Friday, April 19, 2013

Mark Elsis

The Holocaust?


  1. - "They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race." (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771) -

    Fantastic show, and thank you Mark and Jim for sharing this knowledge with humanity. Maybe it will enlighten some of the educated fools that post their jew learned fantasies.

    I found this other podcast interesting in trying to understand why jews have always been scum bags and hated throughout history, everywhere they have been...

    ( E4 - March 24, 2012 - The Grand Penis Conspiracy (warning...bound to offend, adults only...)

    wujo3242012peniscon )

    1. Futue te ipsum, Cicero!
      Mande merdam et morere!


    2. "They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair..."

      Just like you were born the bastard of a whore and later adopted.

      There's a story in there somewhere. LOL


  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Hi Dickwipe,

    Could you translate? I don't speak jew.

  4. Verstehst du "leck mir den Arsch, Mozart"?

    Ja oder nein?

    Du dreckiger Hundeschwanz!


    1. La politesse est l'essence d'humanité. N'est pas assez poli, n'est pas assez humaine. Comprends, tu, sale cochon!

    2. Je comprend l'essence de ton message, même si je ne suis pas en accord avec et que ton français est horrible. L'humanité, est beaucoup plus que simplement de la "politesse', Nigel, surtout que certaines choses sont mieux dites sur un certain ton, avec un langage parfois coloré.

      Maintenant, j'aimerais savoir si ton insulte du 'sale cochon' m'est adresser, question de poursuivre cet entretien de façon convenable :)

    3. Tu écris le français comme un con!
      On écrit " Je comprends " et pas " Je comprend ". Va te faire foutre! Petit connard à l'arrière empuantie!

      Ton français est à rire!! mdr

      You dirty little fucked-in-the-ass-ear-and-mouth shit sack!

      Va apprendre à écrire le français comme il faut!

      Espèce de con!!

      How the fuck you crawled out of the fetus bin beats me!! LOL


    4. Dickwipe! I was worried about you. So you do write in English. Cool! That will facilitate communications..

      So, tell us how it went. Did you dig up your mom (your Mother), and did you 'do it'? Btw, that is not macaronis she's got in her mouth you idiot, she's been dead for awhile, don't try and French kiss her. Just 'do it', take her JEWellery. Speaking of french... Ça insulte mal en français hein? "Petit connard à l'arrière empuantie", franchement t'aurais pu trouver mieux. T'as pris ça où? Dans un de tes films porno gai? Espèce de pédale vas. Ah pis en passent, ta collection de film pedo a aussi été créé par des juifs. C'est vraiment de la merde cette race. Tk, oublis pas de nous dire comment ça c'est passer avec ta mère. Ciao trou du cul.

    5. Tu veux écrire " n'oublie pas de nous dire comment ça s'est passé..." Non? LOL

      Tu écris le français comme une vache espagnole!! LOL

      Evidemment!!! LOL

      Pute!!! mdr

    6. Je te passe le savon pour ta bouche puante! Te laves!

    7. Dickwipe (Sandos), tu ne semble pas avoir grand chose à dire et tes insultes sont à chier. T'es mongole ou juste stupide? Aussi, je fait des efforts pour communiquer avec toi pour te guider et te donner conseil dans ta langue maternelle (ta mère) sur un forum anglais *on ne peux pas me reprocher de ne pas avoir essayer de raisonner avec un juif* pour savoir pourquoi tu as une attirance vers les enfants et que tu veux baiser ta mère..

      So, you jew sack of shit (Sandos), since you do not appreciate my French, and that I really would like for all to understand what are your opinions here, because my opening post seem to have bothered you, fragile boy that you are, let's continue in English then. Tell all of us, what are your opinions about the 'jew problem' and 'holocaust fraud'. Here is your chance to show us that you are not a completely retarded inbred jew scum bag.

    8. LOL

      Appreciate your French?! LOL Tu rigoles,non? What French?
      You call the shit you write French?? LOL
      "Je fait" is French??!! LOL " Tu ne semble pas" is French??!! "On ne peux pas" is French??!! Your "French" is fucking gibberish!!! LOL

      Ton "français" me fait chier!! LOL

      Chez toi le cerveau était en option!! LOL

      Ferme ta bouche quand tu parles!! LOL

      Suce-moi, salope!!

      Your "French" sucks cocks!!

      You fuckwad!!

