FC2ブログ

§754 Ex-Tsarina Alexandra ruthlessly executed; The sensible also victims to the Bolsheviks (1917-1921): VI-72.

VI-72 (§754):

By the feigned fury of divine emotion,
Shall the wife of the great be harshly violated:
The sensible intending to condemn such a doctrine,
Immolated victims to the ignorant people.

(Par fureur faincte d'esmotion divine,
Sera la femme du grand fort violee:
Juges voulans damner telle doctrine,
Victime au peuple ignorant imolee.)

NOTES: By the feigned fury of divine emotion, Shall the wife of the great be harshly violated: « ... ‘the presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet has sentenced you to be shot ...’ The Tsar registered blank incomprehension; turning his back to Yurovsky to face his family, he managed an incredulous stutter – ‘What? What?’ – as those around him were rooted to the spot in absolute terror. ‘So you’re not taking us anywhere?’ ventured Botkin, unable also to comprehend what had just been said. ‘I don’t understand. Read it again ...’ the Tsar interrupted, his face white with horror. Yurovsky picked up where he had left off: ‘... in view of the fact that the Czechoslovaks are threatening the red capital of the Urals – Ekaterinburg – and in view of the fact that the crowned executioner might escape the people’s court, the presidium of the Regional Soviet, fulfilling the will of the Revolution [By the feigned fury of divine emotion], has decreed that the former Tsar Nicholas Romanov [the great], guilty of countless bloody crimes against the people, should be shot ...’ Instinctively, the Tsaritsa and Olga crossed themselves; a few incoherent words of shock or protest heard from the rest. Yurovsky, having finished reading the decree, pulled out his Colt, stepped forward and shot the Tsar at the point-blank range in the chest... But at least Nicholas was spared the sight of seeing what happened to his wife [the wife of the great] and family. For in that moment, Ermakov had turned and fired his Mauser at the Tsaritsa only six feet away from him as she tried to make the sign of the cross, hitting her in the left side of the skull, spraying brain tissue all around, as a hail of bullets from the other assassins hit her torso. Alexandra crumpled sideways on to the floor, her warm, sticky blood and brain tissue spreading across it in a mist of steam [Shall the wife of the great be harshly violated]. Next to her, poor lame Alexey,... » (Rappaport, 2008, p.188-189).

The great
[le grand]: = Nicholas II. In fact, 45 of the 47 cases in all of the word ‘grand (great)’ as a singular noun with or without a definite or indefinite article (le grand [the great], un grand [a great] or grand [great]) in the Prophecies of Nostradamus designate a particular person or deity of importance in history or mythology as follows: Napoleon Bonaparte (II-24, II-58, II-85, III-10, III-53, V-2, VIII-62), François of Lorraine, second Duke of Guise (V-1, V-28, VII-29), Constable Anne de Montmorency (II-82, IV-34), Charles II of Lorraine, Duke of Mayenne (I-85, II-55), Napoleon III (II-26, VIII-11), Hitler (III-58, VII-24), Mussolini (VI-6, VI-52), Emperor of Japan Hirohito (VI-80, VI-90), Pluto or Hades (I-84), Dragut (V-23), Bey of Tunis (VIII-50, 1573), Charles of Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine (VII-17), Charles X (IV-84), Henry III of France (III-55), Louis XIV (X-94), Louis XVI (VIII-24), Pius VI (II-63), Duke of Wellington (VIII-1), Eugène Beauharnais (V-61), Algerian dey Hussein (V-69), Sultan Mahmed II (IX-62), Camillo Cavour (VIII-33), Pius IX (V-22), Bismarck (VI-40), Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria (I-26), Nicholas II (VI-72), William II of Germany (IV-13), Francisco Franco (VIII-26), President Truman (V-83), SCAP General MacArthur (II-92), Nocholae Ceausescu (II-57). In the remaining two cases (II-2 and X-20), the word ‘grand (great)’ as a singular noun means respectively ‘a great hung on the branch (grand pendu sus la branche, i.e. a large blade of a guillotine)’ and ‘a great annihilated (grand neanty, i.e. a great of valuables reduced to nothing)’.

By the way, there are three cases of the word ‘grand’ as an adjective with a noun in ellipsis in the context as follows: VI-91: Quant il naistra du grand un filz Agrippe (a son of Agrippina = Nero) (When Nero shall be born from the great [Nero]), IX-19: Le grand bastard yssu du gran du Maine (The great bastard issuing from the great [bastard] of Maine) and X-53: La plus grand [pellice = pelisse] (the greatest pelisse]. And there are one case of the word ‘grand’ as an adverb as follows: II-66: Peu de temps grand la fortune changée (Before long the fortune greatly changed).

Finally, as to the plural form: ‘les plus grands (the greaters)’ of the word ‘grand’, its 7 cases in all are similarly designating particular persons of importance in history as follows: IV-47 (the important Huguenots killed in St. Bartholomew in 1572), VIII-41 (the Girondists executed by Robespierre), IX-3 (the French, the Austrians and the Neapolitans against Roman Revolution in 1848-1849), VII-8 (the leaders of Tuscany against the translation of the Italian capital from Florence to Rome in 1871), X-57 (the Orleanists against the Restoration of Prince Chambord in 1873), III-54 (Spanish royalist generals against the Popular Front) and IV-68 (Hitler and Mussolini).

The wife
[la femme]: = The wife of Nicholas II, Alexandra. In fact, the word ‘femme (woman)’ in the Prophecies of Nostradamus always refers to a particular woman or wife, to a particular group of women or a womanly generic character as follos: IX-52 (the French women in the age of wars of religion), IV-52 (the women of Calais besieged by the French in 1558), IV-57 (Margaret of Valois, wife of Henry of Navarre, whose love for her having perished in favour of his new mistress Mme. de Sauve), X-35 (womanly generic characteristics), VIII-13 (Catherine de Medici), X-9 (Marie Antoinette), VIII-63 (Josephine Beauharnais, first wife of Napoleon Bonaparte), I-88, IV-54 and VIII-63 (Marie-Louise of Austria, second wife of Napoleon I), I-41 (Sophie Dawes, Baroness of Feuchères, a young mistress of Louis Henry II, Prince of Condé in 1830) and VI-72 (Tsarina Alexandra, wife of Nicholas II).

