[The Occidental Observer (TOO) contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, has a fascinating discussion with Horus on the so-called “pogroms” against jews in Russia and how they were greatly exaggerated, and often outright fabrications. This propaganda served jewish interests through generating sympathy for the flooding of the West with jewish-Russian immigrants, with disastrous results.
Discussing the ‘Russian Pogroms’
with Andrew Joyce
Jan 20, 2021
Click here for the video:
Published on Jan 20, 2021
Discussing the ‘Russian pogroms’ with Andrew Joyce
Andrew Joyce and I discuss the so-called pogroms that occurred in the western Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the events in Kishinev (Chisinau) in 1903 and 1905, the wave of westward Jewish migration occurring at the same time and the consequences of that migration.
Dr Joyce’s series of essays that sparked my interest in this matter:
A few Jewish perspectives on the same events:
All comments, feedback, suggestions and requests are welcome.
All my links are here – https://linktr.ee/WarmasterHorus
Any donations will be very gratefully received.
BTC : 3D2YT2QeBHo6VyrZEiyt1NPiTjqdhQhYgJ
My Twitter and YouTube pages are verified for Basic Attention Token (BAT) tips through Brave browser.
Sensitivity Normal – Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over
Horus: Thanks for joining me Dr Joyce. And we’re gonna talk about the Kishinev so-called “pogrom”, or riot, depending on how you describe it. And this conversation is particularly triggered by this article that you wrote, or an essay that you wrote, which was one of one of the first things you did on Occidental Observer. And you’d read various books about the events in Kishinev, which is now called Chisinau, I think it’s in Moldova now. Used to be in the Russian Empire when these when these riots happened.
And you particularly based your critique of the prevailing view of that, of the history of those events, on the work of John Doyle Klier, who is not a particularly famous academic. But he seems a more honest and serious one than some of the people who write about this event.
I’ve been just doing some reading around it, just in articles that are easily available. One recent writer is Steven Zipperstein*. Have you read his work?
[*Steven J. Zipperstein (born 1950) is the Daniel E. Koshland Professor in Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University.]
Andrew Joyce: Yeah.
Horus: And he wrote a book I believe it’s just called “Pogrom”. But I mean, based partly on what Klier said you would dispute whether it deserves the title of a “pogrom” at all. Is that correct?
Andrew Joyce: Yeah. And that applies for most of the so-called “pogroms” that happened in the Russian Empire towards the end of the 19th century.
My studies in jewish issues began very, very basically with the “Holocaust”. Because that’s what everyone’s introduced to really at the beginning when they go to school, whether it’s in the United Kingdom, whether it’s in Ireland, whether it’s across Europe, or the United States. That’s your first introduction to the jews. The jews as victims of what you’re told is the most extravagant and most awful and most demonic genocide ever perpetrated. So it began there.
And it was only much later that I started to sort of snoop around into other corners of jewish history. One of which, of course, was the pogroms, which is presented in a lot of texts as a kind of precursor, or predecessor, to the “Holocaust”. So it sparked my interest, and I read widely on it.
And the first series of essays that I did on the pogroms, the myth of the Russian pogroms, sort of charted in a way my exploration through that historiography.
Now you mentioned that John Doyle Klier is not a well-known individual, in other words, the public will never have heard of him. And this is one of the problems that we have. A lot of people — and I’ve interacted with so-called normies and Leftists, and what have you, on Twitter at times, or social media, or even in real life — and they all think that they know the history. They all think that they know the history of the “Holocaust”. They all think they know the history of the jews, or at least the rough outlines of it and how it makes sense to them. And always and everywhere that involves a heavy dose of victimhood.
But they actually haven’t read that much of the actual scholarship. And there is a sizable element within the mainstream scholarship that is very revealing! And which in a way is kind of revisionist, or quasi revisionist. And John Doyle Klier’s work performs that function absolutely, when it comes to the pogroms.
For example, if I was to walk down the street and start telling people that the pogroms were a myth invented by the jews, or if I was to write that probably — and post that through people’s letter boxes, and what have you — you’d be liable to some kind of speech legislation I’m sure but the fact remains that that is the truth! And the fact remains that that has been verified without controversy, and to an extent that is not debatable in the work of John Doyle Klier, and people like him.
People who went to the original archives who possessed the necessary language skills, and research skills, to go into the archives and pull out all of the original documents and try and see how they matched up. And try and find what actually happened in the Russian Empire and the Pale of Settlement in Ukraine, around the period 1880s to about 1910, when various of these riots actually took place.
And John Doyle Klier’s work, I’ll never forget reading him. In particular his 2005 book “Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882”, which really laid the groundwork for my understanding of what I’ve later discovered happened in Kishinev. I just remember being just stunned at reading certain sentences within that text! Especially when he said that claims that the pogroms had taken place should be treated, … And this is his wording:
“With extreme caution.”
