russia-insider--2020-04-14--Solzhenitsyn Is Widely Reviled in Russia as a Traitor - Once the Soviet Generation Passes, He Will b

Solzhenitsyn Is Widely Reviled in Russia as a Traitor - Once the Soviet Generation Passes, He Will be Seen As a Hero

There are two names which often trigger a very strong and hostile reaction from many Russians : Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Rezun aka “ Viktor Suvorov ” .
The list of accusations against these two men usually includes : • Alexander Solzhenitsyn : he made up numbers about 66 million people killed by the Soviet regime , he spoke favorably of General Andrei Vlasov , he was a CIA stooge , he was an anti-Semite , a Russian nationalist and a monarchist .
Finally , there is a popular saying in modern Russia : “ show me an anti-Soviet activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will show you a russophobe ” ( which makes Solzhenitsyn a russophobe ) .
• Vladimir Rezun : he is a traitor , he is the creator of the theory that Hitler only preempted a Soviet attack which Stalin was about to launch , he is a MI-6 front to spread russophobic theories .
What I like to do when I hear these opinions is to ask a simple question : how many books by Solzhenitsyn and/or Rezun have you actually read ?
The answer is typically rather nebulous .
They mostly refer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at most ) and a number of articles ( often articles not even written by either author , but paraphrasing , often rather “ creatively ” ) .
This reminds me of an old Soviet joke : “ a Party official comes to some factory or office to deliver a political lecture and absolutely tears into Solzhenitsyn ’ s famous “ Gulag Archipelago ” calling it an ugly collection of lies .
One of the workers present asks the Party official whether he read the entire book to which the Party official replies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Soviet filth !
” There is much truth to that as I have rarely encountered Solzhenitsyn-haters who actually read at least a few books by him .
Well , it just so happens that I discovered Solzhenitsyn when I was 16 and that I continued to study his writings for the rest of my life .
Over the next years and decades , I read every single book and article Solzhenitsyn wrote several times ( at least twice , if not more ) .
As for Rezun , I read all his non-fiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his fiction at all ) , so I want to chime in here and share with you , the reader , my strictly personal opinion about these two authors and men .
First , I will begin with a couple of general comments .
For one thing , both Solzhenitsyn and Rezun are terrific writers and it is a crying shame not to read them !
Their styles are , however , dramatically different : Solzhenitsyn is often compared to Dostoevskii , and rightfully so , even if this applies more to contents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that Solzhenitsyn ’ s style is unique and very uneven .
His masterpiece is , at least in my opinion , the “ Gulag Archipelago ” ( the worst being ) .
Yes , I know , this is a non-fiction book and not one of his purely literary masterpieces ( say like “ The Cancer Ward ” or “ In The First Circle “ ) , but I personally happen to find the Gulag Archipelago his most powerful book not only on contents , but also on style and language .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my totally subjective opinion , his immense cycle “ The Red Wheel “ , especially “ August 14 ” and “ October 16 “ .
On the other end of the spectrum , I also love his short stories ( “ Крохотки ” ) .
By any halfway objective measure , the man is a literary giant on par with Tolstoy or Dostoevskii .
Nobody would say that about Rezun .
His style could be described as “ pedestrian ” if not outright “ yellow ” ( in the meaning of “ yellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a problem .
What Rezun lacks in elegance and academic rigor , he more than makes up for with a very lively and entertaining writing style , some really catchy ideas and a lot of “ creative nonsense ” .
I have no problem with somebody hating Rezun as a person and traitor , or hating his vulgar style , but don ’ t tell me that he does not write well : millions of people read his books with immense fascination and appreciation .
The man has undeniable talent .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who say that they have not read these authors because they hate their style are most likely not being very honest and it is much more likely that they did not read these authors because of the contents of their books .
That is what we shall look into next .
Specifically , I will look at Alexander Solzhenitsyn first , he is the more complex one of the two , and then at Rezun .
The very first thing we need to remember is that Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a generation of Russians which remembered pre-1917 Russia .
The second thing which we need to also keep in mind is that he was raised by a generation which remembered the chaos of the Kerenskii regime followed by the bloodbath of the Bolshevik coup which itself was following by the bloody orgy of the Russian civil war .
Why is that important ?
Because his brand of anti-Sovietism was much more similar to what we would see in the White Guard or the First Generation Russian emigration ( those roughly 2 million Russians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
For example , this is why Solzhenitsyn wrote so much about the role of Jews in the first Bolshevik governments : this is a topic which was central to the wordview of White Guard and First Generation Russian emigres .
It is also pretty clear that while Solzhenitsyn already had anti-Soviet feelings before he was arrested , it is nonetheless obvious that his incarceration first in a labor camp and , later , into a special jail for scientists exposed Solzhenitsyn to even more anti-Soviet individuals and ideas .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures ( or misguided political opinions ) Solzhenitsyn might have had , but it does explain where they came from and why Solzhenitsyn deemed them as credible .
Speaking personally , I was raised in exactly that “ White Guard ” and “ First Emigration ” political culture , and I can assure you that Solzhenitsyn ’ s views were really very much “ mainstream ” amongst those Russians who still remembered pre-revolutionary Russia .
Next , Solzhenitsyn himself described how he asked all his fellow prisoners ( the “ zeks ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to send him all the historical documents , memoirs , academic papers , etc .
possible for him to write the history of the Gulag .
Needless to say , the Soviet archives were not made open for this purpose , nor did the KGB offer to write an amicus brief to help Solzhenitsyn .
Thus , just to recap : what is important here were Solzhenitsyn ’ s sources of information : • Pre-1917 Russians who remembered the horrors of the revolution and civil war • Exposure to those arrested for anti-Soviet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether guilty or innocent , and who were incarcerated with Solzhenitsyn Is it a big surprise that Solzhenitsyn did get a lot of things wrong , especially when the Soviet state offered very little in terms of credible historical information ?
Here I have to insert a rather lengthy side bar about the nature of the Soviet state .
It is my opinion that over its history the Soviet regime changed rather often and rather dramatically .
Personally , I would offer the following chronology : • The early years : ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the civil war followed by the great Jewish terror of Iagoda , Frenkel , Ezhov , etc .
the years of the so-called “ war communism ” , the NEP , and the collectivization , famine and “ dekulakisation ” ( 1932-1933 ) .
This period ended with the so-called “ Stalin ’ s purges ” ( 1936-1938 ) .
• Stalin ’ s preparation for WWII : ( 1936-1941 ) .
During this period most of the Bolshevik “ old guard ” was either executed , or jailed or demoted and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Stalin ’ s generals ” ) , were put into all key military and civilian positions .
• The Great Patriotic War : ( 1941-1945 ) .
This dramatic period which saw the Russian nation fight for her very survival also saw a truly dramatic change in political culture : the former Bolshevik russophobia was replaced with praise for the heroic Russian nation , military ranks were fully reestablished ( along with traditional Russian epaulets ) , churches were reopened and the repressions dramatically reduced .
• The post-war period and Stalin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This period saw a quasi-miraculous rebirth of the Soviet Union from the ashes of WWII and a period of prosperity and stability .
While Stalin was probably murdered by his entourage in 1953 and his main executioner ( Lavrentii Beria ) executed soon thereafter ( also in 1953 ) , their legacy of prosperity and stability lasted well beyond the 22nd CPSU Congress which saw Khrushchev make a 180 and suddenly denounce Stalin , the cult of his personality and the rehabilitation of millions of innocent Russians .