Therefore, the interpretation of the phrase: ‘la femme du grand (the wife of the great)’ as ‘the mass of lower people (la femme) of the great tzarist empire (du grand)’ by Vlaicu Ionescu (1976, p.427) is hardly recommended. In fact, in order to represent a great empire or state, Nostradamus prefers the explicit expression: ‘le grand Empire/empire (the great Empire/empire)’ (e.g., I-32, VI-67 and X-87 for the first French Empire; V-45 and V-95 for the Holy Roman Empire; III-97 for the Ottoman Empire; X-100 for the British Empire; X-32 for the third French Republic).

The sensible intending to condemn such a doctrine, Immolated victims to the ignorant people
: « The catalogue of Romanov murders did not end at Ekaterinburg. The big Moscow meeting in early July had taken account of the fate not only of the Imerial Family, but also of their closest relatives, as part of the systematic destruction of the dynasty. Only one day after the murders at Ipatiev House, on the night of 18/19 July, 90 miles away at Alapaevsk, Alexandra’s sister Ella, her companion Sister Barbara and the five Romanov Grand Dukes and Princes being held with them suffered an even more horrific death at the hands of the ruthless Urals Cheka. That night, men came for the prisoners at the schoolhouse where they were being held, took them by cart out into the nearby forest under cover of darkness and made them walk to the mouth of a disused mine. Here, the victims were beaten about the head with rifle butts and then one by one hurled down into the waterlogged pit. Only Grand Duke Sergey, who had struggled at the surface and been shot in the head, died quickly. Grand Duchess Ella and her companions were left to die a slow, agonising death from a combination of traumatic injury, thirst and starvation. But at least their bodies were found – only three months later. Across Russia as a whole, the murder of the Romanovs marked the beginning of an orgy of terror, murder and bloody reprisal that would caracterise the savage Russian civil war – a war which would claim 13 million lives. The signal to crank up repressive measures against counter-revolutionary activity came in August, first with the murder of the head of the Petrograd Cheka, Moisey Uritsky, and then with a failed assassination attempt at Lenin on the 30th. The rapidly expanding Cheka was now given free rein for acts of revenge; whole families of hostages, such as the wives and children of Red Army officers who went over to the Whites, were imprisoned in prototype concentration camps (created that autumn) and many were murdered. From now on the sons would be held accountable for the political sins of their fathers. Such acts of retribution escalated during the civil war and became endemic under Stalin. The cold-blooded murder of the Romanov children and with it an attempt at the systematic liquidation of the entire dynasty had been the ultimate litmus test of the amorality of Bolshevik policy [such a doctrine].» (Rappaport, id., p.213).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 
スポンサーサイト



§755 Leninism (Bolshevism) (1917-1924): III-67.

III-67 (§755):

A new sect of Philsophers
Contemptuous of death, gold, honours and riches:
Shall not be bordering on the German mountains,
Shall have a support and presses to follow them.

(Une nouvele secte de Philosophes
Mesprisant mort, or, honneurs & richesses:
Des monts Germains ne seront limitrophes,
A les ensuivre auront apui & presses.)

NOTES: A new sect of Philsophers: = the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, a new sect of Marxism in Russia: « Of course: Classes are led by parties and parties are led by individuals who are called leaders... This is the ABC. The will of a class is sometimes fulfilled by a dictator. What mattered was that the anointed individual, the man selected by History to possess the gnosis at the appointed time, should understand and so be able to interpret the sacred texts. Lenin always insisted that Marxism is identical with objective truth. ‘From the philosophy of Marxism’, he wrote, ‘cast as one piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic premise, a single essential part, without deviating from objective truth.’ He told Valentinov: ‘Orthodox Marxism requires no revision of any kind either in the field of philosophy, in its theory of political economy, or its theory of historical development.’ Yet the curious thing is that, for all his proclaimed orthodoxy, Lenin was very far from being an orthodx Marxist. Indeed in essentials he was not a Marxist at all. He often used Marx’s methodology and he exploited the Dialectic to justify conclusions he had already reached by intuition. But he completely ignored the very core of Marx’s ideology, the historical determinism of the revolution. Lenin was not at heart a determinist but a voluntarist: the decisive role was played by human will: his. He was also a revolutionary to his fingertips, and of a very old-fashioned sort. He believed that revolutions were made not by inexorable historical forces (they had to be there too, of course) but by small groups of highly disciplined men responding to the will of a decisive leader. In this respect he had much more in common with the French Jacobin revolutionary tradition of 1789 - 95, and even with its more recent exponents, such as Georges Sorel, than with the instinctive Marxists, most of whom were German and who saw the triumph of the proletariat almost as a Darwinian process of evolution.» (Johnson, 1991, p.53-55).

« The truth is, Lenin was too impatient to be an orthodox Marxist. He feared the predicament foreseen by Engels when he had written, ‘the worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the moment is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents... he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination.’ Russia was a semi-industrialized country, where the bourgeoisie was weak and the proletariat small, and the objective conditions for the revolution not nearly ripe. It was this dilemma which led Lenin into heresy. If ‘proletarian consciousness’ had not yet been created, was it not the task of Marxist intellectuals like himself to speed up the process? In 1902, in What Is To Be Done?, he first used the term ‘vanguard fighters’ to describe the new role of a small revolutionary élite. He drew an entirely novel distinction between a revolution created by a mature ‘organization of workers’, in advanced capitalist countries like Germany and Britain, and ‘an organization of revolutionaries’, suitable for Russian conditions. The first was occupational, broad, public: in short a mass proletarian party. The second was quite different: ‘an organization of revolutionaries must contain primarily and chiefly people whose occupation is revolutionary activity... This organization must necessarily be not very broad and as secret as possible.’ As such it had to forgo the ‘democratic principle’ which required ‘full publicity’ and ‘election to all posts’. Rosa Luxemburg, the most gifted as well as one of the more orthodox of the German Marxists, recognized Lenin’s heresy for what it was: so serious as to destroy the whole purpose and idealism of Marxism. She attributed it to Lenin’s faults of character, both personal and national: ‘The “ego”, cruched and pulverized by Russian absolutism,’ she wrote, ‘reappeared in the form of the “ego” of the Russian revolutionary’ which ‘stands on its head and proclaims itself anew the mighty consummator of history.’ Lenin, she argued, was in effect demanding absolute powers for the party leadership, and this would intensify most dangerously the conservatism which naturally belongs to every such body’. Once granted, such powers would never be relinquished. Leninism is not only a heresy; it was exactly the same heresy which created fascism. Italy was also a semi-industrialized country, where Marxists were looking for ways to speed up the coming of revolution. Italian Marxists too, were attracted by Sorel’s notions of revolutionay violence. In 1903, the year after Lenin first used the term ‘vanguard fighters’, Roberto Michaels, in his introduction to the Italian translation of Sorel’s Saggi di critica del Marxismo, urged the creation of a ‘revolutionary élite’ to push forward the proletarian socialist millennium... In the years before 1914, from his impotent exile in Switzerland, Lenin watched the progress of Mussolini with approval and some envy. As Marxist heretics and violent revolutionary activists, Lenin and Mussolini had six salient features in common. Both were totally opposed to bourgeois parliaments and any type of ‘reformism’. Both saw the party as a highly centralized, strictly hierarchical and ferociously disciplined agency for furthering socialist objectives. Both wanted a leadership of professional revolutionaries. Neither had any confidence in the capacity of the proletariat to organize itself. Both thought revolutionary consciousness could be brought to the masses from without by a revolutionary, self-appointed élite. Finally, both believed that, in the coming struggle between the classes, organized violence would be the final arbiter.» (Johnson, id., p.55-58).

