Books relating to Communism

Discussion in 'Books About Cults and Extracting Oneself from Coer' started by Winston Smith, Mar 17, 2014.

View Users: View Users
  1. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    I think what you are talking about is not Communism the subject as outlined in The Manifesto and Das Kapital, but Communism the movement as laid out by Trotsky and Lenin and then Stalin. Its a fine line, I grant you.

    But the control of population and how to motivate them and the rest of the diabolical mechanisms - the secret police, the reporting, the attacking of "divergents" lying to advance the cause - well that has a different history going back probably before the inquisition. Religious fanaticism spawned the concept that a "higher cause" could trump doing right in the here and now and every cult leader has used it ruthlessly - from Stalin to Mao to Franco to Hitler and Kim Jong Il and cult leaders like Hubbard and Jones and Loyola and even such organizations as Amway Herbalife Arbonne and the rest all use totalitarian control. All will lie to forward their agenda, all will put everything below the advance of the agenda - family, allies, NOTHING is as important as the cause.
  2. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Search his name here on ESMB . . some time ago I did post the extract from his book you need. From memory I have posted a couple of times his materials, be sure you get them all.

    Knupffer grew up in the Imperial Palace. His father was a Captain in the Royal Marines . . . he lived through the times and events he reports on . . . he ain't doing any revisionist thing . . . it's the liars who took over Russia and whose avowed intent is was to "bury the west and capitalism" that did the revising and forwarded the "revisions" of the facts.
  3. Winston Smith

    Winston Smith Flunked Scientology

    oh yes, quite right. With the caveat that I do not think anything in the Manifesto or Das Kapital is legitimate either. Those works were ripe for Lenin to come along, uh Ulanovsky, and refine to the fanaticism to eradicate capitalism. I just do not see how capitalism per se is so evil. Yes, Rockefeller and Carnegie were ruthless but they also created the very conditions that allowed the middle class to rise. No one is defending Standard Oil's monopoly or Carnegie's steel plants crushing its workers under noisy machines. That why the labor movement arose, which was infiltrated with Communists. They in turn fomented hatred for "the Man," not to actually bring about better conditions but to destroy the Man all together.

    Taking my life as an example, I suppose I am too American. I never in my life felt envy or ill will toward those more successful than me. I always felt time was a great thing, ie enough frugality and common sense and in the end I too would prosper. The problem with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Franco, Kim Jong Il is they had no true desire to improve things. They just masked what they wanted to do in high sounding platitudes (like Hubbard) while they wreaked murder, starvation and degradation. I put Hitler in a different category, he was a mass murderer also, but for some reason I have never been able to figure him out. His policies were like the others, yes, but his ultra racism was doomed to fail from the beginning. Seems no one liked him except Eva. But he had nothing on Stalin in the mass murder category. Stalin probably murdered 40 million people all told. Communism in all its forms in the 20th century in total murdered about 94 million.

    This bull shit of equality can never stand either. I never for a moment thought my inherent abilities were equal to anyone else's, but for sure the opportunity to pursue the use of those abilities is the GIFT of America. Not that it will be handed to you, but that you are not going to be hampered in pursuing your dream here. But again, Obama is busily shredding that ideal. Pure communism. But we dare not call it that even though it is.

    To piss off the liberal ideal of equality, try this. For all those wonderful students in our universities, and secondary education also, pull this on them: equality means you do not get an "A" for your hard work. You will get a "C" or a "D" (even though you deserve an "A") because the lazy kids are equal to you. Even though they did not crack a book open, equality demands you share your grade with them. So dumbass lazy Tommy over here gets your "A" and you get his "F" because it is not fair that you should be better than him.

    This is in effect what DeBlasio, I me OBlasio, is doing in NYC as I write.
  4. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    I'm with you, SOT. You make an assertion, especially one that waaaaaay out there, you back it up with a few excerpts. I've been down a lotta rabbit holes, and life's too short for that shit, unless it happens to hit your fancy. "Read the book" is the mantra of the crank and pseudoscientist. Anything that has an ounce of truth to it leaves traces all over human communication, and these days, that means traces should be all over the Net. Asking for a few excerpts is in no way out of line.

    In my personal experience, Russia in the 1990s was like the US in the 1950s.

    In Knupffer's (or Knupfer, you need to search both names, as his Russian name had only one "F") case, there are damn few tracks. No one has even bothered to scan his books, now in public domain, into Project Gutenberg or any other such site for ebook distribution.

    Rog, you make the assertion, the way out assertion, that Russia in the 1910s looked like the US in the 1950s, you have to at least provide some data, or we rightfully assume this wonderful book that no one else corroborates is a work of fiction, and not very good fiction at that.