  5. Hello, Mark Elsis. When I use 'Nazi', I mean Nazi. If you go to Dave Emory's Anti-fascist Archives, you can listen to over a hundred hours of archived broadcasts detailing the chain of evidence that leads from the Third Reich directly into the European Union leadership, the CIA, NATO, various Republican administrations, and the leading US Fortune 500 corporations (all carefully sourced).

    They did "run at them" at Sorbibor, by the way. One-third of the camp escaped with their lives.

    Why did the Nazi's vilify the Jews? A Marxist looks outwardly just like everybody else: you can't tell one from a non-Marxist. The Nazis listened for someone to use the word 'konkret' (concrete) in a conversation and used that to make the arrest because Marxists like to use that word. But the Jews were much easier to use as scapegoats for the economic depression because they looked unique, often dressed differently, and tended to congregate in exclusive groups of their fellows. Then, of course, Hitler was raised a jew-hating Roman Catholic and his swastika came from the statue of a jew-killing Crusader in a local Austrian church.

    The Bolshevik central committee wasn't even half ethnic Jewish. There were no religious Jews. The Bolsheviks fought politically against the Russian Zionists. And the Socialist Revolutionaries, which was organized and led by a Zionist, tried to assassinate Lenin, who died a couple of years later from his wound. The Czar and his family, or any single one of them, would have been used as a rallying point to restore Czardom, so had to be killed. Very few Russians wanted the return of Czar Nicholas II, who was a murderous psychopath: hardly someone worthy of our sympathies. As for the "provisional" regime of Kerensky, it was trying to send more Russians to the front, even beginning to recruit women. Nobody in Russia wanted to continue the war, which the workers and peasants were coming to realize was pitting their fellows against each other in a useless mutual genocide. Kerensky left the Winter Palace in a car provided by the US Embassy and flying the US flag.

    Stalin's secret police listened for anti-regime comments because those who made them were enemies of the surviving Czarist bureaucracy for which Stalin was the figurehead and champion, and were considered threats to his counter-revolution. Most of his victims were his revolutionary opposition.

  6. Hi atlantabill, I share your disgust: the racism is moving from the comment section into the broadcasts. But I'm still a bit conflicted between on the one hand those like Elsis and co. who heap every invective upon a people, and accuse them of things of which they are not guilty, and those like you who will bend the stick to the breaking point in their favor. So here's a critique of both.

    But first, in the fact-checking dept.:"But the Jews were much easier to use as scapegoats for the economic depression because they looked unique, often dressed differently, and tended to congregate in exclusive groups of their fellows..."

    The Jews were genuinely hated not because of their dress or religion, that's sectarian nonsense, but because of the predatory relationship between usurers and the peasantry. [Here's an example of a fake progrom engineered, imho, by Zionists. The comment of rthe Russian official is accurate (and like Emory's work, well documented)] It seems to me that in believing this garbage it is you who have fallen for the Zionist line.

    "...Then, of course, Hitler was raised a jew-hating Roman Catholic and his swastika came from the statue of a jew-killing Crusader in a local Austrian church. "

    What makes you say that Catholics generally, or Hitler's family specifically, are anti-semitic. I've read a bit abt Hitler's youth and I've seen nothing that suggests this. And your complaints abt bias against Jews might have more credibility if you yourself were not doing the same thing to Catholics. If you go looking for a Catholic who hates Jews you will find him, and if you go looking for Jews who hate Gentiles you will find those too, so what is the point.?

    "The Bolshevik central committee wasn't even half ethnic Jewish..." I'm not familiar enough with the Bolshevik CC throughout its life to say that it always had a a Jewish majority, but at times it most certainly did. In fact shortly after the split wit the Men's in '03, 11 of 17 were Jewish. Later the CC expanded considerably and it may not have had a Jewish majority.

    "The Bolsheviks fought politically against the Russian Zionists. And the Socialist Revolutionaries, which was organized and led by a Zionist..."

    Did the Bolsheviks fight against the Zios? Maybe u are right but they articulated a policy of national self determination for all peopes [with which they quixckly dispensed once they were in power] which would seem to embrace Zionism. Also many a Bolshevik was a Bundist [like Trotsky]. Not all Bundists were Zios but many were.

    Chernov was a Zio? This is news to me! He doesn't mention it in his memoires. Are you sure abt this?

  7. "Nobody in Russia wanted to continue the war, "

    Not so. With all due respect atlantabill, it seems you are getting all yr info from the LeniNazis. And they were expert disinformationists.

