On Pogroms

[Numar Patru]

Curious to hear more about this “Jewish question” and what comprises it…

[Numar Patru]

What's clear from Klier's works is that he very much did not consider Jewish representations of their own history as particularly reliable, and flat out tells us in his books on the Russian pogroms that they were for the most part simply made up, and that powerful Jews in Britain, Germany and America sought to utilize the supposed Russian pogroms to ease Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe into primarily Britain and America.

That’s not even remotely true. The most important part of Klier’s thesis about pogroms was that they were by and large not encouraged by the Tsars or the Tsarist governments, which while antisemitic to their bones did not typically like to see the collapse of public order. No one really doubts Klier’s thesis anymore but it was innovative for its time. Klier did not claim that most pogroms were made up. That’s utter bullshit.

About a million Jews left Russia between 1881 and 1897. The lion’s share went to the US; much smaller numbers went to Western Europe, Palestine, Latin America, and elsewhere. The reason why so many went to the US is twofold: an open door immigration policy and the belief among immigrants that opportunities for economic success were ample.

[Archie]

What's clear from Klier's works is that he very much did not consider Jewish representations of their own history as particularly reliable, and flat out tells us in his books on the Russian pogroms that they were for the most part simply made up, and that powerful Jews in Britain, Germany and America sought to utilize the supposed Russian pogroms to ease Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe into primarily Britain and America.

That’s not even remotely true. The most important part of Klier’s thesis about pogroms was that they were by and large not encouraged by the Tsars or the Tsarist governments, which while antisemitic to their bones did not typically like to see the collapse of public order. No one really doubts Klier’s thesis anymore but it was innovative for its time. Klier did not claim that most pogroms were made up. That’s utter bullshit.

About a million Jews left Russia between 1881 and 1897. The lion’s share went to the US; much smaller numbers went to Western Europe, Palestine, Latin America, and elsewhere. The reason why so many went to the US is twofold: an open door immigration policy and the belief among immigrants that opportunities for economic success were ample.

The epilogue is called "legends of the pogroms." Klier explains how Jews were publishing lurid stories in the British papers about all these mass rapes and killings etc. The British sent several officials to visit the areas in question and they found the stories to be grossly exaggerated. Hmm, that kind of reminds me of something ...

[Numar Patru]

The epilogue is called "legends of the pogroms." Klier explains how Jews were publishing lurid stories in the British papers about all these mass rapes and killings etc. The British sent several officials to visit the areas in question and they found the stories to be grossly exaggerated. Hmm, that kind of reminds me of something ...

Wrong again. It’s true that there were two missions sent to investigate the pogroms. They found that rape was less common than reported and that not all reported pogroms could be verified. What they didn’t find was that there hadn’t been two solid years of pogroms. Incidentally, one of the second mission’s chief findings of no rape or burning synagogues in Balti came from Balti’s chief fucking rabbi.

Indeed, Klier’s epilogue is on the same topic as the rest of the book, and the chief finding of both British missions was that, while the pogroms had definitely happened, the government hadn’t encouraged them. That was the chief claim in the newspapers, both Jewish and not, that was disputed.

You should fucking read books and not regurgitate misreadings by knuckle dragging Jew haters like Andrew Joyce.

[fireofice]

Andrew Joyce does not say the pogroms were completely fake. He does quote the author on atrocities being exaggerated. The book does say there were fake atrocity stories, but he doesn't say there were no pogroms.

https://www.unz.com/article/myth-and-th ... n-pogroms/

Another article on Klier's book here:

https://www.unz.com/article/john-doyle- ... 1881-1882/

[Archie]

The epilogue is called "legends of the pogroms." Klier explains how Jews were publishing lurid stories in the British papers about all these mass rapes and killings etc. The British sent several officials to visit the areas in question and they found the stories to be grossly exaggerated. Hmm, that kind of reminds me of something ...

Wrong again. It’s true that there were two missions sent to investigate the pogroms. They found that rape was less common than reported and that not all reported pogroms could be verified. What they didn’t find was that there hadn’t been two solid years of pogroms. Incidentally, one of the second mission’s chief findings of no rape or burning synagogues in Balti came from Balti’s chief fucking rabbi.

Indeed, Klier’s epilogue is on the same topic as the rest of the book, and the chief finding of both British missions was that, while the pogroms had definitely happened, the government hadn’t encouraged them. That was the chief claim in the newspapers, both Jewish and not, that was disputed.

You should fucking read books and not regurgitate misreadings by knuckle dragging Jew haters like Andrew Joyce.

Let's read some of the stories Numar is defending.