    Even more so, now, for me, because the only, the single excerpt I could find on the net makes George look kinda whack-O:


    No, seriously WTF?

    Jerusalem is the intended capital of the World government? You know, I've been there. It's hot, crowded, a lot of the native, Jew and Arab, wrap their women up in black bedsheets and make catcalls at any women dressed appropriately for the weather. I love the place anyway, for the food and history and non-religious nutjob people, but as a capital of the world, the location is plain fucking stupid. Where did George crib this shit from, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

    And the Soviets gave the Arabs just enough arms to keep trying? That is an awful fine balance to achieve, you know? Very hard to do that math and come up with the same answer every time given that the Arabs always outnumbered and outgunned the Israelis, and that so many things outside of that calculation determine actual victory on an actual battlefield. As people who actually have a clue have pointed out.

    There's your abstract SOT, still think you want to jump down this rabbit hole?

    If so, I've got a little more background for you.

    First of all, your assertion that Russia was a semi-feudal state in 1917 is absolutely correct, and borne out by almost every historian and observer of the day - except George and a few others. If Russia had been so Grand, why did the Soviets have to 5 Year Plan the shit out of their population to even get some tractor factories rolling? Hell, when I was there, the semi-feudal traces were still evident because of the shitty job the Commies did.


    This is a picture of me in 1990 outside a Kolkhoz near the city of Vladimir. Yes, that is a real, honest-to-goodness Grim Reaper style scythe. I'm cutting feed for the goats. This is the way it was done then, and it was they way it was done in Tsarist times. There were lots of technological holdouts like that. The head of the Kolkhoz was the grandson of the tsarist village headman. My friend's grandmother, who remembered Tsar Nikolai coming through in about 1909, told me nothing had really changed about their lives under the Communists, except for the tractors.

    On the other hand, my grandparents were pretty poor farmers, they only got rid of their horses and bought a tractor around 1951 or 1952. I'd seen them use a sickle, and I had used a rotary push mower to cut hay for our goats, but until that point I had never laid hands on a scythe. It was a medieval relic by that time.

    Rotary mowers were still in common use on municipal lawns when I was in Russia, and scythes dominated the countryside.

    If you went into any village store, and even a lot of stores in big cities, you would have the most jackassed, time wasting system for purchasing a good. You would go to the counter and find your item. The girl at the counter would get it down and tear a paper slip in half. Half would go to you, half would go to on the item, now placed under the counter. You would go to the front of the store, hand your slips to the cashier, who would total your purchases. With an abacus. Yes. An abacus. Because Russia still wasn't producing enough cash registers, even in the 1980s. And the convoluted two-person system? Stemmed from tsarist times when only one person in the store could read and do figures.

    Advanced civilizations would leave different traces. I saw no evidence anywhere that tsarist Russia was any better than the vast majority portrayed it - backwards, cruel, and semi-feudal.

    Or you can look at these amazing color prints from the era:



    Or these Types Russes postcards from the same timeframe:


    What you see there is not the America of the 1910s, but the America of the 1850s and 60s, which is what Russia of the 1910s was actually akin to, but with fundamental political differences, which George glosses over.

    And yes, I finally founds some traces of him on the web. He was a member of a monarchist restoration society after the Civil War:

    The Patriotic Union of Russians Abroad (PURA). First known as "Little Rus", with a headquarters apparently in Germany. Its most famous member - George Knupffer. This group consisted of open Monarchists supporting Federalism and social reforms in the future for Russia. Their numbers were not great. The newsletter of the Union was named "The Voice of Russia".



    One of those. Hyperpatriotic tsarists were pretty much dead by the time I got into the field, but there were a few among my Russian teachers, mostly second gen whose parents had escaped. Of that second generation, most had moved on, but some absorbed that ethos from their parents and kept the tsarist dream alive. Most were steeped in anti-semitism and Russian prejudice, and like George, looked on the time of the tsars through rose-colored glasses as some high ideal of civilization instead of a barbaric feudal throwback that only managed to outlaw de facto slavery three years after the US threw off the bonds of racial prejudice with blood. There was nothing progressive about tsarism except in the minds of these loons.

    And no one else agrees with their assessments. Not Western historians, not other Whites, and certainly not the Reds.

    And then I found this:



    Read a little of that Red Symphony. It's a beaut. :ohmy:

    "The translator" in this case is George Knupffer.

    One of the original conspiracy theorists of the 20th Century.