    There was always a bloc which supported the war [the Kadets leap to mind]. However after the toppling of the tsar, many groups who had opposed the war now reversed themselves. There were 2 schools of socialist/revolutionary, pro-war thought: 1, once the tsar was gone, it became a war of bourgeois republics [i.e. UK US, France etc] against feudal regimes [Hohenzollerns in Germany, Ottomans in Turkey, Hapsburgs in Austria]. Those socialists that believed, like Marx, a bourgeos phase was necessary before real socialism could occur[ the SRs, Maximalists, and particularly the Mensheviks] now saw the war as the elimination of feudalism which would bring capitalists into power and thus wanted to continue the war.

    2, Those that believed, like Lenin and Trotsky, that the revolurtion HAD to international or it wouldn't work, looked upon the insurgent German working class and the German ruling class that was teetering on the verge of extinction and thought we can deliver the knockout punch and Germany, Italy and Austria would go socialist.

    There was lots of support for the war among revolutionaries, and the Left press was full of theories on just how best to deliver that knock-out punch. It was a hot topic. But when Lenin took Germany's money to go to Russia and seize power he did so under an agreement that he would take Russia out of the war--that's why they gave him the money!

    There were many a revolutio nary then, and many now, who believe that the revolution in Germany, and hence all of Europe, failed because a, Lenin pulled Russia out of the war, and b, that obscene, incomprehensible treaty of Brest Litovsk, which gave much-needed food and weapons materiel to the German ruling class. Even most of the Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, were appalled by the incredible give-away that treaty was.

  8. Salut!

    Comment ça va, NoMoreFreeride!?
    On m'a dit que ta mère suce des ours dans la forêt. Dis-moi que ce n'est pas vrai.
    On m'a aussi dit que tu pues tellement de la gueule que tu attires les mouches. Est-ce aussi vrai? Il faut que je sache la vérité!

    Putain de merde!!

    You fucking whore!!

    1. Asswipe Freeride!

      Google translator is really useful for an illiterate and obviously dyslexic moron like you but don't you find using that stick in your forehead to hit the keys kind of slows you down?


  9. @Elsis: There is so much racist garbage in your presentation that I don't know where to begin. So I will take just one point: The revolution in Russia was a Jewish revolution.

    What enervating crap! While my hat is off to those Jews who participated in the revolution, but it is just absurd hyperbole, a hopeless and febrile flight from reality, to give credit [or discredit]to the tiny Jewish population.

    There are a disproportionally high number of Jewish revolutionaries because there is a disproportional number of Jewish intellectuals. And that is because Jews as a group are wealthier than others, and hence are better educated and have moree leisure time.

    So among the various revolutionary tendencies in revolutionary Russia there were a good number of Jews. The Bolsheviks were highly Jewish, the Mensheviks too but less so, and by far the largest socialist revolutionary group was ths PSR [Party of Socialist Revolutionaries], or SRs for short, and they had a smaller percentage of Jews. The anarchists, Maximilists and other small groups were hardly Jewish at all [with some notable exceptions]. Thus among the revolutionasry leadership as a whole there was a high percentage of Jews, but not a majority.

    Nevertheless, the point is moot, because it wasn't the parties which made the Russian Revolution, it was the risen people.

    By the time the tsar was toppled, just abt all the large agricultural estates in Russia had been taken over by the peasants and divided up amongst them. Many of the factories of Petrograd and elsewhere were in the hands of the workers.

    The first revolution [the one that toppled the tsar, in february by our calendar] occurred when the railway workers stopped the tsar's railway car and told him the jig was up. THIS WAS SPONTANEOUS DIRECT ACTION ON THE PART OF THE WORKING MASSES, not the planned activity of delusional political parties.

    the second attempt at revolution occurred in July, and it was led by anarchists from Kronstadt. Some Bolshies and Menshies participated, but against the wishes of Lenin. Trotsky made an impassioned speech urging the workers and sailors to go back home cuz the time wasnt right for revolution [may he rot in hell!].

    Since the tsar abdicated, there had been a succession of bourgeois governments none of which could derail the revolution, despite their best efforts to do just that.

    Just before the constituent assembly, which was to replace the bourgeois government, met the Bolsheviks seized power.

    The Bolsheviks were not a majority in Russia. The Bols were not a majority within the revolutionary movement within Russia. TheBols were not even a majority within the revolutionary parties in Russia. THEY WERE JUST SUCCESSFUL IN SEIZING A VACANT THRONE.

    Moreover, the Bols were led by a Gentile. He was succeeded by another Gentile. In fact, in the entire history of the Bolsheviks they NEVER had a Jewish leader.

