Ukraine, Russia and the bEnding of History - Part Eight: the Snyds Miss the Mark
Deep State Tim Snyder promises oligarchs on both sides of the new border - and this time he brings along his squeeze! It's all sooo 1990s...
Today I’m only going to partially focus on Timothy Snyder’s lecturing as he moves into contemporary times, and to start a different kind of telling of history - after it ended, which of course means, or should mean, the USSR and communism ending. But that different kind of telling of history also means a shift into an advocacy of the way the history of the present should be viewed as likely to eventually be written, which is a little unsettling to think about as a function of the historian and of history itself. Maybe that's what is really meant by the end of history, the definitive end of objectivity?
I’ve been mulling for a while on how to deal with Snyder’s lecture 18 that’s built around this concept of the end of history, which never really gets adequately defined; instead he uses that vague concept in various applications to push his agenda more than ever. So I’ve finally decided to mostly skip that lecture, covering only a few things - his one meaningful discussion of Jews, his discussion of the Uniates, and then a turn at the end which will lead into his lecture 19. That lecture has the promising title of Oligarchies in Russia and Ukraine, who are eventually going to be a main theme of this piece.
First, here Snyder finally gets to the last years of Stalin and the “rise of dormant Russian antisemitism” in the USSR in the period that I’ve talked about a lot, 1948-53. I’ve talked about that because the combination of that and the red scare in the US (and the formation of Israel) at the same time resulted in the abandonment of communism by the Jews, which meant the ultimate defeat/failure of Marxism overall.
There at the end of his story you get just a taste of how he uses the end of history in this lecture. Before that, I assume what he's talking about is associated with Peter Bergson and something I discussed here in my second piece on the Ken Burns’ PBS Holopropadoc, Spinning U.S. and the Holocaust, Here and There, in October of 2022:
The last “American” media piece I will address starts to transition to the foreign (or at least dual-loyalty) view, that from the Boulder Jewish News, written by Eliyho Matz:
“Now, America’s response to the Holocaust is rather an important historical issue that the filmmakers have preferred not exactly to tell us. Their story about Bergson is categorically wrong! Their story about the formation of the War Refugee Board is wrong! Morgenthau, the distinguished American Jew, was not behind it, and it was not even Pehle, who eventually ran this Board. The creation of the War Refugee Board was the work of Bergson, Will Rogers, Jr., and Josiah E. Dubois, a lawyer at the Treasury. It was Bergson who worked very closely with them. Elbert Thomas and Guy Gillette, Bergson’s friends in the Senate, did their job, too; without their help too, Roosevelt would not have reacted!”
The Bergson reference is about a bit in the film about an event, as described in wikipedia, “On March 9, 1943, the Group produced a huge pageant in Madison Square Garden written by Ben Hecht, titled ‘We Will Never Die’, memorializing the 2,000,000 European Jews who had already been murdered.” Hecht was a Hollywood scriptwriter and was the guy who wrote a piece in Readers Digest in the middle of the war about the six million Jews who were going to end up dead, reading the tea leaves with amazing accuracy.
But what is “the Group”? To start with, Bergson’s real name is Hillel Kook, the name he was given at birth in Russia before coming to America (in 1940 - how the hell did he and his Zionist cohorts manage that, I thought the border was closed??) and the name he returned to when he moved back to Palestine/Israel; Bergson was just an assumed name he used while in the US. His father was a rabbi and his brother was the chief rabbi of Mandatory Palestine. From wikipedia again: “While in America, Kook led a group of Irgun activists under the pseudonym ‘Peter Bergson.’ The name ‘Bergson Group’ or ‘Bergsonites’ eventually became used to refer to all the members of Kook's immediate circle. The Bergson Group was composed of a hard-core cadre of ten Irgun activists from Europe, America and Palestine, including Aryeh Ben-Eliezer, Yitzhak Ben-Ami, Alexander Rafaeli, Shmuel Merlin, and Eri Jabotinsky. The Bergson Group was closely involved with various Jewish and Zionist advocacy groups, such as the American Friends for a Jewish Palestine and the Organizing Committee of Illegal Immigration.”
In general, this Kook story is about the broader Treasury story, the framing of Morgenthau as the good guy in the administration. He’s not mentioned in the film, but in one of my videos I discussed Josiah E. Dubois – from his wiki, he “was an American attorney at the U.S. Treasury Department who played a major role in exposing State Department obstruction efforts to provide American visas to Jews trying to escape Nazi Europe. In 1944, he wrote the Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews, which led to the creation of the War Refugee Board. After the war, he was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials prosecuting Nazi war crimes, particularly in the prosecution of holocaust chemical manufacturer I.G. Farben.”
I assume ol’ Josiah was a Jew, and his wiki goes on to say in 1947 he was accused of being one of ten people “in the War Department who had Communist backgrounds or leanings”. That list also included Colonel Bernard Bernstein, Abraham L. Pomerantz, Heinz Norden, Max Lowenthal and Allen Rosenberg, who are also Jews. What all this gets into are the deeper political issues of many Jewish activists in the US during this whole period, which is a matter that has been furiously erased over the years; this film certainly didn’t delve into any of that.
I'm not certain if this is specifically what Snyder is referring to, perhaps is completely disconnected from that, or somewhere in between; it seems extremely unlikely to be entirely disconnected (what, there were two big events at MSG to raise money by Jews from eastern Europe in 1943?). But he’s describing effectively Soviet agents sent by Stalin, and in this Holocaust story they're Zionists operating on their own self-interests. Perhaps this is the kind of confusion one gets when different Jews are telling the same story for different purposes… 🤭
But do note at the beginning that Snyder defines the introspective addressing of the Jewish Question in the Soviet Union as “taking up a Nazi or fascist trope”, which is something to think about when considering the post-10/7 present day. I believe “trope” is a Hebrew term that refers to a statement which contains a significant kernel of truth but is then converted magically into a completely-false and hurtful stereotype. 😉
The essential thing in this clip is this: “There’s a turn in Stalinism against the Jews”. “Against the Jews” means “toward virulent antisemitism”, and “Stalinism” only really acquires its full meaning as a result of this, becomes the “Stalinism” of today which is blamed for causing the abandonment of support of Soviet communism by the radical left, that radical left at minimum having had a Jewish backbone. So communism becomes Stalinism, which is roughly equivalent to Hitler’s Nazism, just as the Jews were abandoning it. Funny how that all worked out.
