The Aim of the Anglo-Saxon Idea to Equate Communism With Nazism Is to Conceptually Justify a New World Repartition

Recently, the ruling British and American elites in the world are actively planting into the public consciousness the thesis that communism and nazism are manifestations of the same totalitarian essence, and that the nations that implemented these models of social development are equally guilty of unleashing the Second World War and in the death of a huge number of people.

For example, on September 19th 2019 the European Parliament adopted a resolution “on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe”. The resolution reads in part: “the communist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a Treaty of Non-Aggression, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, dividing Europe and the territories of independent states between the two totalitarian regimes and grouping them into spheres of interest, which paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War.”

From the thesis about the equality of communism and nazism, it is concluded that it is necessary to punish those nations that during the war adhered to communist values, like how the nazis were once punished. This refers to the Russian nation, which positions itself as the successor of the Soviet nation. Contrary to all logic, the fact that the Russian nation has long abandoned the communist ideology is not taken into account. It is not a matter of logic, but of a certain material interest.

The authors of the cited resolution do not directly articulate it, but the political forces behind them clearly imply that the “bad” Russian nation should be subjugated by force, its country – Russia – should be occupied and dismembered, and part of the Russian territories should be annexed. It is also assumed that the Russians will be forced to pay reparations, deprived of their own value system – “decommunised” (actually “derussified”), and the elites resisting this punishment – destroyed.

This criminal plan was prepared by the Anglo-Saxon liberal bourgeois elite. Three-quarters of a century ago, they, along with the communist elites, led their nations to fight the nazis. Then they used the fruits of this victory. And now, losing their dominant positions in the world, they want to re-implement the old plan: to push the continental European nations against the successor of the USSR – Russia, to bring the matter to war, during which the conflicting parties will mutually weaken themselves.

Under this plan, the Anglo-Saxons selected performers – those European nations that a hundred years ago chose the fascist model of social development, really unleashed the Second World War, but were defeated during this war and were punished for their crimes. Within the former fascist nations, there are still elites who are eager to revise the results of the war. The Anglo-Saxons play on these desires. They bring revanchist elites to power, support them with monetary subsidies, and protect the established regimes of ethnic dictatorship with their military contingents. They advise how to wage an ideological war with the Russians. And, of course, they are rehabilitating revanchist elites in the public consciousness, equating communism with nazism.

This makes it clear that the USSR and Russia were declared aggressors and that sanctions were imposed on Russia. Hence the presentation of bills to Russia for damage from the Soviet occupation. Hence the appearance of museums of occupation. Hence the demonstrative demolition of monuments to Soviet soldiers who fought against Nazism. Hence, attacks on the historical memory of the Russian nation, bans on Soviet and Russian symbols outside of Russia. Hence the liquidation of Russian schools in a number of post-Soviet countries. Hence the criminal prosecution of the Russian intelligentsia, which lives abroad and tries to resist attempts at forced assimilation.

Russia is ready to repel the enemy’s forceful attack in real space. To do this, it has a sufficient number of submarines, aircraft, guns, machine guns, as well as stocks of missiles, shells, and ammunition for these military weapons.

In the sphere of public consciousness, things are much worse. Equating communism with nazism in the terminology of ideological war should be clearly evaluated as the use of neutron weapons. This destructive idea has quietly exploded and strikes Russians with invisible death rays – it destroys their system of spiritual values, imposes guilt for crimes they didn’t commit, and deprives them of the will to live. In the minds of European peoples, this idea fosters hatred of the Russians and makes them look like enemies.

