no official anti-Jewish talk existed, but unofficially, it was all over the place. And the foreign Jewish circles did not and could not sense any oppression of the Jews in the USSR. In the article, the Jews and the Soviet dictatorship, S. Ivanovich wrote, quote, abroad, many believe that there is no anti-Semitism in Russia, and on that basis, they are favorably disposed toward the Soviet authorities. But in Russia, they know that this is not true. However, Jews pray for the long life of the Soviet regime and are strongly afraid of its demise, for Stalin protects them from

pogroms and hopefully would protect them in the future. The author sympathizes with such an opinion, although he considers it flawed. Quote, if the Soviet dictatorship falls, no doubt there will be wild anti-Semitic ravages and violence. The fall of the Soviet regime would be catastrophic for Jews, and any friend of the Jewish people should reject such a prospect with horror. Yet at the same time, he remarks that, quote, the Soviet dictatorship is already embarrassed by the Judeophilia and Jewish dominance attributed to it, end quote. What can you say?

I think that may even be the case for, you know, if the collapse of the Western system. more and more you know comment sections are being removed they're deleting anything having to do with Jews even if you put it in a nice way the Jewish question is known more and more

every day and it's shocking to me and Netanyahu of course was part of the reason why and yeah what would happen if everything collapsed suddenly in the U.S., but in the U.S.S.R., well, it did fall. There were very few Jews in there, and the Jews that remained were the oligarchs who had private armies.

So whatever wanted to be said or done was, was, and these are private armies that's, these are private armies that Putin had to end you know throwing these guys in prison made him popular if he shot them he would have become a god and and but this is you know it was so bad in the 90s it's the same same concept you did have a sudden collapse of the soviet system not a sudden collapse of the Stalinist system though you know everything had changed by this point but the Jewish oligarchs did have private armies

did control a regional government so it was very easy and the right wing the royalists were always so they had no unity the church was the same way it drives you crazy you know they had

the zero novel remember Vladimir Ziranovsky he's you know his real name is Edelman he was a liberal he was he was play acting any time he else he would get into trouble

you know he would you know he he would have a a news report of of zirinovsky you know but a shirt usually had a shirt off yelling about you

I'm going to kill Germans I'm going to kill whoever for no reason my favorite one is that he's going to put big fans to blow nuclear waste into into the Baltics

something crazy like that. And so Yeltsin could say, well, if I lose, this is who's going to take over. Of course, Yerunovsky was no nationalist by any means. He was a phony. The Liberal Democratic Party was, and I have quite a bit of this in my book in many other places. And he was taking a good chunk of the nationalist vote, which is very unfortunate. The rest of them were very disunited. and the Jews, on the other hand, had been at this for a very long time, and it's extremely

frustrated, frustrating. But just like in America, the Jewish question is still, the Jewish question has always been there in Russia. You hear about it on the street. You hear about it in the Duma. It just can't be, you can't say I'm going to go go and kill them. But, but, but, um, You know, we've had Holocaust conferences there. They know what has any problem with that. They actually mean incitement, not like they do in Britain. But it's, you know, this was the reason why. Yeah, it would have happened maybe that way.

But, you know, the right wing was so bad off. And it's true, at least in the Stalin era, that he is the protector of the Jews. He is our patron. And especially when World War II started, there was no question about it anymore. We have a couple paragraphs to the next break. So here we go. The resolution on Stalin's report at the 16th Party Congress provided the general political direction for the 1930s, calling for an energetic struggle against chauvinism and primarily against the Great Russian Chauvinism.

The party language was easily understood by all, and for several more years, the struggle was enthusiastically carried on. Yet, what kind of Stalinist madness was it? By that time, there was no trace left of the great Russian chauvinism. Stalin was not able to envision the immediate future of World War II, when only Russian patriotism would save him from imminent doom. Then they have already started to sound the end. alarm about the danger of any rebirth of Russian patriotism. In 1939, Esavanovich claimed to notice a

trend, quote, of this dictatorship returning to some national traditions of Moscovite Rus and imperial Russia, end quote. He caustically cited several stamps that entered popular discourse about that time, such as the love for the motherland and national pride, etc. All right, I have to talk about this. This is a long-standing prejudice, I think. But the USSR initially looked like they were losing the war, which was a shock to, you know, because it was, you know, the Soviet Army is really offensive. The Germans took all of their ammunition, all of their fuel, which was at the front, right at the western border. That's how they kept it going.