After a rather confusing lesson on dialectics, which Snyder basically lifted from Professor Hophead:
…Snyder gets to Galicia/Volhynia, the Greek Catholic Church and Jews, three of the four things I said I would zone in on in this series (the fourth being the nationalists):
The reason that he focuses on the bit about round-number negative anniversaries becomes clear when he gets to Crimea and Khrushchev’s “gifting” of it to Ukraine in 1954, the 300th anniversary of the Khmelnitsky pact with Muscovy. In his view it was never “Russia’s” to give (even though it was the government of the USSR making the gesture) - but he doesn’t question whether it was ever Ukraine's to receive either, which would in turn seriously undermine its claim on it today. In essentially every sense Crimea wasn’t Ukraine until 1954. It was a lot of things - it was Greek, it was Mongolian, it was Tatar, it was Ottoman, it was Russian - but it was never Ukrainian.
It's tempting to take a deep plunge into the Greek Catholic Church at this point, but I will restrain myself somewhat and only include three paragraphs from its wiki:
The dissolution of the Greek-Catholic Church in Russia was completed in 1875 with the abolition of the Eparchy of Kholm. By the end of the century, those remaining faithful to this church began emigrating to the U.S., Canada, and Brazil due to persecution by the Orthodox Church and the Russian Empire, e.g. the Pratulin Martyrs. Despite being once the majority religion in Ukraine, the Uniate church was now mostly confined to Eastern Galicia.
So that shows the hostility toward the church of at least some of the czars (some supported it), and the role of Austrian Galicia in preserving the church.
As a result of the reforms, over the next century the Greek-Catholic Church in Austrian Galicia ceased being a puppet of foreign interests and became the primary cultural force within the Ukrainian community. Most independent native Ukrainian cultural and political trends (such as Rusynophilia, Russophilia and later Ukrainophilia) emerged from within the ranks of the Greek-Catholic Church clergy. The participation of Greek Catholic priests or their children in western Ukrainian cultural and political life was so great that western Ukrainians were accused of wanting to create a theocracy in western Ukraine by their Polish rivals. Among the political trends that emerged, the Christian social movement was particularly linked to the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Many people saw the Austrians as having saved the Ukrainians and their Church from the Poles, though it was the Poles who set into motion the Greek-Catholic cast of their church.
Here we have the strong role of the church socio-politically, again emanating from eastern Austrian Galicia.
After World War II Ukrainian Catholics came under the rule of Communist Poland and the hegemony of the Soviet Union. With only a few clergy invited to attend, a synod was convened in Lviv, which revoked the Union of Brest. Officially all of the church property was transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, Most of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic clergy went underground. This catacomb church was strongly supported by its diaspora in the Western Hemisphere. Emigration to the U.S. and Canada, which had begun in the 1870s, increased after World War II.
And here we have the dissolution of the church under westward-spreading communism, and again the role of the diaspora in this matter, echoing its role in nationalism and among the Ashkenazim.
That done, we move to the end of Tim’s lecture on the ends of histories:
The key player in his story about Kultura Paryska is Jerzy Giedroyc, and so we should look at him:
Giedroyć was born in Minsk, into a Polish-Lithuanian noble family on 27 July 1906, with the title of kniaź, prince. His schooling in Moscow was interrupted by the October Revolution, when he returned home to Minsk. During the Polish–Soviet War of 1919–1921 his family left Minsk for Warsaw, where he finished the Jan Zamoyski gymnasium in 1924. He went on to study law and Ukrainian history and literature at the University of Warsaw.
Giedroyć worked as a journalist and civil servant in interwar Poland, he maintained contacts with leading Ukrainians and urged the Roman Catholic Church to improve relations with the Greek Catholic Church to which many Ukrainians belonged, insisting that Poland's success as a national state depended on satisfying the aspirations of minorities so that minority nationalists would not have convincing arguments against Polish statehood. He thus took the side of Józef Piłsudski against the National Democrats.
It’s important to note that there were two Poland’s during his time, the re-formed state between the wars, essentially a vision of Pilsudski which recreated the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in somewhat shrunken form, and the westward-shifted post-war state that traded Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian lands for German (Prussian) land, which was then ethnically-cleansed of Germans to make way for cleansed Poles relocating from the east. Note that Snyder never mentions Polish imperialism in the seizing of these arguably-German lands (with the west’s assistance, of course).
The other thing to consider is what Ukraine actually was in this discussion, and this image which includes the borders of the two short-lived Ukrainian states after WWI makes this clearer:
The most-telling thing to me in what Snyder said there was this: “What Kultura said, about the Ukrainian question, was very interesting things. But in 1952 they printed a letter to the editor which said, ‘Let Lvov be Ukraine’... Actually it said, ‘let the blue-and-yellow flag fly from Lvov’.”
Now, all these students are probably thinking he’s talking about the Ukrainian flag at the time, the same one that flies today, but that’s not at all correct. From the wiki on that:
The blue and yellow bicolor flag was first seen during the 1848 Spring of Nations in Lemberg (Lviv), the capital of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria within the Austrian Empire. It was later adopted as a state flag by the short-lived Ukrainian People's Republic, the West Ukrainian People's Republic, and the Ukrainian State following the Russian Revolution.
In March 1939, it was also adopted by Carpatho-Ukraine. However, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, the use of the bicolor flag was banned, and it was replaced by the flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. This flag featured a red background, with an azure bottom and a golden hammer and sickle, along with a golden-bordered red star on top. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the bicolor flag gradually returned to use before being officially adopted again on 28 January 1992 by the Ukrainian parliament.
So the source of this flag was Galicia, as part of the Austrian Empire and then as part of the short-lived West Ukraine People’s Republic centered in Lemberg/Lviv in 1918-19, and was adopted by the Ukraine People’s Republic as well during its short run, which ended in 1921. And of course it was a revolutionary flag in these uses.
