Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area.

He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile [1], along with James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive). [2] These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.

He is best known for his 2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse [3] (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon.

1 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/01/26/the-dystopians
2 https://russia-insider.com/en/james-howard-kunstler
3 https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Collapse-Experience-American-Prospects/dp/0865716854

​He has a large following on the web, and on Patreon, and we urge you to support him there [4], as Russia Insider does.

His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats [5] for living on. He lives on a boat himself.

If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at his archive of articles on RI [6]. They are a real treasure, full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related.

4 - https://www.patreon.com/orlov
5 - http://quidnon.blogspot.com 
6 - https://russia-insider.com/en/dmitry_orlov

​In trying to disentangle the current fraught state of relations between the US and Russia, one group that deserves a higher level of scrutiny is American Jews.

​This is the single largest population group that the two countries have in common: of the some 5 or 6 million Jews currently living in the US (numbers vary depending on how one measures “Jewishness”) around a million immigrated to the US from the Former Soviet Union, either directly or after a sojourn in Israel. The US government readily accepted all of them, granting them refugee status; thus, they entered American society with a politicized, distinctly anti-Russian identity, and their anti-Russian attitudes have had an effect on the opinions of many non-Russian Jews and other Americans.

​Russian Jews are by far the most educated group ever to immigrate to the US. They integrated very well into American society and many of them, and their children, were able to launch professional careers. Their firsthand experience of life in Russia has allowed them to position themselves as the subject matter experts on all things Russian and, to a considerable extent, has allowed this relatively small group to negatively affect the attitudes of the other 322 million Americans toward the 144 million Russians within the Russian Federation as well the 30 or so million Russians residing outside it.

It is an unfortunate accident of history that a group of around a million has, more or less inadvertently, soured relations between half a billion people.

​There are a lot of tricky bits and pieces to this story. Part of it is the Cold War legacy, which generated a great deal of institutional inertia within the US, which in turn causes the US to continue to treat Russia as the enemy. Part of it is the strangely disproportionate influence of Israeli Jews specifically, and of Jews in general, on US politics. Yet another piece of the puzzle has to do with the benefits that accrued to the Russian Jews in the US who talked up their having been victimized by the Soviet government or by Russian antisemitism. A final, particularly tricky aspect has to do with the nature of Jewish identity and how it has historically clashed, and continues to clash, with what it means to be a Russian Jew.

I will talk about each of these in turn, but first I want to disclose what it is that makes me qualified to write on this subject. I was born and grew up in Russia in the 60s and 70s, then emigrated as part of a wave of mainly Jewish emigration, entered the US as a refugee and was naturalized five years later. A fictional Israeli relative or two were featured in our application for the exit visa, although we had no intention of ever going to Israel.

​I have lots of Jewish relatives, but not enough to make me a Jew. We are all Russian Orthodox Christian, and have been for anywhere between 3 and 40 generations (depending on genealogical branch). At home we have never spoken anything but Russian. We went back to Russia at the earliest opportunity—in 1989, as soon as émigrés started being granted visas—and have been going back and forth ever since. All of this makes me an expert on this very subject.

A lot has already been written on the topic of American Cold War inertia, so I will sum it up in just a few of sentences. The US is being held hostage by a bloated, ineffectual and generally incompetent military bureaucracy whose only area of overwhelming superiority is in extorting exorbitant sums of money for its projects, many of which are failures. In order for this extortion to work, one must be able to argue that there is an enemy to defend the country against.

During the Cold War the enemy was, most conveniently, the USSR. After the USSR collapsed, there was a period of vacillation, during which “Russian mafia” got a lot of attention, just to keep the image of the enemy fresh. But a felicitous new opportunity presented itself after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (which, many claim, were contrived for just this purpose) to present international terrorism as the new enemy. This ruse has by now outlived its usefulness because the terrorists are now doing better than ever, and so it is time to shut up about terrorism and to go back to Plan A: cultivating russophobia (with China now thrown in for good measure).

It is true that Russia, having recovered from the devastation of the Soviet collapse, is a bit more formidable as an enemy than it was in the “Russian mafia” days, but russophobia is still key, and it requires a steady stream of negative news stories and commentary on Russia. It is here Russian Jews, some living in the US, some traveling back and forth between the US and Russia, are happy to oblige, since they are, arguably, America’s subject matter experts on all things Russian.

The strangely disproportionate influence of Israeli Jews, and of Jews in general, on American politics is also a hot topic of discussion, and so here I will once again summarize briefly. First the obvious: Israel is not part of the United States; it is a separate sovereign nation and a UN member. And yet American politicians can pledge allegiance to Israel without being arrested and tried for treason. Lots of US-Israeli dual citizens circulate through both US and Israeli institutions, and nobody ever bothers to ask which one of them is spying on whose behalf. Within the US, Israel, and Jews generally, receive special treatment: anyone who dares to criticize Israel is more or less automatically accused of antisemitism and ostracized. Also, it has been made illegal to boycott Israeli products or companies, which some people want to do in support of the Palestinian cause. Some analysts go as far as to say that Israel has colonized the US, much as Britain had colonized India, with a few thousand British controlling the entire subcontinent to their own advantage.

​Israel is the recipient of many billions of dollars in US military aid, making it an integral part of the American military-industrial extortion racket. This means that Jews and/or Israelis in the US (the distinction between American Jews and Israelis is not a particularly useful one, since it’s easy for an American Jew to get an Israeli passport) have to talk up the “Russian threat” in order to belly up to the trough alongside the US military, and so they do.

But within Israel the situation is a bit different. About a third of the Jewish population of Israel is made up of Russian Jews. Many of them are actual citizens of the Russian Federation; most of the rest can claim Russian citizenship as a birthright. Lots of of them go back and forth between Russia and Israel, to work, for medical treatments, to visit relatives, on vacations, etc. A steady stream of Israelis is going back to Russia, mainly because Russia is in some ways more prosperous than Israel, where opportunities for social advancement are growing increasingly limited. Relations between Russia and Israel are very friendly and cooperative. When the Israeli defense minister flies to Moscow for talks, he doesn’t take a translator along because he is, in fact, Russian.

Right now relations between the US and Russia are in a dismal state. At the same time, relations between Russia and Israel are the warmest that they have ever been. “Russia and Israel can take pride in our high level of partnership, fruitful cooperation and far-reaching business contacts,” said Vladimir Putin while taking Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to the Bolshoi Ballet. In spite of all of the complexities of the Middle East—the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war in Syria, Iran’s growing influence, Turkey’s traditional treachery, strange goings on in Saudi Arabia—the Russian-Israeli relationship is just ticking along.

If you wanted to get just a tiny bit conspiratorial, you could perhaps imagine that Israel is Russia’s Trojan horse in the US. What is its purpose? To keep the US squandering borrowed money on military junk and misadventures, of course, until it’s all gone! To push the US toward the same cliff over which the USSR went back in 1990, obviously! But let us not get side-tracked into conspiracy theory and simply say that the asymmetry between US-Russian, US-Israeli and Israeli-Russian relations is extremely significant and begs for an explanation. It’s a three-legged stool that rocks—a geometric conundrum.

A relatively obvious reason for Israel cozying up to Russia is this: it is a US protectorate, but the US is becoming increasingly erratic, unreliable, militarily enfeebled and prone to catastrophic failure. Israel needs a new patron, and since Israel is a significant part of the mighty Russian diaspora (a third of Israelis are in fact Russians) reaching out to Russia is an obvious step. From their own perspective, the Russians sense that the the Israeli project may be temporary and may last only as long as American support for it.

Once it is over, Russians living in Israel would flood back into Russia. Such repatriation, if it becomes unavoidable, would need very tight coordination between Russian and Israeli authorities. Russia can probably absorb this influx without problems; after all, in recent years over a million Ukrainians, fleeing economic devastation and war at home, have successfully resettled in Russia. But the Russians may want to put Israel on life support instead, for the sake of preserving some semblance of regional stability.

The piece of the puzzle that has to do with the benefits that accrued to the Russian Jews in the US who talked up their having been victimized by the Soviet government or by Russian antisemitism is riddled with contradictions as well. Take on board the fact that Russian-speaking Jews are by far the most educated group ever to immigrate to the US. Also, Russia is one of the least antisemitic countries, with Jews well represented in every profession and at all levels of government, with Judaism flourishing and respected, and with no social problems specifically or disproportionately affecting Jews.

The reason Russian Jews were well-educated and ready to start prosperous careers more or less the moment they landed in the US was that they were extremely well-educated and prosperous before they left Russia. Much oppressed under the pre-revolutionary regime, Jews were instrumental during the Russian Revolution of 1917, and they and their children reaped tremendous benefits from their involvement in it during the subsequent decades. In fact, Jews did so well in the USSR that they crowded out Russians from many top jobs: although they made up just 1.5% of the population, by the 1950s over half of all directors at the many institutes, research centers and laboratories of the Soviet Academy of Sciences were Jewish. Jews made up a third of the Soviet Writers’ Union; a quarter of all university lecturers; and so on.

Members of my own family followed this trajectory. My grandfather grew up in a shtetl, spoke Yiddish with his mother, moved to St. Petersburg after the revolution, joined the Communist Party and eventually became a professor of Russian literature with a grand apartment on a city square and a country mansion. both stuffed with art and priceless antiques, a live-in housekeeper and nanny and a private limousine with a chauffeur. Jews like my grandfather dislodged the old aristocracy and became la crème de la crème of Soviet society.

Here is a fascinating bit of trivia: recognizing that Jews are a nation without a territory and wishing to fix this problem, the USSR became the only country in the world to freely offer Jews their own homeland—the Jewish Autonomous Region, strategically located on the Chinese border. Most of its Jewish residents have by now emigrated to Israel, leaving behind public buildings with plaques in two languages: Russian and Yiddish.

In time there started a bit of a backlash from all the Russians that the Jews had been squeezing out of the universities and the professions. Some of the tricks that were employed to fend off the relentless onslaught of their well-tutored children were, shall we say, less than kosher; for instance, a Jewish relative of mine wasn’t admitted to Moscow State University by being given a known unsolved problem to solve on the math entrance exam and—horror of horrors!—ended up becoming an architect instead. Many Jews saw in this backlash a sign of incipient antisemitism, and some of them decided that the pastures would be greener on the other side of the ocean.

From this it should be obvious why upon their arrival in the US Russian Jews would paint the USSR and Russia with a broad brush loaded with dark colors: oppression, antisemitism, pogroms, plus the general backwardness, drunkenness and awfulness. Had they resisted the urge to play the victim, their narrative might, by default, become something like this: “We wrecked Russia, rearranged it to our advantage, made out like bandits, pretty much bankrupted the place… and so now we are over here in the US, together with our prized possessions, elderly relatives and pets, claiming to be refugees, and are ready to do it again.” That just doesn’t sound sufficiently refugee-like, now, does it? Add to this the fact that there is considerable money to be made in the US by lambasting Russia, and the urge to lambaste becomes irresistible.

The final, particularly tricky aspect to this story has to do with the nature of Jewish identity and how it has historically clashed, and continues to clash, with what it means to be Russian. Jewish identity is rather strange and different, and to elucidate this point it is easier to compare Jews not to some garden variety group like the Irish or the Italians but to another similarly non-garden-variety group: the Gypsies. I have been acquainted with some Gypsies, and I have also researched them extensively for a case study on cultural collapse (and resistance thereto) in my book The Five Stages of Collapse.

The word “gypsy” is a corruption of “Egyptian,” which the Gypsies definitely are not, having come out of Northern India at some point in time well over a thousand years ago. (Incidentally, it is the Jews, according to their biblical mythology, who came out of Egypt via a magic hole in the Red Sea, so perhaps it is the Jews who should be called “Gypsies.”) What the Gypsies in fact are, and what they call themselves, is Roma, and their language is Romani.

