The murder of the Czar and his family

A hundred years ago the Czar and his family were murdered, which murder foreshadowed and led to the murder of huge numbers of ordinary people.

Progressives, including supposedly very moderate centrist progressives, made, and continue to make all sorts of myths justifying and rationalizing the murder, revealing their intent to do it all over again.

Myth:  The Czar was brutal and oppressive, but the soldiers refused to fire on the revolting masses, so he was overthrown, and thus the communists, representing the masses to power.

Reality: The Czar was a cucked progressive.  He had Lenin and Stalin in his hands, guilty of all sorts of crimes that gave him grounds for execution or indefinite imprisonment, but let them off because letists are holier than thou.  There were no revolting masses, just a series of coups made in the name of the revolting masses, and such riots and looting as occurred, occurred Ferguson style – the police were ordered to stand back and let the mobs loot stuff and smash stuff.

The February revolution was no revolution – rather the elite allowed the mobs to knock over a few breweries, to provide an excuse for them seizing power from the Czar while he was away at the front.

The communists did not overthrow the Czar.  The Kadets overthrew the Czar.  Then Kerensky overthrew the Kadets with a policy of no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, which meant he disarmed the military officers, and armed the communists.  Then the communists overthrew Kerensky.  The leftism of the Czar led to his overthrow by the even lefter Kadets, the indecisive leftism of the Kadets led to their overthrow by Kerensky, and the radical leftism of Kerensky led to his overthrow by the even lefter communists, who then murdered the Czar, and millions of peasants, until the madness ended with them murdering each other.

What happened to Russia was leftism leading to more leftism.

Progressives agree that serfdom was absolutely horrid, and perhaps it was.  If it was horrid, the solution should have been to free the serfs and leave the land with the lords.  Or perhaps give some of the land to the more competent, successful, and wealthy serfs.  But this solution was considered unthinkably horrible and inconceivably reactionary, which implicitly acknowledged that most serfs were not ready to run their own lives.  What progressives wanted was the serfs freed with the land.  But quite obviously, most serfs were incompetent to operate a small farm.  So progressives wanted them to operate the land collectively.  But if one man trying to run a small farm is hard, one hundred men trying to run a large farm is considerably harder.

So, Alexander the liberator freed them with collective ownership of the land.  Which was predictably a disaster.  And there was thereafter a succession of ever lefter government measures to try to deal with the problem, each of which made the problem worse.  Russian agriculture still has not recovered.  By freeing the serfs and giving them the land collectively, but not individually, Alexander the liberator set in motion a slide ever leftwards that continued steadily all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks.

The liberation of the serfs with collective ownership of the land created a crisis, for which the solution was always more leftism, which led to more crisis. This created an expectation that the way to power was to be lefter than thou. The Czar’s generals and bureaucrats outflanked him on the left. Kerensky’s socialists outflanked them on the left, and the Communists outflanked Kerensky on the left. Then the communists proceeded to outflank each other, till Stalin put a stop to that.

If at any time any of Alexander the Liberator’s successors had been so horribly repressive as to demonstrate that lefter than thou was a seriously bad career move, as Stalin belatedly demonstrated, the slide leftwards would have halted and stayed halted. But instead the Czars allowed to the progressives to guilt them into doing whatever the progs demanded, which merely excited progressive bloodlust.

124 Responses to “The murder of the Czar and his family”

  1. Basil says:

    The authorities could have left the land to fairly competent landlords. To redeem the land landowners who went bankrupt and got into debt, and there were quite a lot of them, and sell it to those peasants who can afford to buy it. Plus, what adds new shades of tragedy to this whole story is that a huge amount of land suitable for agriculture was empty. It should have been privatized too, starting the process of colonization of the Eastern Lands. But no.

    It really strikes the imagination what opportunities and prospects have been pissed off from the fucking leftists. If not for these bastards, there are now more than 350-500 million white people in Russia.

  2. Golden says:

    Hi Jim,
    Again, thank you for your insights, but you still have not answered my question. Which would you prefer friend A or B?
    A additional question is have you ever experienced a miracle and what do you think of those that have? I experienced my amazing sexual experiences when I began to give my wife swinging fantasies, and that opened me to thinking about other women and she loved me more then ever before. The churches told me that’s the devil but I think it was God and the good team.
    I guess sharing is caring in that case.
    It seems to me that the devil prefers monogamy because it’s a set up for so much more pain compared to those who share. Would you agree with that?

  3. Golden says:

    Hi Jim,
    Thanks for all that wonderful insight on women. In my experience you are correct, and I failed every shit test due to the misfortune of being born with a ugly head which basically disqualified me for the shit test upon being seen unless I wear a clever disguise such as a bandana and fedora with military style cargo pants and a puffy winter shirt that makes me look bigger that say I am a extremely dangerous fellow ready to dance at any moment.

    I have a question for you and am very interested in your response considering your expertise on women and men.
    If you have two male friends (A & B) and one (A) is willing to share his wife (swinging cuckold) and the other (B) is not willing to share his wife, then which friend do you prefer?
    I would prefer (A) because that’s my true friend, but the swinging cuckold (A) from what I heard is considered the beta and the non sharing (B) is considered the alpha. So then why do most males prefer the non sharing when it seems to me the sharing swinging cuckold is the better nicer friend? In my experience women want a swinging cuckold but always shit on the swinging cuckold even though he is willing to give her more pleasure and fulfill her fantasies that the so called alpha is not willing to do, due I suppose to fear of losing her to some one more endowed.
    As you said women are always doing the shit test, and so men are always at each other’s throats fighting for those females attention and willing to do anything to get her including risking death by humiliating the fellow males to appear as alpha.
    I have experienced miracles but am not counting on them to be constant nor tested. Those miracles made me a believer in God and Heaven I suppose but the miracles I experienced countered the Bible. I call those miracles Sextonium and Windtonium. Sextonium involved being a fantasy swinging cuckold that my exwife loved so much she began sharing all her sexual secrets that she had never told me before (I did that to make sex better because something was interfering such as ugly witches and demons) but that also seemed to attract creepy males ready to steal my wife and that they very cleverly did as though a gang targeting my brown skin sticking out like a sore thumb among white folks.
    My ex whom I was with for twenty five years and have children with is with some white male now. I did notice that made the whites very happy. That makes me very sad. I was hoping the world had progressed enough to be integrated but sadly the world is still divided and conquered for the devils entertainment to cause wars.
    I hope I get to Heaven for going through hell. I am not Christian though because I still like pretty naked women even though they don’t like me. I hope there is a swinging cuckold section in heaven without the dangers of this world.
    Good God bless.

    • jim says:

      People with self destructive sexual deviations are dangerous. High rates of disease, madness, crime, betrayal, murder, and suicide.

  4. TBeholder says:

    > So progressives wanted them to operate the land collectively. But if one man trying to run a small farm is hard, one hundred men trying to run a large farm is considerably harder.
    > So, Alexander the liberator freed them with collective ownership of the land. Which was predictably a disaster.
    Not really.
    The peasants already lived and worked as communities, simply because on much of Russian territory and without tractors it’s impossible to grow enough food otherwise. It’s not Europe and not Mesoamerica. Very different climate. Which is also why in Russia the borders between fields weren’t all lined with skulls and forests weren’t wiped out.
    Also, he was not the first who tried.
    The whole serfdom thing was set up by Peter I “Antichrist”, who not coincidentally also have “opened the window to Europe”. So after him, every monarch who felt strong tried to close it. Because practically it meant that the land- and serf- owners act as a resource colony of British Empire. On the backs of the serfs, to the detriment of internally useful production and industry. Without the end to it in sight.
    Yes, just like in USA South that used slaves to produce buttloads of cotton, but didn’t have its own factories to process it. And the key to breaking its spine and make it stick was, surprise, destroying slavery — which, of course, progressives present backwards too.
    Which is also why the Russian peasants were raging supporters of the Crown — they simply had the common enemy and knew this. Which also explain who was whining about peasants supporting their Emperors and not knowing what is better for them, unlike someone Very Smart.
    Pavel I tried to tighten his grip on the tariffs. So a bunch of land-owning aristocrats staged a coup, one fine night captured their ruler and tried to beat abdication out of him. And then strangled him. Why they did not try to shake the abdication out of him for a few more hours if that’s why they started it all? Because they were in a bit of hurry: once a single regiment (of conscripted peasants) nearby hears about the coup, no matter what the officers may say, lots of bayonets would be involved in the matter very soon… but nobody will risk his own neck for the dead man.
    More recently, the “Decemberists” tried to get rid of their monarch, but failed…
    That’s what Alexander II faced. He knew that the richest, complacent, export oriented land owners are his most dangerous enemies.
    So, he did succeed in his rule almost as hard as Nicholas II failed. Taking back the custom house: done. Serf liberation: done. Breaking the dangerous aristocracy into sub-factions partially controlled by him and hostile mostly to each other: done — later they fought each other in Civil War. Becoming an actual player in the Great Game: done!
    His show of confidence later turned out to be a mistake too, but he needed steel balls to push as far as he did.