    In a way, it's understandable that these White exiles would generate a significant number of conspiracy theorists. Their world, which they had regarded as unchangeable, ordained by God (and George is cited by an awful lot of ultra-Othodox Russian websites, they make up the vast majority of hits from a Google search on his Russian name) crumbled so unexpectedly, and pretty much every institution that they had looked to for guidance and stability was destroyed. Of course they would feel out of place, and of course some could not cope and turned to conspiracies to explain the failures of their culture to defend itself.

    George was one of the most diehard, helping the Grand Duke Vladimir pen his 1952 open letter to the Allies, pleading with them to take on the Communists now that Hitler was gone.

    Yeah. Like there was appetite at home in America for that to happen. That's the kind of fantasy world George lived in.

    You know, I'm probably going to buy this book just for shits and giggles, because it fits in with both my interests - cranks and kooks AND Russian history. But you, well, you can make your own decisions, dude, you're a free agent. :biggrin:

    One last note. Where do George's books keep company? In Holocaust denial and other anti-Zionist right wing sites. Which is kinda funny. Because Knupffer? Is not a Russian name. There is a slight, a very slight chance he was one of the Lithuanian / Latvian nobles who came from Teutonic stock like Ungern-Sternberg.

    But based on the company he kept after the war, this origin is unlikely.

    Knupffer is a Jewish name.. :hysterical::hysterical:

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  5. tito was pretty hip. he said "under capitalism man exploits man but under communism it is exactly the opposite"
  6. cooooooooooooooooooool...
  7. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Urdanik, you are beginning to demonstrate you are not worth responding to . . . all you are do is slinging shit.

    You don't even duplicate nor understand what is written . . . your posts follow the behavior exemplified by psycho-political conduct . . . the last one just a heap of insult without address to the content of what Knupffer actually wrote.

    For the record, Knupffer was a "White Russian" all the bullshit you dredged up is smear . . .

    Is this bit of yours I quote an example of your exactitude?

    You write:
    Umm, where did I make that assertion?

    I find it rather disappointing those those who claim to be "knowledgeable" on subjects such as this only ever refer to opinions about the subject rather than going to the source subject . . . I say: read Knupffer's book (and that is the the way he spelled his name) then you'll have a factual basis to discuss it . . . otherwise you're only pissing about with other's opinion about it . . . and we here have a thread that is rife with demonstrations of how those with agendas to put have assiduously striven throughout history to pervert truth and deceitfully sway peoples' beliefs and opinions.

    You don't even know what Knupffer wrote in his book! and you're doing this diatribe against it? That does not evince any decent intellect . . .

    So the question becomes . . . what is your agenda?

    One of the things that is a give away of psycho-political operatives and their ilk is that they are seldom positive in their traffic . . . but always into putting down of the truths that expose what they are trying to hide. They do not discuss the actuality, but smear instead.

    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  8. Winston Smith

    Winston Smith Flunked Scientology

    My what food for thought. There were many forces in favor of going after communism after Hitler was dispatched and FDR ignored all of them because he was in the pocket of Stalin. FDR is even on record as saying "Some of my best friends are communist." For sure we had had enough of war by then so even if we wanted to help it would have come to nothing.

    The thing is that with this: We were actually doing quite well in Italy and were preparing to go north through eastern Europe to get at Hitler, but Stalin convinced FDR to invade France instead. No brainer there; if we had gone the other way Stalin would not have been able to so easily gobble all that real estate up. So think about this for a bit: maybe D-Day was unnecessary? Maybe the European portion WWII could have been done in 1943 had we not been influenced by Stalin.
  9. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Yes . . . . have you looked at FDR's history prior to his political career . . . . he worked with/for the money masters on Wall Street.

  10. koki

    koki Silver Meritorious Patron

    I remember that book.... about how WWII started - with Hitler on photos in Banks all over the world.... it is funny....:wink2:
  11. Winston Smith

    Winston Smith Flunked Scientology

    I am a bit overwhelmed with the literature on this topic. If I were to read every book encountered I would never finish.
    Yes there is always a struggle for the "best" system and I guess there is no "best" system of government. But I think it is suicide what is happening in the US today. Our "freedom of the press" has gotten out of hand and open combat seems to be the rule of the day.

