Andrey Fursov

Interview for the project

Fascism-XXI at your door

August 7, 2012.

A spectre is haunting Europe and the world - the spectre of a new, previously unknown global Fascism. What are the root causes and preconditions for the resurgence of Fascism/Nazism in Europe and the West in general?

Video part 1

The root cause for what is called the resurgence of fascism and Nazism in Europe and the West in general lies within the fundamentally similar goal setting of modern western elites and the Nazi top of the Third Reich.

No wonder some people talk about Global Fascism nowadays, it’s not just the resurgence of fascism, but a new form, which is called "Global Fascism." Of course, it is not a scientific term, it is more of a metaphor, but it captures the essence of the defined subject precisely.

What are the similarities? First, there is the partition of the world into a kind ofchosen part” and “expendable material”. But while the Nazis discriminated by race, the modern western elites camouflage it in all sorts of sociocultural terms, but in fact, the Anglo-Saxon core of the Western world stands in first place.

And now, looking back in time from today, we understand that the Third Reich was an experiment of Western elites. In fact, according to the results it was an experiment of Western elites, brutally carried out by Hitler.

The experiment was very diverse: control over the population, rejection of a large part of low-grade, racially unworthy population, according to the Nazis. First of all, we are talking about the Slavs, then the Jews and the Gypsies …

Today, the western rulers drive out of the historical process a very large part of the population as well, although it is done under pseudo humanistic slogans, but the essence stays the same: there is a chosen billion (or much less), and there are the others.

Thus, western elites with no hesitation talk about reducing the population of the planet, saying there are a lot of extra people, a lot of "superfluous eaters"1. So this goal setting is in common between part of the modern western elites and the Nazi top.

What factors keep the legitimacy of the authorities in the West? They cannot close all the gaps with more and more money.

Video part 2

For a long time, the legitimacy of the modern western elites was ensured, mainly, by two factors: first, the ability to provide a certain living standard to a larger part of the population, i.e. to the top and a large part of the middle of the society and the top of the working class. And the second one, based on this existing living standard, was a belief in the idea of progress. It was assumed that more and more people will live better and better.

French sociologist Fourastié2 named thirty years from 1945 to 1975 “The Glorious Thirty” (Les Trente Glorieuses). Indeed, it seemed that the gap between rich and poor countries, between rich and poor social groups, between rich and poor individuals reduced. But it ended in the 70s. And then at the turn of the 70s to 80s the neo-liberal counter-revolution began, which meant the redistribution of global public goods for the benefit of the upper class.

An attack on the positions of the middle class, the positions of the working class began and the welfare of postwar thirty years was whittled away. And then from 1980 to 2010 “Inglorious Thirty” began, which ended with crisis and, in fact, we live in the war era. The crisis tied up such knots that probably cannot be untied peacefully.

The washing out of the middle class in the West, the shrinking of civil society, the weakening of the nation and the state, decline in the standards of public education, and much, much more can be labeled as the signs of crisis.

No money can close all the gaps? True, they cannot stop all the gaps with more money, because the money and, above all, a world currency - the dollar is devaluing. According to some experts the real value of the dollar is from 6 to 11 cents. And sooner or later civilization of loan interest will burst and collapse.

And in order to prevent this from happening, the Western top people, especially American, I think, will go to any lengths. I want to remind that in the late 30s of the XXth century, the U.S. ruling class had a choice: either to start implementing social reforms or start a World War. And American elite took a very active part in that war.

And the war solved, in fact, many of the problems of the United States. But in order to start a war, you need an enemy. And this image of the enemy is being forged.

What factors do you attribute to the reallocation of global public goods for the benefit of the top circles in the mid-70s?

Video part 3

In the mid 70s the welfare state3, to be more accurate we should call it "the state of total social security", had reached its limits of efficiency.

In addition, by the mid 70s the western rulers realized very clearly that further development of the industry, the further development of those trends that were laid in the 50s and 60s, would weaken positions of the ruling class, and that left-wing and left-of-centre wing parties expressing the interests of the middle strata and the top of the working class will challenge the ruling top.

It is no coincidence that in 1975 three major Western researchers Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki wrote a document called "The Crisis of Democracy" for the Trilateral Commission4. This is a frank, I would say, a cynical document which states in plain English that democracy is not so much a value, but a tool, and that if current (mid 70s) trends in Western society continue, then maybe someone will effectively defy the establishment, and in this context the introduction of apathy to the masses and their de-politicization is needed.

And, in fact, that document, “The Crisis of Democracy", was a guide to action for the attack on the positions of the middle class and working class. This is the political side of the case.

The economic side of the case is that at the turn of the 60s to 70s the post-war era has ended (after World War II), the economic boom had ended, the recession began, and in these circumstances the question arose: where should we draw funds from? And the easiest resolution was to redistribute the income.

If we look at the period from 1980 to 2010, then we’ll see that mainly these thirty years all we had was the redistribution of the social product in favor of the upper classes. The upper classes collected everything taken away from the middle strata and from the top of the working class. So this period of thirty years starting in 1980 was a counter attack of the elites against the middle class and the working class.

Video part 4

Money is really devaluing; we can see it in the case of the dollar. In this situation, a new redivision of the world is coming. In today's world there are not that many undeveloped, really untapped by western capital areas, moreover, the areas with resources.

These areas are Northern Eurasia, i.e. territory of present Russia, Xinjiang Uyghur Region of China, Tibet, and South Africa.

But above all, we should talk about Northern Eurasia, i.e. the territory of Russia. And anyway, if you look at the history of the past two hundred years, it is made up of these very interesting, in some sense very similar and in some sense very different periods.

Since 1820s, following the Napoleonic Wars, and up to about 1860-70s there was a struggle between Great Britain and Russia. Russia was defeated in the Crimean War, and a gradual integration of Russia into the global economic system started.

In the 70s of the XIXth century, in fact, at the turn of the 70s to 80s, the colonial and semi-colonial redivision of the world was completed and there arose a question, who would be the next victim. And, apparently, it should have been Russia, the country with a vast territory with enormous wealth and huge resources; also it might’ve looked like a weaker country in comparison to others.

We can say that from the 1870s to the end of the 1910s, the whole world policy was revolving around one question: how the West would be able to utilize the Russian territory (by the West I mean the Anglo-Saxon West) and still defeat Germany at the same time?

At the turn of the 10s to 20s of the XXth century, it seemed the Russian Question was solved. The Revolution had happened and Russia was weakened. However, the victory of Stalin's team, the supporters of “Socialism in One Country”5, over the supporters of the world revolution, tilted the scales in favor of the red imperial project, and for 50-60 years Russia in the form of the USSR was a hard nut for the West to crack.

Actually, the West nourished Hitler in order to defeat the Soviet Union. It did not happen. Russia came out of World War II as a superpower, and the West had 50 more years of hard work to create the "fifth column"6, so this column in cooperation with the West, could use the structural flaws of the Soviet system and turn them into a system crisis.

It seemed, in '91 when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended, that the West should merge with the new democratic Russia in embrace! Everything went exactly the opposite way. Since 1991, a frenzied, anti-Russian (as a country and a nation) propaganda, unprecedented even for the Cold War era, begins. It goes in several directions.

And one of the main directions is the identification of the Stalin’s regime with Hitler’s, Nazism with communism (as two forms) and, so to say, this is still unclear which one is the worst, and perhaps communism is even worse than Nazism.