    And there are many, myself included, who see the Bolshies as counterrevolutionary. As Miliukov said: The Bolsheviks saved Russia from communism.

    You do a disservice to yourself when you say something as oafishly facile as "the Russian Revolution was a Jewish revolution." This is grotesquely inaccurate, absolutely vapid. Whatever else good you might have done is undermined when you expose yourself as an idiot as you have done.

  10. Despite the valuable corrections that Dave has made, he is wrong about one thing: the Kronstadt Uprising was manipulated by a cabal of Mensheviks, supported by misguided Anarchists, who were plotting with the White Russian (Czarist) General Wrangel to open up the Baltic ports to the national forces arrayed against the Russian Revolution. The Russian archives which were made available after the fall of Stalinist pseudo-communism have confirmed this. Boris Yeltsin--believing that the collection entitled Kronshtadtskaia tragediia 1921 goda, dokumenty v dvukh knigakh (The 1921 Kronstadt Tragedy, Documents in Two Volumes) (Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 1999) would support the Kronstadt mutineers--made the documents available in 1999. On the contrary, they have been found to support the counterrevolutionary nature of the uprising. Now, one can raise the caveat that these archival documents may have been forged or redacted. But would the current pet oligarchs (the Ostap Benders) have had a reason to do this: there was an attempt to rehabilitate Stalin's opposition during the process of capitalist restoration, but the Right Opposition of Bukharin got favorable consideration, while the Left Opposition of Trotsky was ignored. Would the Stalinist bureaucrats have missed the golden opportunity to smear Leon Trotsky, who led the retaking of the Kronstadt Fortrress (when it would have cost them nothing politically)? So, who would have an interest in supporting Trotsky's view?

    An updated Leninist-Trotskyist history of the Kronstadt Uprising can be read in the Troskyist journal Spatacist in the article "Russian Archives Refute Anarchist Lies, Again: Kronstadt 1921: Bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution" (2006). I apologize that it is long, detailed, and polemical; but it doesn't shield "sacred cows", including Trotsky. It exposes as a piece of sophistry the commentary “The Communist Leaders’ Role in the Kronstadt Tragedy of 1921 in the Light of Recently Published Archival Documents” of the Hebrew University academic Israel Getzler in Revolutionary Russia (June 2002), which numerous Anarchist websites have turned to to defend the anti-Bolshevik line.

    The Left Oppositionists of the P.O.U.M. (including many followers of Trotsky, who was himself, however, critical of the P.O.U.M.) (there is a little better article on the P.O.U.M. for those who can read the Spanish version) and the Anarchists of the C.N.T./F.A.I. and Buenaventura Durruti were allied in the fight against Franco and the Axis. By the way, George Orwell (Eric Blair) can be seen in this video dedicated to the P.O.U.M., together with his future wife Eileen. There is no reason why Anarchists and Trotskyists can't work together, since they share more common ground than differences. My Anarchist friend George Sossenko, who passed away earlier this month, probably the last surviving U.S. brigadista, fought in the C.N.T/F.A.I.-P.O.U.M. unified forces in the Durruti Column. George was President of the Georgia Chapter of Veterans For Peace. His memorial is planned for May 21st; I can give details for anyone wishing to attend and I'll post links to videos of the event.

  11. Dave, you've offered a valuable rebuttal to the Jew-baiting supporters of Hitler's phoney and poisonous "socialism"; but there's one point on which you're mistaken. The Kronstadt Uprising was the result of a plot hatched between the White Russians (specifically the Czarist Generals Wrangel and Mannerheim) and leaders of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), with help from misguided Anarchists, to open up the Baltic to the Entente powers which wished to enter Russia by the Baltic Sea and Finnish border in order to join the Czarist forces in the south. Had the plot succeeded, Russian Bolsheviks, Anarchists, and also Mensheviks who supported the Revolution would have been massacred. France and Britain, according to communiqués from that time, were encouraging the smaller states bordering Russia to assist the mutiny. A communiqué of General G.E. Elvengren, Wrangel’s military representative in Finland, categorically asserts that there was an organized White operation at Kronstadt (Elvengren, Report to Russian Evacuation Committee in Poland, no later than 18 April 1921; reprinted in the Russian archival collection mentioned next).

