Written by Dr. David Duke
Photos & captions by Wat Tyler
How the so-called “Civil Rights” Movement in America has led to loss of the most important civil right of all: life.
The almost simultaneous murders of White co-eds at two different, prominent universities, Auburn and University of North Carolina, should bring attention to an epidemic of brutal African-American crimes against White women in the United States. The murder of Eve Carson, Student Body President of UNC has shocked hercampus andits surrounding community to its core. Ms. Carson was found murdered in the middle of an intersection just outside downtown Chapel Hill. Her body … which had two gunshot wounds, including one to the head, laid just a mile away from her SUV, which was left abandoned. Bank ATM video revealed that the murderer-carjacker, an African American, apparently attempted to get cash from Carson’s stolen ATM card shortly after the crime.
In a similar recent incident, police arrested another African American attacker, Courtney L. Lockhart, 23, for the grisly murder and attempted rape of Auburn University freshman co-ed, Lauren Burk, on March 4. Courtney was arrested on March 7 after having brutally pistol-whipped the face of another White victim, 72-year-old Marjorie Llewellyn of Newnan, Alabama and briefly kidnapping her at gunpoint during an armed robbery and attempted carjacking earlier in the day.
The recent murders of two White coeds at major universities by Black predators underscore a racial reality that the mass media in America hides from the public: the tens of millions of White victims of Black criminality in America. Over the past four decades since the “civil rights” movement, crime figures show that millions of crimes have been committed by Blacks and other non-White predators against White people. The crimes include robbery, assault, rape and murder. The racial component of crime in America has been largely ignored. It took a major newspaper outside of America to address the shocking epidemic Black crime in America.
Black crime rates against White people are many times greater than White crimes against Blacks. You wouldn’t know it by reading or listening to America’s mass media. Saturation national and international news coverage is given to the very few White cross-race crimes against Blacks such as the James Byrd dragging case in Texas, as well as the media-hyped Tawana Brawley case in New Jersey and the alleged rape of a Black stripper by White lacrosse team members at Duke University. Both of those latter cases, after months of front-page, sensationalized coverage decrying “White racism,” turned out to be complete hoaxes.
There is an incredible disproportionate rate of Black crimes against Whites in contrast to White crimes against Blacks. Per capita Black cross racial crimes of 50 or even 100 percent greater than Whites would be bad enough, but the Black crime rates against Whites are actually many times greater than White on Black crimes. Blacks are an estimated 57 (that is 5,700 percent!) times more likely to commit violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times (13,600 percent!) more likely to commit robbery. (see the color of crime report published by the New Century Foundation – an analysis of crime figures taken from official Justice Department crime reports) http://www.nc-f.org/
Perhaps the most shocking of all the crime data dealing with cross-race crime is the incredible rate of crime by Black males against White women. According to U.S. Justice Department figures over 34,460 White women are sexually assaulted or raped by Black men each year, and most authorities believe that the actual rape figures are at least twice the reported number. In perhaps the most shocking crime figure of all is the number of White rapes against Black women. Statistically, it is 0! Because they have fewer than 10 cases nationally.
According to murder figures released by the Justice Department in 2002, , Black predators are at least 22 times (2,200 percent) more likely to murder White women than the reverse. In regard to gang attacks including the horrible specter of gang rape, the figures are literally off the charts, with at least a 200 times (that’s 20,000 percent!) greater chance of Blacks committing gang assaults and that includes both White men and women victims!
The staggering personal tragedies connected with these huge crime numbers should be a national scandal. Yet, the facts go largely unreported. How many times have the public seen media portrayals of historical or contemporary racial discrimination against Black people. But, the question is, “In the terms of the most important of human rights, how does the discrimination of racially segregated water fountains or neighborhoods or schools compare with the racially born crimes of black slaughter and physical attacks levied against thousands of White people each year?
America has been treated to thousands of media articles for instance about the frontier-style vigilante justice of lynchings, events which have occurred at least since the time of the American Revolution when they began on the Virginia frontier. Lynching got its name from Colonel Charles Lynch of Bedford County. He defended his community against outlaws and against Tories who were treacherously aiding the British. The Lynch organizations not only captured suspicious characters but gave them trials. With the frontier moving west and often with not a single law enforcement officer for hundreds of miles, vigilante committees often hunted down criminals and meted out punishment which was called “lynching.”