Death, gold, honours and riches
: These words represent the bourgeoisie in its large sense, against which the proletariat led by the revolutionary élite should stand in the struggle between the classes, ‘death’ referring to the ecclesiastics concerned with the spiritual “life-after-death” (Ionescu, 1976, p.428), ‘gold’ to the capitalists, ‘honours’ to the royal and the noble, and ‘riches’ to the bourgeois proper.

Shall not be bordering on the German mountains
: During the Great War Russia was bordering immediately on Germany, but the postwar peace treaties of the countries concerned (1920-1922) shall separate them utterly geographically through the independence of the intermediate countries such as Poland (independence declared on November 3, 1918), Lithuania (on Dec. 11, 1917), Latvia (on Nov. 18, 1918) and Estonia (on Feb. 24, 1918) (cf.
PenguinAtlas 2, p.128 and p.130). By the way, the expression ‘the mountains’ of Germany seems so irrelevant to the affair of Russo-German frontier whose regions are nearly plain that it shall be also understood as hinting the high-level German Marxists such as Marx, Engels and Rosa Luxembug, from whom the Bolsheviks are far deviating.

Ensuivre
: = « suivre (to follow), aller à la suite de (to come in deference to).» (Godefroy).

A support to follow them
: = the Cheka (secret police), the mightiest organization of protection for the Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist Party since March 8, 1918): « It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the decision to use terror and oppressive police power was taken very early on by Lenin, endorsed by his chief military agent Trotsky; and that it was, as Rosa Luxemburg feared it would be, an inescapable part of his ideological approach to the seizure and maintenance of authority, and the type of centralized state he was determined to create. The original Bolshevik armed force was Trotsky’s military-revolutionary committee of the Petrograd Soviet. Immediately after 25-26 October 1917, this committee became a sub-committee of the Central Executive and was given security jobs including fighting ‘counter-revolution’, defined as ‘sabotage, concealment of supplies, deliberate holding up of cargoes, etc’. Its constitution was made public in a Sovnarkom [the Council of People’s Commissars, the first Workers’ and Peasants’ Government] decree of 12 November 1917. As it was charged with examining suspects, it set up a special section under Felix Dzerzhinsky, a fanatical Pole who was in charge of security at Smolny [the Smolny Institute, from which the Bolsheviks initially operated]. However, when on 7 December 1917 the military committee was finally dissolved by another Sovnarkom decree, Dzerzhinsky’s section remained in being, becoming the ‘All-Russian Extraordinary Commission’ (Cheka), charged with combating ‘counter-revolution and sabotage’. The decree which created the Cheka was not made public until more than ten years later (Pravda, 18 December 1927), so that Lenin’s security force was from the beginning and remained for the rest of his life a secret police in the true sense, in that its very existence was not officially acknowledged. There was no question that, from the very start, the Cheka was intended to be used with complete ruthlessness and on a very large scale.» (Johnson, id., p.67-68).

« Almost immediately after the Cheka came into being, a decree set up a new kind of ‘revolutionary tribunal’, to try those ‘organize uprisings against the authority of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, who actively oppose it or disobey it’, and civil servants guilty of sabotage or concealment. The tribunal was authorized to fix penalties in accordance with ‘the circumstances of the case and the dictates of the revolutionary conscience’. This decree effectively marked the end of the rule of law in Lenin’s new state, then only weeks old. It dovetailed into the Cheka system. Under the Tsars, the Okhrana was empowered to arrest, but it then had to hand over the prisoner to the courts for public trial, just like anyone else; and any punishments were meted out by the ordinary civil authorities. Under Lenin’s system, the Cheka controlled the special courts (which met in secret) and carried out their verdicts. As the Cheka arrested, tried, sentenced and punished their victims, there was never any reliable record of their numbers. When Lenin transferred the government from Petrograd to Moscow for security reasons, and placed Sovnarkom within the Kremlin, he encouraged Dzerzhinsky to set up his own headquarters independently of Sovnarkom. A large insurance company building was taken over in Lubyanka Square; inside it an ‘inner prison’ was built for political suspects; and from this point on the Cheka was an independent department of state reporting directly to Lenin.» (Johnson, id., p.68-69).

« The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few monts of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. Probably the most important Cheka official next to Dzerzhinsky himself was the ferocious Latvian M.Y. Latsis. He came nearest to giving the Lenin terror its true definition:

The Extraordinary Commission is neither an investigating commission nor a tribunal. It is an organ of struggle, acting on the home front of a civil war. It does not judge the enemy: it strikes him... We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is – to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.

There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race. Thus the modern practice of the genocide was born.» (Johnson, id., p.70-71).

Presses to follow them: = The Bolshevik newspapers Pravda and Isvestia: « It is significant that, when he [Lenin] had so much else to do, he gave priority to controlling the press. In September, just before the putsch [coup], he had publicly called for ‘a much more democratic’ and ‘incomparably more complete’ freedom of the press. In fact under the republic the press had become as free as in Britain or France. Two days after he seized power, Lenin ended this freedom with a decree on the press. As part of ‘certain temporary, extraordinary measures’, any newspapers ‘calling for open resistance or insubordination to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government’, or ‘sowing sedition through demonstrably slanderous distortions of fact’, would be suppressed and their editors put on trial. By the next day the government had closed down ten Petrograd newspapers; ten more were shut the following week. Management of the news was entrusted primarily to the Bolshevik party newspaper, Pravda, and the paper of the Soviets, Isvestia, now taken over by Sovnarkom.» (Johnson, id., p.64-65). In this perspective, V. Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase ‘support and presses’ as ‘the press and the propaganda of the party’ (Ionescu, id.) is confused and insufficient because ‘the press’ and ‘the propaganda’ are almost synonymous, whereas he is lacking in penetration into the word ‘support’ categorically different from the propagandist means.
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§756 Nikolai Lenin violently seizing power (1917-1991): V-52.