    American anarchist Alexander Berkman’s 1922 pamphlet, The Kronstadt Rebellion, was based largely on a spurious 1921 account entitled The Truth About Kronstadt published by the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries. A more conscientious pro-Anarchist historian, Paul Avrich, concluded in his book Kronstadt 1921 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970) that he could “sympathize with the rebels and still concede that the Bolsheviks were justified in subduing them”. The commentary defending the SR myth by Hebrew University academic Israel Getzler (“The Communist Leaders’ Role in the Kronstadt Tragedy of 1921 in the Light of Recently Published Archival Documents,” in Revolutionary Russia, June 2002) is a piece of sophistry, as the Spartacist article mentioned two paragraphs down fully demonstrates.

    In 1999, Boris Yeltsin--believing that the archives would support the Kronstadt mutineers--opened the relevent collection in the Russian State Archive to the public. The documents in the collection entitled Kronshtadtskaia tragediia 1921 goda, dokumenty v dvukh knigakh (The 1921 Kronstadt Tragedy, Documents in Two Volumes) (Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 1999) completely vindicate Leon Trotsky's version of the mutiny. Now, one might offer the caveat that the documents could have been forged or redacted, but in who's interest (cui bono?) would this have been done? Would the Stalinist bureaucracy have missed a golden opportunity to smear Leon Trotsky, who led the taking of the Kronstadt fortress? Would Boris Yeltsin's capitalist-restorationists have had a reason to vindicate Trotsky? Bukharin's Right Opposition has seen some favor in the "new Russia", but there has been no effort to do so for the Left Opposition of Trotsky.

    With apologies for the length, torturous detail, and polemical nature of the piece, I recommend the article which appeared in the Trotskyist journal Spartacist of Spring 2006 entitled "Russian Archives Refute Anarchist Lies, Again: Kronstadt 1921: Bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution".

    1. There is no reason that Anarchists and Trotskyists can't find common cause. We share far more in common than we differ. The Trotskyists of the Left Opposition in the P.0.U.M., for instance (although they were criticized by Trotsky himself), fought alongside the Anarchists of the C.N.T./F.A.I. of Buenaventura Durruti in proletarian unity to oppose Franco and the fascist Axis. Notice that, although the contributor of the Durruti video "musicaAnarquista" is obviously an Anarchist, he uses a Russian Revolutionary song to begin his video: and rightly because the October Revolution enjoyed the support of a wealth of Anarchist fighters. Incidentally, you can see George Orwell alongside his future wife Eileen, who fought in Spain as members of the united C.N.T./F.A.I.-P.0.U.M. forces, in the video I linked to.

      My Anarchist friend George Sossenko, who sadly passed away earlier this month, served in the ranks of the united forces of the P.0.U.M. and C.N.T./F.A.I., and more recently served as President of the North Georgia Chapter of Veterans for Peace. A fighter to the end.

    2. Part 1

      Egads! Will the Kronstadt debate ever end.

      atlantabill, once again, you seem to believe everything Leninists say and nothing anarchists do. Lenin and Trotsky lied their asses off. There are a million examples.

      [One of my favorite books on Lenin is Angelika Balabanova's "Impressions of Lenin." She was a revolutionary who was at various times Zino's secretary at the Comintern, at others she worked directly in Lenin's office interacting with him daily. One day she confronts him and says "you lie to the people all the time, you make promises you have no intention of keeping, you have shut down soviets which you could not control, is this socialism? Is this what we fought and so many died for? Oddly enough he then responded in precisely the same way Hitler would to the same question 15 years later: "I lie only to advance the revolution, I do not do it for my own benefit."

      Balabonova [sometimes Balabanof] was a die-hard Bolshie but she eventually became disgusted with Lenin and resigned. Being the splendid little megalomaniacal prick that he was Lenin sent her into exile.

      her book "My life as a Revolutionary" is also excellent.]

      Now on to the facts: Wrangel was gone by Kronstadt. In fact, The Ks said it plainly in their manifesto that they waited for all the Whites to be defeated before submitting their demands. He may have not completely evacuated the Crimea by this time, but most of his forces had been evacuated in 1920, and there was no real White threat anymore.

      Berkman's book was NOT based on the SR book. That book, and his The Bolshevik Myth, were written based on his first-hand experiences. He and his partner Emma Goldman [and hundreds of other American anarchist leaders were deported by ship to Russia. Not only were their observations not second-hand, they actually played a role in the Kronstadt affair. They offered to act as go-betweens for the Bols and the mutineers. [Her book, My 2 Years in Russia, is even better than his.]

    3. Part 2

      Re Avrich's comment: First, why is he more conscientious than Berkman, Goldman, SRs? Second, He made that comment in the introduction, and later said he wished he had phrased it differently because it has been used by people like you to justify the Bolshevik counterrevolutionary terror.