The Roma share a great number of similarities with the Jews. Both are diaspora nations without a territory (excepting the rather small internationally recognized Israeli bits of Palestine); instead, they colonize various countries, migrating from country to country over time. Both Jews and Roma are traditionally xenophobic: the Jewish word for “non-Jewish” is “goy” (plural “goyim”). In Romani, it is “gadjo” (plural “gadje”). Both Jews and Roma have specific, and rather curious, taboos and purification rituals as ways of resisting contamination or corruption spread by outsiders, most of which is symbolic rather than physical.

And both were victims of the Holocaust: a quarter of Europe’s Roma population was wiped out in that event, but with a difference: while the Jews received restitution for the Nazi atrocities, the Roma did not. Only in 1979 did the West German Bundestag acknowledge the fact that Nazi persecution of Roma was racist, making them eligible to receive compensation, but by then most of the victims had already died.

Both Roma and Jewish identities are to some extent secret. The Roma usually disguise themselves by taking on local-sounding names; in Anglo countries they go by generic-sounding English names like Bob Jones or Cathy Smith; in private, they call each other exotic, Roma-sounding names like Ruslan or Zemfira. And then each Roma has a secret name known only to that person and that person’s mother.

At various times Jews have likewise found it advantageous to obscure their identities behind local-sounding names. My other grandfather is a case in point. He was born in Zhitomir, in the Ukraine. When, around the time of the Russian Revolution, his parents and sisters decamped for Brooklyn, leaving him behind, he saw it fit to change his name to the very generically Russian Alexander Orlov and led everyone to believe that he was an orphaned Russian. He lived a good long life, first in Kiev, then in Leningrad, under an assumed identity, but some time after he retired he suddenly shocked his children with the news that he was in fact Jewish, that his name was not Alexander but Abraham, and that he is moving to Israel where it’s warmer and sunnier.

He eventually met up with one of his sisters, but the other was by then shunned by the whole family, having become a Jehova’s Witness. Not that the remaining sister or her family were the least bit religious; at one time, they attempted a Passover ritual, for our benefit, I suppose, and it was such a travesty that it made me cry. (I was young and impressionable back then; now I would probably just laugh.)

Both Roma and Jewish identities are matrilineal: one cannot be a Roma, or a Jew, unless one’s mother is a Roma, or a Jew, respectively. This works to their advantage within the societies they colonize, which are all patrilineal. The rate of intermarriage is much greater in the case of Jews; the Roma do not seem to intermarry all that much because of their very negative attitude toward the “gadje.” The considerable extent of Jewish intermarriage is obvious from their appearance: the Roma often look quite North Indian, while European (Ashkenazi) Jews look European rather than like the Arabs and other Middle Eastern tribes. They are not exactly a race or an ethnic group; half of the X (female) chromosomes may be of a Jewish origin, but the Y (male) chromosomes may have been, more often than not, borrowed from some other group. Since the Y chromosome is an evolutionary hotbed, such genetic borrowing confers a considerable advantage as far as inclusive fitness.

Thus, in mixed marriages, Jewish women function a bit like cuckoo birds, which lay their eggs in other birds’ nests, forcing other birds to rear cuckoo chicks alongside theirs. The “shiketz” (a “goy” husband) may think that his children add to the numbers of his own tribe, but is sadly mistaken. Jewish women can help colonize societies by marrying local men and having them bring up Jews (in secret if necessary) at their own expense. This salient detail wasn’t lost on everyone; in particular the Cossacks, who patrolled the margins of the Russian Empire and were fond of bride-snatching Persian, Turkish and Caucasian women, then baptizing and Russianizing them, would have nothing to do with Jewish women. On the other hand, until quite recently bringing home a “shiksa” (a “goy” female) was very much disapproved of in Jewish families, because children from such a union could not be counted as Jews.

If Jews are not a race or an ethnic group, are they are religion? Notably, there is no freedom of religion among Jews: according to most Jews, one cannot be a Moslem Jew or a Christian Jew and still be a Jew. But over half of the Jews in both the US and Israel are atheist, and there are far more Atheists among American Jews than among the general population. One ritual—bris (circumcision) is generally required as a condition for social inclusion, but it does not carry much religious significance in a society that (somewhat inexplicably) tries to circumcise all of the male infants regardless of their parents’ religion.

If Jews are neither a race/ethnicity nor a religion, then what are they? By process of elimination, they are the same as the Roma: a nomadic caste. Many of the elements that signal caste membership are the same: the xenophobia inherent in terms such as “goy”/“gadjo”; the insistence on matrilineality even within generally patrilineal societies; the tendency to cultivate a secret identity; and the tendency to move on and colonize new countries as conditions warrant.

Jews can function as a nomadic caste in the US, which is full of transience and of clannish, cultish, class-based social divisions, of segregation by race, income and religion and of many other castelike social distinctions. They could function as a caste in pre-revolutionary Russia as well—admitted and tolerated but kept apart because they would not praise the Holy Trinity and venerate the Holy Cross in a country where Orthodox Christianity was a precondition for full citizenship. But post-revolutionary Russia is not so conducive to preserving the Jewish caste.

First, a Russian has the right to pick the nationality of either parent (the Russian Federation is made up of 160 nationalities, each with its own language), the default one—Russian—or to not declare one at all. Religious or secular laws that interfere with this freedom of choice infringe on this right. Second, a Russian has the right to practice any religion, independent of the choice of nationality. Thus, religious or other laws that tie one’s religion to one’s nationality infringe on this right. Third, it is generally accepted that the Russian identity suffuses all the others. There is a linguistic distinction between “Rossiysky” (pertaining to the country) and “Russky” (pertaining to the nationality) but in practice they are used interchangeably. Thus, a Russian Jew is a Russian first (linguistically, culturally, socially, possibly religiously) and a Jew second. Being Jewish is like holding a rose between your teeth: an interesting, idiosyncratic fashion accessory.

If you think that these are small details, you should see the hysterical, xenophobic reactions I can provoke more or less at will in almost any group of Jews simply by saying that I am Jewish by dint of having two Jewish grandfathers. Sure, my mother is Russian, but I am a Russian Jew, and in Russia nationality can pass from father to son, and usually does. Oh, and by the way I am a Christian, so Jewish laws don’t apply to me.

The cognitive dissonance of being brought face to face with the fact that Jews are a caste must be most painful to its members. So, fine, I am not a Jew; nor do I have a rose in my teeth. In fact, it is disingenuous of me to flippantly provoke Jews by saying that I might be Jewish, because I don’t feel even the tiniest bit Jewish and I am perfectly at peace with just being Russian.

The point of all this is that for all of the above-stated reasons you should never, ever again listen to what American Jews have to say about Russia. All they have to deliver in that department is damaged, tainted goods. It is absolutely essential for the safety and security of the entire planet that the US and Russia maintain good, cooperative, professional, friendly relations based on up-to-date facts rather than falsehoods, bigotry, innuendos or outdated tales of woe. It is incredibly self-destructive to use the lies being spread about Russia as an excuse to continue feeding the US/Israeli military monster.

If Americans are in need of a perfectly good example of how to have good relations with Russia, here it is: it’s called Israel.

​Although lately Western scholars have begun to pay attention to various manifestations of the rise of ethnic Russian nationalism as distinct from official "Soviet patriotism" [1] they have virtually ignored the phenomenon of Il'ia Glazunov, a Soviet painter who is also a foremost protagonist of that nationalism. [2] The chief reason for this lack of scholarly interest lies in the fact that not only has Glazunov been a controversial figure but he was also accused of Russian chauvinism, anti-Semitism, and of being a KGB agent.[3] As a result, a sort of taboo has been raised around his name. Convinced that this taboo prevents us from a better understanding of what is going on in the USSR, I intend to break it by presenting below my analysis of a unique Soviet source, namely, the two books of uncensored comments offered by Soviet visitors at Glazunov's art exhibits which took place in Moscow and Leningrad in 1978 and 1979 respectively. In defiance of the authorities, the two books of comments had been photo stated and leaked into samizdat circulation before they reached the West where they were published as a tamizdat publication under the title, Khudozhnik i Rossia.[4]

* This paper was first presented (in Russian) at the national convention of the American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages on December 30, 1982, in Chicago.

1 See, for instance, Edward Allworth, ed., Ethnic Russia in the USSR: the Dilemma of
Dominance (New York: Pergamon, 1980); John Dunlop, The New Russian Revolutionaries
(Boston: Nordland, 1976), and The Faces of Contemporary Russian Nationalism (Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1983); Alexander Yanov, The Russian New Right (Berkeley:
Institute of International Studies, 1978); Albert Boiter, "Conflicting Views of Russian
Nationatism," Slavic Studies, (Japan) No. 29, 1982, pp.123-133.

2 Allworth's Ethnic Russia has only one passing reference to him. John E. Bowlt dismissed
him as "A Reliable Soviet Citizen" (the title of his article) in Art News, October 1977, pp.
109-110; and S. Frederick Starr responded to the cancellation of Glazunov's 1977 show with
an article, "Soviet Painter Poses a Question" (Smithsonian, 8, pp. 101-104, December 1977)
in which he declared him a neo-Stalinist but allowed that he is also "as much mystery as his
painting." However, as early as 1972, Abraham Rothberg recognized Glazunov as an
"exceptional" phenomenon in Soviet art and put his name next to Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak, and
the sculptor Ernst Neizvestny in his book, The Heirs of Stalin: Dissidence and the Soviet
Regime, 1953-1970 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), p.366.

3 See, for instance, John Barron, KGB: the Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (New York:
Bantam, 1974), p. 145; and Frederick C. Barghoorn, "Four Faces of Soviet Russian
Ethnocentrism," in Ethnic Russia, p. 6l.
​
4 Khudozhnik i Rossiia, published by "Grad Kitezh," Gesellschaft fur Forderung russischer
Kunst. D-4000 Dusseldorf, West Germany, 1980 (henceforth will be referred to, in the text,
as Kitezh).

The main focus of my analysis will be on Glazunov's art as a social (that is, cultural, ideological, and political), rather than an artistic phenomenon; hence, special attention will be paid to the impact of his art on the Soviet public in the context of the rise of ethnic Russian self-awareness. I intend to steer clear of offering a judgment on Glazunov from either the aesthetic or ethical viewpoint, and do neither expect to make him a less controversial figure, nor to clear him of all charges.

Il'ia Sergeyevich Glazunov was born into the family of a historian in 1930 in Leningrad. During the siege of Leningrad by the Germans, the eleven year-old boy witnessed how most of his relatives, including his father, died of starvation. He himself barely survived thanks to being evacuated to a village in the Novgorod oblast' where he first came in contact with traditional Russian peasant culture. He studied at the prestigious Repin Art Institute in Leningrad. Ironically, his first recognition came from abroad in 1956 when he was awarded a Grand Prix at an international show in Prague. In a response to this award, he was honored with his first personal exhibit in Moscow in February 1957. Since then he has been an enfant terrible of Soviet art.
​
Dominated by a starkly realistic portrayal of the starvation in besieged Leningrad, his first exhibit immediately came under attack from the stalwarts of socialist realism who accused him of a lack of patriotism, heroism, and party spirit. In a letter published in Vecherniaia Moskva (Moscow Evening News), party hacks of the Union of Soviet Artists dubbed his art "dubious spiritual food," incompatible with the "ideational-aesthetic" requirements of the party. They also denounced him for infusing his Russian themes "with mystical and even churchly adumbration." [5] Glazunov's own teacher at the Institute, Academician B. Ioganson, joined the chorus of his detractors. As a result, he barely managed to graduate from the Institute, and upon graduation was sent to teach at a provincial high school.

Had it happened under Stalin, the young artist would have been doomed to obscurity, or worse. However, in the atmosphere of the post-Stalin thaw, Glazunov was able to bounce back as his non-conformism has attracted the attention of the restless young generation.[6] Moreover, he was defended in the Soviet press by a number of art critics, and even by the high-ranking official writer Nikolai Tikhonov. During the 1960s, his art evolved along the themes of Russian national heritage.