So when Snyder says “Let Lvov be Ukraine” it’s not entirely clear what that means, given that at that point (1952) Lviv had been part of the USSR and so Ukraine for less that a decade, the first time it had ever been part of a designated/defined state of Ukraine or had been under something that could be called Russian rule.
Here is part of a 2018 article in New Eastern Europe on Polish-Ukrainian relations and the Kultura framework:
Among the topics designated as crucial by Kultura were the relations between a democratic Poland and its eastern neighbours. The most important element of this policy was to recognise the right to self-determination of the subdued nations and renounce any territorial claims Poland might have towards them. The idea put forward was visionary and controversial at that time. It called Poles to recognise the post-Yalta eastern borders as a prerequisite for future co-operation with an independent Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus.
“Let the Lithuanians … enjoy their Vilnius and let the yellow and blue flag fly over Lviv”, wrote a priest Józef Majewski in a 1952 issue of Kultura. It can be considered as a formal initiation of this difficult, albeit successful idea. Without co-operation and normalisation in relations between Poles and Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians, nations that were once a part of Poland, it would be impossible to disarm and defeat Russian imperialism. As Mieroszewski put it: “A Russia dominating over eastern European nations is an invincible rival.”
The reason they cite Vilnius and Lviv must have been because both cities were part of Poland between the wars and had been part of the Commonwealth until it’s demise in the late 18th century. This was a statement about Polish imperial thoughts and intentions and not so much about Ukrainian independence; if it had been the latter they would have cited Kiev, the capital, and not Lviv. They certainly were pushing for an independent post-USSR Ukraine - to act as a buffer state between Poland and Russia. Which suggests the choice of Lviv may have been because it was also the center of nationalism in Ukraine. What they were really pushing, from a position of safety in the west, was the breakup of the USSR.
In other words, they were playing geo-political chess with Russia, and Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania were largely manipulated pawns in that game. There was the recognition that post-WWII Poland was no longer a power that could deal with the mighty USSR, so the next best thing was to try to reduce that to its Russian core and to create buffer states in the process. But Snyder plays his usual game of “Russians bad, anti-Russians good” by promoting these Poles as the new enlightened leading the way to a better, less imperial world. 🤢
On the matter of nationalism, realize that at that time Stepan Bandera was still alive (he was killed in 1959), he was made a Hero of Ukraine in 2010 but that was annulled in 2011, the justification being that he was never actually a citizen of Ukraine - he was born in Austrian Galicia and then was a Polish citizen after that, and later lived (incarcerated and freely) in Germany where he died. To what extent was Ukrainian nationalism actually an Austro-Polish phenomenon - one that was also promoted by the Greek Catholic Church? There is I think a serious question about Ukrainian nationalism being Ukrainian, in the sense of the nation today, at all.
There’s also a question of Ukrainian imperialism - think about Ukraine seeking to take back the Donbass and especially Crimea today, or look at that map above and think about what the Ukraine People’s Republic’s aspirations were in the east, in (Tatar) Crimea and southern Russia. Everybody’s playing the same game.
The article goes on to say (remember, this is 2018, four years after EuroMaidan and four years before the current war):
Yet, Ukraine still faces serious challenges. Dangers greater than Russia are found in Ukrainian internal politics. Although it has been four years since the Revolution of Dignity, it has turned out to be difficult to form a critical mass that would enable political and economic development. The reform process has been rather disappointing. In order to succeed, there is a need to change the rules of Ukrainian politics, replacement of the elite and a real breakthrough in the fight against corruption. It is also necessary to create the conditions that would allow for the country to leave the long-term economic collapse, which has made Ukraine the poorest country in Europe alongside Moldova. Despite regular domestic difficulties and numerous headaches, the experience of the post-Maidan period proves that the weak and corrupt Ukrainian state is able to fight for its interests in relation with its neighbours. This concerns mainly Russia, who has not yet realised that it will not win a war with Ukraine. Just as Mieroszewski noticed half a century ago – Moscow usually underestimates the Ukrainians.
I think it's important to remember what the independent criminal state of Ukraine was before it started getting prettied up with PR in 2022.
So let’s move on to lecture 19 which, again, is titled Oligarchies in Russia and Ukraine but, burying the lead, Snyder never names one, never even utters the word “oligarch” in this lecture. About halfway through he does bring up Giedroyc, Paris Kultura and the West Ukraine flag again:
So we have another important figure, Ivan Rudnystky, who “guided Giedroyc”:
Ivan Rudnytsky was born in Vienna, Austria where his parents were residing as political refugees from Galicia, which had been invaded by Poland in the aftermath of its successful war against the West Ukrainian People's Republic (1918 – 1919). His father Pavlo Lysiak was a lawyer and his mother Milena Rudnytska was a professor and politician. Both were well-known social and political activists from well connected families. In his youth, Ivan grew to become an intellectual gourmet growing up within the intensely stimulating environment of the extended Rudnytsky family of luminaries: Ivan Kedryn-Rudnytsky (prominent political leader and publicist of Ukrainian identity), Myhailo Rudnytsky (literary scholar, literary critic, translator), Antin Rudnytsky (conductor and composer) and Volodymyr Rudnytsky (lawyer and social activist).
[Snyder said “Ukrainian family, Jewish origin”, but he clearly should have said “Jewish family, Galician origin”, which is completely different.]
Rudnytsky began his academic career at the University of Lviv in interwar Poland where he studied law in the years 1937–1939. After the Soviet annexation of Galicia, his mother believed it was only a matter of time before the NKVD would arrest her and so she fled with her son to Kraków, and then in 1940 to Berlin. There he was awarded his master's degree in international relations in 1943 from the Friedrich Wilhelm University. Fearing discovery of their Jewish heritage, he fled with his mother to Prague, Czechoslovakia and continued his studies at Karl-Ferdinands-Universität, receiving his doctorate in History in 1945.
Driven by a desire to combat the influence of the Ukrainian nationalists, Rudnytsky became a leading member of several student organizations in the 1940s. He was a member of the Ukrainian student society "Mazepyneć", the Ukrainian Student Group in Prague, and the Nationalist Organization of Ukrainian Students of Greater Germany… From 1971 to his death in 1984, he was a professor at the University of Alberta, a founder of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS), a member of the Shevchenko Scientific Society and the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences.