V-52 (§756):

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite,
Those in exile shall be elevated to the reign:
Those of a caste like Hypolite swimming bled,
And shall flourish long under such an ensign.

(Un Roy sera qui donra l'opposite,
Les exilés eslevés sur le regne:
De sang nager la gent caste hyppolite,
Et florira long temps soubz telle enseigne.)

NOTES: « V-52 (1917f) Lenin raises the socialist party prohibited in the times of Czars to the reigning power. The Revolution of October proceeds not bloodlessly. For a long time, however, Hammer and Sickle shall rule over the nation, that possesses the characteristics of the wife of Acastus, Hippolyte, who comported herself following the method of Madame Potiphar against Joseph and always shifted her own blame to others.» (Centurio, 1953, p.119).

Those in exile: « Lenin left Zurich to return to Russia on 8 April 1917. Some of his comrades in exile accompanied him to the station, arguing. He was to travel back through Germany at the invitation of General Ludendorff, who guaranteed him a safe passage provided he undertook not to talk to any German trade unionists on the way. War breeds revolutions. And breeding revolutions is a very old form of warfare. The Germans called it Revolutionierungpolitik [policy of revolutionizing]. If the Allies could incite the Poles, the Czechs, the Croats, the Arabs and the Jews to rise against the Central Powers and their partners, then the Germans, in turn, could and did incite the Irish and the Russians. If the Germans used Lenin, as Churchill later put it, ‘like a typhoid bacillus’, they attached no particular importance to him, lumping him in with thirty other exiles and malcontents.» (Johnson, 1991, p.49); « Pravda resumed publication on 5 March [1917]. Kamenev and Stalin hurried back from Siberia to take charge of it eight days later... The other Bolshevik with clear ideas of his own was Trotsky. In May [1917] he arrived in Petrograd from America... » (Johnson, id., p.59).

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite, Those in exile shall be elevated to the reign: The Bolshevist political stiffness excluding all the reformative or conciliatory alternatives shall give Lenin leading his faction a narrow chance of seizing power in October 1917: « The auguing comrades thought Lenin would compromise himself by accepting German aid and tried to dissuade him from going. He brushed them aside without deigning to speak and climbed on the train... Arriving at Beloostrov on Russian soil, in the early hours of 16 April, he was met by his sister Maria and by Kamenev and Stalin, who had been in charge of the Bolshevik paper Pravda. He ignored his sister completely, and Stalin whom he had not met, and offered no greeting to his old comrade Kamenev whom he had not seen for five years. Instead he shouted at him, ‘What’s this you have been writing in Pravda? We saw some of your articles and roundly abused you.’ Late that night he arrived at the Finland Station in Petrograd. There he launched into the first of a series of speeches. The last took two hours and ‘filled his audience with turmoil and terror’. The grim lack of humanity with which Lenin returned to Russia to do his revolutionary work was characteristic of this single-minded man.» (Johnson, id., p.49-50); « His absolute self-confidence and masterful will were never, for a moment, eroded by tactical calculations as to how people were likely to react. Moreover, he was seeking power in a country where traditionally people counted for nothing; were mere dirt beneath the ruler’s feet. Hence when Lenin returned to Petrograd he was totally unaffected by any wartime sentiment. He had said all along that the war was a bourgeois adventure. The defeat of the Tsar was ‘the least evil’. The army should be undermined by propaganda, the men encouraged ‘to turn their guns on their officers’, and any disaster exploited ‘to hasten the destruction... of the capitalist class’. In January 1917 he doubted whether ‘I will live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution’. So when the Tsar was sent packing six weeks later he was surprised. To his delight, the new parliamentary regime opted to continue the war, while releasing political prisoners and thus allowing his own men to subvert it. The Bolsheviks would overturn the new government and seize power by opposing the war [a King who shall give the opposite]. Pravda resumed publication on 5 March [1917]. Kamenev and Stalin hurried back from Siberia to take charge of it eight days later. Then, to Lenin’s consternation, the two idiots promptly changed the paper’s line and commited it to supporting the war! That was why, the second Lenin set eyes on Kamenev on 3[sic] April, he bawled him out. The Pravda line promptly changed back again. Lenin sat down and wrote a set of ‘theses’ to explain why the war had to be resisted and ended. Stalin later squared his yard-arm by confessing to ‘a completely mistaken position’ which ‘I shared with other party comrades and renounced it completely... when I adhered to Lenin’s theses’. Most other Bolsheviks did the same. They were overwhelmed by Lenin’s certainty. Now they must exploit warweariness to oust the parliamentarians. He was indifferent to how much territory Russia lost, so long as a nucleus was preserved in which to install Bolshevism. He had concentrated exclusively on building up a small organization of intellectual and sub-intellectual desperadoes, which he could completely dominate. It had no following at all among the peasants. Only one of the Bolshevik élite even had a peasant background. It had a few adherents among the unskilled workers. But the skilled workers, and virtually all who were unionized – were attached – in so far as any had political affiliations – to the Mensheviks. That was not surprising. Lenin’s intransigence had driven all the ablest socialists into the Menshevik camp. That suited him: all the easier to drill the remainder to follow him without argument when the moment to strike came. As one of them put it, ‘Before Lenin arrived, all the comrades were wandering in the dark.’ The other Bolshevik with clear ideas of his own was Trotsky. In May he arrived in Petrograd from America. He quickly realized Lenin was the only decisive man of action amomg them, and became his principal lieutenant. Thereafter these two men could command perhaps 20,000 followers in a nation of over 160 million.» (Johnson, id., p.58-59).

« The war conscripted millions of peasants, while demanding from those who remained far more food to feed the swollen armies and the expanded war-factories. There were massive compulsory purchases. But food prices rose fast. Hence tension between town and countryside grew, with each blaming the other for their misery. The Bolsheviks were later able to exploit this hatred. As the war went on, the government’s efforts to gouge food out of the villages became more brutal. So agrarian rioting increased, with 557 outbreaks recorded up to December 1916. But food shortages increased too, and food prices rose fast. As a result there was an unprecedented rise in the number of factory strikes in 1916, despite the fact that many industrial areas were under martial law or ‘reinforced security’. The strikes came to a head at the end of February 1917, and would have been smashed, but for the fact that the peasants were angry and desperate also. Nearly all the soldiers were peasants, and when the Petrograd garrison was ordered to coerce the factory workers it mutinied. About a third, some 66,000, defied their officers. As they were armed, the regime collapsed. So the first stage of the Revolution was the work of peasants.» (Johnson, id., p.60-61).