Still, although Glazunov was allowed to hold personal exhibits abroad (in Poland, 1960 ; Italy, 1963) in order to promote a "liberal" image of the post-Stalin regime, his second personal exhibit in Moscow in 1964 again came under attack of the official critics, and was closed after only three days. Only in 1967 did the party bureaucrats decide that they had him broken, and he was made a member of the Union of Soviet Artists.

5 Ibid., p. 6.
6 I personally met Glazunov on the premises of a Moscow University dormitory on the Lenin
Hills around 1958. Accompanied by his wife, Nina, and Evgenii Evtushenko, he was
desperately trying to show some of his pictures in students' private rooms. Together with a
number of other dissidents, I helped him move pictures from one room to another. Although
all of us felt the excitement of conspiring against the authorities with the "forbidden" artist,
the acquaintance remained, on my part, a chance encounter.
​

For Soviet ​propaganda purposes, he was frequently sent abroad (Vietnam, 1966; Laos, 1967; France, 1968; Chile, 1973, etc.) and gradually established himself as a "court painter" for both Soviet and foreign dignitaries (Leonid Brezhnev, Urho Kekkonen of Finland, Otto Jens Krag of Denmark, King Carl Gustav of Sweden, Indira Gandhi, Salvatore Allende, etc.). For himself, he continued to portray scenes and characters from Russian history and to illustrate the works of the classics of Russian literature, especially those of his favorite author, Dostoevskii. [7]
​
If the party bureaucrats had thought that they had him broken, they were bitterly disappointed when in June 1977 he defied them by cancelling his largest-ever personal show, planned to be held in the Central Exhibition Hall (Manege) in Moscow. Glazunov cancelled the show because his sponsors refused to display a number of his works which he considered indispensable, including his opus magnum, the huge, 10 by 20 foot canvas, "The Mystery of the 20th Century."

1. The Three Most Controversial Pictures

In "The Mystery," which he has called "a work of philosophical realism," Glazunov apparently aims at portraying a spiritual dilemma of our age by juxtaposing such major political and cultural figures as Lenin, Trotsky, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Albert Einstein, and Pablo Picasso with the more sinister figures of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Stalin. Stalin seems to dominate this century by occupying center stage. Significantly, Stalin is portrayed as lying in state on a bier floating in a sea of blood. Even more indicative of Glazunov's philosophical trust is a sympathetic portrayal of Tzar Nicholas II and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The Tzar is portrayed as holding in his arms the murdered crown prince, Aleksei, with a Russian church tumbling in the background. The innocence of the martyred prince is emphasized by a halo. Such was the beginning of the bloody bacchanalia of the 20th century, the artist seems to be saying. Solzhenitsyn, with a zek number on his chest, is placed at the right flank of the picture, whereas, at the left, Glazunov places his own self-portrait. Thus, the affinity between the two, in their roles of principal witnesses of the age, is suggested. The only bright spot in the picture is the white-clad figure of the Savior which hovers over it all.

In spite of the obvious "anti-Soviet"[8] implications of "The Mystery," to everybody's surprise, Glazunov not only eluded punishment but was allowed to hold the exhibit a year later.

​7 See Glazunov, Pisate/' i khudozhnik: proizvedeniia russkoi klassicheskoi literatury v
illiustratsiiakh Il'i Glazunova (Moscow: Izobrazitel'noe Iskusstvo, 1979). Introduced by
Vladimir Soloukhin, this is the last book on Glazunov that was published in the USSR after
the Moscow Exhibit. Previous publications, all in small editions, include the following
collections: 1. Iazykova, Il'ia Glazunov (Moscow: Izobrazitel'noe Iskusstvo, 1973); Vasilii
Zakharchenko, Il'ia Glazunov: Fotoal'bom (Moscow: Planeta, 1978).
8 The term "anti-Soviet" is used in this article not in a strictly juridical sense but as a label
which Soviet propaganda often uses in order to censure certain ideological, ethical, and
aesthetic attitudes even when these do not necessarily challenge Soviet political system or
violate Soviet laws.
​

When the exhibit was opened on June 3, 1978, "The Mystery" was not there, but nonetheless, Glazunov managed to show two other highly controversial pictures, "The Return" and "To Your Health!"

The theme of "The Return" is the story of the prodigal son. It depicts a young man, clad only in jeans, kneeling before a Christlike figure with features of a Russian peasant. Behind the "son'''s back, and in the foreground of the picture is a macabre scene of rural desolation, misery, sacrilege, debauchery, crime, barbed-wire, and death symbolized by a table on which a severed head is served on a plate. The scene seems to be presided over by the devilish grin of a half-concealed figure in which one may recognize Lenin. Behind the "father," and receding into the upperleft background, there are easily recognizable figures of Russia's past, including Sergei of Radonezh, the foremost Russian saint, the saintly prince Aleksandr Nevskii, Suvorov, Dostoevskii, Pushkin, Lomonosov, Chaikovskii, Peter I, a Russian beauty, and several others. The symbolism of the picture is clear: the salvation of today's "prodigal" Soviet Russia is in the return to her historical, cultural, and spiritual roots buried in the past. The only other exit from the dead-end of Soviet life seems to be suggested at the bottom where another young man seems to be escaping from under barbed-wire into a trough over which three huge, fat, obnoxious swine are standing. The swine are shown as if they were coming from a modern metropolis, symbolized by a sky-scraper. This may suggest that the "son" has rejected not only the misery of Soviet existence but also the m'aterialist alternative to it, be it at home or abroad, Just as ominous and unappealing is the upper right corner of the picture where a black sky is pierced by a sort of missile or space craft soaring under a bright red sail.

In "To Your Health!" Glazunov portrays a typical Russian muzhik who could be a kolkhoznik or a factory worker. Shabbily dressed in a padded laborer's jacket decorated with a medal which shows that he is a veteran of World War IT, he sits in front of a collage of Soviet propaganda posters and appears to be ready to down a glass of vodka. The only zakuska he has is a loaf of bread and a cucumber lying on a newspaper whose headline reads, "Today in the World." He has led a hard and far from prosperous life but his indomitable spirit is evinced in his mischievous and ironic smile. The main effect of the picture is produced by the sharp contrast between the reality of the muzhik and the boastfulness of the posters. The latter include the Marx-and-Lenin tandem, appealing for unity of the communist movement; an African calling for liberty and equality; a Vietnamese soldier proclaiming communist victory; a triumphant Soviet cosmonaut; two happy Soviet workers congratulating each other because a tractor is now doing their heavy manual work; and the hammer-and-sickle emblem of the USSR, proclaiming pride of Soviet citizenship, with a superimposed Soviet passport refracted in the glass of vodka. The suggested message is crystal clear: whatever achievements Soviet propaganda can boast of, they are paid for by the Russian muzhik, the veritable Soviet work-horse in war and peace.[9] It is a Soviet variant of the old Russian saying about serfdom: "While one works with a plough, seven are waiting with a spoon (Odin s soshkoi, semero s lozhkoi)." The picture raises the question whether the Soviet government cares for his health.

9 Since one of the posters proclaims, "I am a citizen of the Soviet Union," the Russian muzhik
may be understood as an everyman, that is the exploited working person of any nationality of
the USSR.

The above three paintings indicate Glazunov's preponderant ideological thrust, characteristic of his art. It is quiet obvious that his art is not only contrary to the dogmas of socialist realism but has strong, thinly veiled, "anti-Soviet" implications. In any event, it is a far cry from anything the Soviet government has ever tolerated, much less allowed to be shown in public. Why such an exception for Glazunov? One plausible explanation is that Glazunov's popularity at home and reputation abroad are such that the government simply could not afford another scandal of forcing an established artist into open dissidence. Another possible explanation is that Glazunov may have enjoyed the support and protection at the highest levels of the KGB, Army, and Party apparatus. The third explanation (which dose not exclude the other two) is that the government decided to use his exhibits as a sort of opinion poll in order to gauge the strength of Russian nationalism as a cohesive bond for the regime, in the event they might need to repair or replace entirely the official internationalist ideology.

In any case, the Moscow exhibit cannot be explained away as a mere slip on the part of the ideological watchdogs. For one thing, it was shown for a full month as announced. Moreover, fifteen months later, it was followed by an identical exhibit in Leningrad which was also shown for a month, from September 28 through October 27, 1979. The latter was held in spite of the efforts of the Cultural Department of the Leningrad party organization, headed by G. Pakhomova, to have it cancelled or, at least, shown without the most controversial pictures. Only after Glazunov again threatened to cancel the exhibit, was the local party organization overruled by someone higher-up, and the exhibit shown in full. [10]

2. The Two Books of Comments

In the West, both exhibits created sensations, not only because they were allowed to take place at all, but also because they attracted the largest crowds ever in the history of Soviet art. Whereas the Moscow exhibit had some 600,000 visitors, the Leningrad exhibit was seen by nearly a million people.[11] On both occasions, visitors were allowed to write down their opinions in special comment books (knigi otzyvov) as is customary in Soviet exhibition halls. Thanks to the Kitezh publication, the contents of these two comment books are now available in the West. Needless to say that in the absence of public opinion polls, these books are unique documents which offer Western scholars a rare opportunity to peep into the minds of Soviet people, a largely terra incognita for outsiders.

There are about 1,465 entries in the Moscow book and 622 in the Leningrad book. Together, they represent well over two thousand comments which are perhaps the largest statistical body of opinion on Soviet art available in the West. It should be kept in mind, however, that the source does not easily lend itself to statistical analysis for which it was not specifically intended. For one thing, the majority of entries are anonymous. By spot-checking, I estimate that about 57 percent of all entries in the Moscow book are anonymous, and the corresponding figure for Leningrad approaches two-thirds.

​10 Khudozhnik, p.153.
11 Ibid., p. 15. These figures are especially significant because, according to the Kitezh
publishers, the exhibit commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Soviet Union attracted
only 50,000 people in three months.

Although the majority of the signed entries are signed by a single person, there are many entries signed by a group of people, or else refer to some unnamed "friends" and "colleagues" who are said to share the same opinion. No attempt was made to quantify entries according to sex, age, profession, or by counting the number of signatures. Nonetheless, if we consider each entry as an act of civil expression, the totality of comments is certainly reflective of a general trend of public opinion.

A most striking feature of both books is the spontaneity, directness, and passion of expression. It is as if the volcano of public opinion, dormant for over sixty years of Soviet power, had suddenly erupted and the people who had been mute for too long suddenly acquired the gift of speech. Although the overwhelming majority of comments are positive, there is not a trace of that obligatory unanimity which has been a hallmark of Soviet propaganda. Leaving no one indifferent, the exhibits introduced a degree of polarization which is highly uncharacteristic of Soviet society. The comments themselves are widely divergent in size, form, content and tone. They range form one-word remarks, such as "Great," "Thanks," and" Agree," to lengthy essays and even poems about the virtues, or faults, of Glazunov and his works. Their language is remarkably free from the usual cant of Soviet propaganda.

Having divided all entries into three categorise, "Postive," "Negative," and "Others,"[12] I have obtained the following results :

That the majority of comments were "Positive" is hardly surprising, but the margin of difference is. In Moscow, eight out of every ten visitors liked Glazunov, and in Leningrad more than two-thirds did. In both cities, only two out of ten visitors disliked Glazunov's art.

3. Why Did Some Dislike Glazunov?

As far as motivation [13] for positive and negative comments is concerned, I was able toquantify only the latter category. The results are as follows:

12 Since some entries include both positive and negative remarks, the main criterion for their
classification was the prevalent tone. Admittedly, this is a rather subjective criterion, but
the unusual degree of polarization of opinion reduced the number of undecided entries to a
minimum. As to the "Other" category, it consists mostly of entries in which the focus of
concern is on organizational matters. Most frequently, the authorities are criticized for the
failure to advertise the exhibit and otherwise popularize Glazunov's art.
13 In unclear cases, the motivation was decided according to the prevalent argument.