• The Great Betrayal ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most immoral , incompetent , hypocritical , inept and otherwise despicable Soviet leader ever ( Eltsin was in the same league , imnsho ) .
He was also a bloody tyrant .
Yet , possibly to conceal his own incompetence and his rabid hatred for Stalin , he did liberalize the Soviet Union to a not-insignificant degree , yet just like in the case of Gorbachev ’ s “ glastnost ' ” – his “ new openness ” did not help the Soviet Union , far from it .
Eventually , Krushchev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it was already too late : while until 1961 most ( or , at least , many ) Russians did believe in the ideal of Marxism-Leninism and trusted their leaders , after the shock of the 22nd CPSU Party Congress a period of deep disillusionment gradually set in .
( It would only really stop in 2000 ! )
.
• The slow-motion deconstruction of the Soviet state , followed by the inevitable collapse : 1964-1991 .
Most of us remember Brezhnev .
Some probably also remember Andropov .
Does anybody even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and , for a few hours , Ianaev ( of the GKChP 1991 coup ) and then the Soviet Union was declared dead .
What is crucial to understand here is that each of these six periods generated a very different popular and political culture .
Thus , while in the West you often would hear generalizations about “ the Soviets ” , the truth is that there never once was any one single monolithic Soviet culture .
The perfect example of sharp contrast would be to compare the generation which went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period with the generation which defeated the Nazi war machine and then put the first man in space .
In the case of Solzhenitsyn he was very much a product of the Early Years and should be evaluated against this historical background and not under the kind of criteria a modern professional historian with full access to many preciously secret archives would have .
Next , we need to take a look at the accusation that Solzhenitsyn ’ s was an apologist for General Vlasov .
The short answer is that yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betrayal of his oath by saying that the Soviet Union had betrayed Vlasov long before Vlasov betrayed the Soviet Union .
Furthermore , there is no doubt that Solzhenitsyn did absolutely hate Stalin whom he considered as a vicious mass murderer .
How could he not approve of somebody taking up arms against Stalin ?
Solzhenitsyn ’ s conclusion was that if the Russian people had not seized this opportunity to overthrow the Soviet regime , then they really would have proven to the world that they are passive slaves .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote the Gulag Archipelago was to debunk a popular western theory which goes something like this : “ Russians have never known freedom and they don ’ t care about it .
Russians have a slave mentality and all they want is some kind of dictator ( Czar or Commissar – makes no difference to them ) to rule over them with an iron fist “ .
One of the things which Solzhenitsyn set out to prove was that far from being passive or slave-like , the Russian people resisted the Bolshevik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does he mean by that ?
He refers to the fact that between 1917 and 1941 , the Soviet regime was constantly threatened by all sorts of enemies ( from monarchists to Trotskysts ) and that following the Nazi invasion of the USSR , the Russian people simply seized this opportunity to rise up again against the Bolsheviks .
From this point of view , the entire Vlasov phenomenon is nothing else but a continuation of the civil war .
To summarize , when western russophobos liked to gloat about Russians having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them , especially the so-called “ Russian/Soviet area specialists ” Solzhenitsyn ’ s intention was to debunk this calumny and reply “ oh yes , we did resist , for all of 30 years !
You ( meaning the folks in the West ) , in contrast , not only presented very little resistance to the Nazis , most of you became faithful and obedient servants of Hitler !
The reality is that we , Russians , are far more freedom loving than you are , this is why we can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to rule over us .
While I personally can not justify Vlasov ’ s betrayal of his oath , I do fundamentally agree that the Soviet regime only achieved full power and security for itself after the end of the war .
Whatever may be the case , does that really surprise anybody that Solzhenitsyn had such views ?
Such views were , in fact , quite common amongst those who still remembered pre-1917 Russia .
In many ways , Solzhenitsyn was a pure product of the political culture of the Early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personally see him as culturally much closer to the pre-1917 Russians than to the Russians which were raised already under the Soviet regime .
That does not mean that Solzhenitsyn did not get some facts , even crucial ones , very wrong .
It is all well and fun to comfortably sit in our chairs and criticize those who have been wrong in their past , but fundamentally this is both logically wrong and morally hypocritical .
The truth is that history , ALL history , very much including our recent history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , simplifications , rumors and , most of all , lies .
We all know about 9/11 , but that is hardly a unique example .
Does anybody remember the “ Timisoara massacre ” or , even better , the “ Srebrenica genocide ” ?
Speaking of Srebrenica , how about the no less fake “ massacres ” in Markale or Racak ?
How about Colonel Gaddafi giving Viagra to his men to rape Libyan women ?
Or this innocent young nurse from Kuwait who reported about the Iraqis tossing babies out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then , there are the much more serious cases , including the historical truth about the so-called “ Holocaust ” .
Or , who carries the responsibility for starting WWII ?
How about the Nuremberg Trials which some hailed as a huge victory for civilized mankind , while many others called it a “ kangaroo court ” of victors .
What about the Tribunal on the Former Yugoslavia ?
Do you feel that this was a superb example of justice , or a crude Serbian-nation bashing PR operation ?
If we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , do you really expect people from very different time periods ( as all Russians today are , depending on their age ) , to agree on history , even crucial history ?
Of course not !
So what we need to do now is not “ smoke out ” this or that personality and accuse them of lying ( that would be a typically *Soviet* thing to do : to denounce a supposed enemy and demand that he be punished and silenced ) .
We first need to consider what this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time that he/she wrote/said what we now consider lies .
To err is human , and is therefore excusable .
To deliberately lie is something quite different .
In the case of Solzhenitsyn , there is absolutely no evidence of deliberate deception on his part .
In fact , the 66 million number is not even his .
As in the past : Here is what he actually wrote in this famous Gulag Archipelago about Soviet terror : According to estimates by exiled professor of statistics IA Kurganov , from 1917 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only from terrorist destruction , suppression , hunger , the high mortality in the camps , and including the subsequent low birth rate , cost us 66.7 million people ” ( ” The Gulag Archipelago “ , part 3 , Chapter 1 ) .
And in an interview in 1976 Solzhenitsyn said : “ Professor Kurganov indirectly calculated that from 1917 to 1959 only from the internal war of the Soviet regime against its own people , that is , the destruction of its famine , collectivization , peasant ’ s deportation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just from these causes we lost , together with our civil war , 66 million people ” .
These figures INCLUDE the bloody Civil War , the so-called “ “ , the numerous anti-Bolshevik insurrections ( such as the one in Tambov ) , the deaths resulting from the so-called “ ” and “ “ , the “ pure ” political repression under of the RSFSR Criminal Code and even the subsequent low birth rate .
So we are talking about a “ grand max ” estimate .
The first thing we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to arrive at a “ grand max ” figure , the Soviet archives ( which show dramatically lower numbers of people arrested and/or executed ) only dealt with the number of people actually sentenced under Soviet law and does not include the specific events Kurganov chose to include .
Thus , directly comparing Kurganov ’ s figures with official Soviet documents is a case of apples and oranges .
Still , Solzhenitsyn clearly loathed the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime and that most likely made him willing to accept facts and figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carefully .
