🧵WAS BERIA A SERIAL RAPIST? THE ANSWER: NO!

The revelation of the depravity of the Epstein class in the United States has been primarily subject to criticism by Communists.

When Communists rightly point out that the Epstein class would never manifest in a Communist regime, the tethers and loyal goyim of the Epstein class levy all kinds of ridiculous accusations against Lavrentiy Beria - the head of the Soviet NKVD during the Stalin period.

Some mentally challenged individuals even allege that Mao and Stalin were pedophiles, a claim which has no basis in fact and has been meticulously destroyed!

These accusations against Beria range from pedophilia to mass-rape, whereby Beria 'lured' women into his house using state power and raped them subsequently after.

We will trace where these claims come from, and then BTFO them point-by-point. 1. THE SARKISOV LIST & BERIA'S "CONFESSION"

It is claimed that Beria's chief bodyguard, Rafael Sarkisov, maintained a running list of women with whom Beria had sexual contact. The story here is that Beria ordered the list to be destroyed, but Sarkisov kept a 'secret' handwritten copy (how convenient!) and then transmitted to a Viktor Abakumov, who was head of the MGB at the time. From there, Abakumov passed it on to Stalin.

Depending on who you ask, the number of names on the list is variable. During the July 1953 Plenum, Nikolay Shatalin alleges that there were over 25 women on the list (marxistleninists.org/Soviet%20Archi…). Simon Sebag Montefoire alleges between 39-79 (erenow.org/biographies/st…), Khruschev's memoirs allege over 100, and 760 is the figure Nina Beria says that an interrogator cited to her (liquisearch.com/lavrentiy_beri…).

Obvious problems: Why are the figures so different if this list is set in stone and was not changed after Sarkisov handed this list over to Abakumov?

Further: the chain of custody is completely compromised, because it is unfalsifiable. We only have Sarkisov's word that the list ever existed in any 'original' form, because Beria had ordered it to be destroyed. This means that there are no other witnesses to verify that this list is genuine, and no way to know for sure that Sarkisov's 'retained copy' represents anything real.

It is important to note, too, that Sarkisov was not a neutral witness. Sarkisov was arrested on grounds for treason in 1953. He was arrested and faced serious criminal charges alongside Beria, so it is impossible to say that his testimony against Beria was given from merely a concerned citizen. Sarkisov's testimony was given from a prisoner who needed his sentence reduced out of self-interest. And this ended up working in favor for Sarkisov, because while he only got a 10-year sentence, Beria was shot.

(Source: rapsinews.com/judicial_news/…)

But let us continue.

It has now been proven through Soviet archives that this 'Sarkisov' list almost completely coincides with the list of women cohabiting with General Vlasik (en.topwar.ru/13644-beriya-p…). Vlasik was arrested in 1952 on charges of corruption and moral depravity, which was a full year before Beria's arrest & trial.

Wish good luck for the Epstein-apologists, as they now have to explain why exactly two completely separate men maintained two completely separate lists of their own sexual contacts, with those lists happening to contain the same women.

The simplest explanation for this happenstance is that prosecutors who had already made a list of 'compromised women' for the Vlasik case just recycled the same list for Beria when they needed to build their case for Beria's charge of 'moral depravity'. Of course, this makes sense as the Vlasik prosecution was run by many of the same MGB people who would later handle the Beria case.

Why would they do this? Simple! Immediately after Stalin's death, Beria rushed to the Kremlin and seized the contents of Stalin's personal safe, and then went to the Lubyanka and essentially threw out Ignatiev (the sitting MGB minister) to grab all the materials stored there. Sarkisov's original reports (the *list*) were among these seized materials. If Beria had the originals then the investigators after his arrest did not have access to them and had to fabricate the lists from scratch. This is precisely why they recycled the Vlasik lists. They needed the names, and they had the Vlasik case file available and copied it over. (see kommersant.ru/doc/17027)

Further, on Sarkisov: his betrayal had actually began in 1947, six years before the arrest. The original motive was Abakumov's rivalry with Beria. According to the former head of the MGB's Second Main Directorate, in 1947 Colonel Shubnyakov came to him and reported that his old friend Sarkisov had decided to start informing on his boss. Abakumov's initial reaction was to dismiss the material, but he changed his mind after reporting it to Stalin. By 1947, Abakumov was already methodically stripping Beria's people from the security apparatus, and Sarkisov was positioning himself to survive the upcoming purge.