Because to cast doubt upon these jewish victimhood narratives is not something that we’re used to. And even today if someone was to come along and say that you should treat, for example, the “Holocaust” narratives, or certain aspects of them, with “extreme caution” you would be looked at as somewhere between a lunatic and a criminal! So you can imagine my reaction on seeing that.
Again, it’s a niche text. It’s difficult to get your hands on. It’s very expensive to buy. And not many people have read it. And unfortunately that that allows certain preconceptions and certain myths to be perpetuated.
And jews in much of their historiography have ignored Klier’s findings and just continued to write their own narratives about what happened in Kishinev, or what happened in certain of the other towns and cities in the Russian Empire. And just simply allege that these events were the irrational results of bigoted peasants manipulated by government officials, who then undertook to commit wholesale massacres against the jews. To bludgeon women with hammers, and axes, and to throw living babies onto fires!
I mean, these are the kind of stories that were coming out, along with women having their breasts hacked off, etc., etc. I mean, the most obscene and caricatured kind of violence imaginable! Which does find it’s echoes in certain of the exposed frauds of the “Holocaust”. I’m thinking of Jerzy Kozinski’s novel “The Painted Bird”, which book for a long time was presented as a kind of semi-autobiographical novel, in which the violence in it is just so obscene, and quasi pornographic, that really one should have known that this was a total and sick fantasy! But in any case all of that is as prefigured in the Russian pogroms.
Horus: Jerzy Konzinski, it turns out, was actually protected by ethnic Poles during the war, I think, rather than persecuted. Well, I suppose he was in hiding, but yeah.
And this is the story of, well there’s a much, much longer historical narrative of essentially, as you pointed out in the article, about these pogroms, or these riots. There’s a much longer narrative of which this, the “Holocaust”, and many other events through the centuries, especially in European countries, are portrayed as like just these eruptions, these irrational incidents of just anti-semitic hate!
More recently they’ve started to describe this in terms of a “virus”. Like anti-semitism is a virus that just is sort of endemic in European civilization, and it erupts in certain episodes. Typically just triggered by some lie, like what they call the “blood libel”. What I found looking at, … Which also constitutes a slander against our whole civilization, I would always emphasize that as well. But what I found looking over some of the jewish sources.
One was an interview with Zipperstein, another was from the Jewish Virtual Library, another was from the Times of Israel. The consensus narrative among jewish sources at the moment seems to be that 49 people were murdered during this so-called pogrom. Hundreds of people were injured. Thousands were de-housed. And it was all triggered off by just the blood libel. Which I think you said also some gentile professors going on with the same. David Dutton was one, wasn’t it? Go along with the same kind of interpretation.
Andrew Joyce: Yeah.
Horus: I mean, from what you’ve seen those numbers of people killed are not borne out, right?
Andrew Joyce: No. I mean, we have a problem of sources, first of all. And where these numbers are derived from. And one of the problems is that a lot of the jewish historical work that’s been carried out, has been based on newspaper reports, either from within Russia, or which were transmitted eventually to the West. And as Klier has very clearly demonstrated these reports were either full of exaggeration, or by Klier demonstrating that certain travel patterns by the journalists involved, were simply impossible. That they were just wholesale inventions!
On top of that we have official investigations that were carried out by members of the British embassy, for example, who were sent across to conduct an investigation into these so-called pogroms in the Russian Empire, and to bring back at least some kind of information so that certain diplomatic efforts could be put in place. Now this kind of outreach work has some kind of pedigree within the British government.
Now there’s a great book, very interesting book, called “The Rise of Modern Jewish Politics” by an academic called, CS Monaco, which I would certainly recommend to anyone. And it basically gets into the question of when did jewish politics become international? Because we know that there were sort of jewish elite groups in Germany and France, going back to medieval times, and earlier, etc., etc.
But when did sort of international jewish cooperation really begin to accelerate? And Monaco pinpoints it around the time of the 1840s, when you have the Damascus Affair in 1840. The Damascus Affair being the allegation that, I think it was 15, no, 13 jewish leaders of the jewish community in Damascus had been involved in some way in the murder of a Christian monk. So it was, for all intents and purposes, like a kind of a blood libel accusation. And I’m not going to get into the ins and outs and details of that here, because it’s actually quite a protracted tale. And I just encourage people to look into it in their own time, the Damascus Affair.
But, because that was ongoing and, because of the growth of the British Empire, certain jewish cliques within the British Empire got Moses Montefiore, who was part of the Anglo-jewish cousinhood, to go across as a diplomat to Syria, to go to Damascus and intervene on behalf of the jews there. And this is the beginning of sort of large-scale government interactions by jewish elites to protect, or overlook, the situation of jews in other lands.