There is also a lot of evidence that , ideologically speaking , Solzhenitsyn was a monarchist in the general line of Fedor Dostoevskii , Lev Tikhomirov or Prof. Ivan Ilyin ( whom Putin seems to also quote very often… ) and that he had an intense dislike , not only for Marxism or Leninism , but even for “ moderate ” social democracy ( which he saw as unable to stand up to the Soviet Union and its allies ) .
We also know for sure that Solzhenitsyn had nothing good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalist worldview .
However , Solzhenitsyn was hardly a typical “ reactionary ” since he had very little good to say about the pre-1917 Russia , including its last Czar .
In truth , Solzhenitsyn was a typical Russian idealist who combined rather liberal , and even modernist , views about the Russian Orthodox Church with a rather strong dislike of the political system put in place by Peter I ( often called “ The Great ” by westernizers ) .
In fact , I would argue that there are at least three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be considered separately : Solzhenitsyn the author : here it is a matter of personal taste .
He did get a Nobel in literature , but we all understand that the Nobel Committee is just a front for the AngloZionist PR machine .
Personally ?
He is one of my favorite Russian authors along with , in a totally different style , Sergei Lukianenko .
Solzhenitsyn the historian : here every single word he wrote needs to be revisited and carefully evaluated in light of what we now think that we know .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Archipelago which Solzhenitsyn referred to as an “ An Experiment in Literary Investigation ” thus clearly indicating that this was , by definition , a work in progress , an experiment , and an investigation .
As I recently wrote , there is no worthwhile history which is not revisionist , and with Solzhenitsyn being both so famous and so wrong , it is only natural that his writings are the object of a concerted barrage of criticisms and reevaluation .
Solzhenitsyn the philosopher : yet again a case for personal taste .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a giant standing on the shoulders of other giants such as Khomiakov , Dostoevskii , IlIlyinyin , Solonevich , Leontiev , Tikhomirov , Rozanov and many others .
Right now his philosophical legacy is completely obfuscated by the historical discussions , but that pendulum will eventually swing the other way , and then his moral philosophy will be studied on its merits .
Right now , these are not good times for “ Solzhenitsyn studies ” , to say the least .
In the West he is hated as Great-Russian nationalist and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a russophobic CIA stooge who calumniated his own people and who defended a traitor like Vlasov .
These beliefs are ingrained way too hard for me to even bother trying to discuss them here .
That discussion will happen , but only once the stridently anti-Solzhenitsyn haters will give way to folks with a better personal knowledge of what Solzhenitsyn actually wrote and what he actually meant .
Right now most of his detractors are busy simply flaming the man , everything he wrote and all those who read him .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VT , Solzhenitsyn once told a visiting friend of mine the following : “ right now , we don ’ t have our own country under our feet , this is why it is too early to write on this topic ( he was referring to a then still secret book of his which he eventually published after his return to Russia under the title “ 200 Years Together “ ) , but as soon as Russia recovers her freedom , I will publish this book “ .
I will paraphrase this by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the former Soviet elites and their off-springs occupy most of the key positions in modern Russia , no serious discussion about Solzhenitsyn will be possible , the level of emotional involvement is simply too high .
But that too shall pass .
There is already a generation of young Russians out there which does not even remember the Soviet era or the Cold War .
It is *their* kids , and even grand-kids , who will , one day , give a fair historical evaluation of this intellectual giant .
Right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shadows ” of the former Soviet Union .
But , sooner or later , Russia will come out from this shadow – that is when Solzhenitsyn ’ s views will become front and center again .
There is one more thing about Solzhenitsyn I want to share with you : in his pamphlet “ ” Solzhenitsyn concludes his essay against Russian “ liberals ” and “ democrats ” ( in the Russian meaning of the word ) by the following words : “ we thought you were fresh , but you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of this sentence when I read the writings of the Solzhenitsyn haters .
During the Soviet period the Solzhenitsyn haters liked to refer to him as “ Solzhenitser ” ( hinting that he might be a Jew ) .
Nowadays , Solzhenitsyn haters in Russia refer to him as SoLZHEnitsyn ( the letters “ lzhe ” means “ lie ” in Russian , suggesting that he is a liar ) .
That tells you all you need to know about the degree of sophistication these folks are capable of… Conclusion : Vladimir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vladimir Putin is often accused of being nostalgic of the Soviet Union and of wanting to recreate it .
Nothing could be further from the truth !
It is true that Putin declared several times that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “ the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century ” ( “ крупнейшая геополитическая катастрофа века ” ) .
What Putin was referring to was not some kind of nostalgia for the Soviet Union , but an acute realization of the unspeakable suffering the collapse of the Soviet Union meant for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin has exactly *zero* nostalgia for the bad old USSR and he is not shy about speaking his mind about it , especially when he is confronted by those who now idealize the Soviet era .
Not only that , but Putin has very publicly shown his immense respect for Solzhenitsyn .
And the feeling was very mutual as we can tell from this photo : Contrast this with Putin ’ s often publicly expressed disgust with defectors !
See , for example , what Putin declared with the British Financial Times : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this suggests that Putin does not share Solzhenitsyn ’ s sympathy for General Vlasov proving , yet again , that a critical mind can always separate the chaff from the wheat .
Then there is the way Putin likes to mention Ivan Ilyin in his speeches .
It is pretty obvious to me that in terms of his personal views on history and politics , Putin is clearly an avid reader of both Ilyin and Solzhenitsyn ( which creates a cognitive dissonance amongst Solzhenitsyn-haters who support Putin ) .
However , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or agrees with everything Solzhenitsyn or Ilyin wrote or said .
But it does show that not all minds in Russia are still “ under the shadow of the Soviet Union ” .
First , the pendulum of history will swing the other way , and a lot of ideas which seem popular today are bound to gradually fade out , replaced by hopefully a much more careful evaluation of historical figures like Solzhenitsyn .
Second , a lot of people who were raised in a blind hatred of “ traitors ” will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not have the same knee-jerk reactions .
Last , but most definitely not least , the future Russia will have to rediscover her historical , philosophical , spiritual and cultural roots , at which point the ideas of philosophers like Solzhenitsyn or Ilyin will automatically get center stage once again ( though not necessarily be uncritically endorsed ) .

There are two names which often trigger a very strong and hostile reaction from many Russians: Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Rezun aka “Viktor Suvorov”. The list of accusations against these two men usually includes:
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: he made up numbers about 66 million people killed by the Soviet regime, he spoke favorably of General Andrei Vlasov, he was a CIA stooge, he was an anti-Semite, a Russian nationalist and a monarchist. Finally, there is a popular saying in modern Russia: “show me an anti-Soviet activist(“антисовечик”) and I will show you a russophobe” (which makes Solzhenitsyn a russophobe).
Vladimir Rezun: he is a traitor, he is the creator of the theory that Hitler only preempted a Soviet attack which Stalin was about to launch, he is a MI-6 front to spread russophobic theories.
What I like to do when I hear these opinions is to ask a simple question: how many books by Solzhenitsyn and/or Rezun have you actually read?
The answer is typically rather nebulous. They mostly refer to either one or two books (at most) and a number of articles (often articles not even written by either author, but paraphrasing, often rather “creatively”).