« The destruction of the autocracy inevitably carried with it the rural hierarchy. Those peasants without plots began to seize and parcel up the big estates. That might not have mattered. The Provisional Government was bound to enact a land reform anyway, as soon as it got itself organized. But in the meantime it was committed to carrying on the war. The war was going badly. There was a change of ministry and Kerensky was made Prime Minister. He decided to continue the war, and to do this he had to get supplies out of the peasants. It was at this point that Lenin’s anti-war policy, by pure luck, proved itself inspired. He knew nothing about the peasants; had no idea what was going on in the countryside. But by opposing the war he was opposing a policy which was bound to fail anyway [who shall give the opposite], and aligning his group with the popular peasant forces, both in the villages and, more important, within the army. Now, with the countryside in revolt, there was no chance of Kerensky collecting what he needed to keep the war going. For the first time in modern Russian history, most of the harvest remained down on the farms. Kerensky got less than a sixth of it. The attempt to grab more merely drove the peasants into open revolt and the authority of the Provisional Government in the countryside began to collapse. At the same time, the failure to get the grain to the towns meant the rapid acceleration of food prices in September, no bread at all in many places, mutiny in the army and navy, and strikes in the factories. By the beginning of October, the revolt of the peasants had already kicked the guts out of Kerensky’s government. The moment had now arrived for Lenin to seize power with the ‘vanguard élite’ he had trained for precisely this purpose. Of more than one hundred petitions submitted by industrial workers to the central authorities in March 1917, scarecely any mentioned Socialism. Some 51 per cent demanded fewer hours, 18 per cent higher wages, 15 per cent better work conditions and 12 per cent rights for workers’ committees. There was no mass support for a ‘revolution of the proletariat’; virtually no support at all for anything remotely resembling what Lenin was proposing to do. This was the only occasion, from that day to this, when Russian factory workers had the chance to say what they really wanted; and what they wanted was to improve their lot, not to turn the world upside down. By ‘workers’ committees’ they meant Soviets. These had first appeared in 1905, quite spontaneously. Lenin was baffled by them: according to the Marxist texts they ought not to exist. However they reappeared in the ‘February Revolution’ and when he returned to Russia in April 1917 he decided they might provide an alternative vehicle to the parliamentary system he hated. He thought, and in this respect he was proved right, that some at least of the factory Soviets could be penetrated and so manipulated by his men. Hence his ‘April Theses’ advocated ‘Not a parliamentary republic [who shall give the opposite]... but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Poor Peasants’, Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, growing from below upwards’. Ever a skilful opportunist, he began to see Soviets as a modern version of the 1870 Paris Commune: they could be managed by a determined group, such as his own, and so become the instrument for the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. When Trotsky, who had actually worked in a 1905 Soviet, arrived in May he was put in charge of an effort to capture the most important of the town Soviets, in Petrograd.» (Johnson, id., p.61-62).

« By early September the Bolsheviks had majorities on both the Petrograd and the Moscow Soviets, the two that really mattered, and on 14 September Lenin felt strong enough to issue the slogan ‘All power to the Soviets’. Trotsky immediately became president of the Petrograd Soviet, the focus of the coming uprising. Trotsky, indeed, was the active agent of the Revolution. But Lenin was the master-mind [a King], who took all the key decisions and provided the essentialwill to power’. The Bolshevik Revolution, let alone the creation of the Communist state, would have been quite impossible without him. At a meeting of the Central Committee [on 10 October] he won a 10-2 vote for an armed rising. A Political Bureau or ‘Politburo’ – the first we hear of it – was created to manage the rising. But the actual military preparations were made by a ‘military-revolutionary committee’, formed under Trotsky from the Petrograd Soviet. The rising was timed to make use of the second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which met on 25 October. The previous evening, Lenin formed an embryo government, and in the morning Trotsky’s men went into action and seized key points throughout the city. The members of the Provisional Government were taken prisoner or fled. There was very little bloodshed. That afternoon the Bolsheviks got the Congress of Soviets to approve the transfer of power. The following day, before dispersing, it adopted a decree making peace, another abolishing landed estates and a third approving the composition of the Council of People’s Commissars, or Sovnarkom for short, the first Workers’ and Peasants’ Government. But as Stalin was later careful to point out, it was the military revolutionary committee which seized power, and the Congress of Soviets ‘only received the power from the hands of the Petrograd Soviet. His object in making this distinction was to preserve the notion of a Marxist proletarian revolution. Certainly there was nothing legal about the way in which Lenin came to power. But it was not a revolutionary uprising either. It was an old-style coup, or as the Germans were soon to call it, a putsch. There was nothing Marxist about it.» (Johnson, id., p.63-64).

It shall be a King who shall give the opposite: The interpretation by Ionescu of this phrase as It shall be a Chief who is going to « knock over the Empire of the Tsars (donra l’opposite) » (Ionescu, 1976, p.438) is not correct as to the February Revolution because it was not effected by Lenin: « In January 1917 he doubted whether ‘I will live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution’. So when the Tsar was sent packing six weeks later he was surprised.» (Johnson, id., p.58); « The strikes came to a head at the end of February 1917, and would have been smashed, but for the fact that the peasants were angry and desperate also. Nearly all the soldiers were peasants, and when the Petrograd garrison was ordered to coerce the factory workers it mutinied. About a third, some 66,000, defied their officers. As they were armed, the regime collapsed. So the first stage of the Revolution was the work of peasants.» (Johnson, id., p.61).

Hypolite: « Hippolytus, son of Theseus and of an Amazon Hippolyte. It is said in a myth that Phaedra, the spouse of Theseus, falling in love with Hippolytus and making up to him, he repulsed her. Phaedra in suiciding herself, her amour-propre injured, got her husband informed that it was he that tried to violate her... » (Ionescu, 1976, p.438);

« HIPPOLYTUS
    You will, I think, have heard
About Hippolytus and how he met
His death thanks to his father’s trustfulness
And the trickery of his wicked stepmother.
You’ll be amazed, and proof I’ll hardly give,
But I am he. Phaedra in days gone by
Tried to tempt me – in vain – to violate
My father’s bed, and made believe that I
Had wanted what she wanted, and in fear
Perhaps that I’d betray her or in rage
At her repulse, reversed the guilt and charged
Me; and my father, guiltless as I was,
Expelled me from the city and, as I left,
Called curses on my head. A fugutive,
I made for .... » (Ovid, 1986, p.366-367).