So, fast forward 50, 60 years when news starts emerging that there are pogroms ongoing in the Russian Empire. Delegations are sent once again. And they’re not jewish delegations, this is the crucial difference. They send a couple of Brits. I think one was a Scotsman. And these individuals go out and investigate what’s happening with a view to giving the British government a clear-sighted opinion on what exactly was going on.
And those reports were unanimous in saying that the entire thing had been exaggerated. That the numbers were ridiculous. That were perhaps there were being 50, or 60 murders claimed, only one verified murder could be confirmed. That whereas whole villages had been said to have been burned to the ground, perhaps one hut managed to lose it’s roof. So just the grossest of exaggerations were being discovered.
But only really with Klier do we find that there’s an emphasis on the reports of the latter, the delegates, the ambassadors, and the diplomats, rather than the newspaper reports. Which as Klier pointed out were being compiled dubiously by correspondence from the jewish world. Which were then transmitted to a rabbi called Yitzhak Wolfe in Prussia. Who then sort of gathered them all up and passed them on to people like Lucian Wolfe. I think it was Lucian Wolfe at The Times [newspaper]. He was also involved in quote-unquote “exposing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”
Horus: And was jewish himself, right?
Andrew Joyce: Yeah. Basically Klier was able to demonstrate the genealogy of this fraud, in terms of tracing it back to its origins. Klier never denied that some riots had taken place. Although he did say that the context of these particular riots deserved a lot of attention. We’ll probably get into that in a minute. But yes, the idea that there were these really brutal and bloody, and irrational, massacres over the blood libel, is a total illusion!
Horus: And basically I mean, a lie! I mean, it seems to me anyway, that there are clear reasons which, well I’ve read your essay, I’ve not managed to read Klier’s book yet. But I mean, in your essay you lay out clear reasons [chuckling] why these things happen. There’s no need to, as some writers do — obviously people who are basically, who think it’s their duty to fall in line with a pro-jewish narrative — I think, there’s no need for them to look for ridiculously simplistic, or just, I don’t know, fanciful explanations like, …
I mean, the blood libel thing is supposed to be an ever present since many centuries back, right? So what I mean, why on earth would that be the explanation, you know, in a particular time? Why would that ever be a trigger? I mean, are they saying that it’s something, … I’m musing here. I mean, this is not necessary, you can’t speak for other people’s mistakes obviously.
But it seems to me that one would only resort to something as sort of simplistic, and kind of blase, as blaming the blood libel, if one was determined to ignore any causes that admitted any fault on the part of any jews. I mean, do you think that’s roughly, right?
Andrew Joyce: Yeah. I mean, when it comes to the blood libel it’s certainly a tool that’s been used as much by the jews as it has been by non-jews. My own perspective on the blood libels shaped predominantly by the medieval stories, in which it was always clear to me that whereas there might be a real groundswell of underlying resentment towards jews for socio-economic reasons, the blood libel could provide a way of lighting a match, that would basically, you know, finally, set the spark of a kind of a riot, or an action against the jews that would kind of release a lot of this pressure that had been building up. So it was a tool.
But there’s no denying that modern historiography produced by jews is always keen to try and tie dissatisfaction with jews, or antagonism involving jews, back to the irrational. And the ultimate in the irrational in jewish eyes is the blood libels. So wherever an accusation like this can be found, all antagonisms are basically attributed to it, even though that’s not the case.
I mean, when you look at Kishinev you have the, Kishinev just prior to the riots that occurred there, and they were modest riots, they weren’t severe. But they were a riots. The question is:
“Well, why did it happen?”
Well it wasn’t a blood libel. I mean, the context there speaks for itself. Between 1860 and 1897 the jewish proportion of the population rose from about 20 percent to 45 percent. That’s a population explosion! In no time at all. And that feeling of being swamped, or surrounded by jews, all of whom you already had a very, very substantial control and certain monopolies within the city. That’s devastating to the other populations that are there.
I mean, even Edward Judge who wrote the book “Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom” which is one of the first books that was written on kishinev, and which actually is sympathetic to the jews. Even Judge wrote that over 80 percent of the merchants were jews. And that the grain trade — which is one of the cities like that, was one of its main industries — was almost entirely in jewish hands. And judge writes that, I’ll just quote from him:
“This circumstance not only increased jewish influence and visibility, it also added to the concerns of those who feared that the province’s economy, especially in the cities, was coming increasingly under jewish control.”
So there’s a sense of threat there. And then he goes on to say:
“In economic terms the jews were even more influential and their numbers would indicate. The majority of Kishinev’s commercial, financial, industrial, enterprises, including three-fourths of the city’s factories, were in jewish hands. Jewish-owned businesses included four mills, wineries, tobacco processing plants, credit loan agencies, trading companies, and the like. The skilled trades especially sewing, tailoring, shoe making, and cabinet making, were likewise dominated by the jews.”