Lynching also became prominent again in the face of terrible outrages against innocent women and children during the Black Reconstruction period in the South and was mostly employed there against suspected Black rapists and murderers, but lynching was often practiced against Whites in the South, and quite often against criminal Whites in the North and West.
Of course, everyone today naturally condemns the practice of lynching, as well they should. Mob violence cannot be defended. But, if one wants to characterize lynching as a racial crime because lynchings were more commonly employed against Blacks in the South than against Whites, a few facts must be taken into account. If one considers disproportionate rates of Black lynching in the South, one must also consider the Black disproportionate crime rate.
1) Many scholars who have studied the history of lynching in the United States make it clear that lynching wasn’t simply a racial crime, but one primarily exacted on criminals whether they were Black or White. Consider the fact that even today, Blacks commit more murders than Whites in the United States, and Blacks are many times more likely to commit interracial race crimes such as rape and murder. As pointed out by federal crimes studies, a Black man is 57 times more likely to commit a violent crime against Whites than vice-versa, thousands of times more likely to rape a White women than Whites are likely to rape Black women, and 22 times more likely to murder a White woman than vice versa. There is no reason not to suspect that similar extremely high rates of Black criminality have existed historically. Most of the lynchings up until the War Between the States were against Whites and Significant numbers of Whites in the late 19th and early 20th Century were also lynched. So, considering the rates of crime, historical lynching has always been proportionate to Black crime rates and not one simply based on racist motives.
2) One must also understand that historical lynching was most often applied to those guilty of rape, robbery or murder. Of course, there were cases where innocent men were lynched, but in contrast, the thousands of White women and other White victims of Black crime today are guilty of no crime. Lynching cannot be excused in any way, but most of those men lynched were undoubtedly guilty of vicious and horrible crimes against the innocent, especially against women and children. Those were the kinds of heinous crimes that really drove the extra-legal executions.
The U.S. Senate recently issued an apology for not historically taking a stand against lynching, something that has been condemned because for part of its history Blacks disproportionately suffered from it.
If that is deemed appropriate, why does the U.S. Senate stand mute against the brutal rape of over 34,000 White women per year by Blacks. In just one year the number of White women raped by Black males is 6 times the total number of all lynchings during the entire history of the United States. (Estimated to be about 5,000 including both Whites and Blacks)
If racial disparity is an issue, then the Black rate of murder and rape against White men and women has a far greater racial disparity than that of White and Black lynchings. Remember, according to the U.S. Justice Department official figures, 34,000 White women were sexually assaulted compared to less than ten Black women assaulted by White men.
One should also consider that the victims of lynching were men; only a small number were women (estimates are between 75 and 100 women lynched in the history of the United States), and most of those were lynched for crimes committed along with their male criminal partners. Compare the small number of women who suffered lynching compared to the 34,000 women who suffer from Black rape every year. In addition, 700 innocent White women are murdered each and every year by Blacks. Where is the outrage about this racial crime?
If one wants to talk about moral outrages, the historical lynching of men who were overwhelmingly criminal and guilty of horrendous crimes, is quite minor compared to the mass murder and rape of the innocent going on literally as you read these lines. While you are reading this article another White woman will suffer rape at the hands of a Black man. (One White woman every 9 minutes if you accept the conventional wisdom that less than half of rapes are reported).
Next time someone comes up and tells you about the horrors of Jim Crow and segregation, how it was so terribly awful that African Americans, as well as White Americans lived in their own neighborhoods, went to their own schools, and even drank from their own water fountains, think about that supposed horror compared to horrendous violations of the most important civil right of all, the right to live and not suffer grievous personal assault or even death.
The fact of the matter is that Blacks as well as the Whites of America were a lot safer in the days of “evil segregation” than we are now. When America was a nation living by the values of White heritage, culture, standards and civilization, most Black kids were born legitimate in two parent families, they were not being shot down by each other on the steps of their homes, millions were not enslaved by drugs, half of them were not in prison or in some part of the criminal justice system. In a real sense, for countless millions of African Americans, the most important civil and human rights of all have been lost by the so-called victories of the civil rights movement.

Cheryl Maddison – another White Victim of black rape and attempted murder. Was her life enriched by multiculturalism?