      Avrich states that given the rebellion, which was in sympathy to, and a furtherance of, the working class resistance to Bolshevik dictatorship--factory and army strikes in Moscow n Petrograd, Cossack rebellions etc, could provide an opening for those White forces stationed in Finland to seize Petrograd, given that, the Bolsheviks were justified in claiming that as a justification for yet another massacre of determined socialist revolutionaries. But make no mistake: AVRICH SUPPORTED THE MUTINERERS! Don't just quote-mine his book, read the damn thing.

      Moreover, That very same book demolishes the vile counterrevolutionary lie coming from Lenin and his wet fart Trotsky that the mutineers were in league with Whites. In fact, Petrichenko received a letter from them offereing help AND HE REFUSED IT.

      It is true that White elements, egged on by none other than Herbert Hoover, among others, were happy abt the revolt because they wanted a civil war because it gave them a chance to reestablish their power in Russia. The German bourgeoisie didn't give Lenin all that money and safe passage through a war zone because they were commies! That various and disparate parties might side with others not of their orientation because they see it ass being to their advantage is nothing new in history. The House of Bourbon didn't finance the American Revolution because they were anti-monarchists!!!!!!

      And this nonsense by Trotsky abt the stock markets going up vis-a-vis Russian securities is just too stupid for words. [And by the way, why were there Russian securities on bourgeois stock markets?]

    4. part 3,

      Re the archives, You mean to say that the archives compiled by the folks who crushed the "Third Revolution" contains documents that smear the rebels? You don't say! What a surprise!!!!!!!!!!!

      The Bols waged an enormous propaganda campaign against the rebs. They produced many a bogus "authentic" document backing their case. And in the show trial that followed they presented tons of fabricated evidence against the defendants, just as they did for Lenin's next show trial against the SRs.

      You mean to say thatthe archives of the perpetrators of what is the single greatest counterrevolutionary action ever undertaken by a government claiming to be revoloutionary contains documents incriminating the victims. Wow! What a surprise! J. E Hoover's archives have documents incriminating LHO, what a surprise! You know he had his picture taken holding the rifle he used to kill JFK...and he was with the fair play for cuba committee...

      Trotsky led the taking of the fortress? Not according to him. In his last book, Stalin, which he didn't complete because he came down with a bad case of hatchet in the head, he states that he was in the Urals when the rebellion broke out, and that he was called to Moscow because of it. In this version Trotsky puts himself out of town for the entire episode. At the time of course, he got credit for it, and happily accepted that credit. I think it speaks volumes that at the end of his life Trotsky is trying to distance himself from Kronstadt. Even Lenin, at a Party Congress [number 10, i think] described the action as "a necessary evil." [of course all the while publicly still calling the mutineers traitors and counterrevolutionaries and ordering their executions, the miserable little murderous prick.]

      Why don't you read Avrich's book. You quoted it, he was reliable enuf then. Read the book, you will discover that the mutineers were fighting FOR communism and against Bolshevism. Their cry was "The third revolution, communism without commissars. All power back to the soviets."

      I read your FI piece, read my anarchist piece:

    5. Part 4, The Kronstadt Mutineers Demands

      1, Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elec-tions should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.

      2, Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the anarchists, and for the left socialist parties.

      3, The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organizations

      4, The organization, at the latest on March 10,1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers,soldiers, and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt,and the Petrograd District.

      5, The liberation of all political prisoners of the socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working-class and peasant organizations.

      6, The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.

      7, The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas,or receive state subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the state

      8, The immediate abolition of the militia detach-ments set up between towns and countryside.

      9, The equalization of rations for all workers,except those engaged in dangerous or un-healthy jobs.

      10, The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Partyguards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, tak-ing into account the views of the workers.

      11, The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labor.

      12, We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.

      13, We demand that the Press give proper pub-licity to this resolution.

      14 We demand the institution of mobile workers’control groups.

      15, We demand that handicraft production be authorized provided it does not utilize wage labor

    6. Part 5

      These were published around thye world except in Russia. If you want to pay for it, you can access these in the New York Times archives. Nobody now denies that these were the accurate demands in their manifesto. However is you read Izvestia from that period, you will see that Lenin and Trostsky are completely misrepresenting them.

      Among the lies:

      1, The Bols say that the Ks want freedom of speech for the bourgeois parties. While I think that would have been a good idea, clearly the Ks say for all REVOLUTIONARY parties.

      2, Likewise, they do not ask for the release of all political prisoners, just the socialist ones. The Bols claim they wanted White generals etc released.