And it creates such a bugaboo that presents Russia and Russian people like some kind of bogey of something totalitarian, not good, which has always been opposed to the West. It is significant that the severity of the ideological and political struggle is much higher than during the Cold War.

Have you seen the film "The Soviet Story" ? Can you share your thoughts and make any comments?

Video part 5

My attitude to this movie is very simple. «The Soviet Story» is a typical propagandistic fake, made with a lot of crude and primitive manipulations; but for the Western audience, especially young people who are not very familiar with the history of the XXth century, it is an attempt to pervert the course of history in the XXth century.

The film received the Mass Impact Award at the Boston film festival in 2008 and got plenty of attention in the Western media, was translated into 30 languages. Why this kind of position is actively promoted by the officials and the media while opposite views are not known to the public?

The reason, in my opinion, is the following: the global crisis is coming, and much more serious than the crisis of 2008, and possibly even much more serious than the crisis of 1929-32, which drew a straight line to the World War II. This crisis has to be solved at someone else's expense, as a rule, at the expense of the weaker. And Russia for the last 20 years was moving towards both military and economic deterioration.

In order to make Russia a victim, it is necessary to trample Russians and their history in the mud. Because the Russian wealth and the Russian territory are needed again, as it was once at the turn of XIXth to XXth century; it has to be justified somehow.

And the justification is found in "terrible sins" blamed on Russians, starting with World War II. Actually, «The Soviet Story» aims to justify the idea that the Russians are reprehensible as the aggressors, just like the Germans. And in fact, this pursues to extrude Russia, as a successor to the Soviet Union, from the victorious powers of the Second World War with all its consequences.

Recently, it has become trendier to compare the acts of Hitler and Nazi regime with the acts of Stalin and the Soviet system. Thus to justify such comparison, Stalin is often incriminated the "Holodomor" as deliberate extermination of the Ukrainian people. So the famine of 1932-33 is being deliberately politicized. How would you comment on this as a historian?

Video part 6

The interpretation of communism and National Socialism as forms of Totalitarianism did not begin yesterday. Its pioneers are western propagandists Friedrich and Brzezinski.

In the mid 50s, they tried to prove that Stalinism and Hitlerism were two forms of the same phenomenon: totalitarianism. And whereas serious scholars usually did not equate Stalinism and Hitlerism - neither in the 60s nor in the 70s, but this scheme resonated in the field of propaganda and journalism. Paradoxically, these attempts to equate Stalinism to Hitlerism were particularly intensified after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is, when, seemingly, the Russian Federation ought to be welcomed to the Democratic club with open arms.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the Western ruling circles have put the goal forth very simply: the next challenge after the destruction of the Soviet Union was to extrude Russia from the group of the World War II winners and thus to perpetuate its non-superpower status, but as a penitent, to justify why it should be victimized, etc. etc.

Therefore, the Soviet Russia must be compared to the Third Reich, Stalinism - to Nazism, Communism - to National Socialism.

Indirectly, it was a blow to the Soviet victory, the pride of the Soviet people, to what unites people in the post-Soviet space: the common victory in war.

So the purpose was twofold. Internal goal: to strike at the unity, at what holds people together, because the victory in World War II is what, in fact, the Soviet society was born in; this is something that unites people in the post-Soviet space.

And the second thing: if the Soviet Union was as bad of a country as the Third Reich, then, Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union should be treated in the same way as we treat the Third Reich - as a defeated country.

It is justified with another myth, so-called Holodomor , on which certain circles in Ukraine during the Yushchenko term were actively speculating.

It is actually amazing knowing that experts are aware of the so-called policy of “korenization”7, predominant amongst the Bolsheviks in the 1920s. It consisted in growing national personnel for the republics, members of The Soviet Union. Ukraine was also korenized. Ukrainian language was imposed. Moreover, not only people, living in the Ukraine but also those living in the Krasnodar region - near Ukraine, were required to speak Ukrainian.

So authorities in Moscow were strengthening the Ukrainian nation - and suddenly the same authorities decide to exterminate Ukrainians by famine!

Serious researchers have already shown that this is a complete fake. First of all, Holodomor (extirpation by famine) is a false term. The 1931-32 famine did not just ravage Ukraine, it mowed down a number of areas in Russia. This coincided with a disease of certain plants; it had a lot of different reasons.

And if you look at the actions of the central authorities in Moscow, they have done a lot to limit the abuse of power by local officials.

And if Ukrainians want to blame someone for the problems of what they call Holodomor, they should start first of all with their own Ukrainians who ruled this republic in the early 30s.

In the Latvian film "The Soviet Story" we are told that in the USSR between 1937 and 1941 11 million people were repressed. Where do these numbers come from?

Video part 7

Well, strangely enough, it is eleven million, and not a hundred eleven million or a billion, because this way any number could be picked.

For example, Solzhenitsyn in "The Gulag Archipelago" writes about tens of millions, but Solzhenitsyn being a cautious man, made a remark at the beginning of the "Archipelago" that his work has a largely impressionistic character. Thus, Solzhenitsyn insured himself as a skilled fighter.

As for the origin of these numbers, Goebbels once said: "If you want a lie to be trusted, lie on a grand scale." I will show a concrete example of how lie about repressions is fabricated, and then we'll talk about eleven million.

There is a number that travels from book to book, especially those written by some dishonest Western researchers as well as the “fifth column” researchers, who live in the Russian Federation: from 1937 to 1941, 40,000 officers and generals in the army were repressed. It says just like this: 40,000 repressed.

This is an absolute lie, because 40,000 were discharged from the army for various reasons. Among them 9913 people were convicted, and 1634 people were executed. Moreover, about 25% of these 9913 people were subsequently rehabilitated during the so-called Beria thaw 1939-1940. It turns out that 10,000 people were convicted and executed (for clarity, of the nearly 10,000 convicts, 1634 people were executed - approx. Ed.).

And what about the other 30,000 people? Who are they? They are those who were discharged from the army based on age, health, and for disciplinary misdemeanors. And we are told that all the 40,000 discharged from the army were repressed. This is an ordinary scam.

Another example, when we are told about tens of millions of victims of Stalin Terror from 1922 to 1953. They take the date when Stalin started really to mean something in the Soviet system of government, and the date of his death.

But the fact is that Stalin started to really run the country in 1929, after the victory over the so-called right deviators8. The leaders in the 20s, during the life of Lenin were Zinoviev, for a couple of years, then Trotsky and his team, and then Bukharin.

Stalin played an important role in the 20s, but he was not number one. He became number one in 1929.

Also, until 1939, Stalin was not solely determining the policy of the Soviet Union. Generally, people who have ever run anything, even a small department at a Research Institute, a department of 10-15 people, know that the one-man control never happens, because there are always groups of interest. And the attempt to picture Stalin who could shoot this or that man, resettle this or that nation solely at his will, because of his own, for example, bloodthirsty qualities or pathologies... - this does not happen in reality.

In reality everything is much more complicated, for example, the so-called repressions of 1937. We are told: "Stalin's repressions." But the historian Yuri N. Zhukov9, based on the enormous amount of facts and documents, showed that the repressions were launched by completely different people and for completely different reasons.

When the Constitution of 1936 was in preparation, Stalin and his supporters in the Politburo wanted to introduce alternative elections. But they were a minority, and they eventually lost. There are even documents, printed samples of these voting bulletins: elections were to be alternative.

But the Politburo colleagues said that people could elect the counterrevolutionaries: the former priests, former White Army officers, former bourgeois intellectuals, and they did not like this idea. So this occasion started a real struggle.