Amid the horrors that ensued a Jew named Zolotwenski lost his life, and no fewer than thirty Jewesses were outraged. At one place, two young girls, in dread of violation, threw themselves from the windows. Meanwhile the military had been called out, but only to act at first as spectators and afterwards as active participators. One section of the mob formed of rioters and soldiers broke into the dwelling of an old man named Pelikoff, and on his attemptiag to save his daughter from a fate worse than death, they threw him down from the roof, while twenty soldiers proceeded to work their will on his unfortunate daughter. When seen by the correspondent who narrates this fact, Pelikoff was in a state of hopeless madness, and his daughter completely ruined in mind and body. The whole Jewish quarter was at the mercy of the mob till April the 29th. During the two days of the riots, 500 houses and 100 shops were destroyed, whole streets being razed to the ground.

During the period of licence that followed, four Jews were killed, 25 women and girls were violated, of whom five died in consequence, as was proved at the subsequent trials. At the house of Mordecai Wienarski, the mob, disappointed in the search for plunder, caught up his little child three years old and brutally threw it out of the window. The child fell dead at the feet of a company of Cossacks who were drawn up outside, yet no attempt was made to arrest the murderers.

While the Jews of the village were at synagogue a mob attacked the Jewesses and violated many of them, causing the death of three; others who escaped the worse evil were driven into the river, and nine ultimately died from the effects of the exposure. When the Jews came to the rescue, two of them-were killed and a young lad stoned to death.

At Wassilkow and in the neighbourhood eight lives were lost, seven at one fell swoop at the inn kept by a Jew named Eykelmann. He was forced to admit the mob to his wine-cellars, and, during his absence in search of assistance, the drunken rioters cut the throats of his wife and six children.

A Jew was murdered at Rasdory, a few miles south-east of Orjechow, and at Znamenka, near Nikopol, on the Dnieper, a Jewish innkeeper named Resser was murdered and his wife dishonoured, after which both were cast into the river. At Balka, also on the bank of the Dnieper, there was only one Jew, Allowicz by name. A band of ruffians went to his house on May 17, and finding him absent, they violated his wife, and, to conceal the crime, set fire to the house while the poor woman lay helpless in it. All this was witnessed by her little daughter, crouched in a ditch hard by. On the preceding day, another tragedy had occurred at Kitzkis, where the house of one Preskoff was set on fire, and he with two little children left to roast in it, while the wife and mother looked on, vainly appealing for mercy, to the ruffianly perpetrators of the crime. At Gregoriewk, a Jewish innkeeper named Rieffmann was cooped in one of his own barrels, and cast into the Dnieper. Again, at Kanzeropol, a man named Enman was murdered brutally and his wife violated and afterwards killed. Such were the deeds that were done on the banks of the Dnieper, during the month of May.

The consul reports meanwhile "presented an account of events at great variance from that offered by The Times. In particular, they denied the high incidence of rape." (Klier, 405)

Numar: "They found that rape was less common than reported and that not all reported pogroms could be verified."

As we can see from the samples I have quoted, the newspaper stories were FULL of grotesque rape scenes.

Meanwhile, the British consuls:

While Jews were aware of one rape that had occurred in Elisavetgrad, "none to whom I have spoken have heard of others, and they say it is incredible they should have occurred without being known to Jews throughout the land."

"I should be disinclined to believe in any stories of women having been outraged during the riots in that town." (Klier, 405)

If the stories in the papers are saying women are getting raped to death left and right by twenty-man rape trains and the reality is, oh, maybe there was one rape, that's not "less common than reported." That's egregious lying.

The Jewish Chronicle doubled down and criticized the consuls for their reports and said they "have looked at the sad events of the last year through Russian spectacles, and their evidence is, we regret to say, tinged with an anti-Jewish bias, which must cause us to deny them that impartiality which all had anticipated." (Klier, 405)

Oh, what a surprise, they call people anti-Semites for not believing their stories about people being roasted alive and babies getting thrown out of windows.

[Archie]

Andrew Joyce does not say the pogroms were completely fake. He does quote the author on atrocities being exaggerated. The book does say there were fake atrocity stories, but he doesn't say there were no pogroms.

https://www.unz.com/article/myth-and-th ... n-pogroms/

Another article on Klier's book here:

https://www.unz.com/article/john-doyle- ... 1881-1882/

We saw with the recent "pogrom" in Amsterdam that Jews will call anything a pogrom.

Another really good Joyce pogrom article is the one he wrote about a so-called pogrom in Ireland in 1904. Jews showed up there for the first time. They started financially exploiting the local population. This eventually led to a boycott. Jews have traditionally characterized this as a "pogrom" even though there was no violence.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... ictimhood/

In Russia, there certainly were some more serious anti-Jewish riots and agitations, but the stories that were served up to gullible British public were substantially fabricated. And the reason they do that is because a sober description of people sacking a Jewish-owned tavern and getting drunk wouldn't have quite the same impact as "Mother and daughter gang raped by 50 savage Russians, then disemboweled and thrown into the river!"

[Numar Patru]

In Russia, there certainly were some more serious anti-Jewish riots and agitations, but the stories that were served up to gullible British public were substantially fabricated. And the reason they do that is because a sober description of people sacking a Jewish-owned tavern and getting drunk wouldn't have quite the same impact as "Mother and daughter gang raped by 50 savage Russians, then disemboweled and thrown into the river!"