It would be good to take measures to protect the Russian nation from deadly ideological weapons, to strike a blow of retribution against the enemy. The soldiers of the Russian ideological front rushed to the warehouses after the war – to the archives and libraries, and there are, figuratively speaking, only a few boxes of shells and cartridges that were produced in the Soviet era. Everything is very rusty, although usable. Ideological aviation and ships are out of commission, because they are based on small-scale trade in pseudo-cultural crafts. And ideological factories and plants without state orders have long been ruined, or they work for the enemy, who pays good money. So the militia of the ideological front shoot single posts on social networks. And elderly reserve officers from ideology on TV shows go hand-to-hand with the enemy, instead of bombing it with monographs and analytical reports. The Generals of the ideological troops are only looking for an opportunity to earn money, and not how to organise combat operations, order shells, and transport them.

What ideological antidote to the destructive Anglo-Saxon neutron rays has recently been invented? Who can introduce it into the public consciousness of the Russian nation? And in the public consciousness of Europeans? Personally, I don’t know the answers to these vital questions.

I will only venture to express my opinion on the differences between communism and nazism.

Three and a half centuries ago, capitalist relations started to develop in Europe. They were based on the competition of private capital in the market and led to the equalisation of the position of individual capitalists and employees. As a result, a so-called liberal order was established in the economy. In the political sphere, liberalism led to the competition of various social forces and the establishment of democracy: parliamentarism, equality of all before the law, freedom of conscience, speech, and assembly.

The bourgeoisie that came to power started to build a new social community – the nation – on the basis of the people created by feudalism. It was built with the help of such social institutions as schools, universities, book publishing, and the press. In the framework of the nation all individuals become equal, regardless of their ethnic origin. The ethnic hierarchy that existed within the feudal society was eliminated. In general, it was a liberal-democratic, figuratively speaking “white” project of national construction.

However, at the first stages, the bourgeoisie formed its capital by force: it took land from the peasants, forced them to work with the help of criminal penalties, engaged in piracy and the slave trade. This was the period of initial capital accumulation. During this period, wage workers were mercilessly exploited and did not have any political rights. In relation to ethnic minorities, the titular bourgeoisie pursued a policy of exploitation and forced assimilation. Ethnic minorities were purposefully relegated to the lowest rungs of the social ladder.

Let’s call such a national construction project “brown”, although this term appeared much later.

In England, the period of initial accumulation lasted more than 200 years. All this time, the “white” and “brown” projects co-existed peacefully within English society. The object of robbery and discrimination against the English all this time were the Welsh, Scots, Irish, Jews.

Since the beginning of the 17th century, the “brown” project has also been implemented outside of Great Britain – in the colonies. The object of robbery and discrimination of the English ethnic group were Indians, Negroes, Indians, Chinese, Australian aborigines, and other “native” population of the colonies. There was an ethnic hierarchy in which the English generally occupied the highest rungs of the social ladder, and the “natives” were at the bottom of it.

The “brown” project in the colonies was successfully implemented by the British until the middle of the 20th century.

In some cases, the “brown” project in the British colonies developed into the “black” project, although this term also appeared much later. The essence of it was that the “native” population was not assimilated by the British, but turned into slaves or serfs, and its “surplus” was driven from favourable economic territories and condemned to starvation. Very often, the “superfluous” “natives” were simply physically destroyed. The “black” project was widely implemented by the British on the Islands of the West Indies, in the North American colonies, in India, in China, and in Australia. This project was also successfully implemented by descendants of English colonists in the United States of America, which became independent from Great Britain. Modern research suggests that tens of millions of people died during Anglo-Saxon colonisation.

The English bourgeoisie shared part of the benefits of exploiting the “natives” with its hired workers, thus seeking to reduce social tension within the nation and accelerate its social development.

Simultaneously with the British, the “brown”and “black” projects were implemented by capitalist nations such as the Dutch, French, Danish, and Belgian, which had their own colonial empires. Let’s call these bourgeois nations “old”.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the “young” bourgeois nations grew up: German, Austrian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Bulgarian. They also wanted to implement the “white” project, but they did not have the corresponding opportunities for initial capital accumulation, since all the free territories were already captured by the “old” nations.

The “young” nations tried to remake the colonies by force in their favour, but lost the First World War to the “old” nations and suffered significant material, human, and territorial losses. They developed acute social and ethnic contradictions.