In other words, if you wanted a job you were probably going to go to a jew. If you needed money you were going to have to go to a jew. If you required services you were going to be reliant on the jews. I mean, this is a suffocation of your life and a total dependence on a people that you probably correctly view as unremittingly hostile towards you! So, there is a tinder box there just waiting for a match to come along and strike it.
Horus: Yeah. One thing that intrigues me about the general narrative, not only in this instance but in many places and times of irrational persecution, is that, … I mean, you gave an example there from Judge who wrote a broadly pro-jewish book but still tries to address the causes. Nothing about him doing that in any way condones any crimes against jews.
And yet most scholars would still feel that they can’t go, I mean, increasingly so at present I think would increase, would feel that they can’t go where he went, you know, they can’t even list just material reasons, or reasons that could trigger off anger at jews. I mean, there’s an obvious case there for sort of an ethnic pushback against the sort of jewish stranglehold, if we call it that, over that town that makes it understandable why people would want to push back. That still doesn’t condone any sort of violent crimes against them. It just means getting organized. The native people of that region would have a reason to organize.
So it intrigues me that even though most of us would agree that none of that is grounds for crimes, jewish historians generally seem to still want to swerve away from acknowledging — and pro-jewish gentile historians as well — want to swerve away from acknowledging those material reasons. Which are very illuminating! Like it’s illuminating just to know the ethnic, I don’t know what the term is, the ethnographic situation, right?
But again, and again we find with so many historical events, not only this one, that nevertheless we have to swerve away to a position of complete exculpation of the jews! And, do you find that?
Andrew Joyce: Yeah. Look, to put it in the most basic terms, it is, and always has been, in jewish interest to push the narrative, or the theory that prejudice itself is something that is self-generated. I in an article I wrote a few months ago looking at the merits and inadequacies of middle minority theory and explaining the jews, I pointed to the very good comments actually by a jewish Marxist, strangely enough, Edna Bonacich. She was one of the founders of middleman minority theory. And she said that:
“Look, all through sociology, and history, and politics, and psychology, you’re basically maligned and ostracized if you suggest that prejudice even against middlemen minorities — who can basically engage in socially, and politically, and economically, antagonistic behaviors — that if you imply that prejudice is in any way other than self-generated, you’ll be ostracized.”
But what she was saying is that it’s very, very clear that antagonism is being created in these situations by the presence of two different populations, both of whom have antagonistic, or competing goals, and ambitions, and interests. And you’re right in what you’re saying that we’re not implying that the violence is an answer, or anything else. We’re simply saying that:
“Let’s be honest about the real causes of friction here.”
Which is something that was also mentioned by Hilaire Belloc in his 1922 book “The jews”. He’s simply saying:
“Look, it is clear that anti-semitism is simply a social friction. And we need to understand and be honest about the causes of this social friction.”
But jews don’t want that, because when jews say that prejudice is self-generated, then it’s a White problem. It’s something that Whites need to sort themselves out. And the way that jews have always postulated as the solution there is for Whites just to shut up and just accept things how they are. In the best case scenario, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Just shut up and accept things how they are! Because to complain about it is simply to be prejudiced!
But clearly that’s leaving much unsaid, and it never addresses the fundamental problems that are creating conflict in the first place. Because you can stop people from talking about something. But you can’t stop them from feeling really annoyed about the realities of the situation facing them.
So yes, in the vast majority of jewish historiography on the pogroms, or indeed on the origins of the “Holocaust”, or in any of the medieval expulsions, the historians always bring into place something that a term I’ve coined called “the cropped timeline explanation”. Which is you pick a certain point in time, normally just prior to the event itself, and you say that something happened here, which occasionally is a blood libel accusation. You say:
“That is the cause of everything! This is where it begins!”
And when you do that you ignore the previous 30, 40, 50, or 100 years of economic competition, of exploitation, of money lending, of loan sharking, of the monopoly of the tavern system in the Russian Empire, and so on, and so forth. You cut all of that out! Because what you want to do is you want to say:
“It has nothing to do with what jews are doing! It’s entirely self-generated!”
And it’s a problem that Whites have.
Horus: And to the extent these things are being spoken over a century and so later. I mean, the sort of proponents of that view will obviously find it politically useful now, because it says that this is a reason for us to combat your prejudices now. And to suppress your ethnic consciousness of yourselves now. Because we’ve seen, as with the “Holocaust”, we’ve seen in the past what happens when Whites are allowed to organize as Whites. [chuckling]
There are some even quite explicit expressions of that. Some people are quite frank. I can’t think of a clear example right now but some people are quite frank in saying, … Oh well, one example actually, recently, was Constantine Kisin, who’s from the Triggernometry channel on YouTube. And he said it sort of in the midst of a sentence. But you can quite clearly see his meaning. And he says, … He’s talking to a survivor of Muslim rape gangs in Britain. And he says:
“One danger about not addressing this issue, …”
Obviously this is a question of crimes against Whites, so it’s different in that sense, but:
“One danger of not addressing this properly is that it leads to, …”
I’m paraphrasing slightly, but he says:
“Leads to a rise in a sort of White racial consciousness. And we know where that leads! We know the dark places that leads!”