    • jim says:

      The peasants already lived and worked as communities, simply because on much of Russian territory and without tractors it’s impossible to grow enough food otherwise

      Bullshit. The peasants lived and worked as communities, because subject to the authority of a lord. As soon as coercion went away, the peasants tended to break up into nuclear families – as for example the kulaks.

      Cattle herding in on the Russian steppes is naturally a near solitary occuppation, and similarly growing potatoes.

      If you are doing agriculture with a shovel for your plants, and a stick for your cattle, the natural unit of agriculture is the nuclear family – and the severe climate orients you more to cattle and less to potatoes, which makes you more solitary.

      • TBeholder says:

        Potato and cattle, sure. But agriculture in Russia was mostly not potato and cattle.
        The cattle was indeed mostly in the Steppe, only minimum in forest/grassland zone. When cattle needs to be kept in pens most of the year, it requires lots of hay — which people had to harvest manually, diverting labor from growing human food.
        But grains? Those are not grown by a dude with shovel. This required horses, lots of work, and with little time to do it, much risk.
        Sure, the peasant community was not the only possible form, and others emerged. But it was the existing and working base of food-producing part of the economy. It follows that the sane thing was to mess with it as little as possible, even when tinkering near it was quite necessary, THEN allow others to emerge and compete, and see what happens.
        “Kulaks” (in the old sense, not later “anyone living in a village whom Communists don’t like”) didn’t work alone for themselves, they ran farms as enterprises with hired workers. Which naturally both led to conflict and separated them from the employed masses. Presumably, often this was not pretty (if healthier than most early factories), that’s why “kulaks kulaks kulaks” was a button repeatedly punched even after it broke and pieces were lost.
        But this doesn’t seem to have been something completely different and setting the society on its ears: they mostly took the place of the foremen or community heads.

  5. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >Israel is pozzed: Gay parade, gays and women in the military, women on the front line.

    >Where is that poz coming from?

    Alighting the passage friend I could not help but feel a tingle of speciousness brush the senses.

    >”Harvard is pozzed: affirmative action, gays and women getting degrees, women helicoptered into doing research. Therefore, Harvard is being mind controlled by someone else.”

    In fact, could be very well the case. Certainly an interesting question to consider. Something i myself have even proximately argued in the past, in consideration of the relative ‘gravities’ exerted by various dis-cohered power sources, each attempting to apply their particular flavor of power to all ends, however inappropriate, the resulting scrum of increasingly remoted hacks being the typical condition of modernity.

    Calls to mind, like a sequence it does, in a favored TLP monograph;

    >’The new york times didn’t write this article, they didn’t tell her what to write, she wrote it of her own free will’

    >And the new york times doesn’t need to, either. Because she was *selected*. There are hundreds, *thousands* of other people submitting articles for publication, *they simply need to select the ones that send the message they want*.


    The academic ecosphere (a fatty melanomic mass it must be admitted) is certainly inflated, but whoms’t’ve’d’ly?

    Is it, student tuitions? Student tuitions are certainly inflated themselves, but if paying customers were the only thing universities did (or *could*) get money from, this picture would look a lot different.

    If there is one thing that almost everyone that has a broadcasted voice in the popular discourse heaps favor upon, one talking point that is remarkably invisible with regards to remarkability, it is that warm glowing applause light called *Education*. Which, naturally, comes to mean *Education Spending*.

    Certainly, part of it is a conceit borne out of their own hatefully unexamined nativism; that is, the cathedral itself, being exponents thereof, or blinkered by its shade and embedded in its wake, its ostensibly priestly nature, being a most ubiquitous organ of power (or perhaps better, a *conduit* of power) over the contemporary social fabric. Of course one would like to promote their own ‘flavor’.

    But, i think, a great deal of it is also the fact that many people, a great many people, have a hard time imagining how, that Sign which evokes such positively reassuring bellyfeels, .~*education*~., *could possibly be a bad thing*.

    >’The donor didn’t conduct this study, they didn’t tell the scientists how to research, they publish of their own free will…”

    And he doesn’t need to, either. There is a whole *ecosystem*, after all, of potential toadies of sufficient toadiness to chose from, he simply has to *select*. And once the ‘middle managers’ of the worldly totem pole see where the money goes, *they’ll do the enforcing for him*. And such a seed, once sown, may grow on its own power. Institutions that consistently produce the ‘right results’ get $paid$, and the institutions that get $paid$ come to dominate the ecosystem; ‘global leadership’ as they say.

    Could you imagine philosophical directions produced by a rootless committee of dilbertesque bureaucratic suits? No need to imagine: you’re living in the reality every year.

    The mantra is ‘publish or die’. Why must you publish or die? To get grant money. So what must you publish? That which gets you grant money. The Endowment is as direct a line there can be in a demonocracy to king banker’s pleasure or displeasure.

    So if the mantra is Publish Or Die, then, naturally, that means there are people putting fingers on scales; and if the mantra is publish or die, then i think a proportional demographic breakdown amongst who is bequeathing on what in academia would be an interesting question to answer.


    I think the more central difficulty here though, is the implication that if someone is *embodying* poz, they can’t also be a *source* of poz. Or perhaps more occultedly, the implication that *poz is always something that comes from someone else*.

    The infinitely multiplying third man rears once again, kicking cans down the roads of infelicitous theoretica since history began. The buck yearns for a port of call to retire in, to cease the labyrinthine goose-chases humans attempt to send him on. Well naturally, one either makes one for him, or he makes one himself. And woe betide.

    Such things men like George Soros do, in truth are oft merely tangentially useful to a putative aim of advancing (or perhaps more importantly, cementing) their position in the world; they end up doing what they do because it is *reflexive*.

    I should say, that which could poz tend also come to embody poz, precisely *because* the poz would in the first place be something to at least some degree already coherent with their modes of thought. That is to say, *they could not do it without it being at least so*. On flipping the adverbs you may count as well; those who embody poz will almost certainly, indeed, more than any else, seek to evangelize it as well (what effectiveness may come of unmasked examples of pozzes effects is, of course, an other discussion).

    The most effectful liars are ones who actually believe (or indeed, *want* to believe) their own calumnies.

    I should say, there is certainly no shortage of cynical and self-serving double-think to greater or lesser degrees amongst left-tribesmen, but that is also precisely it, *double-think* (it goes without saying, which is not an anti-spergile equilibrium, so i will say it: for there to be measures of schizophrenia, is a great facilitative precondition for repetition of shitlib modes of thought).

    As a hypothetical construct, i should also say, a ‘purely cynical instrumentalist’ is *not a thing that actually exists*. Self-pretensed ‘purely instrumental cynicists’ of varying stripes certainly were a much more common trope amongst internet dwellings of yesteryear, amongst those born just in time to grow up amongst that brief period of complete de-moralization in the 90s. Naught but the negative measures used to dissolve all else.

    A time transitory where, all but all traces of paean to the old order had been removed from popular discourse, yet with nothing yet to take its place. A listless vacuum that awaited, before people found new religion to animate them; in either the new Social Justice, or the new Restoration. Cf. grunge music scene. Massively popular, all but forgotten. An ‘organic’ expression of that ephemeral zeitgeist if you will. Not something the cathedral ever particularly cared about.

    But we continue. Amongst such self-pretensed ‘purely instrumental cynicists’, of varying stripes (or indeed, ages), their ‘purely instrumental cynicism’ curiously always seems to instantiate itself, not in any old way, but in particular ways. With particular effects. A ‘purely instrumental cynicism’ that curiously always seem to come in *distinctive, identifiable flavors*.

    Or as my good Slovenian friend might put it; the very idea, of the *very possibility* of a ‘purely cynical instrumental cynicism’, is Pure Ideology.

    • jim says:

      > > Israel is pozzed: Gay parade, gays and women in the military, women on the front line.

      > > Where is that poz coming from?

      > Alighting the passage friend I could not help but feel a tingle of speciousness brush the senses.
      > Eg;

      > > ”Harvard is pozzed: affirmative action, gays and women getting degrees, women helicoptered into doing research. Therefore, Harvard is being mind controlled by someone else.”