As a result, the “young” nations were forced to abandon the “white” project and look for alternative models to ensure the initial accumulation of capital and nation-building. The choice could be made between the “brown” project, which we already know about, and the “red” project.

The “red” project was proposed by communists who represented the interests of wage workers. It was proposed to nationalise private capital, turn everyone into employees, allocate more funds to create additional jobs, provide a guaranteed level of wages, and reduce the length of the working day. The communists also advocated equal rights for all ethnic groups.

After the First World War, almost all the “young” European nations broke out in socialist revolutions and communists made an attempt to implement the “red” project. However, everywhere these attempts were suppressed by the forces of the local bourgeoisie with the support of the British, French, and representatives of other “old” nations.

Therefore, in the 1920s-1930s, the German, Austrian, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Bulgarian nations started to implement the “brown” project, which actually at this time had acquired this name. In Germany and Italy, this project was implemented by the fascist parties that emerged from below. They came to power quite legally, having received the support of the broad masses of the population. In Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, the “brown” project was implemented by the bourgeoisie itself, relying on mass parties formed from above. The bourgeois elites in these countries, who emerged from the bottom of the fascist parties, did not allow them to come to power, and even banned them and repressed the leadership of these parties.

As a result, in the “young” European nations by the end of the 1930s, the “brown” project completely replaced the “white” project of national construction. All “young” nations became fascist.

In Germany and Austria, the “brown” project developed into the “black” project after 1938. The German nation was transformed from a fascist nation into a nazi nation. In Italy, this transformation took place at the end of 1943, in Hungary and Romania in the autumn of 1944.

In the Russian Empire, after the successful socialist revolution, the “red” project started to be implemented. The communists nationalised private capital and eliminated the exploiting classes. The initial accumulation of state capital was based on self-exploitation. All ethnic groups acquired equal rights and were united in the Soviet nation, which established a common state for all ethnic groups – the USSR.

The “old” nations encouraged the development of fascism and then nazism in the “young” European nations, in order to direct their aggression against the communist Soviet nation and divert attention from their own colonies. In the course of the war, the opponents had to weaken each other. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons made significant concessions to Nazi Germany – they allowed it to unite with Austria, and then gave part of Czechoslovakia under the Munich Treaty. They also did not prevent Germany from annexing Poland. Nor did the “old” nations oppose Germany’s formation of an aggressive military–political alliance – the Axis bloc.

However, Nazi Germany and its fascist allies first attacked and subdued the liberal-democratic nations. A fascist regime of governance was imposed on these nations, they were robbed, ethnically exploited, and lost part of their territories. A number of nations were deprived of their statehood and were subjected to genocide. Only the English nation remained unconquered.

After that, all the fascist continental nations under the leadership of the German nazis attacked the USSR. The aggressors aimed to break up the Soviet nation and eliminate its statehood, divide the occupied territory of the USSR into parts, and turn them into colonies. It was planned to enslave some of the Soviet people and to physically destroy the rest.

The communist Soviet nation started to wage a hard fight against supporters of the implementation of the nazi “black” order in Europe. In this fight, the Soviet nation lost 25 million people, but defended its right to exist and to have sovereign development within the framework of the “red” project.

To accuse the communist Soviet nation of being no different during the war from the Nazi and fascist nations is not only a lie, but also an immoral lie. This is an insult to the memory of war victims. And not only the dead Soviet citizens, but also the British, Americans, French, Poles, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Belgians, Dutch, Italians, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks who fell on the battlefield or at the hands of fascist and Nazi executioners. The number of victims of the “black” project in Europe is at least 10 million people.

The nazis and fascists alike destroyed both members of the Soviet nation and members of the liberal-democratic nations. This was not only the death of combatants, but also the deliberate genocide of civilians, starvation and contagious diseases, the creation of unbearable living conditions in concentration camps, the execution of opponents of the regime, death in the course of unjustified shelling and bombing of cities and villages, death as a result of excessive slave labor.