As we can see, the majority of all negative comments, 232 (54.6%) out of 425, were aesthetically motivated; nearly a third (32.2%) was dominated by various ideological considerations, while 56 raised objections to Glazunov on ethical grounds.

Let me now illustrate each category. An example of the "Ideological" motivation can be seen in a lengthy entry signed, "Kasatkin, K. B., military." Kasatkin scorns Glazunov for failing to "notice" that "the teachings of Marx-Lenin (sic!) have been triumphant in our country for sixty years." Reproaching Glazunov for his preoccupation with the theme of Russian past and his failure to glorify the Soviet army, he argues that "the Great Patriotic War and many other things are incomparably dearer to us visi tors than the old Russia relegated to the past." He also reproaches the artist for his "neutrality" in the "intense battle which goes on in the modern world, the battle of two systems." Paraphrasing Gorky, Kasatkin asks a pointed question: "With whom are you, painter Glazunov?" He ends up with a threat reminiscent of the Stalin era: "Not only your future but also the fate of your past work depend on how you answer this question."[14] Another visitor does not object to Glazunov's Russian theme but reproaches him for the "sadness and pessimism" with which he treats "our days" ; and then indulges in wishful thinking, "if you could imbue your talent with a deep party spirit, the result would be excellent !"[15] An anonymous Moscovite wishes Glazunov "to love our Soviet power. This is very much lacking in his portrayal of today's life. Our days and life are brighter than he depicts.,,16 Kislova, a woman from Leningrad who says she is writing "in the name of the Kirov factory workers" is "upset and shaken by Glazunov's attitude to the Soviet system, and people." She berates him for seeing "nothing bright and beautiful (in Soviet life)" and for preaching a "return" to the past. She calls it "blasphemy" that he dared to show a Soviet passport refracted in a vodka glass [17]

Although the above examples are typical of the 137 (6.6 percent of 2087) negative comments which are dominated by ideological viewpoints close to the official, they are just about the only ones that rely on such cliches of Soviet propaganda as "the teachings of Marx-Lenin," "party spirit," and "Soviet system." Apparently, such cliches are considered so trite that even the most dogmatic of Glazunov's detractors avoid using them lest they undermine their own arguments.

As far as the negative comments with an ethical motivation are concerned, I counted 57 of them. None specifically intimates Glazunov's alleged KGB-connection but many vaguely allude to some kind of deal with Soviet authorities.

14 Khudozhnik, pp.79-80.
15 Ibid., p.133.
16 Ibid., p. 138.
17 Ibid., p. 191.

An anonymous Moscovite writes, "One cannot be a people's leader and a prophet, if one had eaten well from the masters' table."[18] Another anonymous visitor, a student of the Mukhina Institute of Industrial Arts in Leningrad, makes it clear that he is "not against a return to the past and religion" but nonetheless asks," ... how could they allow your exhibit to take place? How did you manage it ?" [19] Yet another visitor points out the similarity of Glazunov's moral dilemma with that of Evgenii Evtushenko. [20] In some instances, visitors condemn Glazunov for his moral compromise but seem ready to forgive him because his art works wonders. As one such visitor put it poetically,

The majority of the negative comments, 232 (54.6 percent) out of 425, appear to be aesthetically motivated. Often authored by Glazunov's professional colleagues and other people in the art world, they are as vituperative as the positive ones are enthusiastic. The most frequent epithets are: "charlatan," "banality," "cheap imitation," "mass-culture," "profanation," "self-promotion," "weakness in composition," and "lack of professionalis-m. "Only rarely is Glazunov accused of not following the precepts of "Soviet art" or "socialist realism." An entry, signed "The graduate students of Moscow University," enjoins Glazunov to overcome various artistic "deviations" in order to promote "socialist realism." [22] An anonymous visitor accuses Glazunov of pushing "banality" (poshlost') in the guise of "pseudopatriotism." "Nothing more abhorrent has ever happened in Soviet art," says he. [23] Since this visitor is one of the very few who resorts to the phrase "Soviet art," one may suspect that his main objection to Glazunov is ideologically motivated and he simply uses an aesthetic argument to disguise his pro-Soviet bias. [24]

4. Why Do So Many Love Glazunov?

As stated earlier, the great majority of all comments, 1,602 (76.7 percent) out of 2,087, are positive. Although I was unable to break them down according to preponderant motivations, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of them are inspired by Glazunov's Russian theme which can be defined as a longing for a return to Russia's historical, cultural and religious heritage.

18 Ibid., p. 88.
19 Ibid., p. 166.
20 Ibid., p. 82.
21 Ibid., p. 157.
22 Ibid., p. 98.
23 Ibid., p. 174.
24 It is noteworthy that whereas in Moscow only 49.4 percent of all negative comments are
aesthetically motivated, their share in Leningrad is 61.9 percent. The respective figures for
ideologically motivated comments are 38.6 percent and 23.3 percent. This marked increase
of the share of aesthetic comments at the expense of ideological ones may suggest a greater
artistic inclination of people from Leningrad. It may also suggest that Glazunov's
detractors, for whatever reason, after being routed in Moscow, got better organized to mount
an attack on him in Leningrad and chose aesthetic arguments as the most effective.

Not only are these comments most numerous but they are also most intensely enthusiastic and even ecstatic. Reading them is like being swept away by an avalanche of feeling or a torrent of passion. They come down on one wi th such a force that one realizes that they must have been pent up for quite a while only to find an unexpected release. In many entries, enthusiasm turns into rhapsody; in fact, about 28 visitors were somoved that they wrote their comments in poetry.  In addition, there are dozens of entries in which quotations from the Russian classics are used to underscore one point or another. Many others were moved to use the forms of expressions that are more characteristic of old Russia than modern life. Thus, to express gratitude, they do not simply say "Thank you" (Spasibo) but "We bow low before you" (Nizko tebe klaniaemsia). These entries abound with such epithets as "genius," "magician" (mag), "sorcerer" (charodei), "Russian knight" (bogatyf), Il'ia Muromets, and Elijah the Prophet. Among other typical comments that echo the Russian theme are: "Bard of the Russian soul" ; "Russian in every things" ; "Thank you for restoring our national self-awareness" ; "For the first time I felt proud to be a Russian" ; "In everything one can read the Russian truth (russkaia pravda)." But, if we were to choose the one description that best sums up the Russian theme, it must be the lead line of many a Russian fairy-tale, "Here is the Russian spirit, here one senses the true Rus'."

Although most comments refer to the exhibit as a whole, quite a few are focused on sundry variations of the Russian theme (there are "thank you" notes for the portrayal of the "Russian woman," "Russian muzhik," and even "Russian eyes") or praise individual works, most notably "The Return" and "To your Health." The pivotal role of these two pictures is frequently emphasized, as in this comment by V. lanushin:

... Il'ia Glazunov is a genuine Russian artist, a true patriot of his long-suffering Motherland. One could be proud of his work even if h~ had created nothing but "To Your Health," and "The Return," in which his attitude to both the past and the present of our Motherland and to the Russian people is clearly expressed.[25]

Another visitor writes that, thanks to the two pictures, Glazunov "has earned immortality." [26] "The Return" is an apotheosis of our life," says yet another.[27] A comment signed "A Russian woman" says that in "To Your Health!" Glazunov "revealed the Russian soul. How mighty is the Russian man who holds on his shoulders almost the whole globe."[28] As can be expected in an art show, the Russian theme is intimately intertwined with the theme of Russian art. In fact, the exhibit is often seen as a "celebration (prazdnik) of Russian culture," and Glazunov is compared with such giants of the Russian history genre as Vasnetsov, Surikov and Repin. Among the more modern painters, he is sometimes compared with Mikhail Vrubel', Mikhail Nesterov, Boris Musatov, Boris Kustod'ev, Pavel Kuznetsov and Nikolai Rerikh. But most frequently, Glazunov is compared with the medieval icon painter Andrei Rublev. The implicit meaning of that comparison is that what Rublev did for the liberation of the Russian spirit from the Tatar yoke, Glazunov is doing for the restoration of Russian culture from under the yoke of "foreign" Marxist ideology.

​25 Ibid., pp. 53-54.
26 Ibid., p. 26.
27 Ibid., p. 39.
28 Ibid., p.51.

Similarly, many visitors compare him with Dostoevskii. One, perhaps on account of Glazunov's use of the Biblical parable in "The Return," sees him as "a psychologist comparable in stature with Dostoevskii." [29] Another, referring to the cathartic impact of his art, paraphrases Dostoevskii (and, one might add, Solzhenitsyn) by saying that "Art will save the world." [30] There are also some who allude to Glazunov's affinity with Soviet ruralist writers (derevenshchiki), most notably the late Vasilii Shukshin, "because in the art of both, there are the same roots." [31]

As the majority of utterances about Glazunov's art are chiefly inspired by his themes rather than technique, one visitor attempts to explain it philosophically: "since in any creative work (art, science, literature) unexpectedness is the main thing, the success of this exhibit is understandable and deserved. Whenever there is an elan vital (tvorcheskii moment), the technique recedes into the background." [32] This visitor is no other than Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev, the son of the acmeist poets, Anna Akmatova and Nikolai Gumilev, who was executed in 1921. Though he had been imprisoned under Stalin, Lev Gumilev managed to establish himself as a Soviet anthropologist.

Disagreeing with those critics who have denounced Glazunov for turning his back on Soviet reality, a certain Marenich argues that "our roots contain in them a promise of our greening tomorrow."

Your paintings do not lead to pessimism or a loss of faith, because they tell of the greatness of victory which has been bought at such a terrible cost; they tell of the enormity of the heroic deeds of our fathers who have preserved for us our Rus'. Your pictures inspire noble feelings, dignity, and moral earnestness which are becoming a force in our age of disbelief. Who is going to win? The invincible power of evil or we, the people?! All depends on us, and each must give his answer. You have already given your answer to us, through your work. Let everyone answer this question about your place in the 20th century art. Who are you: the great artist of the past who picked up Rublev's fallen brush, or a prophet of a new age of Renaissance ?! [33]

Although comments like the above are seemingly apolitical, their unmistakable thrust is against the official ideology based on Karl Marx's teachings about class struggle. For one thing, if they mention any struggle at all, it is a struggle against evil, not imperialist oppressors or a class enemy.

Not all who admire Glazunov's Russian theme are as optimistic as Marenich. The architect Kliucharev thinks that Glazunov came too late and therefore his art is but "a requiem" to ethnic Russia. Like many other visitors, he points out that Glazunov is "the only Russian artist who has raised the national theme." [34]

29 Ibid., p. 26.
30 Ibid., p. 62.
31 Ibid., p. 105.
32 Ibid., p.75.
33 Ibid., p. 79.
34 Ibid., p. 52.

This melancholic note is echoed by an anonymous visitor: "All this is Russia! Thank you. But we are now almost speechless (bezgolosye). And all this is very difficult, for one man !" [35] Such comments, and there are quite a few of them, seem to confirm the opinion of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn that ethnic Russians, in spite of their numerical predominance among the Soviet ruling elite, feel that they are just as oppressed and dispossessed culturally as any minority. That is why their attitude to Glazunov was perhaps best summed up in a pun on the artist's name that was made by one of the visitors: "Glazu-nov, a russkomu serdtsu mit' (New to the eye, and dear to the Russian heart).[36]

The Russian theme is most frequently complemented by, and intertwined with, the theme of spiritual and religious revival. However, even though there are numerous references to Christ and Holy Russia, they usually lack a specifically Orthodox meaning, and there are no traces of interdenominational bickering.[37] One entry symbolically signed, Vera, Nadezhda, and Liubov' (Faith, Hope, and Charity), says: "People! Love each other! Because God is with us."[38] It is followed by another entry which echoes the same theme. Levin, a medical doctor, says that seeing the exhibit, "One feels a deep faith in Christ, the Savior of our poor fatherland." He reproaches the sponsors for not showing "The Mystery" and for deliberately limiting access to the comment book, because "otherwise people would have written even more."[39] An entry signed, "A group of like-minded students," says: "Many Christian thanks. 'The Return' is a work of genius." In an oblique reference to "The Mystery," these students regret the absence of "other works" on display.[40] Another entry reads: "In the name of a group of young believers, members of Moscow's Baptist community, I thank the painter for the brilliant depiction of the redeeming essence of Christianity." The author then condemns the "baseness and horror of a world which lacks faith," as depicted in "The Return," and promises to recommend Glazunov to all believersY Judging by a laconic "Thank you from the Old Believers! You show a great and acute perception of Rus'," Glazunov's art stands above the deepest sectarian division of the Russian church.[42]

One anonymous author reproaches Glazunov for not going far enough in his allegedly messianic Russian theme. He particularly reproaches him for failure to portray among those "to whom we are to return," (a reference to the group of Russian personalities portrayed behind the father figure in "The Return") Nikolai Fedorov, a 19th-century Russian philosopher who thought that a literal resurrection of the dead should be a common task of all the living. Without Fedorov, the visitor argues, "Russia's mission, her 'idea,' would remain without content, or rather, her orthodoxy would not be really fulfilled." [43] This is just about the only reference to Russian Orthodoxy, and even then its meaning is rather unorthodox.