      3, The Bols claimed that Ks wanted everybody released from Lenin's gulag. Clearly this is false. Lenin was constantly trying to depict them as Whites and counterrevolutionaries who wasnted to have all reactionary factions released from the camps to topple the Bols and restore the monarchy. Vile lies.

      I could go on. The most absurd part of the filthy Bolshevik disinformation campaign against the Ks was that they former insisted the latter were not real revolutionaries and wanted to reinstate capitalism. Just weeks after the last executions of the Ks, Lenin reinstated capitalism with his New Economic Policy.

      My last thought on the subject: The assault on Kronstadt was led by Tukachevsky and Trotsky. When they gave the order to charge, thousands of Red Army soldiers refused. They said "they are not the enemy, they are the best revolutionary forces we have, we will not fire upon our loyal comrades. There would not have been a Russian Revolution without them."

      To combat this mutiny [which scared Trotsky witless] they began systematically executing refusniks on the spot. According to Avrich and others, hundreds of soldiers were executed on the battlefield.

      That's Bolshevism.

    7. Completely unrelated: There is a bit on my blog which is analysis of the Boston Massacre 2 from Thierry Messan's Voltaire Network. Lotsa interesting stuff there and a short must-watch vid.
      Below it are a bunch of entries abt Boston which you folks might find interesting

    8. Dave, I've begun reading your Kronstadt article. However, if the demands that the Kronstadt sailors* had been carried out, the victory of the Revolution would have been compromised, given the existing military situation (not that they were would not have been laudable demands in less threatening circumstances). *(which sailors?, since my understanding is that the hero sailors of the political uprising had been relieved by other units).

      I cut my teeth on the American luminaries of the Anarcho-syndacalist I.W.W., such as Big Bill Haywood and Joe Hill (here's a perceptive Marxist history of the I.W.W.). I was at one time, like many revolutionary-minded youth, attracted to the writings of Emma Goldman. This soured for me when I saw film footage of dear Emma reviewing the soldiers of the Women's Battalion of Death guarding the Winter Palace. Your association of Vladimir Lenin with the Nazis is understandable given your readiness to believe any slander against the Russian Bolshevik Party (prior to the Stalinist takeover, of course), but it undermines any serious political commentary you might have to offer. I gravitated to (real) Bolshevism from an early infatuation with Anarchism because the Anarchists have been all over the political map, with few of the major theorists (let alone Anarchists I've had the pleasure of knowing) seeming to have more than a superficial understanding of what Marx and Engels were all about. At a later time in my career as a Trotskyist, I did some serious reading of a few of the Anarchist classics - because, contrary to an unfortunate tendency of some Trotskyists to have their thinking set in stone (quite un-Marxian!), I've always nurtured a readiness to doubt my most cherished beliefs. I have to say, in all honesty, that the classic thinkers of Anarchism and Anarcho-communism impress me as minor talents.

      I'm not above finding fault with Leon Trotsky and certainly not with Vladimir Lenin, let alone with the Bolshevik Party members whose policies led to the takeover by Stalin and the Bureaucracy. However, motives of this player or that, the military situation, counterrevolutionary machinations within the socialist movement and outside it, the attempts of Kulaks to withhold food from the cities either to starve the Revolution or just to increase prices, and numerous others must be taken into consideration.

      Lot's of good information at Save Our Cola! Thanks for the link! Apropos (since there's a link to a trial of Black Bloc members in Puget Sound), do you have any inside information on how the Black Bloc (assuming there were actual Anarchists going by that name) were compromised (or impersonated) during the Occupy demonstrations of a year or so ago? If the hooliganism and provocateurism (conscious or unconscious) of the Black Bloc (assuming that was actually them) is an indication of what Anarchism is about, give me bourgeois "democracy" anytime.

    9. First, if above I made it sound as tho I had written the Kronstadt article then my apologies. It's actually written by Ian McKay, who wrote an excellent bio of Proudhon.

      re "Which Sailors?": Once again you are getting yr info from liars. Trotsky referred to these sailors as a "gray mass" saying that they had lost their revolutionary zeal and had become reactionary. If one reads their demansds one is quickly disabused of Trotsly's lies. The fact that the rest of his life he either continued to slander the Ks as reactionaries or alternately distasnced himself from the events tells me all I need to know. He knew the things he was saying publicly were not true, and he KEPT saying them well into his exile.

      re "the victory of the Revolution would have been compromised..."