    I ask a simple question: Just what is so evil about the concept of freedom from government intrusion into our lives? Currently support of the left seems to be support for tyranny from Washington, not that the right has not been doing the same. We have simply lost our way.
  12. some of my besr friends are commies

    big deal...
  13. Winston Smith

    Winston Smith Flunked Scientology

    A bit different today than then, when freedom and America meant something. And people understood Communism meant murder, control over movement, and tyranny. Today we have all three and don't even recognize it. Indeed there was a time when Orwell's "1984" evoked horror. Now we expect Big Brother to watch us take a shower and monitor our thoughts.
  14. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    winston hope you don't mind dropping in to enjoy some speculation - I am confused about the allies going "north" through eastern Europe to bring hitler down - do you have a link to anything along these lines because my initial reaction is that it would have been a bloodbath to have tried that. North of italy are the alps to the west the Pyrenees and to the east the Tyrol - how would the allies have driven through this given that their main weight of assault were tanks? - they would have had to go, presumably through what would become Yugoslavia where Croatia was a German ally.

    The decision to invade France and liberate Western Europe had been taken pretty much by the beginning of 1943 IIRC. IN fact the raid on Dieppe in August 1942 was the first test of the logistics of seaborne assault on mainland Europe and that was before the US joined the war. (and it was a total disaster)

    In fact Winston (the british one) famously said that we "should shake the hands of our Russian allies as far east as possible".

    Just from a strategic standpoint I would have thought that the idea of liberating countries that wanted to be free of the german occupation would be a better way to go than fighting through countries allied with them (like Italy and Romania).

    INterested in your take
  15. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    wow that doesn't say a lot for your friends intellectual development CB. After watching Communism unravel itself in real life and what a fucking awful mess it left I am kind of surprised that anyone with more than one neuron to rub together could embrace it. I mean the guys back in the 1920' and 30's had no experience to base opinion on and they were setting up the new adventure/horror so they had an excuse. Nowadays if you can't see how bad it is in the real world then a person should probably get themselves sequestered in an environment that encourages insane belief - like academia....:eyeroll:
  16. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    Most academics are scientists, these days. Only a tiny proportion of scientists have ever been impressed with communism.

    Invade western Europe through the Alps? The Alps are a bunch of mountains. Fun to ski down, not so fun to drive an armored column through. If you want, you can learn geography from a son of a bitch named Georgie Patton. FDR might have been soft on communism, but the Allied generals were a bunch of hard-nosed fucking bastards who beat the extremely hard-nosed Germans on their own terms, and Normandy was their call, not Roosevelt's. If you want to go up against Patton, Montgomery, and Eisenhower, I'll spot you Rommel, and you will still lose.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  17. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    According to, George Knupffer's Struggle for World Power is published by Noontide Press.

    According to, Noontide Press also publishes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    (In case anyone doesn't know the absurd history of the Protocols: Uh. Yeh. I feel bad for you, because you have so much to learn, and it's all so bad.)
  18. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Yes . . . they are not the original publisher of the book . . . they appear to have picked it up since it is either out of original copyright or they bought the copyright from the family. I spoke to Knupffer's wife in 1990, maybe '91 or so . . . he had just died.

    I spent a lot of time with Knupffer when I was in England . . . he was no "anti semite" in fact he deplored that behavior. In fact he was critical of those authors who harped on any Jewish issues vis a vis bad acts in history.

    He was a vary staunch Russian Orthodox Christian. And if you guys would actually read the book instead of listening to all the opinions attempting to discredit his materials . . . what's new, those who do not wish to be exposed do engage in the smear tactic :duh: . . . from my memory (it's 20 years+ since I last read it) he hardly mentions anything about Jews. It just is not any part of the theme of the book.

    Though he does mention themes like stating those who planned, financed and implemented the Russian Revolutions as "of the Anti-Christ." That is the extent of his discourse on anything religious in the book.

    The book is actually a dissertation on the history of the times and events . . . actually citing correct and valid sources. Indeed, one of the star "exhibits" is an exchange of correspondence between the plotters and a Prince of the Realm who plotted against the Czar.

    Apart from that, I am disappointed to be seeing those I've had respect for refusing to actually look at what the man wrote but instead doing and continuing the smear thing . . . even down to "he is now published (25 years after his death) by someone who also publishes some other stuff that is contentious." Christ, every publisher publishes some stuff that is contentious!

    Opinions, upon opinion upon opinions . . . don't you guys like dealing with the actual?


    Knupffer was no Kook . . . he indeed was a columnist for Lord Beaverbrook in the London leading newspaper The Daily Express (one of the top papers still) Beaverbrook in those days owned the Express.

    Further, if you've followed my other recent posts regarding him, you'll note he had serious friends in Parliament who relied on him for advice . . . search for my post regarding Capt. Henry Kerby MP here on ESMB.
  19. Edugui

    Edugui Patron

  20. Carcassed

    Carcassed Patron

Share This Page