ON BERIA'S CONFESSION:

From December 18-23 1953, Beria was tried by a special closed session of the Supreme Court under Marshal Ivan Konev. During interrogation, Beria had allegedly admitted to sexual relations with 62 women, admitted to contracting syphilis in 1943, and admitted that pregnancies had resulted and abortions were arranged through the MVD.

But we know that this interrogation was at least partially fabricated.

Beria's case file contains his confession to having asked Abakumov not to arrest two men, Sudoplatov and Eitingon, in defiance of Stalin's direct order. This confession was entered into evidence as part of Beria's admissions during interrogation under Rudenko. It was so serious that it became one of the charges against Abakumov at his separate trial in Leningrad in December 1954.

But Abakumov, under oath at his own trial where he was fighting for his life, flatly denied it ever happened. He said he never received such an order from Stalin and had never heard any such request from Beria. He added (and this is key), that he would have been glad to arrest Sudoplatov and Eitingon because he considered them criminals. Everyone who knew Abakumov believed he was telling the truth at this point.

Think about what this means. Abakumov had every incentive to confirm this charge. If he had said "yes, Beria asked me to not arrest them and I complied", he could have shifted the blame onto Beria, who was already dead! But Abakumov denied it instead, which made him look worse because it got rid of the excuse of him merely following 'superior orders'. There's a very small possibility that Abakumov was lying, because this is a statement against interest. (please see kommersant.ru/doc/17027)

So we have a confession in Beria's file to an event that the only other person who could have been involved says it never happened, where that person had a big incentive to confirm that this event happened.

The only conclusion to draw here is that this portion of Beria's confession was invented - either by the interrogators who wrote it up or extracted from Beria via coercion.

If investigators fabricated one specific verifiable confession, on what basis can we trust any other confession in the same file, by the exact same investigators, under the exact same conditions, during the exact same interrogation? The answer, from an evidentiary basis, is that we cannot. A case file that has false confessions is contaminated. You cannot cherry-pick which confessions are real and which are fabricated.

Consider the specific claim that Beria confessed to sexual relations with 62 women during interrogation:

1) This number is pretty precise, but round-ish. It is specific enough to sound like a real count but it cannot be verified. One would expect a much more precise number with specific names and dates or a statement from Beria that he couldn't remember them all. 62 is between these two options.

2) It exists in a context where the Sarkisov list was supposed to contain the real count, but nobody could agree on what exactly that count was. See earlier in the thread for specific numbers from specific people. If investigators already had this list, why exactly would they need Beria to confess to a number? And why does this number not match any of the list counts?

The answer is simple. The investigators did not have the original list. The number 62 was arrived at through the interrogation process itself, where Rudenko proposed names and Beria confirmed or denied, with the 'confirmed' names accumulating into an account that is entirely the interrogator's construction.

Again, this goes back to the Vlasik list. Assume the interrogators were conducting a legitimate investigation. They would have presented Beria with hard evidence - such as locations and dates - and asked him to confirm or deny the accusation. The names they presented would have come from their own investigations. But if the names were recycled from the Vlasik files, then Beria was not being asked to confirm things that actually happened but being asked to confirm things that happened to someone else.

At this point, Beria's situation was incredibly grim. He was fucked and Khruschev and his cronies had it out for him. He had suffered six months of psychological deterioration in an underground bunker. He did not have counsel nor any hope for acquittal. He also did not have any way to deny contact with any specific woman, as he might not remember her, or might have encountered her in some official capacity or at a party.

Under these conditions, the safest strategy for a prisoner like this is to agree. The 'confession' resulting from this is one that only tracked the investigator's list of names, which is exactly what the Vlasik situation suggests happened.