Not only that the Politburo did not support Stalin in this matter, but the "Regional barons" - such as Eikhe, Khrushchev… I would like to stress – that it is the same Khrushchev who made the report on the cult of personality, and spoke of the many thousands shot, - and so these people in 1937 began the Terror locally. Stalin could only counter with one thing: the Terror against the elite, the elite who started local Terror.

In other words, the so-called repressions of 1937 and 1938 are two oppositely directed processes: the large scale ones in the provinces, organized by the "Regional barons" who by no means wanted any democratic society, and Stalin's harsh response to these "regional barons", which can be characterized by Hamlet’s phrase: “The point envenomed too!--Then, venom, to thy work.”10 Stalin was able to solve a number of problems, but he could not push the alternative election through.

In other words, we are told about the so-called Stalin’s repressions, but in reality it was a very complex process; in fact it was a cold civil war, lasted from 1922 to 1941, the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.11

There was a cold civil war going on between different groups of the population, and this civil war only ended with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when common enemy emerged, and when a new Soviet society was born in the fight against this enemy and in the victory over this enemy.

As for the 11 million victims of repressions in the period from 1937 to 1941, as the Arabs say, in such cases: "May the liar’s tongue wither and fall off.”

How do you feel about the filmmakers of "The Soviet Story" accusing the USSR of complicity in the Holocaust, in particular, in cooperation of NKVD and the Gestapo against the Jewish threat and the allegation that these issues were discussed at the alleged meeting that NKVD and the Gestapo held in the 1940?

Video part 8

First, the fact of the meeting is not truly established. The available indirect evidence indicates some contacts, but not a meeting. What was discussed during these contacts is not known.

I cannot imagine that a man with the mentality of Stalin, the man who distrusted Hitler, did not trust the Germans, could allow any of the Soviet citizens, especially members of the NKVD, to discuss the issue of Jewish threat. This is first.

As for the involvement of USSR and Stalin in the Holocaust ... There is such a Greek word: idiot. Idiot in Greek is a man who lives as if there is no world around him.

So those who want to accuse Stalin of involvement in the Holocaust - they ought to look at one of Stalin's decrees issued in summer 1941. According to this decree in the western regions of the USSR the Jews were evacuated first, because Stalin knew that the Germans planned to exterminate not only the Russians, but also the Jews, and thus was saving the Jews.

In the Baltic States, by the way, the Jews were not as much exterminated by the Germans as by the Balts themselves - mainly Latvians and Estonians, and they were very active at committing atrocities. And now these chasteners proudly march through the capitals of the Baltic States. Local governments do nothing about it, and Europe is keeping quiet. This is what we call double standards.

I can imagine what a wail would be set up if, for example, Russian fascists marched through Moscow! And the former SS members march through Riga and Tallinn, and it is not noticed as if it were normal. In other words the double standards work. And I believe these double standards will eventually strike back at the Europeans.

In the Latvian film" The Soviet Story" it is stated that Stalin refused to join the anti-Hitler coalition.

Video part 9

Well, that is a complete lie, an absolute lie. The anti-Hitler coalition was foiled by the British and the French who cooperated with them. Both nations had previously signed peace treaties with Hitler, that is, non-aggression pacts.

On September 30th 1938, the "Anglo-German Declaration"12 was signed, and on December 6 1938, the "Franco-German Declaration"13 was signed.

And, in January of 1937, Britain and France have taken up a task to "incite" Hitler against the USSR, and in no way were they trying to form an "anti-Hitler coalition" with the Soviet Union. Hitler’s task, according to the idea of the West, was the elimination of economic competition and the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The fact is that in the late 20s there were three major industrial centers in the world: the Ruhr, Pennsylvania and Birmingham. And in the 30s two more appeared: Donetsk-Dnepropetrovsk and Urals-Kuzbass.

So, in the 30s Russia - the Soviet Russia - has become the owner of two of the five major industrial regions. And, of course, the Western elite had to destroy them.

So any anti-Hitler coalition was out of question. It is no accident that in the summer of 1939, when Stalin continued talking about the need for the collective security in Europe, the British and the French sent a mission with second-class military officials, who were not authorized to sign anything14.

So the allegation that Stalin refused to enter the "anti-Hitler coalition" - it's an absolute lie. And it is such a primitive lie, that it is enough just to look into normal tutorials to understand that this is not true.

In many Western countries, the topic of the millions of German women allegedly raped by Soviet soldiers is constantly discussed. Can you comment on that?

Video part 10

Yes, there is violence in war time. The Germans who attacked the Soviet Union, raped Soviet women, and this issue was not raised in the West.

As far as millions of German women raped ... well, the Soviet Army just did not have so many soldiers who could rape so many German women. Yes, I repeat, there were incidents of violence, but for some reason the issue of how Americans raped German women is not discussed in the West, and yet there were more than one hundred thousand cases registered.

And it is very interesting, how the U.S. Army dealt with the question of punishment. If the rapist turned out to be white, then he was punished by administrative means. An officer, at best, could be summoned for a court of honor. But if it was a black man, or as they say now, an "African American" - well, in the 40s there was no such term, so we'll keep saying "negro" – he would be discharged from the army and sent to the United States.

So, here's this racism even in respect to rapists in the U.S. Army. By the way, now when the Americans make a movie about war, we always see a black and a white man in the same group running along with machine guns - this is also an absolute lie.

The fact is that there were no joint white and black units in the U.S. Army, and also, the Negroes were not given weapons, they served in auxiliary units. It is a lie all around, just as in this overblown myth about millions of raped German women.

And, again, for some reason no one talks about raped Russian women, or about any women on the Soviet territory. Thus, it turns out, that whatever the Germans did was normal, but the fact that the Russians raped German women – it is exaggerated and emphasized. Well, this also can be interpreted as racism.

Video part 11

Regarding the punishment of Soviet soldiers when rape was identified, very often the measure of punishment was execution by firing squad.

I know it from my father, who fought through the war. He was a pilot and served through the war from 1942 to 1945, and signed his name on the Reichstag.

So, he himself knows several cases, when Soviet soldiers were executed for violence inflicted on German women.

“American special services supported Nazi groups in Ukraine and in Eastern Europe...” and so forth. So the question is about the role of US in the fate of Nazis after the Second World War.

Could you evaluate the contribution of CIA in the revival of Nazism after WWII and make any comments about the activities of Reinhard Gehlen15.

Does it seem like a similar scenario is now being implemented with participation of Baltic Nazi organizations?

Video part 12

The US played a huge role not only in the fate of Nazis after the Second World War, but in the rise of the Nazis to power.

American bankers financed Hitler. Why? There are several reasons: first, he was going to crush the Soviet Union. Second, Hitler was to create a united Europe, something similar to the European Union.

Actually, it has to be said historically the first model of the European Union was Hitler’s model. He created the model which was implemented in a less brutal form after the war by the Germans and French under American leadership.

The Americans were involved with German business. They closely cooperated with «I.G. Farbenindustrie AG» (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG16) – an extremely powerful German Business Group.

Joseph Kennedy – the father of President John Kennedy and also Prescott Bush – the grandfather and father of American Presidents – had sympathy for Hitler. By the way, Prescott Bush received his share of profits from the exploitation of Auschwitz and in 1943 he was ‘dragged’ to court to face charges relating to this. And it is interesting to note that the Rockefellers hired their man to defend Prescott Bush in court. That man was the attorney Allan Welsh Dulles – the future Director of the CIA. And he defended Prescott Bush in court. And he won the case.