What, three million men or so? 250,000 horses. And the only way that he could get people to die and not support Hitler's movement was to pretend that he supported the old system, which shows you that the old system was popular. But it was extremely minor.

I have searched and search and search for what he has said about this. He made one comment that, like Peter the Great was a great revolutionary, which is true. That somehow made him a monarchist. He permitted, you know, he created this new church in 1944, what you call the Moscow, Patriarchate, who said nothing but wonderful things about Stalin consistently. which was very confusing to orthodox people who weren't already underground. The concept of Soviet patriotism was first heard then. In other words, you know, this stuff is genuinely popular in Russia or elsewhere.

And the old system, the monarchy, was popular, or else he wouldn't bother to even mention it. and Jews were terrified, but they wildly exaggerated what he was willing to do. In some cases, he permitted the old orthography, you know, the old alphabet. I mean, things like that. And, you know, I've been talking about this for so many years. I know too much about it. A couple of stamps, you know, things like that. And that was enough to send the Jews into this, this, almost hallucinogenic.

rage that oh my god they're going to come they're going to come kill us it was the only way that Stalin could get people um Russian boys to fight and die in solongrodden elsewhere that's all that ever was see this is where the mortal danger for russia lurk then immediately before Hitler's assault in that ugly Russian patriotism this alarm did not leave the minds of Jewish publicism for the next half century, even when they looked back at that war, when mass patriotism blazed up at the war which saved Soviet jewelry. So in 1988, we read an Israeli magazine, quote, vivid traditions of the black hundreds were the foundation of vivifying Soviet patriotism, which blossomed later during the great patriotic war. Looking back at that war, it's absolute. insanity. By using that, by using a tiny amount of that, it allowed them to defeat Hitler,

or at least that that was in their minds, the reason why. It wasn't. But in their minds, it was. And so they could talk like this. But I don't think even they knew. But again, it was very, very minor. It was just enough maybe to get him over the hill. But Jews started to realize, oh, oh, it's just a strategy. This is in 1988. Well, as soon as the war ended, all that ended, too. And everything went back to normal, so. Looking back at that war of 1941 to 1945, let's admit that this is a highly ungrateful

judgment. So even the purest and most immaculate Russian patriotism has no right to exist, not now, not ever why is it so and why is it that russian patriotism is thus singled out the anti-communist movement was not anti-communist it was mostly anti-russian that's where the neocons came from the trotsky background which i've dealt with elsewhere um they were people who hated Stalin so much they really truly believe he wasn't anti-semi that they would go to any movement and do anything to destroy the USSR. And these are some of the people who took over conservatism in the in the 70s and 80.

And who rule foreign policy at least up until very recently. We all know why Russian patriotism was singled down in this particular case because there was by far the largest group. If that bear was ever revivified, my God, the results would. be catastrophic for Jews and they were well aware of that. So they had to keep it down as much as humanly possible. And they did. I've mentioned the Leningrad purges right after the war. Any pro-Russian movement, anyone who, any of the Leningraders or they were, as they were called, weren't really, you know, they were not anti-communists by any means. They were, in fact, the opposite. They were strong Stalinists. But because they stated things in Russian terms,

they were a problem and they had to go. These were the people who defended Leningrad from the German siege that went on for what, three years. They were celebrated one minute and condemned as nationalists the next minute and sent to prison. That's why I was fascinated by this. I did a paper on it and I also have a, which I should send you, if I haven't already, and did a lecture on it too for Radio Alpian. And that's why Ruston Patriotism is singled out. All righty, we will pick up where we left off in a few days. I encourage everybody to go over to the show notes to go over to the video description. So go to Amazon and type in Matthew Raphael Johnson and buy Dr. Johnson's latest book by all of his.

books. That's another way that you can support him apart from or including what is what I've included in the show notes or what is in the description. So please go and do that. And we will pick up with more 1930s in the next episode. Thank you, my friend. I'll talk to you then. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Take care. Thank you. Thank you.