      1. Harvard does not have to win wars.

      2. The original puritans started off desecrating marriage right back in the holiness spiral that Cromwell stopped, and Charles the Second reversed and kept capped for about a hundred and forty years. Gay parades are not Jewish poz, they are Puritan poz, and Harvard was founded as the Puritan theological college.

    • Yara says:

      Our true believers cynically, self-awaredly manipulate the progressive sacred organs in order to induce true-believing progressives to act as is desired. As you said, true belief is necessary to competently propagate the faith, but they do not themselves propagate the faith; rather, they select those who will. They are not public-facing and have no contact with the general public whatsoever. This is what made them vulnerable to Mr. Trump: he played their true-believing midwits like fiddles, and they themselves had very little contact with the forms of media that Mr. Trump was using to propagate his presidential campaign.

    • peppermint says:

      America isn’t a nation of filthy dumb migrant scum. America is a nation of pioneers who conquered and built.

      Owning land and working it is glorious. But men don’t want to be farmers anymore because everyone knows farmers get everything stolen from them by the government.

      Instead they want to be academics because everyone knows academics are the ones doing the stealing.

      This is why the academics and journalists must be slaughtered.

    • TBeholder says:

      Such things men like George Soros do, in truth are oft merely tangentially useful to a putative aim of advancing (or perhaps more importantly, cementing) their position in the world; they end up doing what they do because it is *reflexive*.

      Soros pulled the leash of some panties-on-the-heads pets when they wanted to go shriek in Israel.
      Yet we don’t see poz burned out there under conspicuous silence of The Guardian et al.
      This suggests that concentrations of poz allowed in this or that place are subject to different “acceptable limits”, which in turn suggests large-scale plans that can be spoiled by excess of poz at a wrong place at a wrong time.

  6. Mister Gumpus says:


    I for one would love a whole series of such “Jim’s Notes” pieces, for other “where the hell did that come from?” episodes of world history.

    Like for instance…

    The Civil War and Reconstruction
    The Civil Rights Movement
    The Revolutionary War (for that matter)
    The Tet Offensive
    The French Revolution
    The German inter-war period between the World Wars
    The Mao Revolution and Chinese Cultural Revolution
    The 1967 Summer of Love
    The Khmer Rouge
    The Jewish Disapora
    (etc. etc.)

    Of course it’s easy to ask for work that someone else has to do. But believe me, little topical pieces like these are a great “way in” for normie types, which is still most everybody.

    • lalit says:

      Yep, Jim’s comments are worth a whole post in themselves. He is the Socrates of the Dar Enlightenment in the sense that while he himself is pushing 60, most of his Fans are young people in their late 20s or early 30s.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Can you even imagine discovering this education in your teens and twenties? Incredible. You’re nearly a different species of person at that point, and I mean that in a positive way.

        • eternal anglo says:

          Reporting! (19)

          Hail Emperor Moldbug and Grand Inquisitor Jim. May their names live forever – seriously, you can forget George Orwell or Thomas Hobbes.

  7. mtnforge says:

    There’s one way to send the deep state, its one world order cabal, and the neo-bosheviks into a self destructive frenzy of rats and vermin escaping their ship of hubris and treason:

    #Release The Indictments!

    40,000 secret sealed federal indictments. That’s a lot of phedo, satanic worshipping cannibal sacrifice scalawags, one hell of a lot of swamp dwellers, a heaping portion of traitors and crime syndicate Clinton operatives, that will to stab each other in the back and squeal like pigs to slaughter, knowing they all got a date with a 13 knot necktie with a last view of Castro’s cows on the other side of the wire.

    #Release The Indictments!

    Make this hash tag viral.
    They will know instantly they ain’t fooling us any longer. Send a different kind of thrill down their legs. The feel of a traitors piss, as the hood is placed over head and rope.

    Make the fuckers afraid.
    Make the traitors shake in fear.
    Time for a date with a 13 knot necktie…

    #Release The Indictments!

    65 million of us gave the fuckers The Great Fuck You on 11-9-2016, its time to give them the “BECAUSE FUCK YOU THATS WHY” of our withdrawal of our consent for their precious one world order dicktatorship fucking bullshit.

    #Release The Indictments!

    MAGA Bitchez!
    America Bitchez!
    Because Fuck You That’s Why Bitchez!

    #Release The Indictments!

    See the dirty stinking rats run.

    • The Cominator says:

      Q is most likely disinformation.

      Q says trust Sessions, all the evidence says not to trust Sessions.

      Q reminds me of a line in an old comedy movie, who are you gonna believe me or your own yes.

      • The Cominator says:

        Er thats me or your own eyes…

      • peppermint says:

        In Q world, he says trust Sessions precisely because Sessions doesn’t appear to be doing anything, and he says Rosenstein will be dealt with when the time is right.

        I’m not necessarily endorsing Q world – it’s plausible enough, His Majesty and Adm. Rogers certainly have what Q says they have – but it should be possible for everyone here to understand multiple prespectives.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          I trust in His Majesty. Every time I have doubted, I have been wrong. Put your faith in God, and His God-Emperor, to see things through. Just be ready to show up if he calls.

        • Yara says:

          I don’t really follow this Q stuff except second- or third-hand, and barely at that. But I’ve contemplated the possibility that Q is Trump Himself. As a plausibly deniable backchannel to we lumpenproletariat, it would make perfect sense. As a tremendous mindfuck to the intelligence agencies, it would make perfect sense. Some of Q’s phrasing is reminiscent of Trump’s tweets. And it would certainly be the greatest troll of all time.

          Trump has done similar things in the past.

          • The Cominator says:

            Q is either a larp, hostile disinfo or a legit source.

            It seems to have gone on too long to be a larp and has gotten some information that is accurate but unimportant right. So not likely a larp.

            It has not provided useful and actionable info (like say FBIanon during Trump’s election, look that one up) so likely not a legit and benign source.

            Q has said things that prevent Trump supporters from speaking with one voice that Sessions should be fired and the DOJ should be purged. It says “trust the plan”. So very good likelihood that it is McCabe/Brennan disinfo and propaganda. Stranahan certainly thinks so at this point.

          • The Cominator says:

            Stranahan breaks down pretty well why Q is harmful…

            He refuses to speculate on who Q is but its pretty safe to assume that Q is a hostile.


            Q is almost certainly not Trump. Trump is cyber savvy in terms of marketing but he doesn’t even use a computer himself.

            • Yara says:

              I don’t have a strong opinion, it’s just the only possibility that makes significant durable strategic sense to me.

              Trump doesn’t use computers, but he does have like half-a-dozen iPhones.

  8. >If it was horrid, the solution should have been to free the serfs and leave the land with the lords.

    Read Anna Karenina. The serfs were incapable of working without orders. They quite simply did not have enough IQ to function as an adult in the Western sense – taking responsibility for cultivating a piece of land for their own profit. Like children, they needed orders, punishments, but also a guaranteed basic minimum of food/living. This is precisely what Aristotle called natural slaves.

    Your story of collective ownership is interesting because Prog history keeps telling us that was an OLD Russian tradition. If in reality it was a Precommunist Kolkhoz invented in the 19th century that really explains a lot.

    • jim says:

      A system where an area of land owned a bunch of serfs, was re-interpreted as a system where a bunch of serfs owned an area of land.

      • In Presoviet Russia, land owns you! /joke

        Not really. Land cannot own people. Ownership as a concept means a personal, human decision-maker. I think you mean the noble who owned the land owned them.

        • jim says:

          You are projecting enlightenment thinking backwards. Used to be that land could own people, and routinely did, and we still feel that pull in our hearts.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            The Welsh had a term for this Hireath , homesickness to the tenth power is one translation . I’ve felt it.

            White people need roots and to be rooted and anyone who interferes with that, the rootless cosmopolitan money chasers need to be out of power. or destroyed

            We’d be better off as a race with feudalism than that

        • peppermint says:

          ironically, land enslaves people now, taking huge amounts of their money and donating it to uncle sam the big pimp, where people used to cherish it, like how the commies ruined marriage, but with the humans chased away with and on behalf of and to pay for niggers and faggots

          mlk was a nigger by the standards of the niggers of his time

          who fucked more hoes, mlk or snoop dogg?

          the communist devil told mlk to tie the niggers to the left by demanding integration which wasn’t in the interests of the long term viability of the nigger community

          they went along with it because they’re niggers

          fags were tied to mlk by the 2000s left that needed a coalition of nigger faggots

          everyone now thinks niggers are inherently leftist and any non-left nigger is a poser

          • Yara says:

            Most people don’t have any land to enslave them, frankly. They pay stupendous amounts of money for a mortgage for a quick-build prefab house in a neighborhood filled with other like-minded lemmings because price discrimination is the one approved kind so that their kids can get access to “good schools”, which hilariously are pretty much shit anyway.