In other words, American bankers and American capital played a huge role in the rise of Nazis to power, and many American firms continued their contact with the Germans throughout the war.

After the war American special services both independently and alongside the Vatican used so-called ‘rat lines’ to organize the escape of a significant number of Nazis to North America. This was called Operation ‘Paperclip’.

The Americans gave a lot of attention to the transportation of German scientists, including doctors and medics, who had conducted merciless experiments on people in concentration camps. They got them all out – a large number of these people they took to the United States. They calmly worked there, and by 1955 almost all of them even received US citizenship.

Charles Higham wrote a wonderful bookAmerican Swastika17It covered the collaboration of the Americans with the Nazis before, during and after the war.

It’s enough to say that Reinhard Gehlen (who is mentioned in the question here), was transported by a private plane. He was transported by Walter Bedell Smith, Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff. He took Gehlen to the US. For doing this, they could have if not executed Bedell, at least dismissed him from the army, because this was not authorized by military command (the transportation). So it was decided Gehlen would be used against the Soviet Union, which was an ally at that time.

Today Baltic fascists don’t have power, it is unlikely for them to create problems for Russia – they would bust a gut. But they undoubtedly remain the main tool of Western special services in the Baltic States, and take part in the constant ramping up of pressure on Russians in the Baltic States. This is just like an attempt to knock the wind out of our sails.

“Why has the West, or more specifically Europe, seen in the last few years a softening of attitudes towards Hitler, Nazism and the Third Reich, but at the same time the development of a process of demonization of Stalin, the USSR and Soviet communism?”

Video part 13

This is the central question of all the questions we are discussing.

To begin with, it is important to understand what Stalin is hated for so much in the West? How did Stalin do wrong by the West?

Stalin disrupted the plans of the ‘globalists’, and he did this several times – this is why he is hated.

Firstly, Stalin did not allow Russia to be turned into raw materials and “firewood for the permanent revolution”18 , which was going to solve many problems for the international capital, including the creation of a united Europe. So Stalin outsmarted Western right-wing ‘globalists’ and ‘left-wing globalists’ from the Comintern19.

Secondly, Stalin broke the back of Hitler, whose main aim was the destruction of Russia, the aim which Western capital was also interested in.

Finally, after the war Stalin created a superpower, while it was assumed that post-war Russia would be weakened, and would accept the West dictating its own terms. It is clear that the West simply has to hate this kind of person, and the Fifth Column in the Soviet Union and later in the Russian Federation also has to hate him.

Stalin was able to rout and overcome two proteges of Western capital – Trotsky and Hitler.

And the Red project, the Soviet project even with all its shortcomings – was a real alternative to capitalism and globalism. Indeed, this real alternative was also an economic one right up until the 1980s.

The ‘heroes’ of Perestroika tried to convince us how everything we had was bad. But in 1991 Margaret Thatcher gave a speech on a visit to the American Petroleum Institute in Houston20, in which she stated “The Soviet Union is a country that poses a serious threat to the Western world. I am not talking about a military threat. Our countries are well armed, including nuclear weapons. I mean the economic threat. Due to planned policy and a peculiar combination of moral and material incentives the Soviet Union managed to achieve high economic performance... the rational management of the economy in the Soviet Union was a very real possibility to displace us from the world markets.” And this would force the conducting of social reforms or facing escalating tension.

Well, perhaps Thatcher made a mistake, and maybe everything we had really was bad, and everything in the West really was great in the 1980s?

Was what we had bad? Yes, we had a structural crisis. In 1988, I believe, a commission under the leadership of Nobel prizewinning American economist Wassily Leontief21 came to the Soviet Union. The advocates of Perestroika invited him in the hope that his analysis would confirm the need to system reforms in the USSR. Leontief worked here for some time, and then stated: “Yes, the Soviet Union does have structural economic problems, but there is not one problem that demands the change of the system of the Soviet Union. After which Leontief was thanked, and he returned to the United States.

The state of the US in the second half of the 1980s is evidenced by events on October the 19th 1987, when the New York stock market collapsed, and when in one day the Dow Jones Index fell by 508 points – this is 22.3%22. This is an absolute record. It was then that American capital summoned Alan Greenspan to save the United States and then he said that only a miracle would save the US.

This miracle was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the flow, the ‘pumping’ of capital after 1991 from the post-Soviet region, primarily Russia, into the US.

So these examples which I have given, state that the Soviet project, the Red project, the project of the Red Empire was a real economic alternative to capitalism.

Hitler’s project was not an alternative to capitalism. It developed within a capitalist society. So called ‘national-socialism’ did not encroach on private ownership, or the class of owners. Actually, Hitler was supported exactly by big businesses.

Video part 14

That order, the ‘New World Order’, being created by certain circles in the West as a solution to their problems; that order cuts off 90% of the world’s population from a real, decent life, looks very similar to its predecessor – Hitler’s brutal regime. And it is crucial to discredit communism and the communist project, so that real alternative which existed is not remembered as an alternative, but as a scarecrow, as something very bad.

The focus on Stalinism as an absolute evil makes it possible to divert attention from the typological kinship of two futuro archaic projects – the Hitler’s project and the modern ‘global fascist’ project.

They are futuro archaic because this is a future, which turns to the past. The French journalist Guillaume Faye23 calls them archeofuturistic, I call them futuro archaic, but the meaning is the same – to create a future like a certain past.

It is no coincidence, by the way, that in the 80s the fantasy genre took the place of science fiction. What is science fiction? It is the future as the future. What is fantasy? It is the future as the past. It is a hierarchical world, a world of magic rule which awaits us in the future. No democracy – just a hierarchy of people and this is what we are shown in the film ‘Harry Potter’ – it is an astounding ideological project that drives into children’s consciousness and sub consciousness a certain picture of what authority should be like. Authority should be magical; there should be belief in miracles and so on and so forth.

It’s also important for the Western leadership to discredit Stalinism because, once again, the model of the anti-capitalist Red Empire created in Russia which lived successfully for 70 years - (70 years is a huge period for the 20th century!) – this model is the only alternative to what Hitler tried to create, and to what proclaimers of the ‘new world order’ are trying to create, ready to cut the world’s population by 90%, to herd micro-chipped people into a ghetto. And they need to eradicate any memories of the Soviet Union, built on principles of equality, on principles of social justice.

Some might say: ‘These principles were often violated!’ Yes, they were violated; however, they served as cornerstones of the system.

The writer Yuri Polyakov24 once noted that the weakness of the Soviet Union was in one simple thing: the Soviet system stated ‘I am good, I strive for good’ – but anyone could poke a finger and say “there is a problem here, there is a problem there” – and it was easy to fight this system, pointing out its vulnerable areas.

While the Western system stated ‘I am foul, I strive for the satisfaction of brute material needs! Yes, democracy is all good, but first and foremost – the satisfaction of material needs! And humans are weak, and we are ready to justify any foul behaviour if it works for democracy no matter how controversial it is. If we need to, we will kill Gaddafi, bomb Saddam Hussein. This is all done for democracy!’

And in this respect, of course Stalinism is the proven and tested Stalin Empire and a fearsome weapon against ‘globalism’ and ‘global fascism’.

The demonization of Stalin and communism is a cover up, under the guise of which the global fascists pursue their project – new and more camouflaged edition of Hitler’s project.