This reminds me of an old Soviet joke: “a Party official comes to some factory or office to deliver a political lecture and absolutely tears into Solzhenitsyn’s famous “Gulag Archipelago” calling it an ugly collection of lies. One of the workers present asks the Party official whether he read the entire book to which the Party official replies “I don’t read such anti-Soviet filth!”
There is much truth to that as I have rarely encountered Solzhenitsyn-haters who actually read at least a few books by him.
Well, it just so happens that I discovered Solzhenitsyn when I was 16 and that I continued to study his writings for the rest of my life. Over the next years and decades, I read every single book and article Solzhenitsyn wrote several times (at least twice, if not more). As for Rezun, I read all his non-fiction books (I don’t like his fiction at all), so I want to chime in here and share with you, the reader, my strictly personal opinion about these two authors and men.
First, I will begin with a couple of general comments.
For one thing, both Solzhenitsyn and Rezun are terrific writers and it is a crying shame not to read them! Their styles are, however, dramatically different: Solzhenitsyn is often compared to Dostoevskii, and rightfully so, even if this applies more to content and worldview than style. I would say that Solzhenitsyn’s style is unique and very uneven. His masterpiece is, at least in my opinion, the “Gulag Archipelago” (the worst being his poems ). Yes, I know, this is a non-fiction book and not one of his purely literary masterpieces (say like “The Cancer Ward” or “In The First Circle“), but I personally happen to find the Gulag Archipelago his most powerful book not only on content, but also on style and language. His other masterpiece is, again in my totally subjective opinion, his immense cycle “The Red Wheel“, especially “August 14” and “October 16“. On the other end of the spectrum, I also love his short stories (“Крохотки”). By any halfway objective measure, the man is a literary giant on par with Tolstoy or Dostoevskii.
Nobody would say that about Rezun. His style could be described as “pedestrian” if not outright “yellow” (in the meaning of “yellow journalism”). But that is not a problem. What Rezun lacks in elegance and academic rigor, he more than makes up for with a very lively and entertaining writing style, some really catchy ideas and a lot of “creative nonsense.” I have no problem with somebody hating Rezun as a person and traitor, or hating his vulgar style, but don’t tell me that he does not write well: millions of people read his books with immense fascination and appreciation. The man has undeniable talent.
The above is just to point out that those who say that they have not read these authors because they hate their style are most likely not being very honest and it is much more likely that they did not read these authors because of the contents of their books. That is what we shall look into next. Specifically, I will look at Alexander Solzhenitsyn first, he is the more complex one of the two, and then at Rezun.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The very first thing we need to remember is that Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918, which means that he was raised by a generation of Russians which remembered pre-1917 Russia. The second thing which we need to also keep in mind is that he was raised by a generation which remembered the chaos of the Kerenskii regime followed by the bloodbath of the Bolshevik coup which itself was followed by the bloody orgy of the Russian civil war.
Why is that important?
Because his brand of anti-Sovietism was much more similar to what we would see in the White Guard or the First Generation Russian emigration (those roughly 2 million Russians who left Russia following the Bolshevik coup). For example, this is why Solzhenitsyn wrote so much about the role of Jews in the first Bolshevik governments: this is a topic that was central to the worldview of White Guard and First Generation Russian emigres.
It is also pretty clear that while Solzhenitsyn already had anti-Soviet feelings before he was arrested, it is nonetheless obvious that his incarceration first in a labor camp and, later, into a special jail for scientists, exposed Solzhenitsyn to even more anti-Soviet individuals and ideas.
Of course, none of that excuses any false figures (or misguided political opinions) Solzhenitsyn might have had, but it does explain where they came from and why Solzhenitsyn deemed them as credible. Speaking personally, I was raised in exactly that “White Guard” and “First Emigration” political culture, and I can assure you that Solzhenitsyn’s views were really very much “mainstream” amongst those Russians who still remembered pre-revolutionary Russia.
Next, Solzhenitsyn himself described how he asked all his fellow prisoners (the “zeks” he speaks of in the Gulag Archipelago) to send him all the historical documents, memoirs, academic papers, etc. possible for him to write the history of the Gulag. Needless to say, the Soviet archives were not made open for this purpose, nor did the KGB offer to write an amicus brief to help Solzhenitsyn.
Thus, just to recap: what is important here were Solzhenitsyn’s sources of information:
Pre-1917 Russians who remembered the horrors of the revolution and civil war
White Guard & First Wave Emigre memoirs and articles
Exposure to those arrested for anti-Soviet activities (the famous Art 58), whether guilty or innocent, and who were incarcerated with Solzhenitsyn
Articles by western scholars, political figures, think tanks (aka “western propaganda”).
Is it a big surprise that Solzhenitsyn did get a lot of things wrong, especially when the Soviet state offered very little in terms of credible historical information?
Here I have to insert a rather lengthy sidebar about the nature of the Soviet state. It is my opinion that over its history the Soviet regime changed rather often and rather dramatically. Personally, I would offer the following chronology:
The early years: (1917-1922). The Bolshevik coup, then the civil war followed by the great Jewish terror of Iagoda, Frenkel, Ezhov, etc. the years of the so-called “war communism,” the NEP, and the collectivization, famine and “dekulakisation” (1932-1933). This period ended with the so-called “Stalin’s purges” (1936-1938). Stalin’s preparation for WWII: (1936-1941). During this period most of the Bolshevik “old guard” was either executed, jailed, or demoted and a completely new generation of commanders (“Stalin’s generals”) were put into all key military and civilian positions. The Great Patriotic War: (1941-1945). This dramatic period which saw the Russian nation fight for her very survival also saw a truly dramatic change in political culture: the former Bolshevik russophobia was replaced with praise for the heroic Russian nation, military ranks were fully reestablished (along with traditional Russian epaulets), churches were reopened and the repressions dramatically reduced. The post-war period and Stalin’s last years: 1945-1961. This period saw a quasi-miraculous rebirth of the Soviet Union from the ashes of WWII and a period of prosperity and stability. While Stalin was probably murdered by his entourage in 1953 and his main executioner (Lavrenti Beria) executed soon thereafter (also in 1953), their legacy of prosperity and stability lasted well beyond the 22nd CPSU Congress which saw Khrushchev make a 180 and suddenly denounce Stalin, the cult of his personality and the rehabilitation of millions of innocent Russians. The Great Betrayal (1961-1964): Khrushchev was the worst, most immoral, incompetent, hypocritical, inept and otherwise despicable Soviet leader ever (Yeltsin was in the same league, IMNSHO). He was also a bloody tyrant. Yet, possibly to conceal his own incompetence and his rabid hatred for Stalin, he did liberalize the Soviet Union to a not-insignificant degree, yet just like in the case of Gorbachev’s “glastnost'” – his “new openness” did not help the Soviet Union, far from it. Eventually, Krushchev himself was overthrown by Brezhnev but by then it was already too late: while until 1961 most (or, at least, many) Russians did believe in the ideal of Marxism-Leninism and trusted their leaders, after the shock of the 22nd CPSU Party Congress a period of deep disillusionment gradually set in. (It would only really stop in 2000!). The slow-motion deconstruction of the Soviet state, followed by the inevitable collapse: 1964-1991. Most of us remember Brezhnev. Some probably also remember Andropov. Does anybody even remember Chernenko? Then came “Gorbi” and, for a few hours, Ianaev (of the GKChP 1991 coup) and then the Soviet Union was declared dead.