            Then when their kids go to college they all move, every single one, because fuck it, who wants to be a pod person for a minute longer than necessary?

            They’re not enslaved by land, they’re enslaved by college. It all fits: überconformity, indenturedness, degree-branding, total submission to uncaring authority, etc. etc.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Read Anna Karenina. The serfs were incapable of working without orders. ”

      Because the peasants didn’t own the land. People don’t generally work for the sake of working.

      You either are a businessman who works for his own profit or you work under orders of your employer (or in the case of slaves and serfs your master).

      In a communist system that has everyone a civil (rather then chattel slave) Stalin style draconian labor discipline is required to make anyone do much work. Hence why the Soviet economy could at least function in its area of concentration under Stalin (building a military industrial complex to prepare for total war) because shirkers and even people who were late for work too many times got sent to Siberia.

      But because Stalin’s draconian labor discipline was probably one of the most unpopular features of his regime it was relaxed after WWII while he was still alive and prettymuch abandoned altogether after his death.

  9. Starman says:

    I wonder if it’s a coincidence that Trump and Putin both agreed to do this summit today, on the 100th anniversary of the brutal murder of the Tsar and His Family by the (((Ancestors of the US Deep State People)))?

    Putin even mentioned (((Soros)))!

    • jim says:

      Obviously no coincidence.

      Hail Putin, the New Czar of all the Russias

      Hail Trump, the New American Emperor

      • The Cominator says:

        It looks like nothing less then him ordering the marines to clear out the Democrats, Langley and the Justice Department will put him on the throne though.

        Jim curious as to your thoughts as to what is to me the greatest mystery of the Trump presidency, why doesn’t he fire Rosenstein (I get why politically he can’t fire Sessions and Mueller but why is the weasel still there).

        Nobody seems to have a good answer.

      • Starman says:

        Hail Tsar Putin!

        Hail Emperor Trump!

        Ad Astra!

          • Yara says:

            Why is this so appealing? Why should I be so attracted to the idea of inky-black, ultra-cold, maximally-lethal nothingness? This has got to be one of life’s great mysteries. Maybe we really are from tardigrades.

            • Starman says:

              You know what’s more appealing than the ice of Europe and Asia?

              The warm jungles of Apefrica…

              • Yara says:

                I can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but Africa really does have some of the greatest geography in the world. It’s a shame that so much of it remains inhospitable thanks to the fastidious effort of State.

            • peppermint says:

              Because we are commanded by our creator to go forth and multiply. Our creator being the evolutionary process, its command being the inexorable logic of life.

              • Yara says:

                I’m totally on board with the whole Manifest Destiny thing, it’s just that there are few enough potentially habitable places in the very vast, exceedingly empty universe that Planetlings lose out to Spacers in a big, big way.

  10. The Cominator says:

    Not everything is a left wing purity spiral.

    Stolypin Nicholas II’s prime minister before he was assasinated thought a lot like you Jim (the “wager on the strong” was not a left wing policy). The leftward drift started only after Stolypin was killed but thats not what doomed Nicholas II.

    Nicholas II doomed himself by starting WWI (his fault) when he was not prepared at all. He had lost popularity due to Bloody Sunday and the Russo-Japanese war and was looking for a Pan Slavic victory.

    • jim says:

      The leftward spiral started with Alexander the Liberator, and Stolypin’s efforts to halt it were largely unsuccessful, in large part because the Czar failed to adequately support him. World War I was not the cause of the fall of the Czar, because they were doing OK until Kerensky, fearing yet another coup, started organizing the soldiers to overthrow the officers in order to remove the coup capability of the officers. Bloody Sunday was not the cause of the fall because no one cared except a handful of troublemakers. What caused the fall of the Czar is that while he was away at the front, top members of the elite plotted against him in Moscow.

      • The Cominator says:

        Without the war he would not have been away at the front and without the war going so badly the aristocracy would not have even contemplated overthrowing the Tsar.

        I agree that the elite overthrew the Tsar and that led to a left wing spiral that ended in the Bolshevik takeover but without the war it would not have come close to happening.

        • jim says:

          I disagree.

          The overthrow of Czar was baked into the cake when Alexander the Liberator instituted collective land ownership and turned the aristocracy into bureaucrats.

  11. viking says:

    Ok Im hardly an expert, but the impression i have gotten is a lot of the reason russia was vulnerable to any overthrows let alone half a dozen, is jews had been jewing russians for centuries and whatever you did to stop it they jew jitsued you back, until the revolutions came, and surprise they come out in charge in the end, then 80 years later soviet collapse and surprise jews again come out owning russia.Then putin claws back in and surprise trump is a traitor to hitler putin.

    So when you tell this part of the tale it just seems like cuckservatives telling us for two years about 80k some russian kids took out in facebook ads to farm clicks when Israel actually owns our entire congress for 40k each and all the dirt the NSA can gather on them.

    • peppermint says:

      the age old question: to what extent is this political corruption due to the kyklos or the kike?

      Marx’s kyklos theory – soft men will spontaneously create tyranny and poverty – didn’t come true.

    • jim says:

      Blaming the Jews for everything presupposes that ethnic cohesion is easy, and only evil Jewish mindrays are preventing white ethnic cohesion.

      No form of cohesion is easy, and whites are wolf to whites, always have been, always will be.

      • viking says:

        That’s a lot of assumptions that i dont see any need for.

        Blaming the jews for what the jews have done is not blaming them for everything, conflating the two is one of the things jews do and which helps them do more things.

        Its possible whites are more individualistic AND jews are more group cooperative,In fact this seems to be the case and makes the situation ideal for parasitical strategy jews and bad for oen strategy europeans.While its impossible to say precisely what the white world would look like if jews had not targeted us past few millennia.Its a pretty good bet we would be a lot better off.This argument that to point this out is dinduism is specious. To fight an enemy one needs to know as much about them as possible.Jews are an enemy that’s a parasite and worse they can pass for us, that’s some serious insidiousness.NRX has a deliberate aversion to examine this topic possibly because they want to signal not alt right, while thats maybe understandable a goal you simply can not understand whats wrong with western civilization without understanding the centrality of the jew.Some of the best critics of the evil that jews do has come from other jews.Its not a crackpot discipline.Its also not the only thing we need to discuss but it probably has to be acknowledged in almost everything we discuss because that’s how central to the problem it is.
        Speaking of nazi jews did anyone read Unz piece in his american pravda series today. He sort of calls Macdonald a culture of critique and raises him blood libels I wouldnt be surprised if Mossad guns UnZ down on hollywood boulevard this week. he seems to be trying to build the antiversity over there.

        • jim says:

          > To fight an enemy one needs to know as much about them as possible.

          Obsessing about outgroups denigrates the ingroup. If we are dominated by evil Jewish mind rays, we deserve to be ruled by Jews, and need Jews to rule us. You need to spend more time and energy thinking about our past greatness, and how we used to achieve it.


          Our past greatness did not start when we expelled the Jews. It started in 1660, a few years after we allowed Jews back in. Corporate capitalism engaged in industrialization, applied technology, and world conquest. The Invisible College (low status and furtive, like the alt right, neoreaction, and the Dark Enlightenment) became the Royal Society, high status, and able to force debates to conducted according to the scientific method. That is how we did it. The Puritans (by then calling themselves non conformists) attempted to shut down the Royal Society by violence, attempted to force it back into the shadows, and were prevented by the King’s men.

          Israel’s troubles are occurring because they are dominated by our evil mind rays. No nation with a gay parade wins wars, and that Israel has gay parades and women on the front lines reflects our evil mind rays, not their evil mind rays. It started with the Puritans desecrating marriage.

          • viking says:

            > If we are dominated by evil Jewish mind rays, we deserve to be ruled by Jews,

            yeah this is the dindi argument i spoke of with a twist of gnon. But its long as we still have enough power to reverse the situation its or gnon duty to try.Theres no final shame in having been naive to the level of subversion they have thrown at us its quite impressive, but nothing we cant handle

            as long as we dont go into denial

            • Yara says:

              Do you hate Orthodox Jews, or only Sabbatean-Frankists?