Those of a caste like Hypolite swimming bled
: « The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few monts of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. Probably the most important Cheka official next to Dzerzhinsky himself was the ferocious Latvian M.Y. Latsis. He came nearest to giving the Lenin terror its true definition:

The Extraordinary Commission is neither an investigating commission nor a tribunal. It is an organ of struggle, acting on the home front of a civil war. It does not judge the enemy: it strikes him... We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is – to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.

There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race. Thus the modern practice of the genocide was born.» (Johnson, id., p.70-71).

V. Ionescu’s interpretation of the innocent victims in question as ‘the Russian intelligentsia or the Russian noble’ (Ionescu, id.) is too narrow or off the point because the Bolshevik revolution was seeking to destroy the Russian bourgeoisie as a class and even Lenin’s group of revolutionary élite was principally from the intelligentsia.

Under such an ensign
: As the Bolshevik Communist Regime. Ionescu’s interpretation of the phrase as ‘the Russian banner with a sickle and a hammer’ (Ionescu, id.) is too much interpolating.

And shall flourish long under such an ensign
: The regime under the Boshevik, then the Russian and finally the Soviet Communist Party shall live long until the year of 1991, when the end of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR brought with it the end of the Soviets. The quatrain VI-74 (§924) exactly predicts the end of the Russian Soviet Regime after 73 years of lasting (or 73 years and 9 months, i.e. November 7, 1917: The November Revolution - August 24, 1991: The Dissolution of the Soviet Communist Party).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved. 

§757 Bolshevik secret police and Red Terror (1917-1921): IV-18.

IV-18 (§757):

Those well versed in spiritual things
Shall be reproved by ignorant governors:
Punished through the Decree, chased as criminals,
And put to death where they’ll be found.

(Des plus letrés dessus les faits celestes
Seront par princes ignorants reprouvés:
Punis d'Edit, chassés, comme scelestes,
Et mis à mort la ou seront trouvés.)

NOTES: Letré: = lettré (lettered).

Those well versed in spiritual things: = The materialistic Bolshevik conception of the Russian former people in general imbued with Orthodoxy. The interpretation by Ionescu of the phrase as “the sage and the men of culture, the initiate in the mysteries of the superior world” (Ionescu, 1976, p.434) is too specialized.

Princes ignorants: = « Ignorant governors » (Ionescu, id.)

Sceleste: = « Criminel (criminal).» (Huguet).

Those well versed in spiritual things Shall be reproved by ignorant governors: Punished through the Decree, chased as criminals: « The most disturbing and, from the historical point of view, important characteristic of the Lenin terror was not the quantity of the victims but the principle on which they were selected. Within a few months of seizing power, Lenin [ignorant governor] had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree [the Decree] of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects [as criminals]’. This was not a judicial act: it was an invitation to mass murder. Many years later, Alexander Solzhenitsyn listed just a few of the groups who thus found themselves condemned to destruction as ‘insects’. They included ‘former zemstvo members, people in the Cooper movements, homeowners, high-school teachers, parish councils and choirs, priests, monks and nuns, Tolstoyan pacifists, officials of trade-unions’ – soon all to be classified as ‘former people’. Quite quickly the condemned group decree-laws extended to whole classes and the notion of killing people collectively rather than individually was seized upon by the Cheka professionals [ignorant governors] with enthusiasm.» (Johnson, 1991, p.70).

And put to death where they’ll be found: « On 23 February [1918], the Cheka published in the Pravda the following precautious order: “The Cheka has been moderate until now in its struggle against the enemies of the people. But now that the hydra of counter-revolution, encouraged by the attack of the perfidious Germans, are being revealed more insolent every day, that the world-wide bourgeoisie are ready to suffocate the avant-garde of the revolutionary International, namely the Russian proletariat, the Cheka sees itself in the obligation to put an end to the maneuvers of the counter-revolutionaries, the espions, the speculators, the criminals, the hooligans, the saboteurs and other parasites in exterminating them pitilessly even upon the place of their misdeeds [put to death where they’ll be found]. The local sections of the Cheka have been charged with smelling out the enemies of the Revolution and liquidating them pitilessly without more ado”.» (Lewytzkyj, 1968, p.26); « Djerzinski declared at a press conference: “We will maintain a regime of organized terror, it is an absolute necessity, an ineluctable consequence of the Revolution. We oppose the terror to all the enemies of the soviet government, in order to exterminate on the spot the crimes with their roots”.» (id., p.34).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§758 Bolshevik oppression of the Orthodox Church (1918-1988): VIII-98.

VIII-98 (§758):

Blood of the people of church shall be spread,
Like water in so great abundance:
And for a long time shall not be stanched
Woe with the clerk!
Ruin and complaints.

(Des gens d'eglise sang sera espandu,
Comme de l'eau en si grande abondance:
Et d'un long temps ne sera restanché
Ve ve au clerc ruyne & doleance.)

NOTES: Restancher: = « Étancher (to stop, to stanch).» (Huguet).

Ve: = « , interj., malheur (woe).» (Godefroy).

Serge Hutin proposes the theme of the quatrain as “the violent anticlericalism of the French revolutionaries as well as of the Bolsheviki of 1917” (Hutin, 1972, p.276), but the prediction of Nostradamus that « And for a long time shall not be stanched » can decide for the Russian Revolution. For the political suffering of the French Church under the revolutionary regime had lasted only 12 years [November 2nd, 1789: nationalization of property of church – July 15th, 1801: First Consul Napoleon’s Concordat with Papacy], whereas the Russian Orthodox Church endured the Communist Regime’s oppression for as many as 70 years [February 5th, 1918: separation of Church and State, of Church and School – June 14th, 1988: Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, makes an apology to the leaders of the Orthodox Church for the Party’s religious suppression in the past]. As to the wars of religion in France in the 16th century (cf. Janus, p.172; Guinard, 2011, p.158), their duration of 36 years [March 1st, 1562: Massacre at Wassy - April 13th, 1598: Edict of Nantes] does not exceed yet the case of the Soviet.