Questions related to World War II: What was the scale of events on the Eastern front, how powerful was an enemy faced by USSR? What were the proportions of German forces in the war against Western nations?

Video part 15

When Germany began its military campaign with the connivance of the West – against Czechoslovakia for example – the German army was not stronger than the Czechoslovakian army. Moreover, as German army advanced it faced very strong fortifications.

However the West – first and foremost Britain – surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler, because Hitler needed a powerful industrial base for his war against the Soviet Union. Also, Hitler had to reach the Soviet border. And once he had Czechoslovakia in his hands, he had reached the Soviet border.

The Polish army was weaker than the German army, but not by much. France surrendered to Hitler voluntarily and Hitler, in turn, let the English escape from Dunkirk, let them escape very easily. This is another example how different the war on the Western front was.

What is very interesting is the correlation of the industrial and military potential between the Soviet Union and Germany.

In his book ‘The Rise and Fall of the Great Economic Powers’ Paul Kennedy gives the following statistics: in 1938 the USSR created 17.6% of the world industrial output; Germany – 13.2%; Britain – 9.2%; The US – 28.7%.25

Military potential in 1937 according to Kennedy was as follows: US – 41.7%; Germany – 14.4%; USSR – 14%.

From 1937 to 1941 the USSR advanced a lot, during the 3rd Five Year Plan. Germany itself did not advance much, however Germany received a significant part of the European military-industrial potential. This was Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Holland, so in effect the potentials were equal, but the USSR undoubtedly had the advantage in potential of overall resources. Germany lacked resources. And this is why Hitler’s only chance was ‘blitzkrieg’ – victory over the Soviet Union in two to three months. In the event of ‘blitzkrieg’s’ failure, Hitler had no chance of victory26.

Sometimes the question is asked: ‘Why then did Hitler attack the Soviet Union?’ And here we enter a really interesting topic. The thing is that we still do not know the details of the mission of Rudolf Hess in Great Britain.

Hess arrived in Britain in May 1941. Immediately he was declared insane in Germany. The British stated that they would have no business with these people, however in reality negotiations with Hess continued until mid-June.

And one more very interesting fact: the intelligence reported to Stalin that on June 11th an English politician called Simon (John Allesbrook Simon)27 entered negotiations with Hess. This was the man that in 1935 had given Hitler the ‘green light’ essentially for the occupation of the Rhine region.

Once Stalin found out that Simon was participating in negotiations he realized that the British and Hess came to a certain agreement. This is why on June 13th 1941 the Information Telegraph Agency of Russia made a statement that the USSR honours its obligations to Germany, that the Soviet Union has no aggressive intent.

Stalin’s critics, mocking this announcement, say that it is evidence of Stalin’s credulity, that he believed Hitler and tried to delay the war until the last possible moment by playing up to Hitler.

This is either stupidity, or deliberate lie. The point is that the addressee of the Telegraph Agency statement on June 13th was not Hitler, but the United States and Roosevelt. On April 17th 1941 the US Congress had ruled that if Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, the US would aid the USSR, but if the USSR attacked Germany, then they would aid Germany (the Third Reich).

Stalin did not want under any circumstances to give anyone a reason to accuse him of attacking Germany, because he knew that he would then have to face not only Germany, but the United States and British Empire, which would ally with Hitler.

This ruling of US Congress from April 17th and the actions of Stalin prove the allegations that Stalin was to attack Germany to be completely false. This theory is advocated by the traitor Rezun, writing under the surname Suvorov or rather by the British intelligence, under his name.

Another important moment related to the Second World War, it is here in the questions about the date of the opening of the Second Front.

As we know, the Second Front was opened in 1944. But what is less known is that immediately after Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, Churchill said to Maisky, the Soviet ambassador in Britain28 that the Second Front would be open in 1944.

So, in reality the opening of the Second front was put off until when USSR started to crush Germany and the real threat to the Anglo-Saxons emerged - the Soviet expansion up to the Atlantic.

It is no coincidence that having opened the Second front, the British immediately began to consider the importance of a military operation against the USSR in cooperation with the Germans, with whom they would make peace.

First, there was ‘Operation Rankin’29, followed by ‘Operation Unthinkable’30, which was put forward by Churchill. Under operation ‘Unthinkable’, using 10 German divisions, the Anglo-Americans would commence hostilities against the Red Army. But, it did not work out.

In other words, it can be concluded that the Second front was not opened to help to defeat Hitler, but to stop the expansion of the Soviet Union to the West. And this fact once again proves the correctness of the Russian prerevolutionary geopolitical analyst Alexey Vandam31 who stated ‘What could be worse than being enemies with the Anglo-Saxons? Only being their friend!’

Video part 16

For sure, the major battles of the Second World War took place on the Eastern front. The fate of World War II was determined here, on Russian territory, with Russian blood.

German casualties on the Western front were a little less than two million people, whereas on the Eastern front they lost more than six million.

The combat casualties of Soviet Army were from 8 to 9 million. So, the ratio of losses is not in favor of the Soviet Army. Nevertheless, such losses like 7 to 1, 9 to 1, which emerged during late Perestroika years and later, are out of the question.

Altogether the Soviet Union lost about 27-28 million people. Among them about 20-21 million were civilians, the people who died from the hardships of the war on one hand, however we must keep in mind that Germans deliberately eradicated Soviet citizens. It was an ethno-racial war: extermination of Soviet people, especially Slavs, went in accordance with the plan "OST".32

And I must say that Germany did not fight the Soviet Union alone. The whole Europe united by Germans fought against USSR and, in fact, Hitler positioned himself as a unifier of Europe.

In 1942 the Nazis put very special meaning in pompous celebration of 1200th anniversary of Charles the Great, as they proclaimed to be the heirs to his empire.

A few months before the end of the Second World War, Hitler desperately said: "I was the last hope of Europe!" The point is that against the Soviet Union fought Hitler's European Union, not only because there were Hungarians, Romanians, Italians but even Poles and French fought in the Third Reich army on the territory of the Soviet Union.

Actually, as was noted by German political scientist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt33, there were 2 different wars during the Second World War. The first one was intra-European conventional war, intra-European Civil war. Another one was the war of Germans against Russians, it was not an internal European affair, it was not the war by the rules, it was a war of total destruction of Russians and Slavs. This is why, the Great Patriotic War has a special place in Russian history: for the first time we encountered an enemy that aimed at the physical exterminations and total destruction of Russians. It was the fight for the physical survival and dignified life. And this war ended with the victory of the Soviet Union. It was us who broke the backbone of Hitler and his Wehrmacht.

The Fascism and Nazism are racial ideologies promoting the superiority of one race over another, while one of the fundamental principles of communism is internationalism. Why during the last 20-25 year it became a common practice for politicians, historians and intellectuals to draw an equal sign between communism and Nazism with a tendency to favor the latter?

Video part 17

Communism is not just internationalism, it is also universalism. The Germans are the champions of particularism.34

The entire history of the Germans of the last 500 years is a rebellion against universalism. Martin Luther is a rebellion against the Catholic universalism. German Romanticism of early XIXth century is a rebellion against the Enlightenment universalism. And Hitler is a rebellion against the Anglo-Saxon (capitalist), and the Soviet (communist) universalism.

Particularism is always racially or ethnically limited. And in this case we are dealing with National Socialism, the socialism for a specific nation.

As you know, Soviet communism was international. It did not give supremacy to some specific nations; what was at issue was the formation of entirely new community - the Soviet people.