He’s jewish himself. He’s from the Russian Empire. He was from Russia, sorry. And so that was a particularly crystalline example. But it serves a purpose in sort of in establishing basically sort of jewish control of how active Whites are allowed to be in their own cause basically. But would you agree with that? It sort of serves purposes that go on much, much later than the events themselves. Obviously there’s actually a different narrative among jewish historians now than there was at the time. Would you say that’s right?
Andrew Joyce: Yeah. I mean, one of the problems with our circles, our method of politics, is that it is still steeped in sort of this kind of tendency towards reaction. And we are very reactive. And we’re reacting towards the inauguration of Biden today. And tomorrow we’ll react against something else. And then we’ll react against transsexuals and bathrooms again. And we’ll react against that.
We live in this kind of, and it’s one of the critiques that I would have of our movement, is that we live in a constant state of either enduring crisis, waiting for the next crisis, or panicking about an impending crisis. And it’s not healthy. And it’s especially not healthy when you look at the tactics that are employed by so many of our opponents. Which are that they’re always playing the long game.
I mean, it ’s not overnight did jews come up with this strategy of a “cropped timeline explanation”, or insisting that prejudice is self-generated these are people who’ve been working for years, and years, and years, before the Second World War, but especially afterwards, and moving into fields like sociology, mass communication, psychology, criminology, you name it! And in all of them becoming influential and adapting “ways of seeing”, as Kevin MacDonald’s phrase goes.
In such a way that certain ideas become anathema, and other ideas like this idea of self-generated prejudice, reach the pinnacle of academic respectability. And once those foundations are in place you have a monolithic element within culture that is very difficult to move, or even go around. And one of the problems that we have, as you’ve highlighted, is that every example of basically taking your own side in modern culture is held up as an example of an irrational bigotry.
And yeah, the amount of times I’ve had interactions with people, either in real life, or on social media, Leftists, or even normies, and you try and address some of jewish history, and whatever, that they will speak to me, … Who’s invested probably about 15 years of my life reading about this stuff now. About 10 years of very serious research and writing on it, … And have read, … I just I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many books and journal articles, …
And someone on the street — probably the last thing they read was Harry Potter. They have no background of either training in history, or literary studies, or are anything serious in terms of analyzing a text, or learning how to research something academically. And they won’t have any background. But they would deem to say to me that I’m completely off the Mark! That I’m an ignorant bigot! Someone yesterday called me, what was it?:
“A racist chud! Who believes that Braveheart was a documentary.”
No! No! No! So people like that need a very, very serious reality check! Because it’s not even David and Goliath. It’s like they aren’t even coming to the battle. I mean, people like that don’t have a, they’re living in Disneyland! That’s where their mentality is. They have this Disneyland mentality! Completely undisturbed by anything remotely disturbing about the real way in which the world works.
And I have no time for people like that. And no sympathy for them. And this phrase that went around after the Joker film came out, of:
“You get what you fucking deserve!”
There are a lot of Whites in our society, believe you me, that will get what they fucking deserve, because they won’t come out of Disneyland! They don’t want to let go with a comfort blanket. And so be it!
Horus: Unfortunately though, it seems that our fate is to some extent tied to theirs, right? So that’s why we probably try again, and again engaging with people, even though the chances of any sort of anything productive coming from it are usually low. When people react to you like that, just dismissal of you, who’s actually a scholar, you know, based on literally just sentences that were sent to them years ago. And that would have taken on faith. I presume the psychology there is really based upon the fact that certain conclusions are forbidden. Is that how you see it?
Andrew Joyce: Certain conclusions are forbidden. I mean, as I said, at the outset, in terms of how you’re taught things at school, it begins right there, or it begins with the History Channel, or it begins with any other method of mass indoctrination that’s in place.
And all of these methods are going to be intensified in the coming years. Because, as I explained in the essay I wrote on Moshe Kantor and this plan for “Secure Tolerance”, diversity propaganda is going to be obligatory for governments. And the uttering of certain things isn’t just going to be criminalized to the extent that if you’re stirring up hatred you get maybe one, or two, years in prison, or a fine, or something. These prison sentences are going to go to around a decade in prison. They’re going to be on a par with terrorism charges.