What is crucial to understand here is that each of these six periods generated a very different popular and political culture. Thus, while in the West you often would hear generalizations about “the Soviets,” the truth is that there never once was any one single monolithic Soviet culture. The perfect example of sharp contrast would be to compare the generation which went through the horrors of the Early Years period with the generation which defeated the Nazi war machine and then put the first man in space.
In the case of Solzhenitsyn he was very much a product of the Early Years and should be evaluated against this historical background and not under the kind of criteria a modern professional historian with full access to many preciously secret archives would have.
Next, we need to take a look at the accusation that Solzhenitsyn was an apologist for General Vlasov.
The short answer is that yes, Solzhenitsyn did justify General Vlasov’s betrayal of his oath by saying that the Soviet Union had betrayed Vlasov long before Vlasov betrayed the Soviet Union. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Solzhenitsyn did absolutely hate Stalin whom he considered a vicious mass murderer. How could he not approve of somebody taking up arms against Stalin? Solzhenitsyn’s conclusion was that if the Russian people had not seized this opportunity to overthrow the Soviet regime, then they really would have proven to the world that they are passive slaves.
One of the goals Solzhenitsyn set for himself when he wrote the Gulag Archipelago was to debunk a popular western theory which goes something like this: “Russians have never known freedom and they don’t care about it. Russians have a slave mentality and all they want is some kind of dictator (Czar or Commissar – makes no difference to them) to rule over them with an iron fist.” One of the things which Solzhenitsyn set out to prove was that far from being passive or slave-like, the Russian people resisted the Bolshevik regime at least until 1946! What does he mean by that? He refers to the fact that between 1917 and 1941, the Soviet regime was constantly threatened by all sorts of enemies (from monarchists to Trotskyists) and that following the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the Russian people simply seized this opportunity to rise up again against the Bolsheviks. From this point of view, the entire Vlasov phenomenon is nothing else but a continuation of the civil war. To summarize, when western Russophobes liked to gloat about Russians having a slave mentality, especially the so-called “Russian/Soviet area specialists,” Solzhenitsyn’s intention was to debunk this calumny and reply “oh yes, we did resist, for all of 30 years! You (meaning the folks in the West), in contrast, not only presented very little resistance to the Nazis, most of you became faithful and obedient servants of Hitler! The reality is that we Russians are far more freedom-loving than you are, this is why we cannot be occupied and why it is so hard to rule over us.
While I personally cannot justify Vlasov’s betrayal of his oath, I do fundamentally agree that the Soviet regime only achieved full power and security for itself after the end of the war.
Whatever may be the case, does that really surprise anybody that Solzhenitsyn had such views? Such views were, in fact, quite common amongst those who still remembered pre-1917 Russia. In many ways, Solzhenitsyn was a pure product of the political culture of the Early Years of the Soviet regime and I personally see him as culturally much closer to the pre-1917 Russians than to the Russians who were raised only under the Soviet regime.
That does not mean that Solzhenitsyn did not get some facts, even crucial ones, very wrong.
It is all well and fun to comfortably sit in our chairs and criticize those who have been wrong in their past, but fundamentally this is both logically wrong and morally hypocritical. The truth is that history, ALL history, very much including our recent history, is chock full of myths, generalizations, simplifications, rumors and, most of all, lies. We all know about 9/11, but that is hardly a unique example. Does anybody remember the “Timisoara massacre” or, even better, the “Srebrenica genocide”? Speaking of Srebrenica, how about the no less fake “massacres” in Markale or Racak? How about Colonel Gaddafi giving Viagra to his men to rape Libyan women? Or this innocent young nurse from Kuwait who reported about the Iraqis tossing babies out of incubators?
These were all lies.
And then, there are the much more serious cases, including the historical truth about the so-called “Holocaust.” Or, who carries the responsibility for starting WWII? How about the Nuremberg Trials which some hailed as a huge victory for civilized mankind, while many others called it a “kangaroo court” of victors. What about the Tribunal on the Former Yugoslavia? Do you feel that this was a superb example of justice, or a crude Serbian-nation bashing PR operation?
If we can’t even agree on our recent history, do you really expect people from very different time periods (as all Russians today are, depending on their age), to agree on history, even crucial history?
Of course not!
So what we need to do now is not “smoke out” this or that personality and accuse them of lying (that would be a typically *Soviet* thing to do: to denounce a supposed enemy and demand that he be punished and silenced). We first need to consider what this person knew and did not know at the time that he/she wrote/said what we now consider lies. To err is human, and is therefore excusable. To deliberately lie is something quite different.
In the case of Solzhenitsyn, there is absolutely no evidence of deliberate deception on his part. In fact, the 66 million number is not even his. As I already pointed out in the past:
Here is what he actually wrote in this famous Gulag Archipelago about Soviet terror:
According to estimates by exiled professor of statistics IA Kurganov, from 1917 to 1959, and excluding war losses, only from terrorist destruction, suppression, hunger, the high mortality in the camps, and including the subsequent low birth rate, cost us 66.7 million people” (” The Gulag Archipelago “, part 3, Chapter 1). And in an interview in 1976 Solzhenitsyn said: “Professor Kurganov indirectly calculated that from 1917 to 1959 only from the internal war of the Soviet regime against its own people, that is, the destruction of its famine, collectivization, peasant’s deportation to prisons, camps and simple executions – just from these causes we lost, together with our civil war, 66 million people”. These figures INCLUDE the bloody Civil War, the so-called “ War Communism ,” the numerous anti-Bolshevik insurrections (such as the one in Tambov ), the deaths resulting from the so-called “ Collectivization ” and “ Dekulakization ,” the “pure” political repression under the infamous Article 58 of the RSFSR Criminal Code and even the subsequent low birth rate. So we are talking about a “grand max” estimate.
The first thing we can note here is that while Prof Kurganov tried to arrive at a “grand max” figure, the Soviet archives (which show dramatically lower numbers of people arrested and/or executed) only dealt with the number of people actually sentenced under Soviet law and does not include the specific events Kurganov chose to include.
Thus, directly comparing Kurganov’s figures with official Soviet documents is a case of apples and oranges.
Still, Solzhenitsyn clearly loathed the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime and that most likely made him willing to accept facts and figures which he should have checked much more carefully.
There is also a lot of evidence that, ideologically speaking, Solzhenitsyn was a monarchist in the general line of Fedor Dostoevskii, Lev Tikhomirov or Prof. Ivan Ilyin (whom Putin seems to also quote very often…) and that he had an intense dislike, not only for Marxism or Leninism, but even for “moderate” social democracy (which he saw as unable to stand up to the Soviet Union and its allies). We also know for sure that Solzhenitsyn had nothing good to say about western democracies or the capitalist worldview. However, Solzhenitsyn was hardly a typical “reactionary” since he had very little good to say about the pre-1917 Russia, including its last Czar. In truth, Solzhenitsyn was a typical Russian idealist who combined rather liberal, and even modernist, views about the Russian Orthodox Church with a rather strong dislike of the political system put in place by Peter I (often called “The Great” by westernizers). In fact, I would argue that there are at least three different “Solzhenitsyns” which need to be considered separately:
Solzhenitsyn the author: here it is a matter of personal taste. He did get a Nobel in literature, but we all understand that the Nobel Committee is just a front for the AngloZionist PR machine. Personally? He is one of my favorite Russian authors along with, in a totally different style, Sergei Lukianenko.