35 Ibid., p. 59.
36 Ibid., p. 24.
37 I have found only two entries (Ibid., pp. 73 and 120) in which the respondents welcome a return
to the "roots" but do not accept the idea of restoration of religion.
38 Ibid., p. 53.
39 Ibid., p. 78. This suggests that some people felt inhibited from expressing their pro-
Christian and pro-religious sentiments, and thus are under-represented in the comment books.
40 Ibid., p. 38.
41 Ibid., p.110.
42 Ibid., p. 77.
43 Ibid., p. 91.

Despite the intensity of Russian nationalistic sentiments provoked by the exhibits, there are few comments which seem to extoll Russia above other nations and blame foreigners for her misfortune or otherwise interpret Glazunov's art in chauvinistic and xenophobic terms. Even then, the principal target of accusation appears to be the present "alien" masters of Russia, albeit usually disguised among "other" foreigners. A certain Vladychenko writes:

​Now the Tatars, then Germans, then Frenchmen, and all kinds of other 'Swedes' have been subjugating us.... A talented Russian had to endure a lot, at times giving his life, in order to make it! Still, we are united with you, Il'ia Glazunov, not just by blood and fate, but by Faith; we believe that the Russian people would never succumb to a spiritual slavery under foreigners.... No one, who is not spiritually dead, can look at your pictures with indifference.[44]

More frequently, however, the impact of Glazunov's art seems to encourage a respect to other nationalities and humility toward one's own. As one visitor sums up his conclusion, "It is obvious that one ought to welcome the expression of national dignity and cultural grandeur of (all) peoples populating our Earth. Even more, one should welcome a Rebirth of Russian Culture, because we, the Russians, for too long have been brutally destroying everything that is native to US." [45]

Although it must be presumed that the majority of positive comments were made by ethnic Russians (or, the Eastern Slavs whose names are often indistinguishable from the Russian ones), there were also visitors of other nationalities among Glazunov's admirers. In the Moscow book alone, I counted at least thirty names which appear non-Russian. Among them, there are seven foreigners (two from Czechoslovakia and Hungary each, one from Bulgaria, one Spaniard, one in the English language), three appear to be Soviet Armenians, three suggest a Moslem origin, and the rest seem to belong either to Soviet Jews or Germans.Typical of these comments is the one written by Kabakhan Shtanchaeva, a graduate student at the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Science who apparently is of Moslem origin:

I would call this exhibit a hymn to spirituality and beauty. The spiritual might of his images is tremendous. The ethical intensity of his work is so strong that upon leaving the exhibit, one feels a state near catharsis.[46]

5. Does Glazunov's Art Encourage Anti-Semitism?

In view of the charges of anti-Semitism made against Glazunov, I paid special attention to those comments which could be interpreted as hostile to the Jews. In the Moscow book, I found two overtly judophobic statements. One is anonymous: "After sixty years of the kike power (zhidovskoe zasilie), finally one begins to smell Rus'! Long live the Russian state !" [47]

​44 Ibid., p. 45.
45 Ibid., p. 185.
46 Ibid., p. 43.
47 Ibid., p.41.

It is apparent that, whoever this anti-Semitic visitor is, he equates the Soviets with Jewish power and sees Glazunov's art as the beginning of a revival of ethnic Russia (Rus') at the expense of a waning influence of the Jews in the Soviet Union. Certainly, when he proclaims "long live," he does not mean the present Communist system but an envisioned ethnocentric Russian state. The other anti-Jewish statement is contained in the collection of poems that a certain Ivan Rukavitsyn attached to the Moscow comment book as a token of his appreciation. One of his poems, "The Secret Train," blames "godless Jews" in general, and Moisha Sverdlov" and "Lev Bronstein" (Trotsky) in particular, for the execution of the last Tzar's family. Like the anonymous commentator, he seems to equate the Soviets with Jewish power. [48]

In the Leningrad book, I found just one judophobic statement. It is written in the form of a reply to the preceding comment by "L. Abramova, an editor of the publishing house Khudozhnik RSFSR," who had reproached Glazunov for creating "such a repulsive portrait of the Russian muzhik" (if she is referring to the protagonist of "To Your Health !" she is expressing a pro-Soviet view). Thinking that anyone bearing such a last name must be Jewish, the irate anti-Semite mistakes her for a man and uses the following abusive sentence: "You, damned kike, want to impose on us your shit! Such editors should be chased out of their chairs." [49]

There are, however, among the negative comments, about half a dozen entries which express fear that Glazunov's emphasis on the ethnic Russian self-awareness may encourage judophobia or fascism. One anonymous visitor calls Glazunov pogromshchik, and then says: "Your ideology is transparent, and it is frightening because of its simplicity." "You are for Russia without ... ," he goes on, and puts the three dots in lieu of the intended "Jews." [50] A Leningrad painter, Rakhimova, says that the exhibit "reminds me of the official 'art' of Germany during the 40s." [51] Her statement is apparently intended to suggest that Glazunov's Russian theme may degenerate into the racist and anti-Semitic art of the Nazi era in Germany. "The Family of Ivanovs" sees in Glazunov, "a reaction, deep crisis, and deviation from the national-democratic tradition. If allowed to develop, it may lead to fascism." [52] The reference to "the national-democratic tradition" suggests a closeness to the official line that Soviet power represents the fulfillment of national aspirations of all "progressive and democratic" Russians. Another anonymous commentator reproaches Glazunov for playing up "base feelings, and that's how fascism begins." [53] There is, finally, an enigmatic remark: "It seems to me that you are a genius, but why did you castrate Sherling ?" [54] This is apparently a reference to Iurii Sherling, a Jewish musician, for whom Glazunov designed first sets of a Yiddish-language play performed in Moscow. The remark is possibly intended to suggest that Sherling's Jewishness was diminished after his collaboration with the Russian nationalist.

​48 Ibid., p. 7l.
49 Ibid., p. 162. In addition to the three openly judophobic comments, one may suspect that some
other judophobes could have concealed their true feelings under the mask of russophilism.
However, their number cannot be significant if we keep in mind that the two comment books
are distinguished by an unprecedented degree of spontaneity and that several people were not
afraid to express anti-Soviet sentiments.
50 Ibid., p. 33.
51 Ibid., p. 172.
52 Ibid., p. 82.
53 Ibid., p. 177.
54 Ibid., p. 38.

The above few comments expressing a fear that Glazunov's art may degenerate into fascism and anti-Semitism are greatly outnumbered by positive, even enthusiastic comments signed by the people whose names betray their Jewish origin. Thus, M. L. Rabinovich, a student of piano, calls Glazunov "Great artist, great thinker, great humanist, great man and great citizen." [55] Iulii Naumovich Kantor simply says, "Thank you that you are." [56] Rafael Abramovich Zak, from the city of Omsk, thanks Glazunov "for the joie de vivre (radost' bytiia) which you give us" and says that he especially liked the picture "The Russian Venus." [57] Engineer Tepelbaum says that "a palace should be built to house 1. S. Glazunov's exhibit." [58] Engineer L. Vaisman's only regret is that "The Mystery" was not shown. [59] Roza Markovna Shrug calls Glazunov "an artist of genius," thanks him for the "aesthetic pleasure afforded by the exhibit" and volunteers to pose for him.[60] R. Slutsker, a 27-year old woman engineer from Sverdlovsk, writes: "Today is one of the happiest days in my life, and I feel proud to be your contemporary. You have filled my life with light." [61] Economist Ia. R. Kogan calls Glazunov an "outstanding painter of our time." He is impressed by the "refined brush work and emotional charge" that emanates from his portraits.[62] Engineer V. Vaisberg says: "Finally, I have seen a genuine, original, non-standard, humane, philosophically thinking, and most talented Russian artist. There is no question that today you are Russia's best painter." [63] Lastly, E. Khaikin calls Glazunov "a nationalist of genius." [64]

This last comment seems to sum up the attitude of those Soviet Jews who feel that the ethnic Russian nationalism, as distinct from the "Proletarian Internationalism" which has plenty of room for official anti-Semitism, is just as legitimate as Jewish Zionism or the exodus movement of Soviet Jews. It may be difficult for the unassimilated Soviet Jews to feel the same excitement about Glazunov's Russian theme as the ethnic Russians feel but this does not mean that they do not appreciate it objectively and spend their time worrying that the revival of Russian nationalism would threaten their existence.

55 Ibid., p. 63.
56 Ibid., p. 134.
57 Ibid., p. 63.
58 Ibid., p. 120.
59 Ibid., p. 57.
60 Ibid., p. 90.
61 Ibid., p. 126.
62 Ibid., p. 195.
63 Ibid., p. 185.
64 Ibid., p. 191. Other positive comments were signed by such names as M. G. Krol' ; Neimark ;
Galina Gennadievna Rubinshtein; Tatiana Toints; r. A. Miller; Vladimir Semenovich
Vol'man. These may belong to people with a Jewish connection.

6. Does "Soviet Patriotism" Mix With Russian Nationalism?

Among the positive comments there are some which seem to conform to the official line that the Soviet state is but the fulfillment of the national aspiration of ethnic Russians and that, therefore, "Soviet patriotism" is inseparable from ethnic Russians' pride over their past achievements. One such comment dubs Glazunov as "a great Soviet-Russian Phenomenon" and describes him as "a Leninist and Internationalist, affirmed in paintings of a genius, depicting the long-suffering Vietnam, Chile and other peoples of the progressive movement." It is signed "Bordiukov, Major-General of the Tank troops, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War."[65] Another visitor underscores that Glazunov is "our Russian Soviet painter," and supports that claim by a reference to Glazunov's portrayal of the workers of BAM (the Baikal-Amur railroad, the current darling of Soviet propaganda campaign). This entry is signed: "Sotnikova Engelina (sic! from Engels, not an angel), Senior Investigator for Especially Important Cases, the Chief Directorate of Internal Affairs, Lt. Col. of militia."[66] Engineer-electrician Pilipikov sees in Glazunov's art in general, and in "The Return" and "To Your Health !" in particular, "an example of implementation of the party-spirit (Partiinost') in art, in the sense of Lenin's insistance of an honest fulfillment (by an artist) of his duty before the people."[67] These three comments are rather exceptional in that they attempt, rather clumsily, to present Glazunov as "a Soviet-Russian phenomenon." Moreover, at least in Pilipikov's case, one may suspect that such comments could have been written tongue-in- cheek and in order to provide an alibi for the suspect artist.