And all of this is due to changes in language, which are themselves accelerating. I mean, look, I was speaking this morning about this Biden inauguration and the aftermath of the Capitol protest, and what have you. And what I said — I was speaking to Nick Griffin about it — and I said to Nick:
“The language has changed since Trump came to office, in terms of describing our politics. We used to be bigots, and racists, and just horrible, nasty people. But now we’re terrorists, …!”
Horus: They’re using “traitors” against us now, as well.
Andrew Joyce: Yeah, traitors, unpatriotic, because they’re redefining what it means to be a “nationalist”, even. And this is an old tactic of jews. Because they would, say there was an “anti-semitism” in France in the early 20th century, the jews there would say:
“This is a German import! You’re acting on behalf of the Germans!”
Or if it was in Britain, they would say:
“You’re acting on behalf of the Germans.”
Well, if you’re a jew in Germany you would say:
“Ah! This anti-semitic stuff is British propaganda!”
You always inflect it back. You always divert it. And you always try and change what it means to be a patriot. So this is an old, old tactic. But it’s revived now and it’s very, very powerful in the United States. And the impact of that has been that it’s much, much easier to ban a “terrorist” than it is to ban a “bigot”. That’s what we’re dealing with here.
Andrew Joyce: American free speech, the vulnerability there, is that eventually they reinterpret us, so that whenever lawyers and judges interpret the First Amendment, they interpret it in such a way that there is no exemption for “terrorism”. There is an exemption, … They decide there is an exemption for bigots, there is an exemption for racists, etc., etc. But there will be no exemption for seditionists, for traitors, for terrorists!
So that this is the bracket that we will be moved into. This is the bracket that we’re almost fully moved into. This is the bracket which allows the “Prevent” program, for example, in the United Kingdom to shuffle young autistic boys into anti-terrorism programs, etc., etc, because they’ve been going on suspect websites, in their eyes. I mean, this is the nature of what we’re facing.
Horus: Yeah I mean, obviously it became especially clear in the last two weeks, since that storming of the capital. Well “storming” might be too strong. But yeah, I noticed the eagerness with which the anti-White front adopted, well calling the woman who died especially, she died as a “terrorist”, she died as a “traitor”. That was the first time I really started noticing people saying “traitor” and obviously they mean “failing to obey the ideology of the ruling class”. That’s apparently what “traitor” means now. I use the word traitor very freely as well. And I did sort of vaguely anticipate that this would happen. But it’s still ugly to see.
One thing I wanted to ask about the Kishinev events. It obviously happened, the first one happened, and the one that we mostly talk about as the Kishinev pogrom, as they say, was in 1903, if I’m not mistaken. And then there was a further eruption of violence there in 1905, as well. I’m interested by the fact that in 1905 we also had, well 1904 to 5, there was the war between Russia and Japan, which Russia lost unexpectedly. And in which Japan was supported by Jacob Schiff among other major jewish financiers. But Jacob Schiff seems to have been an important figure in so many different ways.
And also in 1905, of course, there was the first revolution against the Tsar, which failed, but helped crack it open, I think. Do you think that either the so-called pogroms themselves, or the narrative that was derived from them, served sort of geopolitical aims, or, I don’t know if this is a word, but “geo-ethnic” aims?
Andrew Joyce: Geo-ethnic games certainly. I mean, don’t forget that the jews in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th century were a lot like a young adolescent boy who’s outgrowing his clothes faster than his parents can buy them, more, or less. I mean, their population was booming.
And the resources they could obtain from the peasantry were being hindered. One, by the fact that they were having to compete with each other to get gentile clients, but also, because the laws, the structure of Russian society, had changed. I mean, it wasn’t a matter of the serfs anymore, and you had them sort of compelled basically to come to your taverns and borrow money from you, and so on, and so forth. The serfs had been emancipated. So they weren’t as vulnerable as they had been before.
And one of the rationales behind emancipating the serfs was in a sense to liberate them from the jews. So this had changed. The profitability of jewish life in Russia had declined at the same time that the Russian [jewish] population was growing larger and larger. So they needed to spread out. So the pogrom narratives in a way provided an international wave of sympathy, manufactured, that would ease the path of these Russian jews to move west, and to settle in a lot of new lands. And basically carry on the same tactics and things there.
And, of course, when they go to the United States they set up in money lending and pawn broking. And all of the rest of it. And then the next generation moves into the professions. And then they slowly move into a quite controlling role within the media, and within academia, and politics, and so on.
So the primary sort of geo-ethnic role of the “pogroms”, if we want to use that terminology, is that it simply allowed the outspread of the jews. And I would say that it accelerated the development of modern international jewish politics.
I mean, I mentioned earlier how it really begins in 1840 with the Damascus Affair. But it really, it disperses the diaspora a bit more. It creates a more diffuse, international, jewish diaspora that’s much more financially capable. It’s much more organizationally well-developed.