              • viking says:

                Actually as individuals I like almost every jew I’ve met being a new yorker that’s a lot. As a group they are my peoples enemies. like niggers and spics this enemy animosity didnt need such intensity before so many of my people let their guards down and ended up swarmed by other people, once they are all back where they belong I can go back to admiring their diversity from afar. Its traitors and fools I hate.
                Im not nazi I actually think theres strategies of force jew assimilation worth thinking about, and while in some way the orthodox are the least dangerous they are the least assimilable and would have to be sent home. But they are also the ones who can be most clearly identified the mischling problem is real and so force assimilation might be the solution to that.I have no problem with jews killing people in the service of carving out a nation particularly in the tiny area they have a historic claim to but a big problem with pwning us to do the work for them.NRX has alot of dumb orthodoxy and one is JQ. founded by a jew who dismisses JQ summarilly blames the puritains and proscribes do nothing till davos calls and recognizes your worthyness is kinda suspicious.
                While i recognize there are possibly far right jews who might choose white over jew and might be worthy allies even be whites, I dont think thats possible without full acknowledgement of the JQ. They and we must operate as if we are trying to clear an ebola level biological weapon.This idea that jew insight is dinduism is not completely untrue there may be such people i dont spend any time in that area of the world to know, they are beside the point that “zog” is pretty much fact.As i said some jews have been the best at exposing this.Jims Gnon nod to say if jews have beat us we deserve to be ruled by them is simply wow level absurd. They may have once again infected us and to a huge extent hardened their position, to recommend giving up is utter faggotry and typical nrx.while its certain whites if they recognized the situation could remedy it it almost instantly, even if they couldnt they should die trying rather than submit to rule by others, only faggots submit.To take the landian nrx position that intelligence is the only thing we fight for is again incredibly moronic and faggotry. humans are a group strategic species and there are many traits that make us who we are, shall we also submit to the yellow man?Land already has submitted to both the yellow state and a jew wife, moldberg admits to being a liberal jew whose favorite place to live is the shitty streets of faggy san fran. Jews are not even near as intelligent as we HBDers think probably more like 106 and falling which quite a few white groups like catholic americans and high church protestant americans equal or exceed, and of course even so we are talking about a sliver of the jew population.this of course implies its not IQ as we suppose that accounts for their success.

                • jim says:

                  > NRX has alot of dumb orthodoxy and one is JQ. founded by a jew who dismisses JQ

                  Israel is pozzed: Gay parade, gays and women in the military, women on the front line.

                  Where is that poz coming from?

                  It is not evil Jewish mind rays. It is our evil mind rays.

                • lalit says:

                  Mate, can you please do punctuation and paragraphs with proper indenting? I can’t read your comments without hurting my eyes.

                • someone says:


                  You’re not wrong Jim;Israel is pozzed and pozzed because progressives are holier than Rabbis. But you only tell half the truth. You criticize Scott Alexander for doing the same thing.

                  I know you know about Jewish influence on the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. I know you know about Jewish involvement in the Civil Rights Movement and the current effort to swarm Europe with “migrants.” So why is it always so conspicuously absent from your posts.

                  I’m not talking about obsessing over people who happen to be Jewish. I am talking about giving a dispassionate analysis of Jewish identity politics and its influence. It is what influenced Schiff. It is part of what influences Soros and many NTY writers and Hollywood producers. You can’t fully understand many aspects of our culture (e.g why our culture cares so much about The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and so little about other Commies) without understanding the disproportionate influence of Jewish Identity on contemporary Western culture.

                  I’m not talking about obsessing over people who happen to be Jewish. Obsessing over people who happen to be Jewish is a leftist jealousy fueled holiness spiral. Whoever hates whites the most is the holiest progressive and whoever hates Jews the most is the holiest Nazi.

                  That said, the world doesn’t make sense until you’ve internalized the truths of the dark enlightenment. The world dosen’t make sense until you have understood the history and nature of the progressive movement; the world dosen’t make sense until have understood woman; and the world, as it is, does not make sense until have understood Jewish identity politics and its influence. We shouldn’t be allergic to Jewish people but we should be allergic to Jewish identity politics and not afraid to talk about it.

                • jim says:

                  Sure, Jews are largely responsible for the Bolshevik revolution. But it was not the Bolshevik revolution that overthrew the Czar. If there had been a lot of Jewish influence on the Kadets, you would have a point. But there was not, and you do not have a point. The left singularity had already gone insane before a disproportionately Jewish faction came to lead the madness.

                  Jews tend to come out on top in holiness spirals, but the problem is the holiness spiral itself, not that Jews tend to win at holiness spiraling.

                • Javier says:

                  There are Orthodox and Reform jews. Orthodox are neo-cons, Reform are SJWs.

                  Look, “Social Justice,” right there in the headings.


                  Lots of this poz comes from the Reform jews. Whether they originate or merely promulgate is a chicken-and-egg question.

                • Roberto says:

                  >So why is it always so conspicuously absent from your posts.

                  Because it’s a subject that’s been done to death by everyone else. Writing about universalist Frenchmen and puritan Anglos coming up with their own respective versions of leftism, independently from the Jews, and prior to the Jews, puts the JQ in its proper context.

                  (That National Socialism was a Lutheran meme is likewise a conclusion that Jim should be thanked for elucidating)

                  One may argue that Jewish leftism is more toxic than French or Anglo leftism, because Jews are inimical towards Western Civilization in a manner that Frenchmen and Anglos clearly aren’t; but ultimately it’s all the same poison, except that some people — namely, the “alternative right” — focus exclusively on the Jewish aspect thereof due to its perceived political expediency. They think, “We need to unite against Jewish leftism while altogether disregarding white European leftism, because our narrative is that the Jews are our racial arch-nemeses and that we are their poor victims.”

                  And is that even a good narrative? Decide for yourself.

                • someone says:


                  My point was broader than the Bolshevik Revolution but, responding to your comment, Schiff did not rise to the top of a holiness spiral he funded (fueled) it from the outside. Same as Soros fueled Ferguson’s
                  spiral. What motivates people is always somewhat murky even to themselves but there is no doubt that part of what motivated Schiff and Soros was their Jewish Identity. Not just caught up in left-wing entropic madness but (partly) clearheadedly pushing for what they see as Jewish best interest.

                  To my broader point, many Jews now are not just caught up in leftist madness (many are) but are clearheadedly pushing for what they see as Jewish best interest. You can’t fully see what is happening now by only looking at leftest madness; have to also look at Jewish Identity.

                • jim says:

                  Jacob Schiff was an American Jew. The Czar was overthrown by the Kadets. No one has identified any connection between Jacob Schiff and the Kadets until after the Czar was overthrown, despite much eager searching.

                  Jacob Schiff jumped in after the Czar was overthrown, encouraging the left singularity to go to further heights of madness, but the madness preceded the overthrow of the Czar.

                  When the Czar was overthrown, everyone smelled blood in the water, loot and power up for grabs, and, yes, Jews were grossly overrepresented among those doing the grabbing, but this Jewish activity was caused by the overthrow of the Czar, did not cause it.

                • someone says:

                  Nazis do not focus on Jews because it is politically expedient but because they are caught up in leftest madness. The left is entropy the right is order. Honoring the holiness of nazi’s venerates jealousy. Venerating jealousy is the entropic inversion of Virtus.

                • Roberto says:

                  Those nazis who are honest, who aren’t shills and aren’t conmen, focus on Jews because it doesn’t register in their minds that modern Anglosphere progressivism traces its origin to puritanism and to quakerism. Europeans (particularly Germans and Scandinavians), whether they identify as nazis or as liberals — both past and present — and *like the Jews themselves* — have been thoroughly PWNED by Anglo derived memetics.

                  True: the cynical Jews, unlike the idealistic whites, always keep an eye open on their own ethnic self-interest. However, due to the Jews’ embrace of puritan and quaker derived progressivism, Jews fail to even understand *what* their genuine long-term interests are; hence, Scott Alexander and his ilk behaving like absolute mouth-frothing lunatics.

                  Furthermore, had whites not embraced Franco leftism and Anglo leftism, could have solved the JQ in an orderly fashion. The failure to solve the JQ in an orderly fashion stems from whites’ embrace of Franco and Anglo leftism.

                  The Germans, being abstract-minded philosophizing idealists, did not realize wherefrom the rot in their society originated. Being Lutherans, could easily and merrily identify the Jew behind the curtain, but couldn’t identify other, more important forces behind the curtain. Hence, they became antisemitic leftists – which, as Jim says, is a problem not because it’s not nice towards the Jews (who certainly had it coming for creating the envy-centered meme of Marxism), but because leftism is inherently self destructive, evil, unpleasant, and ultimately regicidal and autogenocidal.

                  The modern alt-right suffers from the same blindness. The puritans wanted to prevent men from having sex with women, and alt-right neon-nazis, being slightly more redpilled than full-on puritans, want to prevent men from having sex with certain classes of women. The German nazis were white knights, the Anglo leftists are very extreme white knights, the Jews have also become very extreme white knights, and the alt-right hoi polloi are similarly extreme white knights. So everyone is thoroughly PWNED by puritan, quaker, and victorian progressivism.