We can see the “rootless cosmopolite” aspect to Rudnysky, and a real question about the claim to him being Ukrainian, given that the only time I can see that he actually spent in “Ukraine” was two years while in law school - in Lvov, which was in Poland at the time and had never been part of the Ukraine component of the Russian Empire or the USSR. But he was raised in the beating heart of Red Vienna, which I first addressed in a piece on Naomi Klein’s Doppelganger last September titled Full Monety Postscript: Orwellian Aspergerism, including the role of Jewish “refugees” from Galicia.
I included that last part because of the obvious connection to my favorite Ukraine historian John-Paul Himka:
Beginning in 1977, he [Himka] taught at University of Alberta, Department of History and Classics. He became full Professor in 1992 and retired from the university in 2014… He served as co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine for three volumes devoted to history. Himka, who traveled to Ukraine to conduct research since 1976, began to work with academics at Lviv University's Department of History. Initially Himka focused on Galicia's social history in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 1988 1000th anniversary of the Christianization of Rus' kindled his interest in the history of the Greek Catholic Church and the influence of the church on the development of Ukrainian nationalism. In 2002 he researched socialism in Habsburg Galicia, a formerly autonomous region in Western Ukraine, sacred culture of the Eastern Slavs (on iconography in particular) and the Holocaust in Ukraine. Since the late 1990s his contention with what he calls Ukrainian "nationalist historical myths" became subject of increasing, sometimes heated, debates both in Ukraine and Ukrainian Diaspora (especially in North America). Himka challenged the interpretation of Holodomor as a genocide and the view that Ukrainian nationalism and nationalists played no or almost no role in the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Another connection is made clear in another wiki:
The Encyclopedia of Ukraine, published from 1984 to 2001, is a fundamental work of Ukrainian Studies. The work was created under the auspices of the Shevchenko Scientific Society in Europe (Sarcelles, near Paris)… A final volume, Encyclopedia of Ukraine: Index and Errata, containing only the index and a list of errata to volumes 1–5, was published by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies [uk] in 2001… In 1984–93 the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta Faculty of Arts, with the help of the Canadian Foundation of Ukrainian Studies and the Shevchenko Scientific Society in Europe, prepared an English-language version of the encyclopedia, published by the University of Toronto Press.
It’s a little hard to believe that in their seven years of common time and associations at the Univ of Alberta they didn’t have some kind of relationship, and possibly a meaningful mentor-protege relationship. If so, then there is a seed of Jewish thinking planted in Himka, one that came to full flowering in this century when he wrote and talked about nationalism and the Holocaust. It’s also interesting to me that a “Ukrainian” Jew would find himself in that center of the diaspora which I have also understood has been a hotbed of nationalism. But again we see this mysterious linkage between Galicia, nationalism and Jews, and Himka also brings in the Greek Catholics.
It also needs to be made clear that all this constituted Polish subversive actions against the USSR, which Snyder sideways-acknowledged when he said, “…we’re just cold-hearted geo-politicians, we’re just doing this in the interest of the Polish state. And that’s some of the truth, maybe even most of the truth.”
Also worth noting is what he said at the end, “the Austrians certainly matter, quite a lot”, and what that really means is Galicia matters, quite a lot - because the Austrian role with regard to Ukrainian history was essentially limited to that territory, those three current oblasts in the far west.
What Snyder never mentions here related to these events in the mid-’70s are détente and Jackson-Vanik:
The Jackson–Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 is a 1974 provision in United States federal law intended to affect U.S. trade relations with countries with non-market economies (originally, countries of the Soviet Bloc) that restrict freedom of Jewish emigration and other human rights. The amendment is contained in the Trade Act of 1974 which passed both houses of the United States Congress unanimously, and signed by President Gerald Ford into law, with the adopted amendment, on January 3, 1975. Over time, a number of countries were granted conditional normal trade relations subject to annual review, and a number of countries were liberated from the amendment.
On December 14, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Magnitsky Act (formally titled the Russia and Moldova Jackson–Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012) that repealed the application of the Jackson–Vanik amendment to Russia and gave normal US trade relations to Russia and Moldova, instead punishing individuals violating human rights.
…and:
The Helsinki Final Act, also known as Helsinki Accords or Helsinki Declaration was the document signed at the closing meeting of the third phase of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) held in Helsinki, Finland, between 30 July and 1 August 1975, following two years of negotiations known as the Helsinki Process. All then-existing European countries except Andorra and Hoxhaist Albania, as well as the United States and Canada (altogether 35 participating states), signed the Final Act in an attempt to improve the détente between the East and the West.
I’ve often said that Jackson-Vanik was the first real success of neoconservatism in government; it is often cited as the work product of Richard “the Prince of Darkness” Perle, who with co-ethnic Paul Wolfowitz (and Douglas Feith and Elliott Abrams) was on Scoop Jackson’s staff at the time. The Magnitsky Act of course was the work product of Bill Browder, who you will unfortunately hear more about later in this piece.
Note that Snyder with his “Jewish, Jewish, Jewish, Ukrainian” dismisses this as anti-Semitism with a dash of anti-Ukrainianism, but the communists’ own experience at the beginning of the century under the czar told them how important Jews were to dissidence, and many of those Jews came from Ukraine, the heart of the Pale (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, Kaganovich, etal).
Finally, when he talked about the current Ukrainian leadership being of a different, younger generation than in Russia and Belarus (the bad guys), he failed to mention how disproportionately Jewish it is, especially at the very top. And don’t think for one second that he doesn’t know that.
I want to mention something about the Russian language that Snyder never mentions when he’s talking about the language question in Ukraine, which is what happened to many Russian speakers in Russia after the revolution:
After 1917, Marxist linguists had no interest in the multiplicity of peasant dialects and regarded their language as a relic of the rapidly disappearing past that was not worthy of scholarly attention. Nakhimovsky quotes the Soviet academicians A.M Ivanov and L.P Yakubinsky, writing in 1930:
“The language of peasants has a motley diversity inherited from feudalism. On its way to becoming proletariat peasantry brings to the factory and the industrial plant their local peasant dialects with their phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary, and the very process of recruiting workers from peasants and the mobility of the worker population generate another process: the liquidation of peasant inheritance by way of leveling the particulars of local dialects. On the ruins of peasant multilingual, in the context of developing heavy industry, a qualitatively new entity can be said to emerge—the general language of the working class... capitalism has the tendency of creating the general urban language of a given society.”