There are, perhaps, half a dozen comments of this kind but they are greatly outnumbered by those who see Glazunov's art in explicitly non-Soviet and even anti-Soviet terms. The teacher of art, Kuranov from Moscow, courageously signed his name under the statement that Glazunov's exhibit is "an account of the sixty years of Soviet power during which our demagogues have been shouting slogans from the high platforms, while the low masses (nizy) were and remain deprived of all rights."[68] Referring to "The Return," an anonymous visitor says that "the pigs are the Fathers of the Capital who still continu~ to destroy the architecture of Moscow, the most national city of Russia." He interprets the skyscraper between the pigs as a symbol of modernity "which denies and defies the right of the Russian people to retain a national school in architecture."[69] Another visitor writes that Glazunov "is the only genuine painter who is not subservient to the ruling elite."[70] Several comments criticize the sponsors of the exhibit for not showing "The Mystery" and engineer Bakuev expresses a sentiment of many when he accuses the authorities of concealing Glazunov's art from the people "so that he is better known in the West than among us, Soviet citizens." [71] Protesting against the policy of tearing down ancient architectural monuments, medical doctor Zaitseva issues to the authorities this warning: "You have no right to kill the soul of the people, to obliterate its history with bulldozers. Who knows what fate may yet befall our country and how the Russian muzhik may serve it. Not for nothing, even Stalin, at the end of the war, raised his first toast for this long-suffering muzhik."

65 Ibid., p. 44.
66 Ibid., p. 66.
67 Ibid., p. 67-68.
68 Ibid., p. 122.
69 Ibid., p. 110.
70 Ibid., p. 89.
71 Ibid., p.123.

Her advice is: "We should do as they have done in Poland: to restore our history from ruins !" [72] Others, as engineer Stepanov, warn the authorities that, should they decide to punish Glazunov, "We, the inhabitants of Russia, will not let them hurt you! We shall raise our voice in your defense (and assist you) in every way possible, by words, deeds, letters, etc ... "[73]

Finally, a female student from Leningrad University writes that Glazunov gave her "a new strength, a new faith. This is a rebirth of Russia, as foretold: 'Russian would rise from her sleep ... '" She is quoting, of course, from Pushkin's famous poem to Chaadaev, and everyone in the Soviet Union knows how it ends: " ... and on the ruins of tyranny, our names
will be written."[74]

7. Conclusion

In an interview with Western reporters during his Moscow exhibit, Glazunov enjoined them to take his exhibit "as a new way of looking at art" in the USSR. Complaining of their preoccupation wi th well-established dissidents, most of whom dislike him, he used the matryoshka-doll metaphor to explain his relative position within the spectrum of public opinion inside the USSR. The Westerners, said Glazunov, only know of "the government on the outside and the dissident physicist, Andrei Sakharov, on the very inside, and they ignore all the other dolls, one outside the other, in between."[75] A few years later, when it became a.pparent that the dissident movement had virtually come to an end in consequence of emigration, persecution, and Sakharov's exile, Glazunov repeated the charge that the West ignores "all the other dolls." "Diplomats and foreigners who come here think dissidents are mostly Jewish and that they want to leave," said Glazunov, and then defined the position of his supporters and himself: "Another kind of dissident wants to stay."[76] The main significance of the two comment books consist precisely in the fact that, in addition to whatever they say about the state of Soviet art, they shed a great deal of light on political attitudes of "all the other dolls," that is on the wide spectrum of public opinion that is suspended "in-between" the government and those dissidents "that want to leave." In the light of this Soviet "home-made" opinion source, one can clearly see that the "in-between dolls" are far from satisfied with the current official approach to Russia's national heritage. Craving for a restoration of national self-awareness, they harbor in themselves the kind of dissidence that has the best chance to win a broad popular support and thus succeed.

72 Ibid., p. 129.
73 Ibid., p. 56.
74 Ibid., p.185.
75 Craig Whitney, "Unbridled Artist Proving Popular At Soviet Show," The New York Times,
June 18, 1978, p.121.
76 David K. Willis, "Currents of Nationalism, Dissent Beneath Crust of Communist Conformi-
ty," reprinted as "Soviet Memorandum" in Christian Science Monitor, March, 1981. It is
important to remember that, in spite of being an exception among Soviet painters, Glazunov
represents a very broad current of discontent which has ranged from the underground
activities of Igor Ogurtsov's All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of People
(See Dunlop's The New Russian Revolutionaries) to Vladimir Osipov's samizdat magazine
Veche, the ruralist writers and the movement for the preservation of national monuments, of
which Glazunov is one of the founders. Best known abroad through the writings of Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, this current of dissent can be described as the National Rebirth Movement.

It is apparent that a substantial majority of ethnic Russians, although it may not be as large as the over 75 percent who favor Glazunov's art, feel that they are dispossessed of their national heritage and deprived of their ethnic identity, a feeling that must be especially bitter to them as they are often thought, by outsiders, to be the Herrenvolk among the peoples of the USSR and a contender for world hegemony. In fact, they are but the silenced majority of the USSR. As they penetrate all layers of Soviet society and have their in-closet adherents at all levels of power, they constitute the greatest potential for a peaceful transformation of Soviet society, perhaps, along the lines suggested by Solzhenitsyn in his Letter to Soviet Leaders.

The two comment books contain substantial evidence that the prevailing nationalist sentiments among ethnic Russians are strictly defensive in character and respectful of other nationalities. Their overwhelming concern, no matter how viscerally expressed, is with the survival, not expansion or Russification of others. An element of chauvinism, though present, does not seem to be stronger than in any other nation with a long history of competing with super-powers. In difference from others, it seems to be motivated, not by a belief in racial or religious superiority, but by a feeling of exclusivity based on a record of long-suffering. Although an element of anti-Semitism is also regrettably present in a few comments, it is not as prominent as one would expect in a country known for its history of both official and popular judophobia. However, unlike the official Soviet anti-Semitism which is chiefly focused on the Jewish religion, Zionism, and the state of Israel, the comment books give vent only to the popular variety of judophobia which seems to be chiefly concerned with the role of the Jews in the October Revolution and in the establishing of the "internationalist" Soviet state. What these judophobes seem to be ignorant of, is that that State has been hostile not only to Russian nationalism but to Jewish and any other nationalism as well. Although some Soviet Jews apparently feel that the rise of ethnic Russian nationalism a la Glazunov may threaten their well-being in the USSR, many more realize that his art undermines the official ideology which shackles all peoples of the USSR, including the Jews.

Therefore, if Soviet leaders had indeed commissioned their trusted party scholars to analyze the two comment books in lieu of taking an open poll, they must have been greatly alarmed by the results. The fact that the official attitude to Glazunov - to tolerate but not to favor - has not since changed suggests that they simply do not know how to cope with the swell of ethnic Russian self-awareness and just hope that time is on their side and the problem will go away.

In his lead article, "Russian Nationalism," in the collection The Domestic Context of Soviet Foreign Policy, Adam Ulam concedes that Solzhenitsyn, whose views "it has become fashionable in certain Western circles to deride," "has one very perceptive insight: the hold of Soviet Communism can be loosened only if it is shown to be incompatible with Russian nationalism" (emphasis supplied).[77] This is exactly what the two comment books show. In any case, my analysis of this unique Soviet source supports those Western scholars who, like Donald Treadgold, have held the opinion that "In Russia, the whole heritage of Orthodox Christianity, the liberal aspirations of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the entire precommunist corpus of village tradition, ceremony, and the arts, and other elements have been subjected to prohibition of scholarly study, direct attack, or grotesque and deliberate distortion by state fiat.[78] It also lends support to their argument that ethnic Russian nationalism does not have to be antagonistic to other nationalities of the USSR and must be viewed as an ally of the free world.

The fact that the Soviet government has been able to create and maintain a semblance of symbiosis between communism and Russian nationalism is due, at no small degree, to the unwillingness of the West to admit the legitimacy of Russian nationalism for unfounded fear that it may develop into an alternative worse than communism.

77 Adam Ulam, "Russian Nationalism," in The Domestic Context of Soviet Foreign Policy, ed.
Seweryn Bialer (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981), pp.13-14.

78 Donald Treadgold, "Alternative Western Views of the Sino-Soviet Conflict," in The
Sino-Soviet Conflict: A Global Perspective, ed. Herbert Ellison (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1982) p. 352.

Article first published on RUSSIA-INSIDER.com
[ http://russia-insider.com/en/its-time-drop-jew-taboo/ri22186 ]   

Russia Insider published a long profile of him and his work in 2016. Much of his work, both paintings and books, dealt extensively with the Jewish role in Russian history.

​1. Introduction

Most people know about, but few are willing to condemn, the strict taboo in the media, of criticizing Jews as a group, using that term. One cannot even criticize a small subsection of Jews, a miniscule percentage of the Jewish population, even when they richly deserve it.

Obviously, this is a ridiculous way to run a publication whose object is to get to the truth, so I am writing this to explain why, from now on, the pages of Russia Insider will be open to articles which fairly and honestly address the influence of Jewish elites, including pointing out when it is malevolent, which it often is, and try to understand it and explain it, with malice towards none.

I have become convinced that unless we break this taboo, nothing will improve in the human catastrophe unfolding in geopolitics. Millions have died over the past 30 years, and if we want it to stop that trend and avoid a cataclysm which seems to be approaching inexorably, we have to have the freedom to criticize those responsible. It is very clear to me, as it is to many others, that much of the guilt for this comes from Jewish pressure groups, particularly in the media.

I can see as an editor, that much of what is written about geopolitics in the ‘public square,’ admirable though it may be in other respects, makes itself irrelevant by tiptoeing around this crucial issue.

I am a newcomer to the media world, unexpectedly thrust three years ago into the role of owner, publisher and editor of this fairly widely-read publication. We get about 10 million visits per month across all of our platforms from a sophisticated audience, and we are widely followed by so-called 'influencers.' We've made a big mark in a short time, and we did it by saying what others were not willing to say. Many subjects which we were the first to speak about on a major platform have now entered the mainstream.

Russia Insider is a grassroots phenomenon, and sometimes resembles a political movement as much as it does a publication. We exist solely because of small donations from readers. We get no funding from major donors, not to mention governments, foundations, or other organized groups. It is all private individuals. Our single largest donation over the past year was $5000, and the median gift is $30. We raised about $80,000 last year. This gives us the freedom to pretty much say what we want, something that can be said of very few publications, even in the alternative media space, most of whom are beholden to large donors.

I see every day how one can influence the public agenda by addressing or ignoring certain topics. One really can make a difference, and I have tried to have a positive impact, as I understand it. It has been a remarkable education in the power of the media, even of our relatively small Russia Insider.

But this taboo is the great exception. It really is quite extraordinary to realize that you can publish about just about anything, except that. As I said, just about everyone knows about the taboo, and I did too in my previous career in business, but it is another thing altogether to enforce it — which I felt, until recently, compelled to do — and to have your nose rubbed in it every day when trying to make sense of world events.

2. The euphemisms

Some try to skirt the taboo with euphemisms. A veritable cottage industry has emerged, ever inventing new ones. Indeed, this is the new trend in the alt-media. We hear a lot about 'Zionists,' 'elites,' 'global elites,' 'globalists,' 'neocons,' 'liberal interventionists,' 'the war party,' 'the Israel lobby,' 'the deep state,' 'bankers,' 'new world order' (I've never understood what that is, actually), 'Bilderbergers' — sounds like a nice man from a central-European fairytale. My friend the Saker goes with 'Anglozionists.'

But none of these terms work, do they? They all obscure the issue, actually enhancing the taboo’s inherent deceit.

Zionists? Really? I've never heard anyone describe themselves this way, or even other people describe them - 'Have you meet Max?, he's an enthusiastic Zionist!' I've never seen it mentioned as an interest in a social media profile (perhaps Facebook should include it as an Emoticon). Maybe Rachel Maddow IS a Zionist, what do I know, although as far as I understand, Zionism was a political movement that lost its urgency once the state of Israel was well on its merry way. Elites? Well, no, I would reckon many Jews are elites, but more Jews are not, and more elites are non-Jews, so no, that doesn't work. Well, you get the idea. These are attempts to slip past the ever-zealous censor, and they serve to maintain the confusion and deception.