During the war, the Communism and the Russians were needed as a force capable of stopping Hitler. Therefore, neither during the war nor immediately after it nobody put Soviet Communism and National Socialism in the same category.

Furthermore, almost to the end of “Perestroika” it has not been voiced. This became an issue when the Soviet Union collapsed, and its successor Russia became the next target of globalists. Russia, the country much weaker than the Soviet Union is now under ideological and political pressure. The past of this country is subject to alteration.

And the objective of such alteration is to present all history as extremely evil and to justify the exclusion of such evil country, the successor of totalitarian Soviet Union, out of the community of winners. Those who lost the Cold War must be treated as losers on all the accounts.

American historian Timothy Snyder35 in his book "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" stated that communism and fascism were not antagonists and the Communism was a more terrible regime. It looks like he and some of his fellow historians are working at moving Nazism out of the category of “absolute evil” into one of the “relative evil”.

Video part 18

Well, I have no words. I've got a non-scientific answer to this question: Snyder is a scoundrel and a scam artist under cover of science, if he says such things.

I wonder why Snyder does not criticize Roosevelt and Churchill who chose to ally with Stalin. According to Snyder’s logic they had to choose an alliance with Hitler, whose regime – according to Snyder – was "less bloody" than Stalin’s. Why did not Roosevelt and Churchill become allies of “less bloody” Hitler's regime, but chose Stalin's regime? Why did Churchill and Roosevelt respect Stalin, whom Snyder declares "murderous and bloody dictator"?

In the 60-70s the works of such-like snyderists would have been absolutely impossible: this person would be a laughing stock. Today such works become the mainstream.

And this is not a question of Snyder, Snyder just performs the political order, so does Suvorov and many other people. Of course, I mean that Suvorov whose real name is Rezun 36, not Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov, the great Russian commander37.

Russophobia converts itself into a new form and becomes Sovietophobia”. The fact that today in Russia such books are published in great quantities indicates the shortsightedness of intellectual personnel of current Russian authority.

As for Snyder, his reasoning about "more blood or less blood" is just very cheap.

The Jews are one of the groups most victimized by Nazism. Can you explain why the Jewish organizations in Europe and Russia are very reluctant to criticize Nazi activities in Baltic countries ? What are they really doing?

Video part 19

Jewish organizations in Russia and Europe are integrated into Western system, so they do not go beyond this framework. And the actions of the Jewish organizations suggest that the political decision of ideological battle against Russia, the decision of anti-Soviet and anti-Communist attacks was made at very high level and approved by supranational structures. In the situation like this the Jewish organizations choose to keep quiet.

Although, we cannot say that all Jewish organizations are silent about SS demarches in the Baltic States.

Naturally, we should have had some reaction to the SS marches from the leaders of European countries - UK, France, Germany.

However, we hear nothing. Once again, this indicates that we are dealing with well-directed general western ideological political course against the current Russian Federation.

The marches of SS, the killers of Jews and European citizens during the Second World War, their marches through Riga and Tallinn is a slap in the face of the Europeans. This is very sad, if Europeans do not realize this.

What kind of consequences for Europe and world could have the policy of equating communism and fascism? Should the Western society be interested in resisting this tendency, why?

Video part 20

The healthy part of Western society, which is not looking forward to live in the global fascist state with chips implanted into everyone and national and civilizational differences erased, should firmly oppose the tendency to equate communism and fascism.

It is very significant, that the European generation of 30-40s had very clear understanding who was the enemy and what was greater danger to them: fascism or communism.

Today, Europeans should realize that Global Fascism is much more dangerous trend than the one represented by Soviet communism.

Once again, let me remind a phrase of Margaret Thatcher: “Soviet Communism was not a military threat to the West, it represented an economic threat”. And this means that the Soviet economic model, slandered during Perestroika and post-perestroika, was actually effective and capable of solving many problems.

And the trends that we see in the development of modern capitalism, the crisis pushing the system to the abyss, everything shows the frailty of the system. The masters of the system once again want to emphasize that the legacy of Soviet Union has no value: God forbid anyone to turn to this legacy!

We are not talking about the revival of the Soviet Union, but about the revival of society based on principles of social justice. This is why dirt is slung at the Soviet past equating it with fascism - a society build on principle of social injustice.

None of the Soviet leaders would have thought to say what was said in the Third Reich: "I set you free from your conscience."

In October 2010 in Historical museum of Berlin there was Nazi organized exhibition "Hitler and the Germans: Nation and Crime". The main objective was to present Hitler as an ideal example of the national savior38. Such exhibition is the first in the history of postwar Germany. How can this be explained?

Video part 21

Besides an exhibition, I need to mention, that a collection of quotes from Hitler’s "Mein Kampf" is going to be published. And in a few years the whole "Mein Kampf" will be published in Germany.

And the reason why it is still not published is not because it was , so to speak, banned. Actually, according to German law, if a person dies without heirs, within 70 years you cannot publish his works. This period is about to expire, so "Mein Kampf" will be published, I believe, in 3 years.

I would not be surprised, if in several years some writers of the same kind like above mentioned Snyder, will write a book presenting Hitler as "victim of Stalin" and the Third Reich as "victim of bloody communist regime".

This all falls into the same category: attempts to discredit as much as possible the Soviet experiment and the Soviet alternative to a new world order in any form of it: fascist, or modern Western.

"The General Assembly of the United Nations annually adopts the resolution A/RES/64/147, A/RES/66/143 on inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Each year more nations vote against this resolution. What is your position to these issues?"

Video part 22

Indeed, in 2011 out of 27 members of European Union 17 voted against this resolution. Typically, the outcome of the vote was different. The same reasons, as I've mentioned before, stand behind this and another reason is the rise of Germany. Germany is rising as a leader of Europe, the European political climate is evolving. I mean the recent speeches of European leaders against multiculturalism where they used a soft version of the Third Reich of the 30s style rhetoric. This is what causes such decisions of The General Assembly and such outcome of the voting. We cannot be happy about this, because the oblivion of Nazi crimes leads to its repetition.

The National Defense Authorization Act signed by president Obama allows the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects - US citizens or foreigners - without trial. The official mass media like Fox News already called protesting Americans "domestic terrorists"39. Do you believe this event is related to the demonization of the USSR and what kind of consequences it might have?

Video part 23

Obama acts in line with the trends of the last 30 years, speeding up the completion of the conversion of the USA into a police state. It's not enough to keep this conversion going, he needs to complete it.

Please, keep in mind, that the Patriot Act was signed on October 26th 2001, shortly after 9/11 attack. This act substantially restricted the civil rights in the United States40. By now not many people support the official version of 9/11 events.

In November 2002 the Information Awareness Office (IAO)41 was established and the concept of Total Information Awareness (TIA) was adopted . This ultimately leads to the mass violation of privacy of common Americans by the American government. In addition to this, there is a control program with the eloquent title "The Matrix."42.

In other words, the events of 9/11 had served as a solution to many internal and external problems for the American ruling elite. Now the new crisis is coming and the American authorities are preparing to face the outburst of class struggle.

The public opinion polls in USA indicate that a very large part of the population, including the middle class and upper middle class, expect violent social clashes and the authorities are getting ready for that.

The fact that Fox News labels people who protest and come out to demonstrations as "domestic terrorists", could be an example of how the rulers would crack down on someone who is impacted by the crisis and openly unhappy about it. I think very difficult times are coming to America.