For Whites the change has been just as dramatic. Millions of our people are now victims of Black robbery, rape, and murder. Millions of White boys and girls whose parents can’t afford private or parochial education, suffer in mostly Black public schools filled with sexual and physical intimidation, filthy language and dismal standards, drugs and the violence of the “gangsta rap” culture, a culture that violates the sanctity of womanhood and all of the most basic of human rights.
Millions more of our elderly are practically home prisoners in their own neighborhoods. Let the media and government tell them about the supposed civil rights and blessings of forced integration. Millions more of hardworking, better-qualified White, middle-class people suffer from the racial discrimination of so-called affirmative action. Constant government and media concern about “civil rights” is the greatest con job in history, because so-called civil rights has taken away practically every conceivable civil right of the American people, including the most important one of all, the right to live and the right not to be physically abused, or raped, or robbed or hurt.

Dr David Duke the White Civil Rights Leader – one of the few American politicians to object to White Women being raped and murdered by blacks.
Let the government and media drone on about Black “civil rights” to the grieving parents of Eve Carson and Lauren Burk, two bright and beautiful White women who were so full of love and life but who now have lost the most precious civil right of all, the right to life itself.
They were murdered not just by the predators on our streets, but by a media and government establishment who stripped away their right to live a safe and full life. They were murdered by media who have lied to the American people about the joys of multiracialism and multiculturalism. It is a media that constantly tell us the wonderful and loving future we have in America as it is subversively morphed into a mostly non-White nation. It is the same media who have instilled collective White guilt for real or imagined crimes of White history, but have hidden the terrible crimes going on against us, our heritage, freedom and survival, right before our eyes.
Lauren and Eva were murdered by the politicians who sold us out for the bloc votes and for the approval of media that celebrates the coming extinction of our people, faith, heritage and nation. They have also sold their souls and ours to the Jewish money men of American politics who make them pledge their subservience to Israel as a quote, “Jewish State for the Jewish people,” while they would not even dare to invoke the term “White people” except in denigration and apology.
Eva and Lauren no longer have breath in their bodies. To the last moments of their lives they probably never for an instant understood why they lost their lives. They probably never knew that our people were in a desperate struggle for their existence, and they probably never dreamed they could be a casualty in that war.
a and Lauren are gone now. They cannot speak to us except by what they left behind. But, they cannot be forgotten. We who are aware of the crisis facing our people will remember them. We will remember them as they were, beautiful expressions of humanity made unique and special by their own efforts and by the imprint of our people’s DNA spiral.
Written byDavid McCalden
Photos & Captions by Watt Tyler
Introduction by Cigpapers
If you ever see any Socialist Worker’s Party, or their front organisation the Unite Against Fascism, marches you will usually see pictures of the jewish Communist Leon Trotsky and multiple references to him. He is the spiritual leader and political guru of the SWP and UAF.
For a full exposure of the SWP/UAF and their backers see here: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/who-are-the-uaf-unite-against-fascism/
The policies and belief system of the SWP/UAF are based on Leon Trotsky, so to see in to the minds of SWP/UAF supporters it might be an idea to look at the life of Trotsky.
So who was this Leon Trotsky that is worshipped today by the SWP and UAF?
LEON TROTSKY
By David McCalden
The Polish surname Trotsky was not the one the revolutionary was born with. His true name was Levi Davidovich Bronstein, and he was born in 1879 into a wealthy family of jewish landowners in southern Ukraine.
Leon Trotsky the jewish Communist who enslaved and murdered millions of White Russians.
In the fall of 1888, at the age of 9, Levi Davidovich moved from the family estate to the coastal resort of Odessa, where he lived with his mother’s nephew, Moses Filipovich Spentzer — a liberal, jewish publisher. After attending high school in Odessa, he went on to junior college at Nikolayev, where he fell in with a group of jewish socialists. He began to read Marx around this time and started to agitate among the fledgling trades unions in the area. He ended up being arrested and it was at this point in his career that he decided to adopt a pseudonym. With a stroke of irony, he took on the name of his Polish prison warden, Trotsky.