« Men who carry through political revolutions seem to be of two main types, the clerical and the romantic. Lenin (he adopted the pen-name in 1901) was from the first category. Both his parents were Christians. Religion was important to him, in the sense that he hated it. Unlike Marx, who despised it and treated it as marginal, Lenin saw it as a powerful and ubiquitous enemy. He made clear in many writings (his letter to Gorky of 13 January 1913 is a striking example) that he had an intense personal dislike for anything religious. ‘There can be nothing more abominable’, he wrote, ‘than religion’. From the start, the state he created set up and maintains to this day [as of 1983: date of the 1st edition of this work of the author], an enormous academic propaganda machine against religion. He was not just anti-clerical like Stalin, who disliked priests because they were corrupt. On the contrary, Lenin had no real feelings about corrupt priests, because they were easily beaten. The men he really feared and hated, and later persecuted, were the saints. The purer the religion, the more dangerous. A devoted cleric, he argued, is far more influential than an egotistical and immoral one. The clergy most in need of suppression were not those committed to the defense of exploitation but those who expressed their solidarity with the proletariat and the peasants. With his extraordinary passion for force, he might have figured in Mohammed’s legions. He was ever closer perhaps to Jean Calvin, with his belief in organizational structure, his ability to create one and dominate it utterly, his puritanism, his passionate self-righteousness, and above all his intolerance.» (Johnson, 1991, p.50-51).

« The Orthodox Church, relieved after the February Revolution from the control by the Bureau of Cult, gained a chance of promoting its autonomous activity. But, the ecclesiastics were not able to be up with the rapid evolutions of the revolutionary epoch, always in delay in accommodating themselves to the situation, and became more and more hostile against the Bolshevik Regime. The Soviet Government separated the Church from the State and from the School through the Decree adopted on February 2nd (January 22nd), 1918. This Decree deprived the religious organizations of their corporate status, prohibited their properties and gave all the citizens the freedom of performing cults as well as anti-religious propagandizing. In the beginning of the Civil War the clergy fiercely resisted the Bolshevik authority, but in 1919 the Archbishop Tihon declared their political neutrality. In 1921, when a very bad crop caused millions of casualties, the post-war prestige of the Church was drastically damaged. Under the approval by the Soviet Government the Orthodox Church voluntarily began to collect contributions including its own donation for the starveling on February 22nd, 1922. Nine days later, however, the Government decided the obligatory contribution of the property of the Church to purchase foods from abroad. The Church opposed it strongly and it occurred in the countryside bloody conflicts between the orthodox and the troops of the Red Army or the Secret Agency. On the moment the Authority decided to suppress thoroughly the Orthodox Church. Immediately began the arrest in mass and the ecclesiastics as well as the secular were executed after open trials, and simultaneously the Archbishop Tihon was reported apprehended. He apologized in part and sought to be set free in Summer, 1923, having a sense of crisis in facing the maneuvers of the Security Police for splitting up the Orthodox Church. His statement appeased the maneuvers and the Government itself became indifferent to the policy of division. Tihon died in 1925 in his confinement. In 1926 the deputy-Archbishop Sergij in succession to Tihon, and the Inner Bureau of the Church made many concessions to stabilize the interrelation of the State and the Church, and in 1927 when the Soviets were in bad international relations, appealed to the orthodox and their clergy for becoming loyal citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.» (Wada, et al., 1997, p.125-126).

« The advance of the Russian Army since the beginning of 1943 and the popular image of the top of the State Stalin, who had not made use of his prerogatives in favor of his son taken prisoner by the Germans, produced a personal solidarity between him and the nation, which was intensified also by his policy at this time. It concerns his conciliation with the Church. Soon after the outbreak of war, the traditional anti-religious activities were suspended, and little by little the churches began to be rehabilitated everywhere. And by 1943 the relation between the State and the Church became a kind of covenant, through which the Church was given public supports and itself promised to assist more the war promotion.» (Wada, et al., id., p.280-281).

« In the election campaign in Moscow for the Supreme Soviet on February 9th, 1946, Stalin said that this victory of the Great Patriotic War proved the preponderance of the Soviet social system and with it the righteousness of the policies such as the Quinquennial Plans and the Collectivization that effected it. His central message was to emphasize that there was no need to change the traditional regime even a little. But after this speech there took place a great famine in the country and the nation’s discontent increased, which testifies that there spread a wide gap between the Regime led by Stalin and the people’s mind. In these situations, the intermediate classes between them could have great influence upon the political future.» (Wada, et al., id., p.300-301).

« The Orthodox Church, too, was one of these intermediary organizations intervening between the nation and the authority. In January 1948, in fact, the number of the formally registered parishes was as many as 14,329 (300 larger than that of the year before), symbolizing the increasing prestige of the Church since the conciliation with the power during the war. But this trend ended in 1950, and thereafter the number diminished every year by several hundred units. This is considered as the result of the oppressive policy by the authority in fear of the growth of the influence of the Church. For example, the number of the rescission of the registered church buildings had not exceeded 20 a year in 1944 – 47, but reached 73 in 48 and even 400 in 50. » (Wada, et al., id., p.326).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§759 Cultural revolution in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923): VI-8.

VI-8 (§759):

Those who were linked with the authority because of their knowledge,
Shall be impoverished on the occasion of the change of Government:
Some of them into exile without support nor money,
The intellectuals and their cultures shall not be appreciated highly.

(Ceux qui estoient en regne pour scavoir,
Au Royal change deviendront apauvris:
Uns exilés sans appuy, or n'avoir,
Lettrés & lettres ne seront à grans pris.)

NOTES: Apauvrir: = « appauvrir v.tr. To impoverish.» (Dubois).

Those who were linked with the authority because of their knowledge, Shall be impoverished on the occasion of the change of Government: Some of them into exile without support nor money: « Those who were reigning because of their competence and culture, after a change of political regime, shall be completely impoverished. Some shall live in exile, without support, for they shall have abandoned all of their fortune.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.435).

The intellectuals and their cultures shall not be appreciated highly
: This kind of cultural revolution has not been seen these several centuries except on the occasion of the Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, where the reigning intellectuals and their favorite cultures were labeled as bourgeois and completely rejected; « Within a few months of seizing power, Lenin had abandoned the notion of individual guilt, and with it the whole Judeo-Christian ethic of personal responsibility. The watershed was Lenin’s decree of January 1918 calling on the agencies of state to ‘purge the Russian land of all kinds of harmful insects’. This was not a judicial act: it was an invitation to mass murder. Many years layer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn listed just a few of the groups who thus found themselves condemned to destruction as ‘insects’. They included ‘former zemstvo members, people in the Cooper movements, homeowners, high-school teachers, parish councils and choirs, priests, monks and nuns, Tolstoyan pacifists, officials of trade-unions’ – soon all to be classified as ‘former people’.» (Johnson, 1991, p.70).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.

§760 Trotsky expelled by Stalin to be assassinated abroad (1917-1940): IX-4.

IX-4 (§760):

In the year following the deluge, through which
Shall be disclosed the two elite leaders,
Whose the first shall not continue standing.
To the one of them allotted the refuge of avoiding shadows,
The cabin that shall uphold the first ransacked.