By the mid-20th century, such dialects were forced out with the introduction of the compulsory education system that was established by the Soviet government. Despite the formalization of Standard Russian, some nonstandard dialectal features (such as fricative [ɣ] in Southern Russian dialects) are still observed in colloquial speech.
I studied Russian in high school in the ‘70s and this Soviet language engineering was something I was aware of back then. In a clip earlier in this series Himka said there are no intermediate dialects between Russian and Ukrainian, but that doesn’t mean there never were; perhaps they were eliminated a century ago. And this kind of language engineering was hardly unique to Russian:
After the foundation of the modern state of Turkey and the script reform, the Turkish Language Association (TDK) was established in 1932 under the patronage of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, with the aim of conducting research on Turkish. One of the tasks of the newly established association was to initiate a language reform to replace loanwords of Arabic and Persian origin with Turkish equivalents. By banning the usage of imported words in the press, the association succeeded in removing several hundred foreign words from the language. While most of the words introduced to the language by the TDK were newly derived from Turkic roots, it also opted for reviving Old Turkish words which had not been used for centuries. In 1935, the TDK published a bilingual Ottoman-Turkish/Pure Turkish dictionary that documents the results of the language reform. Owing to this sudden change in the language, older and younger people in Turkey started to differ in their vocabularies. While the generations born before the 1940s tend to use the older terms of Arabic or Persian origin, the younger generations favor new expressions.
Today, when language (using a line from the Spielberg Jewish nightmare film Jaws) “just spills out all over the dock” in an anarchic manner, particularly in the US, people may not realize that in the past language was a serious matter of analysis, debate and management of a living thing. Which isn’t illegitimate, btw - the whole point of language is to communicate, accurately and easily but also with complexity. It isn’t just about folk songs, or gangsta rap.
Here is the close of Snyder's lecture on the ‘90s oligarchs:
So there we see the gaping hole in this lecture, one which is perfectly described with its title: Oligarchies in Russia and Ukraine - but he barely stumbles to the end of the Soviet Union (note Manafort). The other thing to note here is that a guest lecturer will be doing lecture 20, who is Marci Shore, Snyder’s wife, and if you don’t recall, she is a Jewess, and by that I mean seriously self-identified professionally:
Shore is the author of Caviar and Ashes: A Warsaw Generation's Life and Death in Marxism, 1918–1968, a milieu biography of Polish and Polish-Jewish writers drawn to Marxism in the twentieth century; and of The Taste of Ashes, a study of the presence of the communist and Nazi past in today's Eastern Europe. She translated Michał Głowiński's Holocaust memoir, The Black Seasons. Shore married Timothy D. Snyder, professor of history at Yale, in 2005. Shore is Jewish… She works chiefly in French, German, Polish, Russian, Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian, and Yiddish sources. She was also a postdoctoral fellow at the Harriman Institute, an assistant professor of history and Jewish studies at Indiana University, and the Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Visiting Assistant Professor of Judaic Studies at Yale.
So let’s move on to her guest lecture and how she deals with the 15 years hubby unceremoniously dumped on her plate:
I will start with this because I'm not so certain I agree. I think the current worldwide social engineering project of Cultural Marxism can give the previous project of political Marxism a real run for its money on those grounds. From a Jewish perspective one ended and the other began in the 1950s, when the shift from the old left to the new left began, and then with its series of revolutions of the ‘60s and ‘70s: black civil rights, the sexual revolution, 2nd-wave feminism, gay liberation, even open immigration. Today the legacies of that are the plagues of political correctness, social justice warfare and identity politics, and “the attempt to remake human beings” today is quite literal - transsexuality and multi-genderism being the extreme on that. Another aspect of this social engineering is the west’s dominant faith of Holocaustism, which is historical creationism. History didn't end, it just changed clothes.
“Free-market neoliberalism” was part of the “utopian capitalist package”. Huh. Here we’re moving from the Cultural Marxist leg to the neoliberal economics leg of the blue stool, which in post-communist and especially Russian terms defined the 1990s.
Next she Jew’splains the dark side of this:
“Shock therapy in Poland” - that's another way of saying Jeffrey Sachs, that’s what he brags about to this day. Another euphemistic phrasing: “It left open the possibility of former communist apparatchiks very quickly transitioning into gangster-style neoliberals.” Was it really former apparatchiks who became the robber barons in post-communism, at least in Russia? Again, here is the Guardian in 2007:
And in a country where anti-semitism is still rife and openly expressed, nationalist rabble-rousers have made much of the fact that of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50% of Russia's economy during the 1990s, six were Jewish: [Boris] Berezovsky, Vladimir Guzinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Friedman and Valery Malkin. That fact is incontestable - but it is the result not of some grand conspiracy, but of the way the Soviet Union restricted Jews' ability to assimilate and rise up in society. While ethnic Slavs dominated all the best career slots in the highly bureaucratised official society, Jews who wanted to get ahead were forced into the black market economy. When communism collapsed and the black market was legalised as free market capitalism, the Jewish entrepreneurs had a head start.
Jeez, that doesn’t sound like apparatchiks to me, rather it sounds like poor little Jews who were the victims of the eternal uber-plague of antisemitism. That or Jewish mafiosos…
So that's it on the missing 15 years, no mention of oligarchy, no naming of any specific oligarchs, in Ukraine or in Russia. Not willing to let it go at that, I'm going to shift from the Yale classroom to the Netflix documentary, specifically the recent series on the cold war that I've featured before. In episode 8 of that series it details Yeltsin and gangster capitalism in the ‘90s in Russia, which leaves out Ukraine - that pro-war, anti-Russian propaganda series isn’t going to soil poor Ukraine with the invasion of neoliberalism.