A young Leon Trotsky
During the fall of 1899 he was moved to a prison in Moscow, and was tried early in the following year. He was sentenced to four years exile in Siberia. However, before the transfer could be brought about, Trotsky decided to wed one of his fellow jewish agitators: Alexandra Lyovna Sokolovskaya. A rabbi was brought to the prison cell to officiate.
The Trubetskoy Bastion Prison for Political Prisoners like Leon Trotsky
Soon after the couple’s exile to Siberia, a baby daughter was born, with another following in 1902. Despite the rigors of Siberia, Trotsky was able to contribute prolific articles to the local Irkutsk newspaper, and to receive and study Marxist books. Around this time he heard of Lenin, another Communist agitator, and the two began corresponding. Lenin wrote Trotsky that he should abandon his Siberian exile and go and live in a foreign country. Friends would help.
Trotsky’s friend Lenin – an evil man who ended democracy in Russia for 80 years.
So Trotsky found his way to Vienna, where he was aided by his fellow jewish Communist, Victor Adler; and then on to Zurich, where another jewish Communist, Paul Axelrod, was point man. Trotsky’s wife and children were left behind in Siberia.
On to Paris, and then to London, where Trotsky finally met Lenin at a rooming house at 30 Holford Square, King’s Cross. Trotsky was immediately appointed editor of The Spark, an underground Communist newspaper which was directed at Russian agitation. Trotsky also gave some Marxist lectures in London’s predominantly jewish Whitechapel district, and he took up with a Ukrainian (Gentile) woman, Natalya Ivanovna Sedova. Before long the two became lovers, and produced two male children.
Karl Marx – Lenin and Trotsky were Marxists.
After establishing strategy at various conferences in London, Brussels and Paris, Trotsky and Natalya (using fake passports) returned to Russia in 1905 in order to launch the revolution. After several months of apparently harassment-free agitation, Trotsky was arrested and then thrown into the Peter-Paul prison in St. Petersburg, along with two other jewish Marxists: Leon Deutsch and Alexander “Parvus” Helphand. After VIP treatment in jail, and a democratic trial, the agitators were exiled to Siberia once more. However, after arrival in Siberia, Trotsky hardly even stooped to unpack but merely got on a train going in the opposite direction and ended up once more with his common-law wife Natalya in Finland.
Natalya – Trotsky’s common law wife.
After more agitating around western Europe, Trotsky set sail for New York, where he worked as a journalist on the Russian Communist newspaper Novy Mir, out of their offices at 177 St. Mark’s Place on the Lower East Side — right in the heart of the jewish section of Manhattan. Novy Mir (New World) was owned by two Communist jews named Weinstein and Brailovsky. According to the New York police, who monitored Trotsky’s activities, his main associates during this period were Emma Goldman and Alexander Berman.
Jacob H. Schiff the jewish financier who lent the Bolsheviks $20million to otherthrow the democratic Russian Government
Things were starting to heat up in Mother Russia in 1917, and Trotsky sensed that the time was ripe for another Soviet takeover bid. But finance for the revolution was essential. Oddly, these so-called enemies of Capitalism had no difficulty whatsoever in raising vast amounts of capital from jewish financiers around the World. Trotsky worked on Jacob H. Schiff, who it was, later admitted, poured $20 million of Kuhn Loeb bank money into the projected Bolshevik takeover. “Parvus”, Trotsky’s room-mate at the executive suite of the Peter-Paul prison, was himself a wealthy coal broker, and he was off in the Balkans making deals on behalf of the Imperial German government. Naturally, being a good businessman with loyalty only to the dollar, he had no qualms about trading with any enemy power during wartime.
In Scandinavia, another jewish banker, Olaf Aschberg, was busy putting together an investment portfolio to propel the nascent Bolshevik state into financial bliss.
On 26 March 1917 Trotsky embarked from New York, for Russia He was accompanied by a good many jewish Marxist soldiers-of-fortune from the Lower East Side, plus a large amount of gold courtesy of Jacob Schiff.
President Woodrow Wilson had Trotsky released by the British.
However, when the ship stopped to refuel at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Trotsky was arrested by the British authorities, on the sound rationale that he was heading for Russia to take Russia out of the Great War and thereby increase the Germans’ capabilities on the Western front. But in a stunning reversal of “how things are supposed to be”, the American President Woodrow Wilson intervened with the British and Trotsky was allowed to continue on his way since he had the advantage of an American passport.