      What an odious canard! If this is true then there is no hope for democracy or even representative government, let alone the social revolution. The idea that some element within the population must rise and rule over the rest in an unaccountable manner during times of emergency, that the people given the task of defending the country cannot be controlled from below, and/or held to account for their actions, is as reactionary an idea as can be. The fundamental idea of socialism/communism/syndicalism/anarchism is that every human being has a RIGHT to an equal share of political power, and that that right is inalienable. The idea that because they were threatened the russian people lost their right to CHOOSE who shall defend them, and with what authority and for how long etc. is just obscene. The idea that if workers had the right to vote for who represented them in the soviets would jeopardize the revolution is more Orwellian than anything Orwell ever imagined.

      re "This soured for me when I saw film footage of dear Emma reviewing the soldiers of the Women's Battalion of Death guarding the Winter Palace. .."


    10. re "Your association of Vladimir Lenin with the Nazis is understandable given your readiness to believe any slander against the Russian Bolshevik Party (prior to the Stalinist takeover, of course), but it undermines any serious political commentary you might have to offer. "

      You are just making a fool of yourself. What makres you think I believe any slander? has there been any point made for which I have not offered sources? I do not believe any critique of Lenin, in fact, I have written diatribes against Pipes, Figes, Service and other bourgeois Lenin-slanderers, Google my name and you will find them. i believe the Bolshevik records (sochiniya)--that's where Lenin called the crushing of Kronstadt an "evil." I believe Lenin's letter to Kurskii wherein he advises the latter to stage more show trials because they have propaganda value. I believe Lenin's letter to Trotsky in which he asks the latter what the hold up was in the SR trial. I believe Trotsky when he responds that the problem is that there is no evidence to support the charges. I believe Lenin when he responds that that shouldn't matter. These are Bolshevik records, with experts authenticating handwriting.

      I believe Lenin's handwritten orders that every telegraph office should be shut down on a given day, and then another order telling the office in Kiev [or Kharkov maybe] to stay open. I believe the telegraph purportedly originating fro m Lenin in which he orders the Red Army to fabricate evidence against anarchists and start executing them. [In those days any telegram could be read in any office. So he had to shut down the rest or everybody would have known.]

      I warn you, if you are going to try to smear me, you are going to have to do better. You might have attempted a search before you said that I believe every slander of Lenin.

    11. Moreover, the parallels between Lenin and Hitler are numerous. So are their differences, nonetheless, somebody did a comparison between Lenin's published writings and Hitlers and found 36 important areas of agreement. Their ideas abt vanguardism are indistinguishable, Lenin's putatively on behalf of the proletariat, Hitler's of the race's.

      re "I have to say, in all honesty, that the classic thinkers of Anarchism and Anarcho-communism impress me as minor talents. "

      At what? Reclus was a minor geographer? Foucault a minor philosopher? Kropotkin a minor what?

      And while i have no problem with a thoroughgoing critique of anarchist principles, in order to have any meaning it must be in contrast to Marxist views. Marx's ideas, with regard to what was to come, have been risibly wrong. His ideas abt the collapse of capitalism, the unique role of the proletariat, and the necessity of political action, all of which mercilessly critiqued by Bakunin and others, have certainly shown to be erroneous. Any discussion of this topic absent Bakunin's prescient critique of Marxist ideas is no discussion at all.

      "I'm not above finding fault with Leon Trotsky and certainly not with Vladimir Lenin, let alone with the Bolshevik Party members whose policies led to the takeover by Stalin and the Bureaucracy..."

      More lies. LENIN BUILT THE BUREAUCRACY, not Stalin. The bureaucracy was launched a few days after the Bolshevik coup in the soviet. LENIN ESTABLSHED the Sovnarkom and the Vesenka, and headed up the former until his first stroke. Stalin did nothing that Lenin hadnt, he just continued on the same trajectory.

      re "counterrevolutionary machinations within the socialist movement ."

      Do you see what Lenin has done to your brain? Counter- machinations within the socialist movement? If they are socialist then they are not counterrevolutionary. If they are counterrevolutionary then they are not socialist. Right? A number cannot be odd and even; it has to be one or the other.

    12. I have no inside knowledge of Black Bloc activities, nor of the police investigation.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Christopher Marlowe (sic}, I believe that, if you read The Jew of Malta a bit more carefully, you'd discover that Christopher Marlowe was not a fellow-antisemite. He was a very great friend of the Italian-Sephardic Jewess Amelia Bassano Lanier, the real author of the plays of William Shakespeare.

  15. A better picture of burning pits smoke.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.