And very soon, of course, we start seeing that the structuring of formal defense bodies, like the Anti-Defamation League, founded at the start of the 20th century. And the Board of Deputies of British jews undergoes the transformation. And we see some organizations in France and Germany and elsewhere. And these bodies start communicating. This is a vast and important evolution away from the Kahal structure which was in Russia in earlier times, which were certainly intensive and well organized.
But we’re still, compared to these other organizations, somewhat primitive. So international jewish politics is the result of the pogroms, as well as the more sort of finite dispersal of the jewish population as a whole.
Horus: Yeah. So we are talking about if the pogroms themselves were not a major event in world history, certainly what flowed from them, the effects of them, are majorly important, current in world history, from then on. And I think continuing now, right?
I mean, the reason I got in touch with you about this topic. I mean, apart from it just being interesting, is that I’ve begun, and it’s quite a large task it’s going to take me a while, but I’m making a series of videos. The first of which addresses this pogrom and the myths around it. And the fact that it led to immigration westward, especially into Britain.
My focus in the video will be on Britain. And I’ve got a list of names of people who ever moved at that time, or descended from those who did. And my sort of thesis in the video will be to say just how different Britain. I mean, you can never quite be sure about how different Britain would have been, were it not for accepting this massive wave of so-called “refugees”, or “immigrants”. Yeah, jewish ones from the Russian Empire.
Tell me if you think that this thesis is, or this statement, is overly strong. So in my notes, is it fair to say that the jewish immigration that resulted from this, was a necessary factor in bringing about the Second World War? If people want to see the basis of why I would suggest that, they could watch my video called “The Judean German War”. It’s on my BitChute channel, where I argued that were it not for jewish influence the Second World War probably would not have happened. Especially in America.
And I also stated sort of a list of things. I had Britain not admitted a huge wave of these so-called refugees Britain probably would have avoided it’s role in causing, or taking part in the Second World War, and thereby the Cold War as well. Although that’s stretching it somewhat. Would have good relations with many countries that hate us now.
Would be probably still 99% plus ethnic British. Again that’s maybe that’s a bit tenuous, maybe. Would be virtually unconstrained in free speech. Almost wholly free of self-hatred. Again that’s a bit of a stretch probably. But be far more free and genuinely prosperous. And I’m alluding to central banking and banking in general there. Would be far less indebted, or not at all perhaps that relates to the war, of both the World Wars. Have an education system that put learning over indoctrination. And be governed by political parties that put British people first and didn’t give their loyalty primarily to Israel. A state which, of course, Britain might never have brought into existence, or helped to bring into existence.
Do you think that’s going too far?
I mean, basically, one, I’m saying that jews — and I’m talking about the Ashkenazi jews who moved in over the sort of late 19th to 20th century — I’m basically saying they had such a huge impact that they’ve transformed our country into something completely different on all those grounds. Do you think that’s going too far?
Andrew Joyce: No. I think your general thesis there is absolutely perfect! I mean, even, for example, let’s just take the example of:
“Would Hitler have come to power without the Russian pogroms?”
And the answer is probably not. Because even though there would have been a dissatisfaction around the Treaty of Versailles, if the First World War itself had gone ahead, the presence of a mass anti-semitic political movement would have been less likely, had it not been for Hitler’s immediate predecessors, like Carl Lugar in Austria. Who was active in the 1880s primarily against in Vienna the mass influx of Russian pogrom, so-called “pogrom” refugees there. The German, or the sort of central European, I suppose also in France as well, these political anti-semitic movements of the late 19th century orbit around the mass influx of the Russian pogrom victims, so-called.
So without that impetus you would never have seen the energy and dynamism in those particular movements. And they just, without any kind of raison d’être to exist, without any reason for existence, they would either have been very weak, or they would have been nonexistent in the first place.
So you may have had an alternative party come to power pursuing a revision of the Treaty of Versailles, but it may not have had quite the aggressive position of the National Socialist German Workers Party. And without such a party coming to power it’s debatable as to whether the Second World War would have taken place.
You’re absolutely correct when you point out that most of the, or imply, that most of the figures who actually introduced hate speech laws and into the United Kingdom, in the mid to late 20th century were all the descendants of jewish pogrom refugees. That’s absolutely correct! From Leon Britain through to what was his name Cohen Frank Sauskus [sp]. What do you call him? Malcolm Rifkind.
Horus: Yeah, Anthony Lester, as well.
Andrew Joyce: Yeah, Anthony Lester. Yeah, they were all the descendants of these migrants, these Russian jewish migrants.
So when you deduct all of those personalities from the equation, absolutely you wouldn’t have had any of those laws! You may not have had some of those wars. You wouldn’t have had a lot of that legislation and activism. And certainly you wouldn’t have had the cultural interference. I mean, even today we’ve got people like Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian, who’s pumping out all kinds of propaganda against White people. And people like him, David Aaronovitch, you know.