What struck me more than anything watching this episode were the voices used to tell this story - the five main ones are all Jews. They are:
- David Remnick, the long-time editor-in-chief of the New Yorker and the author of Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire.
- Susan Glasser, at Politico, mother of 3rd-gender budding teen journalist Theo Baker who I discussed in my last piece near the end regarding Glenn Greenwald’s segment on antisemitism on the Stanford campus. She wrote Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin's Russia and the End of Revolution and The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021.
- “Russian” oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Semibankirschina fame, who was back then at some point the richest person in Russia and the richest person under age 40 in the world, until he got jailed for tax evasion and other financial frauds.
- The notorious lying scumbag Bill Browder, the former-“American” investment banker who was himself neck-deep in the pillaging of the Russian economy, 20 years ago his Hermitage Capital the largest foreign investor in Russia, and is still wanted in Russia under charges of tax evasion and fraud. He wrote Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man's Fight for Justice and Freezing Order: A True Story of Money Laundering, Murder, and Surviving Vladimir Putin's Wrath. Note that he claims both stories are true in the titles, so they must be… 😂
- Later on Anne Applebaum, the American neocon journalist and wife of Polish politician Radoslaw Sikorski; she wrote Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine and Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism.
I would love to include some clips from the episode, but since that surely would be seen as a copyright infringement I’ll have to make do with a series of screenshots. So let’s start by introducing the storytellers, starting with Remnick:
So yeah, I think that kind of suggests the beginning of story being told there. Btw, that first image of the “seven or eight” Semibankirschina matches the Guardian article, with two exceptions - the Jew Malkin has been replaced by the goy Vinogradov, which matches what wikipedia has done retroactively (they also have dropped the Jew Aven as a possibility), and the Jew Abramovich has been added, probably due to current fame; he was basically Berezovsky’s young protege at that time. The newspaper image of the oligarchs also shows a photo of Fridman that clearly isn’t him. Btw, the Jew Smolensky is apparently an actual mobster and not just associated behaviorally. Just so we’re clear on the billionaire Jews (a word that never gets uttered in the episode, of course) we’re talking about here:
The story that Browder tells is the most obviously a fabrication, which unquestionably is his habit. He says there that Yeltsin chose who would become rich, and then when it gets to the 1996 election tells them they can have whatever industries they want if they get him reelected using their money and media control. The main person he leaves out in this fairytale is the Jew Anatoly Chubais, although the role of the Harvard Boys and especially the Jews Sachs and Andrei Shleifer is completely erased as well. Chubais gets featured next, after a trip back to 1992 and the failure of the US to help Russia through this period, before moving to 1996:
At the beginning Browder is actually close to the truth - the study I read on the mortality situation in the ‘90s was that the average male life expectancy dropped to 58 years, a drop of four or five years from the ‘80s communism era. But it had nothing to do with lack of medicine - the primary causes were increased alcoholism and suicide, or basically despair. From there it goes to Clinton campaigning against Bush’s focus on foreign policy at this critical point (that including the concern over post-Soviet nuclear weapons), and so as president he focused on cementing in place and maintaining neoliberalism at home rather than the consequences of it abroad. Then comes the Jew Chubais’ role in the 1996 election as the frontman for the Jewish oligarchs.
They move on to the rise of the devil himself, Putin, starting with his position in the KGB in Dresden where he watched horrified as Moscow let power collapse in East Germany, came back (with a new washing machine!) to St. Pete to be deputy mayor and on to Moscow to be deputy chief of the Presidential Property Management Department, and eventually head of the FSB.
I’m not sure that it’s much of an exaggeration to say this minyan of Jews paints a picture of Putin that’s as negative as humanly possible, it’s very close to that. Btw, Sarotte is Mary Elise Sarotte, the author of Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate; she’s the one goy (I assume) with much of any part in telling this story. I can’t find much about her, but in the days after the invasion in 2022 she wrote an opinion piece in the NY Times titled I’m a Cold War Historian. We’re in a Frightening New Era, which included this:
But as a Cold War historian, I fear that Russia’s invasion, regardless of its outcome, portends a new era of immense hostility with Moscow — and that this new cold war will be far worse than the first. That 20th-century conflict was characterized by avoidance of direct Western-Russian engagement, producing instead proxy wars in other countries. President Vladimir Putin’s brazenness calls this practice into question. If he is reckless enough to pulverize Ukrainian civilians and risk popular rebellion, he may be reckless enough to provoke NATO.
Provoke NATO - so I guess she doesn’t put much stock in the realist theory that NATO provoked this war over the prior quarter century of serious eastward mission creep. It’s not hard to figure out what opinions one has to evidence to get a role in a propadoc like this one.
Perhaps right at this present moment a mid-level CIA officer named Putinstein is driving westward out of Kiev with a black-market Javelin missile strapped to his car, disillusioned about the future and having no idea that he’ll be elected president of the US in 2036… 😳
Speaking of elections…
But let’s not get distracted and instead wrap this up by finishing off the oligarch story.
That’s all about the war in Chechnya, but it is so reminiscent of George W. at almost the same time, declaring, “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” and landing on the deck of the Mission Accomplished carrier in a fighter jet. Different spin though, it’s all about the bombings in Russian cities being false flags - different unless you think 9/11 was also a false flag, that is…
So here he we have a story of an attack on the oligarchs by Putin, suggesting that Jewish billionaires paying taxes (by Browder, who hates paying taxes more than anything by all indications) and not dominating the media is a bad thing.
Here we have the rise of Khodorkovsky as the face on the Semibankirschina, and the Putin betrayel after they had supported his candidacy in 2000. That one negative comment about Misha sounds like the most negative one in this documentary, btw - but of course they're talking about Putin's rules, not civilization’s rules.
This is about the rise of Khodorkovsky as a potential threat to Putin in the 2004 election, when it was commonly believed he’d run for president. Browder presents him as having cleaned up his act and then being an opponent of “corruption”, but I think it was just tarting up his image in preparation for that run. Part of that was the claim of Gasprom (the state oil company) purchasing a smaller company at a price which Misha claims was grossly overvalued, and the excess going into Putin’s pocket. Then the confrontation:
So Khodorkovsky ends up behind bars for almost a decade, and then Browder’s tale on the fallout of that sentencing:
This is ol’ Bill’s usual story, that Putin demanded, and got, half of all the oligarch’s profits. But there’s really no evidence of this, and he doesn’t actually claim half the profits, he just likes to say that - he’s admitted that he doesn’t actually know any of the details on “the deal”, he’s just speculating. So that caption should actually read “But instead he said something like ‘50%’.” But slippery Bill loves to make that claim too much to actually give it up. I don’t recall which of these people put those final words in Putin’s mouth, btw, but I don’t think it was Browder.