                  Jim talks about that, which is why many alt-righters try to shut him up about that, reduce the IQ-level of his writing by 20 points, and turn him into another Jew-distracted controlled opposition blogger, like themselves. But he perseveres in speaking the whole truth.

                  Everyone within the Hajnal Line (+America) has become a very fanatical white knight cuck, while those outside the Hajnal Line have only become moderately fanatical white knight cucks. This is a problem much graver than Jewish identity politics, as bad and annoying as that problem is. When you criticize Jim for not being Jew-centric enough, you basically tell him, “Stop addressing the full scope of the larger problem, and pay more attention to the smaller problem.”

                  Why do that? Particularly, why do that when thousands of alt-righters spend their entire waking hours talking about the Jew, the whole Jew, and nothing but the Jew? If you don’t like Jim’s ability to analyze the larger problem, perhaps TOO, DS, TRS, C-C, and /pol/ are more your style.

                • someone says:

                  “Those nazis who are honest, who aren’t shills and aren’t conmen, focus on Jews because it doesn’t register in their minds that modern Anglosphere progressivism traces its origin to puritanism and to quakerism.”

                  How can you be this autistic. Most real life Nazi’s hate Jews because of jealousy and a victim complex. Both inversions of Virtus.

                  “Hence, they became antisemitic leftists”

                  Redundant. Wasen’t just their socialism that made Nazi’s leftest was their jealousy fueled holiness spiral around hating Jews. The Third Reich had unprincipled exceptions like Erhard Milch. Any jealous Nazi claiming to be holier than Hitler and his inner circle and wanting to take Milch’s place was likely killed. Hence spiral stopped pretty quickly.

                  The rest of your post is not worth a response.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Most real life Nazi’s

                  Your reading comprehension is none, as befits someone who hasn’t used a single comma in his entire life.

                  “Real life nazis” were the German ones (and those who sought to imitate them), who have been thoroughly corrupted by white non-Jewish leftism, e.g. the Napoleonic Code of 1804, which itself had been inspired by Francis Bacon’s “New Atlantis” from 1627. You don’t want to talk about any of that, and I suspect that you’re viking, about whom it was written:

                  “He says that Neoreaction’s nothing but a ball of matzo,
                  Should not omit the fact that he’s himself a New York fatso.”

                  Anyway, alt-right neon-nazis hardly exist in meatspace, exist almost exclusively on the internet, and their Jew-centrism stems not from envy as much as from mental laziness: they read CoC, think, “My God – this is it! The answer to everything!” and then just refuse to dig any further into the real cladistic origin of progressivism, which is not the Jews. The Jews are Johnny-come-latelys into the leftist party, bringing with them envy-centered Marxism after the Anglos have already pozzed everything to death.

                  Amerimutt alt-righters refuse to look into the larger problem because it takes the winds of “Jews will not replace us!” out of their sails. White supremacy being perfectly justified, they figure that if only they manage to convince fellow whites that the source of the problem is ((())), everything will work itself out just fine. If they had done the research that Jim and others have done, would have reached a different conclusion, but again – mental laziness.

                  >their jealousy fueled holiness spiral around hating Jews

                  The German nazis, like viking the commenter, were leftist due to being white knights first and foremost, thus lacking control over women, allowing women to go feral while putting the blame for female misbehavior squarely on the shoulders of men. Hence, couldn’t fix their steadily dropping TFR.

                  The extreme white knightism of German nazis was not organic, it originated in Franco leftism and particularly in Anglo leftism. First Wave Feminism, and most strikingly, the Social Purity Movement of 1860 to 1910, was an Anglophere thing, with not a Jew in sight. The Enlightenment, except for Spinoza (whose role, argues Andrew Joyce at TOO, is overstated by his Jewish fans), was a white thing, not a Jew thing. And “the Republic has no need of savants” was not uttered by Schlomo le happy merchant.

                  The Germans, at any rate, were no angels. They pretty much brought (((Bolshevism))) to power in Russia by sending Lenin in 1917 from Zurich to Petrograd. They had known that Jew-Marxism would devastate Russia, and so, inflicted it on her, hoping that the new regime would be too weak to fight Germany and would seek peace with her, as indeed happened shortly thereafter. But you don’t care about that sordid affair, because it undermines the narrative that your e-buddies have created around German victimhood.

                  Fuck off and die, pleb.

                • someone says:

                  “Those nazis who are honest, who aren’t shills and aren’t conmen, focus on Jews because it doesn’t register in their minds that modern Anglosphere progressivism traces its origin to puritanism and to quakerism.”

                  Are is present tense. I was using your language.

                • Roberto says:

                  Way to miss the point.

                  “Real life” nazis don’t exist nowadays.

                  Alt-right neon-nazis do exist, for the most part on the web.

                  My argument, which you won’t address because crimestop, is that the German nazis *were* (that is past tense) white knights due to Anglo progressivism, and that honest — i.e. not LARPers — alt-right neon-nazis *are* (that is present tense) white knights due to pretty much the same memeplex that made the original nazis white knights.

                  Which memeplex originated in East Anglia, not Judea.

                • Roberto says:

                  As an addendum: those alt-righters who are not “honest,” those with ulterior motives to engage in whatever activism they engage in, push white knight messages because they are working for CIA’s domestic psy-ops department.

  12. viking says:

    wow just wow a history of the end of russia without once mentioning jews I wouldnt have though even a neocon or cuck could manage that

    • jim says:

      The Czar was overthrown by the Kadets and Kerensky, then Kerensky overthrew the Kadets. I suppose you could say that Kerensky was in league with the Jews when he overthrew the Kadets, but I think the Kadets should have been broken on the rack, so not to troubled by this. How are the Jews involved in the overthrow of the Czar by Kerensky and the Kadets?

      • viking says:

        well there’s karl marx and most of the politburo being jews as well as the commies henchmen and all that
        and the tzar replacing german managers with jews
        and hundreds of years of jews jewing peasants while plotting to jew aristocrats
        its fucking massive its like trying to describe the civil war and not mentioning niggers
        its going on today with hate putin day fer chrisake

        • jim says:

          Yes, but the communists did not overthrow the Czar. The Kadets overthrew the Czar, then Kerensky overthrew the Kadets, and then the commies overthrew Kerensky.

  13. Alrenous says:

    Is it supposed to look like his eyes are pointing in different directions?

  14. Jew613 says:

    My great-Grandfather was a veteran of the Russian army in WWI and though he was very old and I was young he did speak about what happened a little. He didnt like the Czar for sponsoring the Black Hundreds and tolerating a great deal of persecution of the Jews. He viewed Kerensky as a well meaning fool who wasnt strong enough to do what was necessary and he hated the Bolsheviks with all his heart. The Bolsheviks were the worst, but no one was all that great. I know its an anecdote but take it for what its worth.

    • jim says:

      If your grandfather was a Jew, not necessarily reliable, likely to give a self serving narrative.

      The Jews sponsored an unsuccessful revolution, 1906, that devoured them, much as white democrats are being devoured by brown democrats.

      They then blamed the Czar for the bad outcome of that revolution, whose entirely genuine anti elitism left it leaderless and bereft of competent people. They blamed the Czar for the misdeeds of the Jews, who destroyed the Czarist order that protected them and then, surprise surprise, found themselves unprotected.

      The Czar did not “tolerate” the persecution. Rather, he watched with a smile at the revolutionaries devoured each other and the revolution devolved into ethnic warfare. If your grandpa tells you about the Czar “tolerating” the persecution, and neglects to mention that the persecutors were revolutionaries, and that Jews had been agitating for revolution, that the revolutionaries devoured each other leading to ethnic warfare between revolutionary factions, he is telling you a misleading half truth.

      The 1906 revolution gets rewritten to make it politically correct, and blaming the Czar for the misdeeds of the (((disproportionately Jewish revolutionary leaders))) is part of that rewrite.

      Yes, the Czar “tolerated” the persecution of the Jews – to the same extent as he tolerated the persecution of all sorts of people by the revolution against the Czar.

      That the Czar “tolerated” the persecution denies revolutionary guilt. It is projection and victim blaming. The Revolutionaries, as usual, murdered each other, and their followers murdered each other’s ethnic groups.

      • Jew613 says:

        The Black Hundreds were not revolutionaries, they were Nationalists who supported the autocracy, they were sponsored by the Czar’s government and were open in their hatred of Jews. The Kishniev Pogrom was not Jews being attacked by revolutionaries, as it took place in 1903. The Czar’s government allowed 3 days of murder and mayhem before intervening. During Nicholas II’s reign in 1,713 cases the Czar granted clemency to those arrested for Pogrom activities, only refusing clemency in 78 cases, and it should be remembered only the absolute worst offenders would be arrested at all.