All of them are simply the grandchildren and great grandchildren of these Russian-jewish fake pogrom migrants. And it’s been nothing but trouble for the British people! And, as I said, if you’d have had, you know, and it’s always in a sense counterfactual to say the “what ifs”.
But I think we can say with some clarity that had these people not been allowed to mass migrate to the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, the world would be a very, very different place. Russia might be a shithole however! [laughter]
Horus: Yeah. So yeah, I might find that actually the video, or the series of videos, that I’ve set out to make is actually too narrow in scope. I might even need to make it more grand in my statement. But I have a tendency to focus on Britain just because I find that so many other people cover America very well. And it’s not uninteresting to talk about America at all. But I just I just feel that I can add some value to people’s understanding by focusing on Britain.
So I’m encouraged that you think that thesis is in the Right area. And I’m gonna continue working on that with renewed energy. I’m aware that you’ve got to finish very shortly.
I suppose just one quick question to finish this off. Is it true to say that the influx of Askenazis introduced a far more kind of aggressively ethnic and revolutionary, or subversive, or corrosive, element than Sephardis ever had? Because I’m aware of various subversive activities that arise out of Sephardis in Britain. But they seem, you know, there seems to be one for every thousand incidents that that come from Ashkenazis. Do you think that’s correct?
Andrew Joyce: Yeah there is a difference between the Sephardis and the Ashkenazis. The Sephardis will have a slightly lower intelligence which makes them less challenging as opponents in various spheres.
They also, I would say, the main difference would be a lower level of psychological aggression. So the Sephardis still have the same level of ethnocentrism, I would argue.
But they’re more risk-averse, whereas the Ashkenazis, I would argue, as a kind of adaptation to the fact that they’ve always had a really rocky experience in Europe, are almost born gamblers! That they’re quite risk-prone and they’re willing to push the envelope so much further. And when you combine the higher intelligence with that gung-ho, risk-taking strategy, what you get is the recipe for interesting friction with the host population. And certainly an almost sociopathic refusal to learn from mistakes.
So you end up seeing patterns throughout history of just repeated behaviors again, and again, and again, often with the stakes rising higher, and higher, and higher. And that certainly has been the history of interactions between Europeans and the Ashkenazi.
Whereas at times the Sephardis have been able to exist for long periods without much trouble. I mean, yes the jews were exiled from England in 1290 and weren’t readmitted until Cromwell. But there were Sephardis that we know that were active in London in the interim period. And they’ve seem to have been there without much trouble. There were the odd incidents. I think that one of Queen Elizabeth’s physicians was a Sephardi. I think there was some possible treason on his part. But for the most part they’re much much more low-key. And to some extent less offensive socially, and culturally also.
Horus: Yeah. I mean, I immediately think of Benjamin Disraeli. A man who is really quite different from say, I don’t know, Philip Pyritin say. Well, I don’t know! One could name loads of the Ashkenazis. But and also. I mean, I know we’re about to finish, but just the last thing that you said about like the sort of them losing their minds. That just immediately puts me in mind of the ADL tweet from the other day, calling for Trump to be removed from office. I just thought:
“You’re going too far! You are going too far there! You’re getting too brazen! If you carry on like that you’ll [chuckling] cause yourself problems.”
Andrew Joyce: Yeah. The problem is, there is no limit! There is no “too far” in they’re mental horizons. So the ADL will always push. They will take on anyone! Because part of it is a superiority complex, too. And they literally cannot conceive that they will lose. That’s what part of this is. They cannot conceive a situation in which they will lose!
Horus: And the consequences could be terrible for everyone, or we could resolve it peacefully. I’m still not sure. I’ve talked to Gilad Atzmon a few times. And I’ve talked to him about this as well and he says:
“Yeah it is possible to resolve all this peacefully, but we don’t see how yet, there’s no obvious way at the moment.”
Andrew Joyce: All you all you can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Horus: Yeah. So I’ll bring it to a close now as I know you’ve got to go. But there’s ten different things I could ask you about, you know, off the back of this. So I wanted to mention Douglas Reed The Controversy of zion. I wanted to mention Chabad-Lubavitch, and all sorts of other things.
But thank you very much for your time.
Andrew Joyce: Yeah. And we’ll do it again. We’ll do this again.
Horus: Yeah, that’d be absolutely great! And this as I say, has encouraged me to resume work on this series of videos I’m making. So I thank you for that as well. And yeah, thanks very much for talking to me today Andrew. I look forward to speak to you again.
Andrew Joyce: Okay.
Horus: Thanks. Bye.
(Readers: please enter any corrections in the comments section.)
* Total words = 8,425
* Total images = 12
* Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):
Version 2: Feb 10, 2021 — Added time codes.
Version 1: Feb 9, 2021 — Published post.