Solzhenitsyn the historian: here every single word he wrote needs to be revisited and carefully evaluated in light of what we now think that we know. This is especially true of his Gulag Archipelago which Solzhenitsyn referred to as an “An Experiment in Literary Investigation,” thus clearly indicating that this was, by definition, a work in progress, an experiment, and an investigation. As I recently wrote, there is no worthwhile history which is not revisionist, and with Solzhenitsyn being both so famous and so wrong, it is only natural that his writings are the object of a concerted barrage of criticisms and reevaluation.
Solzhenitsyn the philosopher: yet again a case for personal taste. I would argue that Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a giant standing on the shoulders of other giants such as Khomiakov, Dostoevskii, IlIlyinyin, Solonevich, Leontiev, Tikhomirov, Rozanov and many others. Right now his philosophical legacy is completely obfuscated by the historical discussions, but that pendulum will eventually swing the other way, and then his moral philosophy will be studied on its merits.
Right now, these are not good times for “Solzhenitsyn studies,” to say the least. In the West, he is hated as Great-Russian nationalist and an anti-Semitic monarchist while in Russia he is hated like a russophobic CIA stooge who calumniated his own people and who defended a traitor like Vlasov. These beliefs are ingrained way too hard for me to even bother trying to discuss them here. That discussion will happen, but only once the stridently anti-Solzhenitsyn haters will give way to folks with a better personal knowledge of what Solzhenitsyn actually wrote and what he actually meant. Right now most of his detractors are busy simply flaming the man, everything he wrote and all those who read him.
While he was in exile in Cavendish, VT, Solzhenitsyn once told a visiting friend of mine the following: “right now, we don’t have our own country under our feet, this is why it is too early to write on this topic (he was referring to a then still secret book of his which he eventually published after his return to Russia under the title “200 Years Together“), but as soon as Russia recovers her freedom, I will publish this book.” I will paraphrase this by saying that I believe that as long as the former Soviet elites and their offspring occupy most of the key positions in modern Russia, no serious discussion about Solzhenitsyn will be possible, the level of emotional involvement is simply too high. But this too shall pass.
There is already a generation of young Russians out there which does not even remember the Soviet era or the Cold War. It is *their* kids, and even grand-kids, who will, one day, give a fair historical evaluation of this intellectual giant. Right now, modern Russia still lives “in the shadows” of the former Soviet Union. But, sooner or later, Russia will come out from this shadow – that is when Solzhenitsyn’s views will become front and center again.
There is one more thing about Solzhenitsyn I want to share with you: in his pamphlet “ Our Pluralists ” Solzhenitsyn concludes his essay against Russian “liberals” and “democrats” (in the Russian meaning of the word) with the following words: “we thought you were fresh, but you are still the same.” I often think of this sentence when I read the writings of the Solzhenitsyn haters. During the Soviet period, the Solzhenitsyn haters liked to refer to him as “Solzhenitser” (hinting that he might be a Jew). Nowadays, Solzhenitsyn haters in Russia refer to him as SoLZHEnitsyn (the letters “lzhe” means “lie” in Russian, suggesting that he is a liar). That tells you all you need to know about the degree of sophistication these folks are capable of…
(Snip)
Conclusion: Vladimir Putin as an example to emulate?
Vladimir Putin is often accused of being nostalgic of the Soviet Union and of wanting to recreate it.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
It is true that Putin declared several times that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” (“крупнейшая геополитическая катастрофа века”). What Putin was referring to was not some kind of nostalgia for the Soviet Union, but an acute realization of the unspeakable suffering the collapse of the Soviet Union meant for millions of people.
In fact, Putin has exactly *zero* nostalgia for the bad old USSR and he is not shy about speaking his mind about it, especially when he is confronted by those who now idealize the Soviet era. Not only that, but Putin has very publicly shown his immense respect for Solzhenitsyn. And the feeling was very mutual as we can tell from this photo:
Contrast this with Putin’s often publicly expressed disgust with defectors!
See, for example, what Putin declared during an interview with the British Financial Times: (emphasis added)
As a matter of fact, treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it. Not at all. But traitors must be punished. This gentleman, Skripal, had already been punished. He was arrested, sentenced and then served time in prison. He received his punishment. For that matter, he was off the radar. Why would anybody be interested in him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested, sentenced and then spent five years in prison. Then he was released and that was it. As concerns treason, of course, it must be punishable. It is the most despicable crime that one can imagine.
By the way, this suggests that Putin does not share Solzhenitsyn’s sympathy for General Vlasov proving, yet again, that a critical mind can always separate the chaff from the wheat.
Vladimir Putin lays flowers on the grave of Ivan Illyin
Then there is the way Putin likes to mention Ivan Ilyin in his speeches. It is pretty obvious to me that in terms of his personal views on history and politics, Putin is clearly an avid reader of both Ilyin and Solzhenitsyn (which creates a cognitive dissonance amongst Solzhenitsyn-haters who support Putin). However, that in no way implies that Putin endorses or agrees with everything Solzhenitsyn or Ilyin wrote or said. But it does show that not all minds in Russia are still “under the shadow of the Soviet Union.”
But change is inevitable.
First, the pendulum of history will swing the other way, and a lot of ideas which seem popular today are bound to gradually fade out, replaced by hopefully a much more careful evaluation of historical figures like Solzhenitsyn. Second, a lot of people who were raised in a blind hatred of “traitors” will simply pass away, while their descendants will not have the same knee-jerk reactions. Last, but most definitely not least, the future Russia will have to rediscover her historical, philosophical, spiritual and cultural roots, at which point the ideas of philosophers like Solzhenitsyn or Ilyin will automatically get center stage once again (though not necessarily be uncritically endorsed).


russia-insider--2020-04-14--Many People In NATO Countries Say 'No' To Supporting a NATO Ally In Military Conflict With Russia

NATO is marketed as providing each member nation with the benefit that the other member nations are committed to coming to its aid militarily in the event of an attack by another nation , especially Russia .
However , Pew Research Center poll results released Sunday indicate that the majority or plurality of people in 11 of 16 NATO countries where individuals were questioned oppose their respective governments meeting this commitment , at least if the military adversary were Russia .
These poll results indicate that serious thought should be given to disbanding NATO , an organization with a primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with public opinion in many NATO countries .
When asked if their respective countries ’ governments should use military force to defend a NATO ally country neighboring Russia with which “ Russia got into a serious military conflict , ” people living in the 16 NATO countries tended to answer in the negative .
“ No ” was the answer for the majority of polled individuals in eight countries — France , Germany , Greece , Italy , Spain , Bulgaria , Slovakia , and Turkey .
In three more NATO countries — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poland — a plurality rejected military intervention .
Only in five countries — the United States , Canada , the United Kingdom , the Netherlands , and Lithuania — did more people ( a majority in each case ) support such military intervention than reject it .

NATO is marketed as providing each member nation with the benefit that the other member nations are committed to coming to its aid militarily in the event of an attack by another nation, especially Russia.
However, Pew Research Center poll results released Sunday indicate that the majority or plurality of people in 11 of 16 NATO countries where individuals were questioned oppose their respective governments meeting this commitment, at least if the military adversary were Russia.