Then the film says goodbye to the oligarchs:
The implication is that Berezovsky was murdered by Putin, and while I do think he was “suicided” I don’t think it was Putin’s doing - he had a list of enemies that would stretch from Moscow to London, where he died hanging in his home. Gusinsky living in Connecticut is news to me, I knew he had Israeli citizenship and also lived in Spain, but Connecticut is a haven for rich Jews - see Westport. The state’s US senators are the Jew Richard Blumenthal and the Jew-sucker Chris Murphy. Abramovich also has Israeli citizenship and spent a lot of time living in the UK, at least until the war, when he and Fridman (from Ukraine) got caught in the middle by sanctions. Smolensky apparently lives in Vienna now; he got hurt badly in the 1999 crash and also was charged with financial crimes (later dropped), and basically faded after that. As I’ve said, he’s probably the most identifiable as a mobster among the oligarchs, and so probably has his own list of enemies he’d want to hide from.
Only two of these eight were/are goys, Potanin and Vinogradov. Potanin is the richest person in Russia today and worth over $30B, so one can’t really say he’s gone anywhere. Vinogradov died in 2008 at age 52, but that wasn’t likely murder, it was a stroke after a long illness. Here is part of what his wiki says about him:
In May 1996 Inkombank, with reportedly $4 billion in assets, raised $20 million in Russia's first unsecured syndicated loan from Western banks. In November 1996 Vinogradov won a libel suit against the newspaper Kommersant and Russian TV controlled by Boris Berezovsky, who had spread rumors that Inkombank couldn't pay its interbank borrowings, and that a Central Bank inspection report implied that the bank was near collapse, a claim denied by the Central Bank. In December 1996 Vinogradov established the first American depositary receipt for a Russian bank in the US stock market, being one of the few Russian banks that adhered to US accounting standards. In February 1997 he reportedly predicted that 1,000 banks in Russia, about half the total, were going to disappear within the next five years, most of them going bankrupt.
According to CBS Money Watch, Vinogradov had a reputation for openness and fair dealing as well as for making impulsive and politically unwise statements. He had some important international connections, such as London's Rothschild Bank, and US consulting firm McKinsey, which had devised a business plan for him. Inkombank also had an industrial portfolio that included a minority stake in jet-fighter maker Sukhoi and control of aluminum fabricator Samara Metallurgical. In 1995 Vinogradov acquired the Babayev chocolate factory, in Russia's first hostile stock market takeover, a deal praised for its transparency and fairness: Even after he had gained 50 per cent of the shares, he offered the same terms to minority shareholders. On the other hand, Inkombank was accused of having been infiltrated by Russian organized crime figures tied to Semion Mogilevich in 1994.
That doesn’t sound like the scumbag Jewish bankers at all, at least until the end there and the Jewish Russian boss of bosses Mogilevich.
In the first article of my Browder series in January 2023 I briefly touched on Vinogradov here, when I quoted from Robert Friedman’s Red Mafiya:
A few pages later:
“Stolichny has been identified in a classified CIA report as a front for organized crime; the respected Austrian newsweekly Wirtschafts Woche has cited police records that alleged Stolichny’s owner, Alexander Smolensky, was an international drug dealer in the top echelon of the Russian Mafiya. Two other allegedly mob-linked banks that bought cash from Republic - Inkombank and Promstroybank - also submitted New York applications.”
The Jew Smolensky was one of the Semibankirschina; Vladimir Vinogradov, the head of Inkombank, is also listed by some as a Semibankirschina including in his wiki: “Vinogradov joined Boris Yeltsin’s business advisory council, being one of the so called ‘seven bankers’, the financial group around Yeltsin.” The head of Promstroybank, Dmitri Lebedev, is now chair of Rossiya Bank, and has been sanctioned by Treasury since 2016 and by Britain since the start of the war in Ukraine. As far as I can tell Vinogradov and Lebedev are actual Russians.
Republic was the bank owned by the Jew Edmond Safra, who was Browder’s mentor partner in his Hermitage Capital, which was initially funded by Safra and the Israeli moneylaunderer Beny Steinmetz; Safra died under suspicious circumstances in 1999, a fire in his Monaco penthouse apartment. That was the year after Browder, living in London, gave up his US citizenship to avoid paying US taxes on his growing pile of loot stashed offshore.
But the essential answer to that final question, which the film says are old cronies of Putin's including in the KGB and FSB, is more likely that they are less predominantly Jewish.
In an effort to shower off the stench of dealing with Browder and his storytelling, here is another take on the Khodorkovsky final chapter from the 2006 television documentary The Rise and Fall of the Russian Oligarchs:
First, I need to point out that the filmmaker, Alexander Gentelev, was a Soviet Jew who left Russia after the fall and settled in Israel. So we’re not getting some unbiased presentation here, again we’re getting a Jew telling a story about Jews without ever saying he’s a Jew telling a story about Jews. Which these days is about as common as fuck. But no, we’re not supposed to know that. 🤫
You do see a somewhat different picture here, especially the confrontational public meeting with Putin. People in glass houses and all that. I should also point out again that chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is always framed as some kind of human rights activist, is a Jew who is closely connected to and funded by Khodorkovsky. It’s also been said that Khodorkovsky helped fund Browder’s efforts to get the Magnitsky Acts passed into law, which might help explain ol’ Bill’s spin on Misha’s turn toward anti-corruption in this episode.
Oh, and Snyder is said to have a relationship with Khodorkovsky as well, involving funding some of his work. It’s a very thick stew indeed.