By the time Trotsky reached Russia, the revolution had already taken place. The Tsar had been deposed and a Democratic government installed. But being a good Communist, Trotsky wanted to have things his own way. The Democrats, under Kerensky, were wise to these ambitions and warrants were issued for the arrest of Trotsky and Lenin. The basis for the warrants was evidence that they were agents of the Imperial German government – a not unreasonable assumption since Lenin had been sent back into Russia on a sealed German train, and Trotsky had been sent by Jacob Schiff, a cousin of the German Minister of the Interior, Felix Warburg, both jews.
Russian Democratic Nationalist Alexander Kerensky died in exile in New York in 1970
But after a short period of imprisonment for Trotsky, and hiding for Lenin, both were back on the streets again. Soon afterward, the Lenin-Trotsky Communists led a street rebellion against the Democrats, and with just a handful of men seized control of the government. Within a short time a delegation of jewish Communists, led by Trotsky, met with the German commanders and signed away vast tracts of Russia, in return for a cessation of hostilities.
Russian Civil War 1918 to 1922 between the jewish Bolsheviks and White Russians.
However, the Communists’ troubles were not over yet. As soon as their tyrannical regime started to bite into the newly-won freedoms of the Russian people, a civil war broke out, with a White Russian army taking up arms against the Communists. Anarchists under Nester Makhno also fought the new government and the Whites, with his Ukrainian Army of Insurgent Peasants. Makhno soon controlled vast tracts of Ukraine, so in an effort to neutralize him, the Communist government agreed to recognize Ukraine as an autonomous anarchist region. A treaty was signed by three jewish Commissars : Bela Kuhn, S. I. Gusev and M. V. Frunze. As soon as the other fronts were secure, the Red Army then turned all its force against the Ukrainian autonomous region and, treaties notwithstanding, crushed all resistance. The charismatic Makhno fled overseas and ended up laboring in a Paris factory.
Ukranian Anarchist Leader Nester Makhno died in exile in Paris.
Some of the opposition to the Communists was fuelled by anti-Semitism. The White Russians published explicitly anti-Semitic posters showing an ugly jewish Trotsky with Oriental Bolshevik soldiers. Allegations that Makhno was anti-Semitic have never been proven; in fact he had jewish lieutenants.
There were some ironic twists during the bloody days of the Civil War. A jewess, Fanny Kaplan, tried to assassinate Lenin in Moscow. And a comrade of hers did actually assassinate Moses Uritsky, the head of the Communist CHEKA (secret police).
While the Communists were busy trying to batten down all resistance to their tyranny, the Poles decided to try their luck by invading Russia. A counter-attack by the Reds initially succeeded in driving back the Poles, but ended in a stalemate. The Poles too used anti-Semitic propaganda to counter the Jewish commissars.
Trotsky made sure his various families were taken care of. His father, the wealthy landowner David Bronstein, had been subjected to attack from both sides in the Civil War, so Trotsky gave him a job as manager of a state mill just outside Moscow. Trotsky’s Gentile wife was made Minister of Museums in Moscow. His first (Jewish) wife was a political functionary in Petrograd (the new name for St. Petersburg).
St. Petersburg was renamed Petrograd by the jewish Communists.
Eventually, the White Army resistance was crushed, but not before some startling set-backs for the Reds. Any further opposition was brutally suppressed by the Soviet secret police. Trotsky then turned his attention toward fomenting similar Communist takeovers in neighboring countries. Events did not omen well for this venture.
In January 1919, a jewish Communist uprising in Berlin was a dismal flop, ending with the deaths of the two main proponents: Rosa Luxemberg and Karl Liebknecht. In March 1919, the Soviet Jew Bela Kuhn took over the government of Hungary, but after a bloody couple of months, this attempt also failed. A short-lived uprising in Munich under the leadership of the jew Kurt Eisner was also put down.
Rosa Luxemburg a jewish Communist who died in a failed revolution against Democracy.