So if I read you correctly, Jews are the only people who exaggerate atrocities and always deserve the violent treatment meted out to them.

Again, simply amazing that you’re a moderator here.

[HansHill]

In Russia, there certainly were some more serious anti-Jewish riots and agitations, but the stories that were served up to gullible British public were substantially fabricated. And the reason they do that is because a sober description of people sacking a Jewish-owned tavern and getting drunk wouldn't have quite the same impact as "Mother and daughter gang raped by 50 savage Russians, then disemboweled and thrown into the river!"

So if I read you correctly, Jews are the only people who exaggerate atrocities and always deserve the violent treatment meted out to them.

Again, simply amazing that you’re a moderator here.

That isn't what he said at all, and anybody with reading comprehension can detect the venom dripping from your rhetoric.

[Archie]

In Russia, there certainly were some more serious anti-Jewish riots and agitations, but the stories that were served up to gullible British public were substantially fabricated. And the reason they do that is because a sober description of people sacking a Jewish-owned tavern and getting drunk wouldn't have quite the same impact as "Mother and daughter gang raped by 50 savage Russians, then disemboweled and thrown into the river!"

So if I read you correctly, Jews are the only people who exaggerate atrocities and always deserve the violent treatment meted out to them.

I suppose this is your way of making a reluctant concession.

Obviously, just about everyone lies to promote their self-interests. But, come on, Jews have developed it into an art form. When other groups do it, outsiders tend to recognize it and discount it for what it is (self-serving atrocity propaganda) whereas Jews are able to use their money, media, etc to get their lies accepted as fact. Would other groups do this if they could? Yeah, probably.

As far as the question of whether Jews "deserved" this or that, there are some is-ought distinctions here. I prefer to take a more descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to history, i.e., I prefer to separate basic factual questions from moral judgments. The Jewish narrative on these things tends to 1) obscure the true sources of the conflict, 2) highlight and exaggerate the reactions against them. To hear Jews tell it, Jewish history is Jews suffering through a series of unprovoked outrages at the hands of the goyim. My contrary view is that the standard Jewish narrative tends to be highly biased (just as you'd expect) and that the grievances against Jews are often based on very real and understandable conflicts of interest. Note however that is not the same as carte blanche endorsement of any and all Gentile retaliation. Again, I prefer to focus on what happened and why, not my moral opinions of the events.

Again, simply amazing that you’re a moderator here.

Lol, more whining from you that we won't let the ADL run the site. This is a revisionist website. If you were honest, you'd admit that the moderation here is quite fair, especially for a supposed "hate site." Not even you have been banned yet despite your disagreeable personality and willful disregard for the rules and guidelines (repeated profanity even after being reminded, starting arguments in the revisionist section of the forum, etc)

[Numar Patru]

In Russia, there certainly were some more serious anti-Jewish riots and agitations, but the stories that were served up to gullible British public were substantially fabricated. And the reason they do that is because a sober description of people sacking a Jewish-owned tavern and getting drunk wouldn't have quite the same impact as "Mother and daughter gang raped by 50 savage Russians, then disemboweled and thrown into the river!"

So if I read you correctly, Jews are the only people who exaggerate atrocities and always deserve the violent treatment meted out to them.

Again, simply amazing that you’re a moderator here.

That isn't what he said at all, and anybody with reading comprehension can detect the venom dripping from your rhetoric.

Well, then, I’ve been effective in communicating my viewpoint

[Numar Patru]

To hear Jews tell it, Jewish history is Jews suffering through a series of unprovoked outrages at the hands of the goyim. My contrary view is that the standard Jewish narrative tends to be highly biased (just as you'd expect) and that the grievances against Jews are often based on very real and understandable conflicts of interest.

I’d suggest to you that if you’d read actual Jewish historians writing Jewish history — rather than bloviating Goebbels wannabes like Joyce — you’d see Jewish history is written in a manner in which you’d expect it to be. Historians of the Jewish people understand the complex dynamics that shaped Jewish history. They’re just reluctant — for good reason — to normalize antisemitism or to treat stories of Jews murdering Christian children to drink their blood the same way as they would the story of economic competition between demographic groups in the aftermath of the abolition of serfdom — a major driver of anti-Jewish violence post-Alexander II, particularly in multiethnic regions of the Russian Empire.

[Numar Patru]

Lol, more whining from you that we won't let the ADL run the site.

You have rather obvious contempt for Jewish people. To say that colors your ability to view matters of Jewish history objectively is an understatement.

[fireofice]

Lol, more whining from you that we won't let the ADL run the site.

You have rather obvious contempt for Jewish people. To say that colors your ability to view matters of Jewish history objectively is an understatement.

You've already exposed yourself having an obvious contempt for white people in another thread. Please spare me your non-existent offense at "race hate".

[Numar Patru]

You've already exposed yourself having an obvious contempt for white people in another thread.

Uh… what?