In my view this period is absolutely critical to an accurate explaining of the war going on today and the framing of that related to Putin, not to mention the connection of Putin to Trump in the Russiagate narrative. But you’re not going to understand all that unless you know who is a Jew and who isn’t, and can honestly deal with that information. Or if that story simply doesn’t get told, which is how the Snyders (the Shores?) have dealt with it here, even after baiting the hook with claimed intentions.
I want to finish this off with at least one mention of a Ukrainian oligarch, by including a clip from a discussion on Ukraine at Davos a few months ago which included both Snyder and Harvard’s Serhii Plokhy. If you look at both the bottom of the video and above the panel high on the wall behind, you will see three institutions named which are in some way the sponsors of this discussion. One is the Office of the President of Ukraine, which of course means the Jew Zelensky. The other two are Pinchuk Art Center and the Victor Pinchuk Foundation - Pinchuk is my designated “Ukrainian” oligarch:
Victor Pinchuk (born 14 December 1960) is a Ukrainian businessman and oligarch. As of January 2016, Forbes magazine ranked him as 1,250th on the list of wealthiest people in the world, with a fortune of US$1.44 billion.
Akhmetov is a Tatar with significant assets in the east including the Donbass, Zhevago was an exile then living/hiding in France who was charged with a long list of financial crimes, and Kolomoisky is of course Zelensky’s Jewish creator/sponsor.
Pinchuk is the founder of EastOne Group LLC, an international investing, project funding and financial advisory company based in London, and of Interpipe Group, one of Ukraine's leading pipe, wheel and steel producers. Pinchuk is the owner of four TV channels and a popular tabloid, Fakty i Kommentarii. He has been a member of the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, for two consecutive terms from 1998 to 2006. He is married to Olena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
Pinchuk was born in 1960 in Kyiv to Jewish parents who moved to the industrial city of Dnipropetrovsk.
On 4 March 2015, at the hearing on Special Control Commission of Privatization in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky accused Viktor Pinchuk of receiving a bribe of $5 million a month for the rights to manage Ukrnafta, 50 + 1% of which is owned by the state-owned company Naftogaz of Ukraine. According to Kolomoisky, the money was transferred to offshore companies, the "ultimate owners of which were identified" as Victor Pinchuk and Leonid Kuchma.
In September 2013, Pinchuk and Tony Blair introduced Hillary Clinton's keynote address to the conference at Livadia Palace, with Bill Clinton in attendance. Stefan Fule, Paul Krugman, Alexei Kudrin, Shimon Peres, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Larry Summers and other political and business leaders have attended. In September 2015, Pinchuk donated $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in exchange for a 20-minute video appearance by Donald Trump shown at the conference that year in Kyiv. Michael Cohen solicited Douglas Schoen for the donation from Pinchuk, which was the largest outside donation the Trump Foundation received that year.
Etc, Etc. A veritable who’s who of Jew blue scumbags and various frontmen and hangers-on. So here’s a bit of that discussion, starting while Plokhy is answering a question on the de-nuking of Ukraine in 1994:
I won’t even comment on Snyder’s gasbagging about “the facts”, or on Plokhy’s mandatory Hitlerian appeasement bit, but I do want to say something about the matter of Soviet nukes existing in various Republics, most of which didn’t even know how to act like independent countries at that point, let alone nuclear powers. The most important thing was getting those nukes and nuclear material out of those people’s hands, and the segment on that in the Netflix documentary actually does a decent job on that - even though it had its own neocon taint to it…
But the other thing is Plokhy’s implication that the US should have provided security guaranties to Ukraine as part of that nuclear blackmail, and Snyder seems to say he’s ashamed that the US didn’t. No fucking way - a guaranty would have meant that if somehow this howling baby state had managed to get into a conflict with one of its former siblings the US would be obligated to come in on their side. And image what the reaction in Yeltsin’s Russia would have been had the US done that - hey, we thought the cold war was over! WTF, dudes!
Before that Plokhy was answering a question on US aid to Ukraine and the Marshall Plan, and he said that the money probably didn’t mean as much as other aspects of that, because it took so long to get finalized and delivered. What he didn’t say was that the delay at least in part happened because there was a debate in the US over how to handle Germany at the end of the war, and one of the people who had a plan for that was Sec of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., a friend of Roosevelt’s and the most-powerful Jew in the government. And his plan was quite the opposite, to de-industrialize Germany and turn it into an agrarian state that simply didn’t have enough land to feed its people. That was something eMike talked about in one of the clips I included in my last piece. But that’s a piece of history that Plokhy doesn’t want to address, a “fact” that Snyder doesn't acknowledge, because the Jew plan then isn’t one the Jews want applied now - just give us the Benyamins!
At the end of the cold war when the US government received requests from Russia and various other post-Soviet states to aid them with capitalist transition of their economies, the president turned to his Treasury Dept. and handed the job to Larry Summers, who turned it over to his Jewish buddies Sachs and Shleifer at Harvard, and the rest is history. Now imagine if Truman at the end of WWII had taken the job of managing post-war Europe and particularly Germany and simply turned that over to Morgenthau and his co-ethnics like communist sympathizers Harry Dexter White and the aforementioned Josiah E. Dubois at Treasury. What do you think our world would look like now? Now imagine if the Clinton government had handled Russia differently in the 1990s, hadn’t turned it over to the vengeful neoliberal Jews, what do you think the world would look like now? This shit matters, it really matters.
Lastly (almost), note there at Davos that on the back wall below the listing of the entities headed by the Jewish politician(/oligarch) and the Jewish billionaire oligarch(/[politician) it says, “DECIDING YOUR TOMORROW”. Something to think about.
Sanders is a kind of legacy Marxist coming from the old-to-new left era (including at the Univ of Chicago which then was gestating neoliberalism and neoconservatism) who had his honeymoon in Soviet Moscow. You cannot argue that Bloomberg, a billionaire businessman including in media operations who has contributed tens of millions to candidates and who has held political office himself, isn’t an oligarch; he’s kind of Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky, Pinchuk and Kolomoisky rolled up into one.
And note who wrote this article for the Jew Marty Baron’s WaPo - Glenn Greenwald’s co-ethnic settler Zionist dual-citizen buddy Batya Ungar-Sargon. 🤮 But she was right - that no one cared is amazingly frightening…