Early in 1921, there was a mutiny at the naval base of Kronstadt. Kronstadt had always had a reputation for revolutionary zeal – the sailors had mutinied against the Tsar and also against the Democrats. Each time Trotsky had supported them. But this time, the sailors were rebelling against Trotsky. So, instead of defending their demands for free speech and freedom of association, Trotsky sent in Red Army units to brutally crush the uprising. To explain away this murder, Trotsky recycled the same lame excuse that he had used to smear Makhno’s anarchists — that they were in league with the White Army. Perhaps it was episodes like this that inspired George Orwell to write Animal Farm.
Trotsky reaped what he sowed.
Soon, it was Trotsky himself who suffered from such double standard morality. Lenin died suddenly in 1924, and his place was taken by Stalin. (Trotsky was indisposed at the time, taking a health cure on the Black Sea.) Stalin very shortly discovered “crimes” which Trotsky had committed, and he was exiled first to Turkestan and then overseas. Stalin eventually had him murdered in Mexico in 1940. The assassin clubbed Trotsky to death with an ice-pick — a most unusual implement to find lying around in sweltering Mexico City.
Josef Stalin : Stalin’s henchman killed Trotsky in 1940 in Mexico.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Bolshevik takeover in Russia was but a jewish takeover. As Winston Churchill wrote: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international, and for the most part atheistical, jews. It is certainly a very great one, it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin*, ( Note: Unknown to Churchill, Lenin himself, has since been revealed to be part jewish) the majority of the leading figures are jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the jewish leaders … In the Soviet institution the predominance of jews is even more astounding. And the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by jews …” — Illustrated Sunday Herald 8 February 1920.
Jewish bankers financed the jewish Communist enslavement of Russia.
(Stefan Possony of the Hoover Institute argues that, contrary to Churchill’s exception, Lenin was of jewish descent; his mother’s maiden name being Blank — a most unlikely Russian name, and she was in fact the daughter of a jewish doctor and his German wife.) Both British and American diplomats in Russia at the time sent back reports describing how the vast majority of the Bolsheviks were jewish. Reproductions and excerpts appear in the comprehensive Six Million Reconsidered by William Grimstad. Page after page of frank admissions by jews themselves and by on-the-spot observers prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Bolshevism was jewish from top to bottom.
Like in Communist Russia no White person can criticise the jews in anyway in modern Britain.
Of particular interest to us here is the attitude of the “People of the Book” toward cruelty and destruction. The Soviets’ secret police–an alphabet soup of initials which began with CHEKA and ended up today as the KGB – was conceived and operated almost exclusively by jews. The first head of the CHEKA was Moses Uritsky. His successor was a person of dubious “Polish” origin named Felix Dzerzhinski, but it was common knowledge that he was overshadowed by his nominal subordinate, I. S. Unschlicht. Over the years, control of the torture apparatus has been passed to other jews: Genrik Yagoda, Lavrenti Beria, and today, Yuri Andropov.
Yagoda’s case was interesting in that he was Chief Inquisitor and Executioner of two Jewish ex-colleagues Kamenev and Zinoviev. As the wheel of fate turned, Yagoda himself was purged and executed.
According to the Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the slave labor camps were dreamt up “by the Turkish Jew, Frenkel”. Known as “the timber king of the Black Sea” Frenkel quickly became a consultant to the Bolshevik government, and advised them on the most profitable gems and precious metals to loot from the Russians. It may have been these same valuables which were sent back to Jacob Schiff in New York, as repayment of his original “venture capital” sent over with Trotsky. Later, Frenkel set up the slave labor camps as probably the cheapest form of labour supply in the World, and vast work projects were undertaken, such as the (ill fated ) White Sea/Baltic Sea canal scheme.
Communism,marxism,socialism and multiculturalism are all jewish-fascist ideologies which enslave and murder White People.
In the third chapter of volume two of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, the author provides a rogues’ gallery of the Soviet architects of the slave-labor/extermination program: Yakov Rappaport, Matvei Berman, Lazar Kogan, Semyon Firin, Sergei Zhuk.
Trotsky himself approved of the reign of terror that swept Russia. He wrote:
“Terror as the demonstration of the will and strength of the working class is historically justified, precisely because the proletariat was able to break the political will of the Intelligentsia, pacify the professional men of various categories and work, and gradually subordinate them to its own aims within the fields of their specialties.” — Izvestia 10 January 1919.