(L'an ensuyvant decouvertz par deluge,
Deux chefs esleuz le premier ne tiendra.
De fuyr ombre à l'vn d'eux le refuge,
Saccagee case qui premier maintiendra.)
(№ 10).

NOTES: The deluge: « The word ‘deluge’ symbolizes here the Civil War. One knows that the Commander in Chief of this campaign was Trotsky, he who had taken great care to organize the Red Army. Stalin had filled also a very important role [of provisioning the southern Russia (Trémolières IV, p.54)], but secondary with regard to that of Trotsky.» (Ionescu, 1976, p.464).

In the year following the deluge: = In 1922, the Russian Civil War having lasted from 1917 till 1921 (
Trémolières IV, p.29).

In the year following the deluge, through which Shall be disclosed the two elite leaders: In 1922 Stalin was nominated General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, which made him parallel with Trotsky, the top leader in the Civil War, and thence even far superior through the full exploitation of his new office; « In the year that followed the civil war – then in 1922 – there shall be two chiefs who shall be promoted in the midst of the Soviet government.» (Ionescu, id., p.465).

Whose the first shall not continue standing
: « The first of them – Trotsky – shall not continue to be in power, in spite of his preceding position of superiority.» (Ionescu, id.); « When Lenin died in 1924 his autocracy was complete and Stalin, as General Secretary of the Party, had already inherited him. All that remained was the elimination of potential rivals for sole power. For this Stalin was well equipped. This ex-seminarist and revolutionary thug was half-gangster, half-bureaucrat. He had no ideals; no ideological notions of his own. Stalin did not have Lenin’s ideological passion for violence. But he was capable of unlimited violence to achieve his purposes, or indeed for no particular reason; and he sometimes nursed feelings of revenge against individuals for years before executing them. However, immediately after Lenin’s incapacitation and mindful of his criticisms, Stalin sought power by posing as a moderate and as a man of the Centre. His problem was as follows. By controlling the rapidly expanding Secretariat Stalin was already in virtual control of the party machinery and in the process of filling the Central Committee with his creatures. On the Politburo, however, four important figures stood between him and autocracy: Trotsky, the most famous and ferocious of the Bolsheviks, who controlled the army; Zinoviev, who ran the Leningrad party – for which Stalin, then and later, had a peculiar hatred; Kamenev, who controlled the Moscow party, now the most important; and Bukharin, the leading theorist. The first three leaned towards the Left, the last to the Right, and the way in which Stalin divided and used them to destroy each other, and then appropriated their policies as required – he seems to have had none of his own – is a classic exercise in power-politics. The term ‘Trotskyist’, first used as a term of abuse by Zinoviev, was defined in its mature form by Stalin, who created the distinction between ‘permanent revolution’ (Trotsky) and ‘revolution in one country’ (Stalin). In fact they all believed in immediate world revolution to begin with, and all turned to consolidating the regime when it didn’t happen. Trotsky wanted to press ahead with industrialization faster than Stalin but both were, from first to last, opportunists. They had graduated in the same slaughterhouse and their quarrel was essentially about who would be its new high priest. Had Trotsky come out on top, he would probably have been even more bloodthirsty than Stalin. But he would not have lasted [the first shall not continue standing]: he lacked the skills of survival. He must have been dismayed when for the first time he attacked Stalin in the autumn of 1923 and discovered how well-entrenched he was. Trotsky wanted the palm without the dust, a fatal mistake for a gangster who could not appeal from the mafia to the public. He was often sick or away; never there at the right time. He even missed Lenin’s state funeral, a serious error since it was Stalin’s first move towards restoring the reverential element in Russian life that had been so sadly missed since the destruction of the throne and church. Soon Stalin was resurrecting the old Trotsky-Lenin rows. At the thirteenth Party Congress in May 1924 he branded Trotsky with the Leninist term of ‘fractionalist’. Trotsky refused to retract his criticism that Stalin was becoming too powerful. But he could not dispute Lenin’s condemnation of internal opposition and, like a man accused of heresy by the Inquisition, he was disarmed by his own religious belief. ‘Comrades’, he admitted, ‘none of us wishes to be right or can be right against the party. The party is in the last resort always right... I know that one cannot be right against the party. One can only be right with the party and through the party, since history has created no other paths to the realization of what is right.’ Since Stalin was already in control of the party, Trotsky’s words forged the ice-pick that crushed his skull sixteen years later. By the end of 1924 Stalin, with Kamenev and Zinoviev doing the dirty work, had created the heresy of ‘Trotskyism’ and related it to Trotsky’s earlier disputes with Lenin, who had been embalmed and put into his apotheosis-tomb five months earlier. In January 1925 Stalin was thus able to strip Trotsky of the army control with the full approval of the party... With Trotsky destroyed (he was expelled from the Politburo October 1926, from the party the following month, sent into internal exile in 1928 and exiled from Russia 1929; murdered on Stalin’s orders in Mexico in 1940), Stalin turned on his Leftist allies... » (Johnson, 1991, p.261-265); « Nazi-Soviet security forces worked together very closely up to 22 June 1941 [when Germany invades Russia]. The
NKVD [People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs] handed over several hundred German nationals, chiefly Communists and Jews, to the Gestapo at this time. The Nazis, in turn, helped Stalin to hunt down his own enemies. On 20 August 1940, after several attempts, he finally had Trotsky ice-axed to death in Mexico: as the latter had justly remarked, ‘Stalin seeks to strike, not the ideas of his opponent, but at his skull.’ It was an approach he shared with Hitler.» (id., p.373).

To the one of them allotted the refuge of avoiding shadows: « Toward this shall be given a way of refuge in exile and a misfortune of being obliged to flee from a country to another, in order to avoid shadows – the Stalinist agents that were pursuing him.» (Ionescu, id.).

The cabin that shall uphold the first ransacked
: Trotsky was to be assassinated in 1940 within his temporary residence (cabin) in Mexico; « August 20, 1940. Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, so-called Trotsky, is assassinated by a Spanish Ramon Mercader (alias Frank Jacson, alias Jacques Mornard), a probable agent of Stalin, in his house of Coyaacan, near Mexico. His son Léon Sedov has been already assassinated in France in 1938.» (Jouette, p.274).
_______________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2018. All rights reserved.
Profile

Koji Nihei Daijyo

Author:Koji Nihei Daijyo
We have covered 143 quatrains (§588-§730) concerning the World Events in the 19th century after Napoleonic ages [1821-1900] in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, and 218 in the 20th [1901-2000] (§731-§948).

Latest journals
Category
Link