These poll results indicate that serious thought should be given to disbanding NATO, an organization with a primary objective that appears to be at odds with public opinion in many NATO countries.
When asked if their respective countries’ governments should use military force to defend a NATO ally country neighboring Russia with which “Russia got into a serious military conflict,” people living in the 16 NATO countries tended to answer in the negative.
“No” was the answer for the majority of polled individuals in eight countries — France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Turkey.
In three more NATO countries — the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland — a plurality rejected military intervention.
Only in five countries — the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Lithuania — did more people (a majority in each case) support such military intervention than reject it.
Read the poll results here...


russia-insider--2020-04-14--Russia Insider Still Working on New Projects, We Will Publish Sparsely for a Few Months More

Charles is the founder and editor of Russia Insider .
He can be reached at [ email protected ] Follow him on Twitter and on Steemit .
Well the whole COVID panic pushed our plans back by about 2 months , but we got one website up , Truth to Power , and are working on more .
Thanks for being patient .
I don ’ t want to tell you what is in the works because I agree with Mr. Putin ’ s example of showing by action , not words .
There is nothing worse than talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing right now ) and then delivering late , or not at all .
So enjoy the suspense .
I ’ ll let you know when there is something tangible to point to .
We will continue to publish a little bit here and there if and when we find the time .
There is such a wealth of extraordinary and valuable writing coming from the alternative media , a phenomenon that , thank God , continues to grow , that it will take great self-restraint not to share it with you as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already eager to get back at it once we have the time .
As curators and aggregators of the alt-media , we are in a unique position to evaluate this phenomenon , and , as I have often said in this space , I am optimistic about the prospects for what is happening out there .
Yes , there are attempts to stuff the genie back in the bottle - how could there not be ?
This is what any corrupt , rotten system does when put on the defensive by new realities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion , are not in their favor .
It is an unfortunate reality of human psychology that hand-wringing and Chicken Little gets a lot of attention , but consider for a moment what a weak strategic position the guardians of the establishment are in .
For starters , the edifice over which they preside is built on lies , lies which for hundreds of years remained concealed due to lack of sunlight .
Today , that darkness is being pierced , to use a corny phrase , by a thousand rays of light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even so , they have already shaken the edifice , and it is beginning to crumble .
The alt-media from every angle , from the left , right and center ; libertarian , socialist , nationalist right , Russian , Chinese , Iranian and other state media , Christian media , etc , are piercing that darkness .
The reflexive impulse from the establishment has been to try to censor , but that only works if you can truly stamp out everything , otherwise they are playing a losing game of whack-a-mole .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people just migrate to a dozen other platforms , attention is drawn to the people being silenced , and protecting free speech becomes a political issue .
The reality is that the establishment has been disrupted by a new technology that they do not have the means to control , and as long as this is true , their position will continue to weaken .
The Catholic church and the spread of the printing press in the 15th century is the correct analogy - there was nothing they could do to stop people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very different world emerged .
One thing I find striking about this information revolution we are living through is how little the info-revolutionaries are addressing the spiritual side of all this , indeed , how they seem to be mostly unaware of it .
They naively seem to think that if they expose the current evil , that it will disappear , like mist evaporating in sunlight .
But evil is different from water , it is more like a serpent which will slither away from the light , but then make its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a place and way we did not expect .
It is true that the Protestant world was better than the rottenness it replaced , but it was soon weakened by that very evil it thought it was vanquishing , and this happened to a movement very aware of the reality that we are but pathetic pawns in a cosmic battle of good and evil , something many more people are ignorant of today .
Reading the alt-media one can see that they seem to honestly believe that if we could just get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military industrial complex and Monsanto and the neocon wars and our extreme wealth inequality and the obscene cost of healthcare and censorship and unrestricted migration and a bunch of other things , that a new age of justice and well-being will dawn .
It seems to me that these are symptoms , not the main malady .
It is important to address symptoms , or the patient may succumb , but if one wants to emerge from crisis , one has to address the main cause of the sickness , and that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly deny , is our very stubborn co-inhabitant on this earth .
The alt-media is doing important work in mediating the symptoms , but its work on addressing the main issue , which is a spiritual one , has only barely begun .
It is no coincidence that the establishment is doing everything possible to discredit Christianity , for it provides a framework for comprehending and mounting a defense against this evil .
I am always surprised that so many of the most astute and indisputably brilliant personalities in the alt-media seem so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in front of their noses in this regard .
So there you go , I started off just wanting to let you know that we won ’ t be publishing much for a short while , and then wandered off into a jaw about journalistic freedom , truth and lies , and Good and Evil .
Despite the reduced publishing , have no doubt that we are still here , beavering away at the good fight .
We have not gone anywhere .
I am always aware that we are an extraordinary community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group - readers , writers , commenters , donors , people sharing us on social media and telling others about us .
We have much to be proud of , much work to do , and our enemies are right to fear us .
As always , thank you for your trust and support .

Charles is the founder and editor of Russia Insider. He can be reached at charles@russia-insider.com. Follow him on Twitter and on Steemit.
Update, April 14, 2020
Well the whole COVID panic pushed our plans back by about 2 months, but we got one website up, Truth to Power, and are working on more. Thanks for being patient.
Original article, Sept 30, 2019
Dear Insiders,
I don’t want to tell you what is in the works because I agree with Mr. Putin’s example of showing by action, not words. There is nothing worse than talking about doing something, (as I am doing right now) and then delivering late, or not at all. So enjoy the suspense. I’ll let you know when there is something tangible to point to.
We will continue to publish a little bit here and there if and when we find the time. There is such a wealth of extraordinary and valuable writing coming from the alternative media, a phenomenon that, thank God, continues to grow, that it will take great self-restraint not to share it with you as we have been doing. We are already eager to get back at it once we have the time.
As curators and aggregators of the alt-media, we are in a unique position to evaluate this phenomenon, and, as I have often said in this space, I am optimistic about the prospects for what is happening out there. Yes, there are attempts to stuff the genie back in the bottle - how could there not be? This is what any corrupt, rotten system does when put on the defensive by new realities, but the odds, in my opinion, are not in their favor.
It is an unfortunate reality of human psychology that hand-wringing and Chicken Little gets a lot of attention, but consider for a moment what a weak strategic position the guardians of the establishment are in. For starters, the edifice over which they preside is built on lies, lies which for hundreds of years remained concealed due to lack of sunlight. Today, that darkness is being pierced, to use a corny phrase, by a thousand rays of light. They are small rays, but even so, they have already shaken the edifice, and it is beginning to crumble. The alt-media from every angle, from the left, right and center; libertarian, socialist, nationalist right, Russian, Chinese, Iranian and other state media, Christian media, etc, are piercing that darkness.
The reflexive impulse from the establishment has been to try to censor, but that only works if you can truly stamp out everything, otherwise they are playing a losing game of whack-a-mole. Squelch freedom on Facebook or YouTube and people just migrate to a dozen other platforms, attention is drawn to the people being silenced, and protecting free speech becomes a political issue. The reality is that the establishment has been disrupted by a new technology that they do not have the means to control, and as long as this is true, their position will continue to weaken. The Catholic church and the spread of the printing press in the 15th century is the correct analogy - there was nothing they could do to stop people from seeing the truth, and a very different world emerged.