“This is the second Pearl Harbor. I don’t think that I overstate it,” said Chuck Hagel (United States Senator from Nebraska 1997 - 2009) about 9/11 attack43. Do we have a ground to look at the tragedy of 9/11 as sort of the Reichstag fire on the global scale?44

Video part 24

American authorities did not present any credible evidence supporting the version of Arabian terrorists involvement in 9/11 attack. The more time passes, the more a different version becomes apparent that it was a provocation of special services.

Bear in mind, this perfectly fits the tradition of American ruling class. No wonder, Chuck Hagel called it "the second Pearl Harbor".

President Roosevelt knew about upcoming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, however he did not take any actions to protect american warships, because USA needed a formal cause to enter into WWII.

The New Deal of President Roosevelt, hyped up by historians and mass media, did not solve the problems of America. Moreover it created new problems. That's why in the mid 30s very serious competitor of FDR emerged. He was the governor of Louisiana Huey Long, the prototype of Willie Stark, the main character of the novel "All the King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren.45

In 1934 Huey Long started Share Our Wealth movement46 all across America, this movement was joined by nearly 8 million members. Later in 1935 Long was assassinated by loner, the same kind of loner like John Booth who assassinated Lincoln or Lee Harvey Oswald who allegedly killed John Kennedy or the loner Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, who shot Robert Kennedy. Everything in America is done by lonely heroes.

The official version of 9/11 attack is as much controversial as the findings of Warren Commission on assassination of President Kennedy.

However, there are more incidents of this kind, other than Pearl Harbor and 9/11. There was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Americans alleged that Vietnamese opened fire on U.S. warships in international waters. Later it turned out that U.S. warships invaded North Vietnamese territorial waters (it was in the beginning of the 60s), however, this incident was used to unleash the war.

Much earlier, in 1898 very suspicious explosion of USS Maine happened, which caused the Spanish-American war. The cause of explosion on board of Maine still remains unclear. It could have been the same type of action like "the second Pearl Harbor", "the third Pearl Harbor" etc.

In other words, if you ask me: "Does it look like the Reichstag fire on the global scale?", I’d say: "Yes, it does!" In addition: “It was clumsy work of the same kind like the Reichstag fire.”

What is the major trend of all these political processes? What are the objectives of the international elite circles that initiate such processes? What is the true meaning of the present historical time?

Video part 25

I think the main vector of such processes is aimed to the creation of new world order, the post-capitalist order based on strict control over the information resources, information itself and data flow. This is why the educational standards are degrading in many countries including Europe, Russia and USA.

The second goal is to gain control over natural resources, that are getting more depleted in the contemporary world and to reduce the Earth population by 80-90% whatever it takes. The current Earth population is hard to control, besides the Western elite sees them as "superfluous eaters".

The third is to erase the national and civilizational differences. I think the Europeans should be very concerned about their current situation, caused by neoliberal counter-revolution and multiculturalism policy. The major part of Europe is at risk of losing its cultural, ethnic and religious identity. The Europeans should think twice if they really want to live in this "wonderful" world of the new world order.

I think, in the final phase of this new world order the elite class would transform into the new biological species, very different from the mass population. They would look different, live longer, get their organs transplanted. Practically, it means the emergence of new social classes, confronting each other not like two nations, as Disraeli once wrote, but like two biological species.

I believe, this is the ultimate goal of the constructors and the architects of the new world order, no matter how fantastic it might seem at the first sight. But, again, this is fantastic only at the first sight.

Are there any legal tools in the field of international policy to stop historical falsifications promoted by mass media?

Video part 26

Unfortunately, there are no such tools. Besides, now is not the best time for international law. On the West, especially in the United States, we constantly hear voices that „international law is outdated and should be replaced by some other international standards.“ For example, in the article in Washington Post from June 9th it is stated that the international law is not needed anymore.

How can we counter the actions of global Nazis at the present time? Use the old formula: the will and the mind.

The mind means the fight in the area of mass media and science. To each falsification we have to respond with a serious scientific research, this is not as hard as it may seem at the first sight. Remember what Alexander Nevsky said: "God is not with the power , but with the truth". And the truth is not on the side of falsifiers. We have to establish the real mass media, because what we have now in the West is not mass media, we may call it "MADS" - "Misinformation, Advertisement and Degradation System". Instead of "MADS" we need the real mass media - this is where the mind comes into play.

And now, about the will. The will means the creation of feasible alternative to the globalization. The Soviet Union demonstrated the example of such alternative – it was anti-capitalist quasi empire. No need to be afraid of using the word "empire" or "imperial structure".

Speaking about Europe, the alternative to the globalization cannot be European Union controlled by Americans, but the true European Federation acting in working partnership with Russia. The French-German foundation in close cooperation with Russia could create more secure world and stand against globalization and global fascism.

However, the Europeans have to realize, what is the real threat to them, who is their real enemy and who is the ally and take the course towards the creation of this empire-like state, again, no need to be afraid of the word "empire".

The empires can be very democratic and so called republics can be very totalitarian. For example, United States is formally a republic, but, actually, this is a real empire and a police state. If the Europeans don't want to have the same orders in their home, they have to take their destiny in their own hands. Yes, this is easy to say, hard to achieve.

Americans have already planted several serious "bombs" in Europe and may pull the trigger to explode these "bombs", if the Europeans will try to stand on their own two feet and stop using „feet of clay“47 of „colossus“48 called the European Union.

One of such "bombs" is the state of Kosovo. This narco-terrorist Islamic state serves as the gate for the migration from African and Arabian countries into Europe.

I strongly believe, should the Europeans make a move to act independent, the Americans and pro-american elite circles in Europe would not hesitate to ignite this " Bickford fuse" called "European Islam".

People say: "no guts, no glory". And those who do not want to end up in the „paradise“ of global fascism, which is called hell, they have to fight against it. You don't need to follow the path of Soviet Union and repeat its mistakes , but you have to keep in mind, that the alternative to the globalism could be a world based on European values, European legacy and social justice.

Video part 27

If the Europeans don't want to turn Europe into a desert zone like the planet of Mars, where „the aliens“ and „the predators“ will boss it, they have to fight for the European tradition, values and civilizational identity. 

The European tradition is targeted by the globalists, just like any other tradition - Chinese, Russian or Indian.

Because the global world is a world without traditions, world of people and ethnicities with their civilizational memory erased. If we don't want to let this “aliens” and “predators” win, we have to stand firmly for our identity.


1 “Superfluous eaters”. The term was introduced by the ideologists of Nazi Germany during WWII, it means the people to be annihilated by deliberate use of famine.

Essay by Steven R. Welch of Yale University.

Useless eaters: disability as genocidal marker in Nazi Germany.

2 Jean Fourastie (1907-1990) - French economist and sociologist.

3 Welfare state. Concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens.

4 “The Crisis of Democracy: On the Governability of Democracies – the report about the political state of USA, Europe and Japan, created in 1975 and later published as a book.

5 Socialism in One Country. The doctrine of development in USSR put forth by Stalin in 1924. The doctrine required to concentrate on internal strengthening of the state and self sufficiency of the economy and quit the pursuit of “permanent revolution”.