During a speech at the International Communist Congress in Moscow the following March he opined: “Blood and mercilessness must be our slogans.” Later, to try and explain away the bloody slaughter of the rebellious Kronstadt sailors he wrote:
“Idealists and pacifists always accused the Revolution of excesses. But the main point is that ‘excesses’ flow from the very nature of revolution which in itself is but an ‘excess’ of history.”
Lenin too demanded buckets of blood. In June 1918 he reprimanded the Leningrad (nee St. Petersburg) Soviet for being too genteel in their treatment of opponents: “This is unheard of! The energy and mass nature of the terror must be encouraged!” The following month he promulgated a new edict in Izvestia (27 July 1918) to the effect that all “anti-Semites” were to be shot.
Any White Russian objecting to jewish-fascist enslavement and genocide by the communists was labelled an anti-semite and shot.
Lesser luminaries in the Jewish-Soviet heavens took up the refrain. Hirsch Apfelbaum (aka Zinoviev) penned a charming article in the Krasnaya Gazeta (1 September 1918) under the rubric “Blood for Blood”:
“We will make our hearts cruel, hard and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood! For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinoviev and Volodarsky, let there be floods of blood of the bourgeois — more blood! As much as possible!”
One would have thought that all this blood-letting would have quickly terminated any sympathy for the Soviets from their kinfolk in the West. But such was not the case.
Jewish communism has killed about 100+million White People. Multiculturalism will finish off any White Nations.
“There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many jews are Bolsheviks, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of judaism.” — London jewish Chronicle, 4 April 1919.
“What jewish idealism and jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to produce in Russia, the same historic qualities of the jewish mind are tending to promote in other countries.” — New York American Hebrew, 20 September 1920.
“Jewish histories rarely mention the name of Karl Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of Israel than most who are forever talking of it.” — Rabbi Lewis Brown: Stranger Than Fiction, NY, 1928.
However, at the business end of this great contribution to progress, matters were not quite so explicitly dealt with. No Soviet citizen could be referred to as “jewish” on pain of death. And almost to a man, the jewish leaders of the Bolshevik takeover changed their jewish names to Gentile-sounding noms de guerre, usually Russian but sometimes, Polish.
How can one interpret this idiosyncratic phenomenon? Let us back-track a little bit. We have Trotsky growing up in a wealthy land owning jewish family, attending exclusive private schools, and marrying in a jewish ceremony. Yet he hides his jewishness behind a Gentile pseudonym and claims to represent the Russian working class. He has definite links with wealthy jewish foreign bankers, yet he claims to oppose Capitalism. He claims to support continuous working-class violent revolution against the ruling-class, yet when he himself becomes the ruler he suppresses workers’ uprisings, such as at Kronstadt and in Ukraine. He opposes privilege for the ruling class, yet he fixes up his own family with cushy positions.
Ed Miliband, Labour Party Leader, is a multi-millionaire, East European marxist jew who hides behind a British sounding name. His family have strong links to banking. He supports the multicultural enslavement and genocide of White British People.
What is the answer to this conundrum? It would be easy to dismiss Trotsky and his fellows as mere charlatans, tricksters and hypocrites. There can be little doubt that George Orwell based the pigs in Animal Farm on these crooks.
George Orwell based 1984 and Animal Farm on jewish-fascist states. Note the racial supremacy of the pigs (symbolising jews) in Animal Farm.
But somehow, this “criminal” explanation does not totally fit the bill, for the “ideals” propounded by Trotsky and company were given theoretical support from respectable jewish organizations in the West. Can it be that there is some “split personality” at work here, where the Bolsheviks actually believed in what they were advocating, but another part of their personality kept superimposing itself on top of their “principled” side? Did Trotsky perhaps fantasize that he was not jewish; that he was not privileged; that he was in search of justice? Was there a side of him that was struggling to be Gentile; that craved to feel inside himself the Gentile values of honor, truth, courage, and fairness? Did he envy these qualities so much that he turned jealousy into hate; turned a wish-to-be-like into a wish-to-destroy? All we can do is speculate, because unfortunately little is known of Trotsky’s real psychology. There are no personal letters, no opening-up to friends or family, no records at all of any substance. All we can do is line up Trotsky with his kinfolk in this psychohistorical study, and see if we can find any interesting patterns of behavior showing up.
The National Union of Journalists ( Labour affiliated ) featured Trotsky.