        While there were some Jews among the Bolshevik party at the time of the 1917 revolution they numbered only 1.6%. Among the leadership that number rises to 6%. It was and remains a comfort to Russians to say it wasnt us, it was the Jews responsible for the revolution.

        While there was a universal military draft Jews were intentionally kept under exceptionally difficult conditions and forced to serve for longer terms then Orthodox Christians in the military.

        To be clear my grandfather was an Orthodox Jew and despised the Bolsheviks beyond all others.

        • jim says:

          To my knowledge, the Black Hundreds killed only two Jews, both of whom needed killing for their anti Russian activities. They did not kill Jews in general, they killed Jews on the basis of individual culpability.

          As for the Kishniev pogroms, both Kishniev pogroms, particularly the second, were hostile revolutionary acts against the Czar, by groups and individuals seeking the overthrow of the Monarchy, and Jews were over represented in instigating the breakdown in order that then turned around and bit them.

          Jews get a mob going, and then it goes off to knock over a vodka distillery – and the Vodka distillery turns out to be owned and run by Jews, and the next thing you now, the mob is smashing Jewish pawnshops, and then it is raping Jewish women and burning Jewish homes. Oh what a surprise. Similarly, prog Jews instigated the Crown Heights troubles, which turned into a pogrom against Orthodox Jews. Blaming the Czar for the Kishniev pogroms is like blaming the alt-right nazis for the Crown Heights pogrom.

          Don’t complain that the Czar took three days to put it down. Ask who started it.

          • Mike says:

            >Jews are agitating against the monarchy

            Geee Jim I wonder why a population of people who thought they were being mistreated by their ruler would want to overthrow that system? Its almost like most of Russia hated them and confined them to the Pale of Settlement so they wouldn’t even have to interact with them on a day-to-day basis. Or applied numerous quotas and restrictions on Jew’s day-to-day lives with the 1882 May Laws.

            You hate the Cathedral government for hating white males such as yourself, why wouldn’t a jew hate the Tsar for obviously giving zero shits about him? Get your head out of your ass.

            • jim says:

              > Geee Jim I wonder why a population of people who thought they were being mistreated by their ruler would want to overthrow that system

              Jews are agitating to overthrow us, and I am pretty sure we are not mistreating them. It is a chronic problem with having a religion of exile.

              Ask yourself why Jews blame the Czar for not shutting down the Kishniev pogroms hard enough and fast enough, and neglect to blame those that started the Kishniev pogroms.

              Ask yourself who Jews blame for the Crown Heights Pogrom.

              • Mike says:

                Look, I agree that it isn’t a good idea to have people of differing cultures, religions, etc in close contact with each other all the time, especially when your identity is formulated around being an “outsider”.

                That being said though, the first of the two Kishniev pogroms started because a newspaper thought that when two russian children were found dead, that this was obviously the work of jews who killed them to use their blood for Passover.

                Ya, I think I’m going to call bullshit on that somehow being the fault of jewish communist agitators.

                • jim says:

                  Perhaps, but second Kishniev pogrom was clearly the result of anti monarchist agitators.

                  Two pogroms, same place, a few years apart, you think they had two different sets of instigators?

                  Don’t you think there is something funny about a pogrom started by anti monarchists being used to justify anti monarchism? Does it not incline you to be a bit suspicious of your sources? Which are probably the same sources that made Czarist Russia poorer and more backward when a new edition of the same textbook came out.

      • TBeholder says:

        The Black Hundreds et al was just another part of excesses from surplus aristocracy — obsolete less-competitive, and blaming everyone else for this. They opposed the Europhiliac Progressives, but essentially acted much the same way: it was competition between the holiness spirals using different markers of “virtue”, so they were about as likely to screw up everything they are allowed to touch.
        Hence the Russian Civil War was in large part a collision between two holiness spirals. Mostly not quite as mad as their extremes, but now we know…
        Which is why a lot of more sane people joined: it’s not that they’d want to help any of the obvious lunatics, but wiping out whichever bunch of lunatics they deemed even more dangerous just had to look like a good idea. And then surely most of the loons will die of risk mismanagement in the war, and more without a dire threat more sensible people will get most support, right? Right?

        “The Jews” were neither willing nor able to sponsor anyone. The Jewish community (whether living in ghettos or not) “contributed” to this plague with the warm (and loud) bodies. The youth abandoning their traditions and running toward shiny. And/or simply joining the loudest enemies of their enemies.

  15. Magus says:

    Alex III was pretty reactionary. Also known as the peacemaker, he laid groundwork for massive industrial growth, while cementing the new conquests and large population growth. Had his son had as strong a hand then notnonly would 1905 war have been likely averted but 1914 probably too, and Russia would have been by 1930s only rivaled by US in total power.

    Oh well.

    • TBeholder says:

      Not quite so simple, but… oh, there would be a war. The expectations and actual preparations were already underway. After all, the Great Game would reach its endgame stage.

  16. J says:

    The Czar was a character-less inbred cornutto who sent a peasant army to fight and worse, lost the war. He and the feudal regime had to go.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      He lost against Germany. There is no shame in losing to the Germans- they were some of the best soldiers on the planet.

    • jim says:

      Czar was winning the war. And after he was overthrown the Kadets were winning the war. And then Kerensky started replacing officers with soldiers and workers councils.

      The Czar’s soldiers were on enemy turf, and all they had to do was stay there until Germany collapsed. And they were staying there.

      That Russia was losing is a rewrite of history as the subsequent regimes projected their failures onto the Czarist regime.

      • Mike says:

        >Russia was winning

        Ya, only because Germany’s allies were literally autistic and because Russia had, as usual, massive amounts of manpower. Russia’s anachronistic system of governance and economic arrangements bit it in the ass throughout the entirety of the war. There were whole battalions of soldiers going to the frontlines without any rifles.

        I like a good old-fashioned monarch as much as you Jim, but the fact of the matter at the time was that you either reformed or you were fucked. It is sort of like a catch-22, keep your values/society and get overrun by Western powers like Germany or reform and become cucked like the West. Its bad all-around.

        Only nowadays its going the other direction because now the West is so cucked that those traditional societal setups are making a comeback.

        • jim says:

          > > Russia was winning

          > Ya, only because Germany’s allies were literally autistic and because Russia had, as usual, massive amounts of manpower. Russia’s anachronistic system of governance and economic arrangements bit it in the ass throughout the entirety of the war.


          This story has been pumped out by those who lost the war: Kerensky and the Communists, and they lost the war because Kerensky set about destroying military discipline.

          Blaming the Czarist system is like progs complaining we don’t have enough minorities, women, gays, and transexuals on the front line.

          Gays fight OK, but they destroy unit cohesion, women always fight to lose, and minorities are disinclined to fight. Autogynophilic male to female transexuals fight fine, but are bad for unit cohesion, and effeminate gay male to female transexuals are willing and able to fight, but undermine unit cohesion and are disinclined to accept military discipline.

          • Mike says:

            Look Jim, Russia did have its moments of glory fighting the Germans, the Brusilov Offense was a sight to behold, and they completely smashed Austria-Hungary pretty much every chance they got. But you have got to be shitting me if you actually believe Russia was in any way, shape or form as well-trained, disciplined, and as modernized as the German army was.

            Russia was getting butt-fucked well before Kerensky and his ilk took over in February 1917. The Brusilov Offense was pretty much their last gasp, as brilliant as it was, they had nothing left in the tank afterwards. The soldiers morale was cratering, no ammunition or supplies were getting up to the frontlines anymore, the STAVKA was a train wreck, and the Home-front had no food.

            But ah yes, this was all the the communist’s, Kerensky’s, and Jew’s fault. Obviously not the lack of a modern industrial base and military complex that Imperial Russia clearly did not possess. What are you going to tell me next, that Qing Dynasty China would have won against WW1 Germany? That the Ottoman Empire would win against Victorian Britain? These countries were BACKWARDS. It doesn’t matter what they tried to do, they either made liberal reforms and got cucked like we see today, or they didn’t make the reforms and were only kept afloat by getting financial and military help from other modernized states.

            • jim says:

              > But you have got to be shitting me if you actually believe Russia was in any way, shape or form as well-trained, disciplined, and as modernized as the German army was.

              How do you know?

              With every year that passed, the theory that the communists were having a big success in modernizing Russia was not justified by current state of Russia, but by rewriting history to make Czarist Russia more backward. Check old western textbooks against newer western textbooks.