🧵THE MYTH OF STALIN AND MAO'S "PEDOPHILLIA"

It has been argued by complete numbskulls on this app that Stalin and Mao had relationships with underaged girls. In the case of the former, it was consummated and the victim ended up pregnant.

This lie collapses upon only minimal scrutiny of facts. This thread will put to rest, forever, the fairy-tale once and for all.

Show this thread to anyone who repeats this claim. If they continue to assert its basis in fact, rest assured they are lying to you on purpose.

1/5 CASE #1: MAO

Although not as widely circulated as Stalin's alleged pedophillia (which we will get to later), it still demands the same level of scrutiny.

Virtually every version of this claim traces back to only one of three sources. It is striking how few they are.

The first and most important is Li Zhisui's The Private Life of Chairman Mao (1994), a memoir by a man who served as one of Mao's physicians.

Li describes Mao hosting weekly dances at the Zhongnanhai leadership where he was surrounded by young women selected from military cultural work troupes for their appearance and political reliability. Li says Mao had a 'craving for young women', kept multiple partners at the same time, and followed the Taoist belief that sexual intercourse with younger women would 'prolong his life'.

The second is Jonathan Mirsky's account of "Ms. Chen," published in The Spectator. Mirsky was the former East Asia editor of the Times of London, and reported a meeting with a woman in Hong Kong in 1997 who claimed she began a sexual relationship with Mao in 1962 at the age of fourteen. In any case, this is the most specific allegation.

Another, yet smaller source is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday's specific allegations are largely recycled nonsense from Li and Mirsky rather than an independent investigation.

These are the 'witnesses'. Now, let's cross examine them:

SOURCE #1: LI

Li Zhisui's memoir is the foundation upon which almost everything else is built. If this foundation is unsound, the structure above it cannot stand. And it is, demonstrably, unsound in several critical aspects.

Li's memoir's translator, Tai Hung-chao, revealed that Random House "wanted more sensationalist elements to the book than Li had provided, in particular requesting more information about Mao's sexual relationships." Li protested to this agenda by Random House, but the publisher ended up overruling him. The book's editor, Anne Thurston (a respected academic in her own right), said that the memoir was partly an 'act of revenge', and many portions of Li's original manuscript were cut or 'reshaped' without his knowledge or consent.

Thus, the bona fide of this memoir (whether or not he wrote the memoir in its entirety) is under contention. In any respectable court of law, it would treat testimony elicited under such conditions as inadmissible or with extreme skepticism.

In any case, the English and Chines editions of the book have many discrepancies. Content present in the English edition but conspicuously absent from the Chinese version includes: a statement attributed to Mao about washing himself "inside the bodies of my women", claims about Mao deliberately spreading venereal disease, claims that the memoirs were based on contemporaneous diaries, and the claim that Mao was "devoid of human feelings."

Why would this be included in the English version, but not the Chinese version? Simple! Western readers have little to no basis to accurately evaluate them. However, Chinese insiders would immediately recognize them as fictitious.

FURTHER: Li also claimed his memoir was based on personal diaries kept during his years in Mao's service. He later admitted that these diaries were burned during the Cultural Revolution; therefore, the entire book was reconstructed from memory two to three decades after the events described. How exactly could Li reproduce verbatim conversations and precise details about sexual encounters from twenty to thirty years earlier without any written records (as they were destroyed?)

In 1996, a posthumous letter released by Li confirmed that the Chinese edition (actually published in Taiwan) was not even his original manuscript, but a back-translation from English.

SOURCE #2: MIRSKY & MS. CHEN

The Mirsky account is the only source that names a specific age below eighteen. But this would never survive a single day of cross-examination.

Ms. Chen initially sought one million dollars for her story. She was a paid source, with an obvious financial motive to make her account as sensational as possible. Mirsky himself, too, did not independently verify her claimed age through any documentary evidence (no birth certiifcate, military service, party enrollment file, etc).

No other source, other than the political opinion magazine The Spectator, has independently corroborated Chen's specific claim of being fourteen.