No, the only trait that these people have in common is their Jewish heritage. Some are liberals, some are conservatives. Some are religious, some are not. Some are mixed Jewish heritage, some are not. Some care about Israel, some do not. Some support Israel others criticize her. They are politicians, journalists, academics, comedians, actors, or, businessmen. Some stem from Western Europe, others from Eastern Europe, and others from the Middle East.

3. Hostility to Putin's Russia is largely
a Jewish phenomenon

Russia Insider's mission is to explain and describe Russia and her role in the world. As soon as you begin to drill into how other nations relate to Russia, and Russian history, it becomes obvious that the unreasonable hostility towards Putin's Russia, particularly coming from the US and the UK, is very much a Jewish phenomenon, and has been for centuries.

And yes, 'Jewish' is the only term that accurately describes it, and not one of the many euphemisms we frequently see used.

The most vitriolic and obsessive Russia-bashing journalists in the media are mostly Jewish. The publications which push these writers most energetically are ALL Jewish-owned, and as a publisher, I know very well, that is where the buck stops.

On the policy side, the neo-conservative movement, Russia's harshest foe, was conceived of, is led by, and consists mostly of, Jews. And their trouble-making extends far beyond Russia - they are responsible for America's disastrous debacle in the Middle East over the last 20 years - where their crimes have been stymied by precisely one country - Russia. The psychotically anti-Russian recent UN ambassadors, Nikki Haley and Samantha Power, were put there by the Israel lobby, and given an independent brief, in other words, they answer not to their presidents, rather to their Jewish sponsors.

In Congress the biggest Russia-Gate tub-thumpers are noticeably Jewish - Schiff, Schumer, Cardin, Blumenthal, Franken (although not as overwhelmingly as in the media). The Israel lobby routinely enforces legislation hostile to Russia. Bill Browder with his Magnitsky Sanctions - is Jewish.

4. The media

But let's talk about the media - for this is where the real power lies. All other levers and branches of government pale in comparison when it comes to real political influence.

At the two leading newspapers of the land, the New York Times and The Washington Post, both very Jewish in ownership, editors, and staff, have been waging an all-out jihad against Putin's Russia, and are guilty of the most grotesque dishonesty, slander and journalistic malpractice - exhaustively catalogued by one of the most authoritative and admired veteran journalists in America, Robert Parry, winner of the Polk award, among other accolades. You can see an archive of his extraordinary work criticizing these two publications, particularly in relation to Russia, here [ https://consortiumnews.com/tag/robert-parry/ ]. Trump and his supporters are up in arms about these two papers' serial mendacity about him both before and after his election - well they have been doing the same with Putin and Russia for a good 18 years now, and gone much further in their dishonesty, hard as that might be to believe.

PBS, with its lily-white image as purveyor of Masterpiece Theater and other highbrow offerings, is wholly dependent on donations from wealthy Jews. Like some Gentile starlet submitting to Harvey Weinstein, that station has allowed itself to be used, churning out a relentless stream of the most ridiculous anti-Putin propaganda that would be funny if it wasn't so effective among the gray-haired, non-flyover denizens of America, and their deep pocketbooks. CNN, a deeply Jewish company, has been pushing Russiagate like a religion, to the point where their brand has suffered severe damage.

Rachel Maddow, the nation's most popular and influential liberal political show host is Jewish. She has gone so overboard demonizing Russia and pushing Russiagate that she has become a figure of fun. On the print side, the list is the same - the ones shrieking the loudest are mostly Jews, and disproportionately female - and there is an important lesson there too - Masha Gessen, Anne Applebaum, and Julia loffe, to name a few.

The refrain from the male chorus is no less strident. David Remnick, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer. Even comedy news hates Russia - John Oliver, Jon Stewart (previously), Bill Maher, all Jews, go to great efforts to convince Americans that Putin's Russia is, quite literally - and this term is frequently used - 'Hitlerian.'

Jewish-owned high brow magazines have been leading the charge against Putin - the Newhouse's New Yorker, the NY Review of Books (the management of this venerable magazine is obsessed with the subject). The New Republic, Newsweek, The Atlantic, and the Rothschild-owned Economist pump out story after story full of what can only be called lies, in a massive campaign to demonize Russia and Putin.

Timothy Snyder, the Yale historian, and Michael Weiss, the neocon firebrand whose website, The Interpreter,  is funded by the exiled Jewish oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, are two more prominent figures in this phenomenon.

The Economist deserves special mention with Ed Lucas leading the charge (previously), (he is the great nephew of Charles Portal, allegedly Jewish [1] chief of the air staff in Britain during WW2 who was allegedly a relentless proponent of fire-bombing German civilians and is thought to be [2] behind the burning of Dresden). I suppose having a purported war criminal in the family means never having to say you are sorry. Equally vitriolic are the writings of Ben Judah and his father, Tim.

But to draw attention to all this, or to investigate whether there is something about their Jewishness that makes them so hostile to Russia, is simply, verboten. Inevitably, when I point out this overwhelming ethnic imbalance, people say, well what about the many critics of the hostility to Russia who are Jewish? – the eminently admirable Glenn Greenwald is a prominent example, and there are many others. The answer is, that the exception to a trend doesn’t disprove it, and can often serve to mask it.

[1]https://beam-truth.livejournal.com/667584.html
[2]http://blacksun666.ucoz.ru/publ/real_holocaust/vsesozhzhenie_nemeckikh_starikov_zhenshhin_i_detej_realnyj_kholokost_3/3-1-0-18

5. A de facto violation of free speech

The truth is, that in a nation which frantically pats itself on the shoulder for enshrining ‘free speech’ in its national credo, and ceaselessly lectures others on the subject with pompous sanctimony, speech is not de facto free on this crucial and world-threatening subject, a remarkable, and dangerous, state of affairs. I will not be clapped into prison for publishing this article, but the taboo works like a charm to keep the topic out of public discussion. Who needs repressive laws when you can con people into censoring themselves? In Germany, the dominant power in Europe, and in other European countries, I could be locked up for it – another shocking thought, for this son of Germany.

The Jewish dominance of the Russia-bashing phenomenon is far more extensive than I can convey in a couple of short paragraphs, and I urge someone to do this in a more systematic way. I will be happy to publish it.

6. Shutting down an honest examination of Russian history

One of the most spectacular aspects of the taboo is how it whitewashes one of the most extraordinary events in the history of mankind, the Russian revolution.

Many White Russians fleeing the revolution believed that it was mostly a Jewish coup d’etat, financed by wealthy bankers in New York and London who were sworn enemies of Christian Tsarism. Indeed there is strong evidence to suggest that this is true. This view argues that the terror visited on Russia during the civil war and its aftermath, continuing well into the Stalin years, for he could not really control it either, was a Jewish one. Cursory evidence also suggests that this is so, if only because so much of the Bolshevik leadership was Jewish, in particular, Trotsky, but also many other vicious personalities, especially in the secret police which so terrorized the Russian people.

Henry Ford was heavily influenced by this view, which he heard from Russian emigres, augmenting his anti-semitism, and it has been well-documented [1] by liberal mainstream historians that the German National Socialist movement became radically more anti-semitic in reaction to this interpretation, which they adopted, strongly influenced by an influx of White Russians finding refuge in Europe. But one doesn’t hear a whisper about all this in mainstream historical articles, even to debunk it, presumably because someone might have their ‘feelings’ hurt.

This all reverberates to this day. The virulent and entrenched anti-semitism in today’s Ukraine is a direct heir of this White Russian view. This is because the Nazis had long-standing subversive programs implemented by their White Russian allies inside Ukraine and the Baltics, which were heavily German in ethnicity. The famines of the 30s increased the sentiment. When Hitler invaded, this work paid off magnificently, and Western Ukraine enthusiastically welcomed him and fought with his armies, as did many in the Baltics. After the war, German intelligence, in return for clemency, traded this network to the CIA, which continued the program to destabilize the USSR, and these programs, representing significant financial and institutional support continued right through the cold war, and into the present day.

What happened in 2014 in the Ukraine had a 100-year provenance, and is inextricably linked to alleged Jewish culpability for the revolution. But for all the gallons of ink spilled about the events of 2014, this crucial background is left largely undiscussed, even in the alternative media (I of all people, can attest to this).

Such is the reach and devastating effect of this taboo.

The enormity of the omission is mind-boggling. The suffering of the Russian people in the decades after the revolution was extraordinary – and here there is little agreement – modern revisionists insist that the revolution and its aftermath claimed perhaps 2 million victims, others say it reached into the 10s of millions. And it is not just the number of people, but the way it was carried out – families ripped apart, fathers hauled off in the middle of the night, churches blown up, priests tortured and subjected to ritual murder, phony confessions beaten out of innocents, summary executions without trial, an enforced culture of snitching, millions sent to slave labor camps – a nation was held in terror for decades, traumatized to this day. If there is even the slightest suspicion that this was in essence, a Jewish pogrom against ethnic Russians, surely it deserves some public examination.

But no, it seems people think observing the taboo is more important.

We try on Russia Insider to give exposure to this view of events, which I believe deserves a hearing – I am not enough of an expert to say whether it is correct - but so effective is the taboo, that there is little of quality available. There is a very substantial body of work available about this in Russian, most of it written since the fall of Communism, - in contrast to the West, this is a widely discussed view inside Russia – so the heavy lifting has been done – it just needs to be rendered into English.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Roots-Nazism-Socialism-1917-1945/dp/0521070058/

7. The best alt-media journalists are neutered

One of the things we do at RI is to scan the alternative media for what we think are the best articles about Russia, and republish them with a link to the original. We also keep an eye on what we think are the most dishonest articles - and critique them, and it is this comprehensive surveying of the writers and the publications that gives me such a strong understanding of the Jewishness of the hostility. The casual reader’s awareness of it may be anecdotal – I can assure you, it is more pronounced than people realize. When you read, catalog, analyze, track, and critique this river of thought 8 hours a day it becomes starkly obvious.

I am routinely and happily amazed by the fantastic writing about Russia, left, right, and center, in the alternative media, which comes from a most impressive cast of characters, the bulk of it about geopolitics. The intellectual heft and scholarship is extraordinary. Borrowing from this brilliance, we put out a deeper and more thorough analysis of things Russia-related than news organizations with 20 times our budget.

Some of these men are true heroes, speaking truth to power, fighting back against a system gone horribly wrong, brave, selfless, often sacrificing career and financial well-being - but there is one line they won't cross.

8. Much of what is written about Russian relations and history becomes meaningless and deceptive

Sadly, a lot of what they write, is, meaningless, and almost amounts to professional malpractice, because the Jewish push for confrontation with Russia is, by far, the most significant factor. Excluding it from a discussion of geopolitics is ignoring the elephant, not in the corner, rather the one dancing a Mazurka in the middle of the room. We should not forget that willful omission is a species of lying, and is recognized as such in a court of law, and this case is no different.

The omission is misleading, and sows endless confusion, for it compels writers to place blame where it does not really belong - the list of culprits is endless: 'Democrats,' Liberals,' sometimes it is 'America did this,' or 'Americans did that,' or it is Trump, or Obama, or Hillary, or Rex Tillerson, or John McCain, or the Military-Industrial-Complex, the Deep State, the Intelligence Community, and on and on. Yes, these individuals are complicit, (except ‘America,’ it is a ridiculous notion that we 350 million souls collectively agree on anything) but it is not their spineless treachery that is of prime importance, rather the powerful Jews in American politics and media who so easily compel them to dance to their tune.

9. A lesson in relevance from the Alt-Right

The Alt-Right is helpful in understanding Russia, because it has intellectual heft, and produces a lot of good writing about Russia and Russian relations, much of which is spot-on. We follow the Alt-Right media and republish the occasional article, and they are invariably very popular on Russia Insider – largely, I think, because they are offering a fresh point of view, and talking about vitally important issues others refuse to address.