              The past is always changing. Only the future is certain </sarcasm>

              Czarist Russia got poorer and more backward in each new edition of university textbooks.

              • Mike says:

                I dont doubt that the more proggy the West got, the more they wanted to make the Czar look bad. And I will admit that Czarist Russia was substantially better off than the Ottomans, Qing, or the other last Christian monarchy at the time, Ethiopia.

                Also, how do you think I know? By owning and reading books about WW1. Russia had incompetent generals like Samsonov and Rennekampf leading their men and it’s a well-known fact that Russia suffered absolutely massive casualties throughout even just the first two years of war. Also until Brusilov came along, they had no idea how to correctly use artillery in coordination with infantry. Part of this was again due to having no ammunition for their guns.

                • jim says:

                  > it’s a well-known fact that Russia suffered absolutely massive casualties throughout even just the first two years of war. Also until Brusilov came along, they had no idea how to correctly use artillery in coordination with infantry.

                  In the first years of World War I, everyone suffered massive casualties, and no one knew how to correctly use artillery in coordination with infantry. The French lost an entire generation, and never recovered.

              • J says:

                Czarist Russia got poorer and more backward in each new edition of university textbooks.
                But in fact it WAS an underdeveloped agricultural Asiatic empire. The aristocrats spent money like crazy in the whorehouses of Paris while the mujik peasants were sold and hired like slaves. The industrial basis of Russia was minimal.
                The soldiers had a look at the relative state of Russia vis-à-vis Germany, and decided they had to change management. The Communist promised and executed forced industrialization, electrification, etc. and that was their proudest achievement. Like in China today, Communists are fixated in economic development.

                • jim says:

                  > > Czarist Russia got poorer and more backward in each new edition of university textbooks.

                  > But in fact it WAS an underdeveloped agricultural Asiatic empire.

                  And yet it was a world power equal to the other major European powers. Funny thing that. If it was so backward, and the communists were so successful in developing it, how come its relative status then was higher than its relative status now?

                • peppermint says:

                  Abraham Lincoln once said that the fascists would make America like dreary backwards Russia.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Russia is officially a non-racial state, but there is no Russian race the way there is a German race or a French race or even a British race.

                Before 1917, [Russia] was a serf plantation ruled by Swedens and Germans and Jews, and then in 1917 the Jews murdered and/or scattered the Swedes and Germans who happened to be in power at that time, although not ultimately all of them, or at least all of the more admixted proles. Hence Putin, who looks like a Russified Scandinavian. Because he is.

                Then the partially Russified nordics took over again, standing in the shoes of Stalin, and purged the Jews by demanding they be made equal to the lumpenproles for whom they overthrew the state. This was not affirmative action, but vicious oppression, because who whom?

                Russia is still officially a non-racial state, though no longer an anti-competence state, which tends to make it a racial caste society again.

                Racial caste societies are not usually that successful, but more successful when the higher races are higher, than when the higher races are lower, or all are on the same level.

                • jim says:

                  Counting it as a serf plantation in 1917 neglects that serfdom was abolished, and some substantial degree of socialism introduced in 1861, and that this socialism was organized and operated by good progressives in the supposed best interests of the serfs.

                • J says:

                  Rurik the founder of the Russian State, was Swedish, but it is an exaggeration to say that Swedish people ruled Russia as a plantation.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              You seem to be equivocating the progress of social regression (sometimes misnomered by demon haunted personages) with progress of techne, when indeed, it is so often one eating the other.

              A classic and fatal conceit of those unwittingly moulded by the undead specters of the enlightenment. Indeed, the sea the fish of the 20th century swam in.

              “What water?”

      • TBeholder says:

        Staff and Czar as Commander in Chief failed many times. But then so did the others.
        The only bright spot was Brusilov’s breakthrough. And then they not only failed to use it fully, but managed to spoil the effect with yet another pointless unload-into-meatgrinder bloody mess.
        Of course they lost the last tatters of respect on that.

        This only finished the dying Empire, however. The grand strategy failure and major loss of morale happened earlier — it was Russo-Japanese War. Allowing it to happen at all, that is.
        Uncontrolled bureaucracy too busy fighting for their slice of the pie, with inevitable corruption and economical failures have “helped”, of course.

  17. Candide III says:

    Collective land ownership had a very long history in Russia proper, where agriculture was marginal due to extreme climate and poor soils, and seems to have functioned as a risk-pooling device. Its effect on entrepreneurial spirit was deadening, but in XIX c. Russian reactionaries considered entrepreneurship and individualism foreign, and harmful to the mystic unity of the peasant with God and soil. Alexander II’s reform kept this collective ownership mechanism without change. Vitte and Stolypin tried to undo this system, and indeed under Stolypin’s reform a few millions of peasants became individual landowners, but ultimately they had too little time.

    • jim says:

      In any supposed collective ownership arrangement that supposedly existed before Alexander the Liberator, there is a Lord that can have any one of the supposed owners, or all of them, flogged with a knout for not farming the land the way he damned well tells them to farm it.

      Collective ownership was a radically new system introduced by Alexander the Liberator, based on the foreign ideology of English radicals, which instantly self destructed, and continues to self destruct to the present day.

      • TBeholder says:

        > there is a Lord that can have any one of the supposed owners, or all of them, flogged with a knout for not farming the land the way he damned well tells them to farm it.
        The peasant community was around before serfdom, back in feudal/indentured age. Serfdom made it less of a problem and more of a solution for the land-owners, but it remained necessary due to economical reasons.
        Mostly, land owners just gave their demands to the community and let them distribute how they see fit, with the foreman held personally responsible for screw-ups. Because attempts to do otherwise proved (there are some 1720s-1730s documents) not only unnecessary hassle, but ended to everybody’s detriment: some families with less horses or hands got taxed too much, then completely impoverished and now that they have nothing to lose, run away.

        Alexander II seemed to think he can turn anything his way, yes. But then, he usually did.

        • jim says:

          The peasant community was around before serfdom, back in feudal/indentured age

          Feudalism implies a Lord that can have any one of the supposed owners, or all of them, flogged with a knout for not farming the land the way he damned well tells them to farm it.

          Remove the lord while trying to retain “the community” then chaos ensues and the farm fails – which is exactly what happened.

          Leftists who hate feudalism to the point of insanity credit feudalism with being socialism, which they love to the point of madness.

          The proposition that harsh climate requires collective agriculture makes no sense. It attributes to collectivism some magical virtues, which have never been observed in practice.

          • TBeholder says:

            >Feudalism implies a Lord that can have any one of the supposed owners, or all of them, flogged with a knout for not farming the land the way he damned well tells them to farm it.
            The thing with lords telling peasants how to do their job was tried a little later. Now THAT was a disaster. :]

            > The proposition that harsh climate requires collective agriculture makes no sense.
            It does, just like killing some prey requires team hunting.
            Too much needs to be done in more limited time. If there’s labour-rent, it’s even worse. Hands and cattle are limit production more than the land itself. Too close to failure threshold if weather will be bad, so even those well off need insurance. And so on.
            So, pooling of resources is necessary. Of course, it can take many forms, but the peasant community organization was already present. It didn’t work perfectly, but it worked, and had the worst bugs known and workarounds accepted centuries ago. More could be done later. Conversely, to break everything, then set it up in a completely new way out of nowhere and everywhere at once is just a stupid risk.
            But the problem was that too much of land-owning aristocracy was habitually more loyal to foreigners than to their monarch. Thus depriving them of ability to run their old game was the intended result.
            If the peasants (individual or households) would get land, this would lead to either banding together in the same communities, because it’s a familiar and viable form, or being taken over and becoming indentured servants, just in the much milder earlier feudal style.

            • peppermint says:

              why wasn’t this a problem for Charles Ingalls of Minnesota?

            • jim says:

              You attribute to collectivized agriculture virtues and capabilities that we never in fact see. When the Czar gave the land to the collective, it failed, and continued to fail worse and worse – which is what has happened everywhere that anyone has tried this.

              Yes, grain needs a horse and plow. But one man and a few sons, or one man and a hired hand, is all you need for a horse and plow.

            • jim says:

              Collective agriculture has never been viable. We have been trying this for over two thousand years, and failing horribly every time for obvious reasons. Socialists are always claiming that collectivism worked great somewhere long ago and far away. It is always a lie.

  18. S.J., Esquire says:

    I’ve said this before: remember there are people alive today who were alive when the Czar was murdered. (I met one recently.) This Social Justice era too shall pass, and will resemble a blip in the rearview mirror, even if it seems eternal while we’re in it.

  19. […] The murder of the Czar and his family […]

Leave a Reply