In a respectable court of law, a single uncorroborated testimonial from a witness (who demanded a million-dollar payment) and whose factual claim was never verified by documentary evidence would likely be inadmissible. The fact that this is the best evidence anti-Communists can come up with tells us everything we need to know about the strength of that accusation.

SOURCE #3: CHANG AND HALLIDAY

The academic China studies field BTFO'd it.

* Andrew Nathan of Columbia University, said that the methodology was 'indiscriminate'. Every piece of evidence was included, regardless of its reliability. The opaque citation system made the verification of claims nearly impossible.

* Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang concludes that the authors "misread sources, used them selectively, out of context, or otherwise trimmed or bent them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light"

* The critique of this book was so bad that it generated an entire book-length refutation: Was Mao Really a Monster? (Routledge, 2009/2010), edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun

* A graduate student, Tom Worger, attempted to verify the book's claim of "well over 70 million deaths" under Mao and found "no explanation or breakdown in the book, only a scattered series of guesses, double counting, fabrications, and circular reasoning."

RECORD OF MAO'S MARRIAGES

We find no pattern of involvement with minors in Mao's marriages.

Luo Yixui: Mao was 14, and Luo was 18

Mao refused to acknowledge the marriage and never consummated it, and later wrote against the practice of arranged marriages.

Yang Kaihui: Mao was 27, and Yang was 19.

She was captured and executed by the Kuomintang after refusing to publicly denounce Mao.

He Zizhen: Mao was 34, Zizhen was 18

She participated in the Long March and sustained seventeen shrapnel wounds from an aerial bombardment.

Jiang Qing: Mao was 44, Jiang was 25.

CONCLUSION:

Accusations of pedophilia against Mao fails on just about any evidentiary standard, and it's probably the most ridiculous accusation ever levied toward any Communist leader.

Sources:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Priva…

spectator.co.uk/article/mao-s-…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_…

washingtoncitypaper.com/article/205384…

hnn.us/blog/18251

asianstudies.org/publications/e…

routledge.com/Was-Mao-Really…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_Yixiu

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kaih…

factsanddetails.com/china/cat2/sub…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Qing

Now, on STALIN:

2/5

No, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not an 'alliance', contrary to what liberals claim

A thread🧵 The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was an non-aggression agreement signed between the USSR & Germany in late August 1939.

It has been used as a 'gotcha' event by illiterate anti-communists in order to disgustingly downplay the MASSIVE sacrifice made by the USSR to defeat Nazism.

🧵THREAD: Did Stalin have sex with a 13 year old?

1/10 This false story was pushed by pseudo-historian Simon Sebag-Montefoire, who is actually linked to Epstein's phone book himself.

His claims lack any scholarly basis and is only used to fuel anti-Communism and anti-Stalinism.

2/10

🚨🇷🇺 THE 'RАРЕ' OF BERLIN DEBUNKED! 🧵

⚠️Many open Neo-Nazis cannot fathom that supposedly 'Jewish' Communism WIPED Nazism off the face of the Earth.

☢️They have no choice BUT to play victim to get sympathy. To do so, they spread LIES on the Red Army!

https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1781817365493133676

Many have known that I've already disproved the '2 million' figure much earlier on a separate thread. This thread will go over how this figure was made up.

You can find the original thread here:

https://x.com/InfraDmitriy/status/1771709612988813431

🧵MYTHS ABOUT THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR DESTROYED - GIGA THREAD

⚠️Bourgeois scholars worldwide cannot fathom that the USSR beat Nazi Germany almost single-handedly. That's why they LIE about it.

🚨This thread will put an END to these LIES once and for all! This thread will cover 10 myths:

1. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the 'invasion' of Poland by Soviet Forces
2. The "Decisive Role" of Lend-Lease Aid
3. The Myth of "Human Waves"
4. The Myth of a German Attack in Self-Defense

☢️NUCLEAR THREAD🧵: No, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was NOT an alliance ⬇️ The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was an non-aggression agreement signed between the USSR & Germany in late August 1939.

It has been used as a 'gotcha' event by illiterate anti-communists in order to disgustingly downplay the MASSIVE sacrifice made by the USSR to defeat Nazism.⬇️