6 Fifth column - a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.

7 Korenization, korenizatsiia, indigenization. The element of national policy in the USSR, introduced in 1920s. The main objective was to provide equal rights for the non-Russian nationalities and to grow locally born engineers, teachers, doctors and administrative officials in all Soviet republics. The word “korenizatsiia” comes from Russian word “koren” (root). For additional information ref. to article by Bernard V. Oliver. Central Asian Survey, Volume 9, Issue 3, 1990

8 Right deviators. The opposition group in the Communist party, it emerged in 1928. They demanded to slow down the industrial development, curb the formation of collective farms and reduce the state regulation in the trade. J. V. Stalin. The Right Danger in the C.P.S.U.(B.) Speech delivered at the Plenum of the Moscow Committee and Moscow Control Commission of the C.P.S.U.(B.) October 19, 1928. Industrialisation of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.) Speech delivered at the Plenum of the C.P.S.U.(B.) November 19, 1928. Bukharin's Group and the Right Deviation in Our Party. From Speeches Delivered at a Joint Meeting of the Political Bureau of the C.C. and the Presidium of the C.C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) at the End of January and the Beginning of Feburary 1929 (Brief Record)

9 Yuri Zhukov. Russian historian, Doctor of history. Born 1938.

10 Hamlet (Act 5 Scene II) by William Shakespeare

11 “The Great Patriotic War is the war of Soviet Union against Nazi Germany from June 22nd 1941 to May 9th 1945.

12 The Munich Agreement was a settlement permitting Nazi Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia's areas along the country's borders mainly inhabited by ethnic Germans.

13 The Franco-German Declaration of December 6th, 1938

14 Moscow Negotiations 1939 

Chronology of events March 1938 to December 1941 

К. Ingram. Years of Crisis. An Outline of International History 1919 — 1945, London, 1946

L. Namier. Europe in Decay; A Study in Disintegration 1936 — 1940. London, 1950

W. L. Shirer. The Collapse of the Third Republic. An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940

B. Liddell Hart. History of the Second World War

15 Reinhard Gehlen (1902-1979). Major General in the German Wehrmacht during World War II. Starting in 1942 he served as chief of Fremde Heere Ost (FHO), the German Army's military intelligence unit on the Eastern Front. During the emerging phases of the Cold War, he was recruited by the United States military to set up a spy ring directed against the Soviet Union.

16 IG Farben - German chemical industry conglomerate.

17 Charles Higham, American Swastika/the Shocking Story of Nazi Collaborators in Our Midst from 1933 to the Present Day

"Operation Paperclip" was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II (1939–45). It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), Although the JIOA's recruitment of German scientists began after the European Allied victory (8 May 1945), US President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. 

18 Permanent Revolution. The theory developed by Leon Trotsky. He wrote: “The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx attached to this concept, means a revolution which makes no compromise with any single form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, which goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from without; that is, a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted in the preceding one and which can end only in complete liquidation.”

19 Comintern. The Communist International and also known as the Third International (1919–1943), was an international communist organization.

20 Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on the collapse of the Soviet Union

21 Wassily Wassilyovich Leontief (August 5, 1905, Munich, Germany – February 5, 1999, New York), was a Russian-American economist notable for his research on how changes in one economic sector may have an effect on other sectors. Leontief won the Nobel Committee's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1973, and three of his doctoral students have also been awarded the prize (Paul Samuelson 1970, Robert Solow 1987, Vernon L. Smith 2002).

22 In finance, Black Monday refers to Monday October 19, 1987, when stock markets around the world crashed, shedding a huge value in a very short time.

23 Guillaume Faye (born 1949). French journalist and writer.

24 Yuri Polyakov (born 1954). Russian writer, since 2001 is an editor-in-chief of "The literary newspaper".

25 The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, by Paul Kennedy, first published in 1987, explores the politics and economics of the Great Powers from 1500 to 1980 and the reason for their decline.

26 Blitzkrieg ("lightning war") is a term describing a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorized or mechanized infantry formations, and heavily backed up by close air support, forces a breakthrough into the enemy's rear through a series of deep thrusts; and once in the enemy's rear, proceeds to dislocate them by utilizing speed and surprise, and then encircle them. Through the employment of combined arms in maneuver warfare, the blitzkrieg attempts to unbalance the enemy by making it difficult for them to respond effectively to the continuously changing front, and defeat them through a decisive vernichtungsschlacht (battle of annihilation).

27 John Allsebrook Simon(1873 – 1954). British politician.

28 Ivan Mikhailovich Maisky (1884 – 1975) was a Soviet diplomat, historian, and politician, ambassador to London during much of World War II.

29 Operation RANKIN. RANKIN was defined as a sudden change in the strength and determination of Germany. It was a plan of occupying Germany and the occupied territories in case of collapse of the Nazi power.

30 Operation Unthinkable was a code-name of two related plans of a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.

31 Alexey E. Vandam (Алексей Ефимович Вандам, March 17, 1867 - September 16 (the date on the monument: September 6), 1933) - Major General (1917), a military writer, author of works on geopolitics, geo-strategy and strategic geography.

32 Generalplan Ost (GPO) (Master Plan East) was a secret Nazi German plan for the colonization of Central and Eastern Europe.

33 Carl Schmitt (11 July 1888 – 7 April 1985) was a German philosopher, jurist, political theorist, and professor of law.

34 Political particularism is the ability of policymakers to further their careers by appealing to narrow interests rather than the wider interests of the country. It is often characterized by its opponents as the politics of group identity that trumps universal rights and therefore the rights of minorities or any other kind of “other.” In particularism, the decisive factor of politics becomes religious and ethnic identity and the interests of the communities defined by these bonds instead of the ideas and values of political pluralism with its emphasis on universal rights, separation of religion and the government and an ethic of religious and ethnic tolerance.

35 Timothy D. Snyder (born August 18, 1969) is an American Professor of History at Yale University.

36 Victor Suvorov (Rus: Виктор Суворов, real name is Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, born April 20, 1947) is Russian writer, historian, and a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the UK.

37 Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov (24 November [O.S. 13 November] 1729 or 1730 – 18 May [O.S. 6 May] 1800), Count Suvorov of Rymnik, Prince of Italy, Count of the Holy Roman Empire, was a Generalissimo of the Russian Empire. Suvorov is considered to be one of the few generals in history who never lost a battle.

38 Ausstellung "Hitler und die Deutschen" in Berlin eröffnet

39 Fox News host calls Occupy Wall Street movement "domestic terrorists"

40 The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

41 The Information Awareness Office (IAO) was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in January 2002 to bring together several DARPA projects focused on applying surveillance and information technology to track and monitor terrorists and other asymmetric threats to U.S. national security, by achieving Total Information Awareness (TIA).

42 The Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange Program, also known by the acronym MATRIX, was a U.S. federally funded data mining system originally developed for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement described as a tool to identify terrorist subjects.

43 Charles Babington The Washington post

44 The Reichstag fire (German: Reichstagsbrand) was an arson attack on the Reichstag building in Berlin on 27 February 1933. The event is seen as pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.

45 Huey Pierce Long, Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), nicknamed "The Kingfish", was an American politician who served as the 40th Governor of Louisiana from 1928–1932 and as a member of the United States Senate from 1932 until his assassination in 1935.

46 Share The Wealth was a movement begun in February 1934, during the Great Depression, by Huey Long, a governor and later United States Senator from Louisiana. A program designed to provide a decent standard of living to all Americans by spreading the nation’s wealth among the people.

47 Feet of clay is a reference to the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, by the prophet Daniel as recounted in the Book of Daniel. The analogy is now commonly used to refer to a weakness or character flaw, especially in people of high station.

48 The original meaning of the word colossus is an exceptionally large statue.