The British and Americans perfectly understood the goals of the Soviet nation’s struggle against the “black” European project. Therefore, the liberal-democratic Anglo-Saxon nations and the communist Soviet nation formed a military-political union – the United Nations. This alliance fought the nazi and fascist nations in the Axis bloc.

The United Nations jointly defeated the nazi and fascist nations and jointly punished them for their crimes. Only the Nazi German nation was subjected to significant punishment. The fascist nations were mostly subjected to symbolic punishment. Liberal-democratic nations prevented their punishment, since they themselves continued to implement “brown” projects in their own colonies. The Anglo-Saxons could not punish the fascists who tried to do the same in Europe as the liberal democrats did in the colonies. The “brown” project for the Anglo-Saxons was their own, native.

In relation to the Nazi German nation, the interests of the allies coincided. That is precisely why Germany was divided into parts, lost some territories, the Germans were forced to pay reparations and subjected to deportations. After the war, allied occupation forces remained in Germany to ensure that the political power of the German nation was not restored. This power could regain its black colour and re-conquer all of Europe.

This new world order was called the Yalta-Potsdam system. After the collapse of the world into capitalist and communist systems, this order continued to exist. It still exists, despite the fact that the European communist system collapsed and the USSR collapsed. Until now, the German nation has serious limitations in its sovereignty, and cannot realise in the political sphere the economic potential that it has accumulated after the war.

The launch of an ideological war against the Russian nation by the Anglo-Saxons, accusing it, contrary to well-known facts, of having once contributed to the implementation of the “black” project in Europe, means their demonstrative rejection of the Yalta-Potsdam agreements. This is done solely to establish a new world order, an order in which the Russian nation will already be in a subordinate position.

Actions in the political space can only be countered with similar actions. Russia urgently needs to stand on the side of Germany and demand the lifting of the restrictions that the Anglo-Saxons maintain on it. After all, Germany, like Russia, has long been implementing the “white” project of national construction. Both countries are not interested in the revival of fascism in the “new” European nations, in their unleashing of conflicts against Russia. After all, these conflicts will invariably spread to neighbouring countries, and the territorial division of Europe will start. The new “young” nations that support the Anglo-Saxons will inevitably choose a “black” project instead of a “brown” one. In order to draw Germany into the conflict, the military-political bloc of NATO, which is under the control of the Anglo-Saxons, will be used.

Germany itself has long been striving to become an equal member of the world community. It is not for nothing that it promotes the idea of dividing the European Union into two parts: it wants to get rid of the need to support “new” nations economically, and does not want to depend on their aggressive foreign policy. Within the framework of this idea, there are German proposals to create a European military force independent of the NATO command.

Britain’s exit from the European Union opens up new prospects for Germany in this regard. Russia can support Germany’s demands to withdraw from its territory the American and British occupation forces that are still there. Fortunately, Germany has recently finished paying reparations that it was assigned by the Anglo-Saxons after the First World War. It is no coincidence that Germany refuses to go to the G7 summit, which is organised by Washington.

In these conditions, the significance of the Russian-Chinese Union increases. It will be directed against the United States, which is also involved in an ideological attack on Russia and wants to revise the results of the Second World War.

If the revision of the Yalta-Potsdam agreements is inevitable, it should take place on terms that are beneficial for the entire European community, not just for the Anglo-Saxons.

The spread of such ideas will be a worthy response to the ideological sabotage that the Anglo-Saxons have undertaken, declaring the identity of nazism and communism. After all, in fact, it was the Anglo-Saxons who nurtured “brown” and “black” projects in the “new” European nations before the Second World War, pushing them to aggression in the eastern direction. Now the Anglo-Saxons want to repeat the same technique and obscure their role in the crimes committed a hundred years ago.

These considerations add to the urgency of resuming the production of ideological projectiles, bombs, and missiles.

Aleksandr Gaponenko

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.