The Alt-Right is a youth movement. Its leaders are mostly in their 30s, and the rank and file, which is large indeed, running, by some estimates, into the 10s of millions globally, seems to mostly range from mid-teens to mid-20s. Much of the Alt-Right has completely discarded this taboo and revels in flouting it, indeed, trampling on it, as is the wont of young people regarding the more tedious and preposterous conventions of every era.

It is axiomatic, I think, that one way youth benefits society, is that they question what the old men are saying - shake things up a bit, make them examine their assumptions. It is no coincidence that in the Emperor With No Clothes children’s story, it is a child who points out the obvious, what the adults are so desperately pretending not to see, because it will impair their material well-being.

Pointing out the pernicious effects of the influence of certain Jewish elites on many aspects of American and European society and politics, as the Alt-Right does, greatly assists in understanding how politics really work.

If you doubt this, then I highly recommend that you listen to a couple of episodes of the most popular Alt-Right podcasts, like Fash the Nation [1], or Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right Politics [2], easily accessible by smartphone. The Fash the Nation hosts are two Beltway policy wonks who sound like they are in their late 20s or early 30s, who spend a couple hours each week talking politics. In their analysis, when relevant, and not over-stating it, they point out when Jewish interests are at play, when politicians, journalists, lobbyists, publishers, publications, foundations, or their main funders, allies, spouses, and backers, are Jewish. The gang at Alt-Right Politics does the same. It becomes very clear what is intuitively obvious - that blotting out any mention of this hampers any serious discussion.

(For Fash the Nation, I recommend episodes with Marcus Halberstram, like this one [3], and for Alt Right Politics, the year-in-review episode [4] was a good one. The Fash the Nation hosts use obscenity on their show, which unfortunately detracts from their credibility, but don't be put off by it, put it up to youthful ignorance - they are worth listening to.)

By blowing up this taboo, the Alt-Right is making itself relevant, and those who cling to it, irrelevant. A taboo only works if it is universally observed - if a sizable number of people begin ignoring it, everyone else begins to look increasingly ridiculous. Liberals spend an inordinate amount of time wringing their hands about the Alt-Right. By refusing to openly and fairly discuss Jewish influence, they are handing them a powerful competitive advantage.

The Alt-Right is doing society a service by addressing an issue that urgently needs sunlight, and by providing an ecosystem of websites and podcasts where authors can be published and critiqued, and points argued back and forth. Much of the discussion of Jewish influence in the Alt-Right is very scholarly, fair and balanced, i.e. the work of Kevin MacDonald [5] or Michael Hoffman.

I believe the Alt-Right will continue to gain traction, simply because they intelligently discuss two sacred cows – the Jewish Question, and, closely linked to it, racial equality in terms of abilities, and the desirability of mixed-race societies. As long as they are addressing these two crucial issues, and no one else is, they will grow.

[1] http://fashthenation.com/category/fash-the-nation/
[2] https://altright.com/author/altrightpolitics/
[3] http://fashthenation.com/2018/01/fash-the-nation-104-shithole-sophistry/
[4] https://altright.com/2018/01/04/alt-right-politics-year-end-awards/
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229
[6] https://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-Strange-Gods-Revised-Expanded/dp/0970378483/

10. Malice towards none

Another pernicious effect of taboos is that they can lead to angry outbursts. When problems are not addressed, they tend to fester and worsen, until they become intolerable, and then there is sometimes a sudden and violent reaction. You can see this dynamic in the public discussion of the malevolent influence of Jewish elites. Some people, when they finally perceive its reach and harm, having been misled by people they admired and trusted, lash out in anger – a common reaction when you find out you’ve been deceived about something vitally important. This, I believe, is another reason to be rid of this taboo as soon as possible – it has a way of making things worse.

Obviously, this discussion should be done without any hatred or anger to Jews as a whole. The Jews who are causing the trouble – the ones at the pinnacles of political and media power, are a small group indeed. Anyone who has grown up with and knows Jews well, as I have, knows that they are like people everywhere - basically decent, and this has been my overwhelming personal experience. It is their elite institutions that for some reason are clearly malevolent, and this demands public examination, not the least by Jews themselves.

What I am calling for is criticizing the elites who have given their nation a very bad name, and figuring out why this pattern repeats itself throughout history.

11. The problem extends to all areas of public life

The ongoing sex scandals which grace our front pages seem to provide an exclamation point to the phenomenon. Across the board, from Hollywood to entertainment to media to Washington, the poor sods being called out by the screeching harpy mob tend towards a certain ethnicity, not to mention the leading men in the spectacle. For all the talk and blather and belly button contemplation that the drama is evoking, no one, outside the Alt-Right, mentions this obvious fact, for it would be impolite.

The problem seems to arise when Jews get into positions of influence, i.e., when they join the dreaded 'elites.' Then, for some reason, regardless of their political sympathies or other particulars, they get up to no good - and something goes seriously wrong. Maybe the powerful Jewish institutions - the media, the banks, the movie studios, the music industry, etc, are in the hands of degenerates who demand bad behavior as the price of admission, and then enforce it. I really don't know, but obviously, the question begs for an examination, as the evidence suggests that much of human enterprise dominated and shaped by Jews is a bottomless pit of trouble with a peculiar penchant for mendacity and cynicism, hostility to Christianity and Christian values, and in geopolitics, a clear bloodlust.

Hollywood and TV dramas? A completely Jewish-dominated industry, and a soulless spiral of depravity and cynicism, which only worsens with each passing year. Financial markets? - ditto - just watch the movies The Big Short or The Wolf of Wall Street for a particularly vivid illustration. Pop music and the rap nightmare? - ditto. The state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians? - more of the same. American foreign policy? - an unmitigated disaster which has murdered millions and squandered trillions over the last 30 years.

And I think 'murder' is the right word here - I think if you would ask the relatives of the 2 or so million Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, East Ukrainians, or Serbs who died in the wars instigated by the largely Jewish-dictated US foreign policy over the past couple of decades, that they would back me up on that.

In each of these cases, one sees a tendency towards dishonesty. Indeed the whole 'Fake News' phenomenon, is fundamentally Jewish. It is the Jewish-owned American and European media which churn out an astonishing quantity of what can only be called lies.

12. We need serious scholarship and analysis

Yes, 1900 years after the exasperated Romans scattered the Hebrew tribes to the four winds, the 'JQ' is still a huge, messy, unsolved problem, and in our age, it is reaching yet another crisis. I can only speak with authority on a subject I know a lot about: Western foreign policy towards Russia, and the Jewish influence there, is nothing short of an extinction-level threat to the entire planet. I am sure experts in Middle Eastern politics would confirm something similar.
All this needs scholarship and serious inquiry, to finally get to the bottom of this ongoing tragedy, a tragedy for both Jew and Gentile alike. Some writers have made important inroads, like Kevin MacDonald, but much more needs to be done to understand the problem.

One serious writer, Michael Hoffman, in his book Judaism's Strange Gods [1], argues the problem is with modern Judaism, which has changed radically from the religion of the Old Testament, effectively hijacked by various Jewish sects such as the New Testament era Pharisees who inspire misanthropic behavior among elites. I really can't say, but it is precisely this kind of inquiry which is needed to figure out, as our president likes to say 'what the hell is going on.'

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-Strange-Gods-Revised-Expanded/dp/0970378483/

13. Low expectations from the existing alt-media

I know that many writers and editors in the alt-media, and the alt-lite, privately agree with what I have written here, but we should not expect many of them to break the taboo anytime soon. The reason is that they mostly barely hang on financially, and often work for tiny wages, and any such change in editorial policy would knock out a certain part of their funding (not to mention some of their better authors), making their financial situation untenable. Some are beholden to foundations or governments who would pull support. The needed intellectual work is going to be done on the few platforms whose support base will tolerate it – and this will mostly be on the Alt-Right, or publications that can buck the tide, like Russia Insider.

14. A call for articles and support

I met strong resistance to the ideas expressed here from colleagues, staff and columnists who contribute to RI. I've discussed it at length with many of them. Some of the best writers on the site, and some of the most articulate critics of America's inane policy towards Russia, are Jewish. Some agree with me privately, but say that to do so publicly would so damage their careers that they cannot. Some do not agree.

Russia Insider depends heavily on reader contributions, and I suppose this will curtail donations from some, so if you agree with this article, then now would be a good time to click on the donate button.

Discussion of the Jewish problem (and 'problem' is the right word here) is obviously not going to be the focus of Russia Insider - we try to be primarily about Russia, but I am willing to give space to this issue, and not just as it relates to Russia. I invite all writers, including from the Alt-Right, to get in touch with me directly at charles@russia-insider.com with article ideas, proposals, or anything else, and yes, we will publish articles which use (((echoes))).

It is my great regret that we are not in a position to pay authors for articles. If anyone reading this is in a position to help provide funding to pay writers on this important subject, that would be helpful, because it immediately raises the quality and depth of the writing. If you are interested, please get in touch with me directly.

At the end of the day, I don't care whether other people agree with me on this or not, whether I lose or gain authors or donations, traffic or influence, or whether the big tech platforms try to hush us up (they are already actively doing so). I started this site in the Fall of 2014 to call out a terrible crime, a whopping lie being told, by the media, most vociferously by Jews in very influential Jewish-owned publications, (Andrew Kramer and the editorial board of the New York Times being the prime example) about the conflict in the Ukraine. I didn't see it as a Jewish problem then – I just knew it wasn’t true. I knew relatively little about Jewish influence at the time. But after three years of immersing myself in political analysis and media criticism, it is as plain as day that this is the case.

Russia Insider earned respect by doing our best to tell the truth, and calling out flagrant dishonesty in the media.
​
We're not about to stop now.

Article update: Here is an excellent discussion of this article and its significance on Richard Spencer's weekly audio roundtable podcast 'AltRight Politics' from January 18, 2018.

Charles Bausman
Editor-in-Chief | RUSSIA INSIDER
charles@russia-insider.com
russia-insider.com/en/users/charles-bausman

Article update 1/22/2018: Russia Insider's Article Translated and Published in Russian!

My article of last Monday, It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo, caused a firestorm of interest, praise, and criticism.

It now has over 110,000 views on RI, has been republished on several other sites, including the Unz Review [1], and has generated a handful of articles both praising and damning it. This is precisely what I had hoped for - the whole point of the article was to say that we, America and Europe, need to discuss this openly - and this now appears to be happening.

Without my soliciting it, a Russian reader sent in a truly excellent translation, which very accurately captures not just the sense of the article, but also the style. I deal with translations every day and they usually serve to mortify prose, but this one succeeds in bringing it alive, for which I am truly grateful. 5000 words is a lot to translate, I can assure you, and I think that this happened so quickly and professionally says a lot. Reportedly a Spanish translation is in the works.

I just published it on the Russian version of our site. We do not maintain that page very actively, only occasionally publishing there. I imagine that the topic should be of interest to the Russian public.

Radio Liberty, which is not a radio station, but a Russian language website put out by the US government info services, did a silly and misleading hatchet job in Russian on the article the day after it appeared: Anti-Semites of the World - Unite! [2], probably not considering that the original would soon appear in Russian. Now the Russian reader can judge for themselves if they made a fair representation.

I would ask readers to please share this excellent translation with their Russian friends and acquaintances.

- Charles Bausman

[1] http://www.unz.com/article/its-time-to-drop-the-jew-taboo/
[2] https://www.svoboda.org/a/28979016.html

​All statements in this report are opinions of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​

"President Vladimir Putin waded into a frozen lake in a traditional celebration of Epiphany. The annual baptism is a long-running staple of the Orthodox Church, with believers across Russia taking the midwinter dip.

​Putin took the plunge into an ice-hole in Lake Seliger, north of Moscow, to commemorate the baptism of Christ in the Jordan River over two thousand years ago."

​https://www.rt.com/news/416350-putin-icy-dip-video

​All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org​