One thing I find striking about this information revolution we are living through is how little the info-revolutionaries are addressing the spiritual side of all this, indeed, how they seem to be mostly unaware of it. They naively seem to think that if they expose the current evil, that it will disappear, like mist evaporating in sunlight. But evil is different from water, it is more like a serpent which will slither away from the light, but then make its home somewhere else, inflicting its poison in a place and way we did not expect. It is true that the Protestant world was better than the rottenness it replaced, but it was soon weakened by that very evil it thought it was vanquishing, and this happened to a movement very aware of the reality that we are but pathetic pawns in a cosmic battle of good and evil, something many more people are ignorant of today.
Reading the alt-media one can see that they seem to honestly believe that if we could just get rid of the Israel lobby and the military industrial complex and Monsanto and the neocon wars and our extreme wealth inequality and the obscene cost of healthcare and censorship and unrestricted migration and a bunch of other things, that a new age of justice and well-being will dawn. It seems to me that these are symptoms, not the main malady.
It is important to address symptoms, or the patient may succumb, but if one wants to emerge from crisis, one has to address the main cause of the sickness, and that is this phenomenon of evil which one can hardly deny, is our very stubborn co-inhabitant on this earth. The alt-media is doing important work in mediating the symptoms, but its work on addressing the main issue, which is a spiritual one, has only barely begun. It is no coincidence that the establishment is doing everything possible to discredit Christianity, for it provides a framework for comprehending and mounting a defense against this evil. I am always surprised that so many of the most astute and indisputably brilliant personalities in the alt-media seem so blind to what is going on right in front of their noses in this regard.
So there you go, I started off just wanting to let you know that we won’t be publishing much for a short while, and then wandered off into a jaw about journalistic freedom, truth and lies, and Good and Evil.
Despite the reduced publishing, have no doubt that we are still here, beavering away at the good fight. We have not gone anywhere. I am always aware that we are an extraordinary community who have achieved a great deal as a group - readers, writers, commenters, donors, people sharing us on social media and telling others about us. We have much to be proud of, much work to do, and our enemies are right to fear us.
As always, thank you for your trust and support.


russia-insider--2020-04-14--Belarus Not Yet Brainwashed by Jewish Propaganda - 52,000 Christians Sign Petition to Ban Advocacy o

Belarus Not Yet Brainwashed by Jewish Propaganda - 52,000 Christians Sign Petition to Ban Advocacy of LGBT

Believers in Belarus are calling on their president to adopt a law banning the promotion and public demonstration of homosexuality and other sexual perversions to minors .
Believers in Belarus are calling on their president to adopt a law banning the promotion and public demonstration of homosexuality and other sexual perversions to minors .
A collection of signatures with an appeal to President Alexander Lukashenko was initiated by the Open Hearts charitable foundation with the support of the Belarusian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church of Belarus .
52,600 signatures have been collected since last fall , which will soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initiators of the collection told reporters on Monday , reports Interfax .
“ The more than 52,000 signatures from all regions of Belarus resulting from this initiative allow us to speak of the unique scale of the expression of the will of the people on this issue , ” Vladislav Volokhovich , the head of Open Hearts , said .
Open Hearts representatives emphasized that they are not only seeking prohibitive measures , but are also calling for the creation of a supra-departmental national program to help preserve traditional values , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Belarus as a unique and sovereign nation.
” “ We do not oppose anyone .
We are protecting our children and marking lines that can not be crossed , ” Volokhovich explained , noting that this is not an initiative to outlaw homosexuality , but only to protect children from corruption .
He also emphasized that signatures were collected at Orthodox and Catholic churches , and also from concerned citizens on the street .
“ From collecting the signatures , it became clear that the majority of Belarusians share this initiative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Lemeshonok , the spiritual father of the St. Elisabeth Convent in Minsk , explained that unhealthy , pathological tendencies appeared in man as a result of the Fall and can in no way be considered the norm .
He also explained that he has had experience with people with a non-traditional orientation who were able to return to normal life and start normal families .
“ The Church ’ s task it so help people not get lost and not wind up in a dead end where there is no future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his part , Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusevich of the Belarusian Catholic Church emphasized that all people of any orientation must be treated with respect and love , but sin remains a problem .
A response to the press conference was then published in which representatives of the LGBT community call for an end to the walls that divide people .
“ We are told : ‘ Belarusians share our initiative.
’ We are also Belarusians , we pay taxes , we study and work in this country .
We are daughters and sons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reads .
“ We are told that the signatures are from Orthodox and Catholics .
We are also believers .
We go to church .
Stop pretending that LGBT parishioners don ’ t exist , ” it continues , calling on the government to adopt an anti-discrimination law that will protect the rights of all citizens without exception .
In 2013 , Russia passed an amendment to the country 's Child Protection Law against “ propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors .
”

Believers in Belarus are calling on their president to adopt a law banning the promotion and public demonstration of homosexuality and other sexual perversions to minors.
Believers in Belarus are calling on their president to adopt a law banning the promotion and public demonstration of homosexuality and other sexual perversions to minors.
A collection of signatures with an appeal to President Alexander Lukashenko was initiated by the Open Hearts charitable foundation with the support of the Belarusian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church of Belarus. 52,600 signatures have been collected since last fall, which will soon be transferred to the presidential administration, the initiators of the collection told reporters on Monday, reports Interfax.
Belarus women are famous in Russia for their beauty
“The more than 52,000 signatures from all regions of Belarus resulting from this initiative allow us to speak of the unique scale of the expression of the will of the people on this issue,” Vladislav Volokhovich, the head of Open Hearts, said.
Open Hearts representatives emphasized that they are not only seeking prohibitive measures, but are also calling for the creation of a supra-departmental national program to help preserve traditional values, “which is a guarantee for the existence of Belarus as a unique and sovereign nation.”
“We do not oppose anyone. We are protecting our children and marking lines that cannot be crossed,” Volokhovich explained, noting that this is not an initiative to outlaw homosexuality, but only to protect children from corruption.
He also emphasized that signatures were collected at Orthodox and Catholic churches, and also from concerned citizens on the street. “From collecting the signatures, it became clear that the majority of Belarusians share this initiative,” the charity head commented.
Archpriest Andrew Lemeshonok, the spiritual father of the St. Elisabeth Convent in Minsk, explained that unhealthy, pathological tendencies appeared in man as a result of the Fall and can in no way be considered the norm. He also explained that he has had experience with people with a non-traditional orientation who were able to return to normal life and start normal families.
“The Church’s task it so help people not get lost and not wind up in a dead end where there is no future,” Fr. Andrew said.
For his part, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusevich of the Belarusian Catholic Church emphasized that all people of any orientation must be treated with respect and love, but sin remains a problem.
A response to the press conference was then published in which representatives of the LGBT community call for an end to the walls that divide people.
“We are told: ‘Belarusians share our initiative.’ We are also Belarusians, we pay taxes, we study and work in this country. We are daughters and sons, neighbors and colleagues,” the response reads.
“We are told that the signatures are from Orthodox and Catholics. We are also believers. We go to church. Stop pretending that LGBT parishioners don’t exist,” it continues, calling on the government to adopt an anti-discrimination law that will protect the rights of all citizens without exception.
In 2013, Russia passed an amendment to the country's Child Protection Law against “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors.”