Two Wests: An Internal Power Struggle Over the Future

When people talk about “the West” as one big united political and cultural force, that’s really oversimplified. In reality, there’s been a growing civil war inside the West itself which is a fight among the elites over who gets to shape the future. It’s a clash between two completely different ways of seeing the world.

That bring us to the question: what is the essence of today’s geopolitical conflict?

Russia has traditionally been viewed as an “anti-system” force in relation to the West. This is precisely why the West has consistently sought to dismantle Russia whether it was the Tsarist Empire, the Soviet Union, or the Russian Federation. That is what also unites the "Two Wests" today.

However, as an internal conflict between globalists and nationalists is unfolding, its divide is spreading to other countries as well. Ukraine being a prime example. On one side, we have the globalists. This includes the Vatican, the European Union (with France and Germany at the forefront), the U.S. Democratic Party, financial networks like George Soros’s Open Society, and major tech giants like Google, Meta, and Microsoft. Backing them are media outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC – all pushing the narrative of “universal values”, pro–immigration laws, pro–lgbtq laws.

This coalition wants to erase national borders and, just as importantly, national identity itself whether it’s Italian, French, German, or anything else. The goal is to replace deep-rooted cultural, religious, and historical identities with a standardized global model. Gender, tradition, faith, language – everything gets blurred. In place of countries and churches, they push for rule by transnational institutions like
🔷the UN
🔷WHO
🔷WTO
🔷IMF

Ideologies / Philosophies:
🔷 Postmodernism – rejection of absolute truths, deconstruction of traditions, moral relativism
🔷 Transhumanism – the belief in “enhancing” humans through technology, AI, and bioengineering
🔷 Neoliberalism – prioritizing global markets and multinational corporations over nation-states
🔷 Cultural Marxism / Woke ideology – fighting perceived “privilege” and dismantling traditional social roles
🔷 Climate radicalism – using environmental policy as a tool for centralized global control
🔷 Theology of “universal brotherhood” (Fratelli Tutti) – merging religious identities into a unified humanist framework
🔷 Universalism – promoting the idea of a “citizen of the world” over national identity

“Russia bad” is a cool slogan until you compare real life.
Here’s what they don’t want you to see about childbirth, medicine, education, and raising a family.
🇷🇺 vs 🇺🇸 let’s go.🧵👇 🏥 Healthcare:
🇷🇺 Free under compulsory insurance. Even major surgery or cancer = $0.
🇺🇸 $200+ per doctor visit if uninsured. Hospital stay? $20,000+.
Monthly insurance: $500–$1,200.
The “freedom” to choose bankruptcy.

Why Did Yeltsin Grovel to the West?

Let’s drop the fairy tales. Yeltsin was not being “misled,” “naïve,” or “hoping for democracy.” Yeltsin’s submission to the West was a calculated move rooted in geopolitical capitulation, personal power preservation, and elite betrayal.

🧵👇

Yeltsin actively collaborated in dismantling Russia

After the collapse of the USSR, the key question was: What happens to Russia now? The West wanted to eliminate Russia as a global power. Not just militarily, but civilizationally.

And Yeltsin agreed.
🔸He destroyed Russian influence in the former Soviet space.
🔸Abandoned long-time allies (Iraq, Serbia, Cuba, Vietnam).
🔸Broke up strategic economic and military networks.
🔸Let Western interests control Russian exports, from oil to rare metals.

This was a deliberate role in reducing Russia to a peripheral “resource colony.” The 1990s elite was a colonial administration

Yeltsin’s circle wasn’t made of statesmen who were:
🔸radical liberals (Chubais, Gaidar),
🔸asset-stripping oligarchs,
🔸Western-linked technocrats.

Their goal was to break the country apart, extract wealth, and integrate themselves into the Western elite as managers.

Yeltsin was not “Russia’s leader” but a transition figure, tolerated and supported because he dismantled the state without resistance.

The Brutal Execution of the Romanov Family
To this day, people in Russia mourn this event, not only because of the family’s tragic fate, but because of the sheer cruelty involved.

Although Tsar Nicholas II had already abdicated the throne, that was not enough for the revolutionaries. In 1918, a decision was made to eliminate the entire Romanov family.

The murder took place in a specially prepared basement room in the Ipatiev House. The windows were sealed to muffle the sound of gunfire. Furniture was arranged under the pretense that the family was being photographed or relocated. In reality, the room had been turned into a killing chamber. They were summoned downstairs, unaware of what was about to happen.

Led into the room for slaughter were not only the entire family, but also their loyal doctor, maid, valet, and cook. Bullets weren’t enough to kill them. So they used bayonets and blunt force. On children.

The children didn’t die right away. They had jewelry sewn into their clothes and corsets, which stopped the bullets.

The youngest son, Alexei, was still alive after the shooting. According to modern forensic experts, he was shot, stabbed with bayonets, and slowly dying until someone crushed his skull with a heavy object. While he was still alive.
On the wall of the room, in red letters, a quote in German had been written:

“Belsatzar ward in derselben Nacht von seinen Knechten erschlagen.”
Which translates to: “Belshazzar was slain that same night by his servants.”

The floor was soaked in blood. After the initial volley of gunfire, the executioners had to finish off the survivors with bayonets and rifle butts, causing even more bleeding.

The bodies lay crumpled together in the room, blood pooling and seeping through the floorboards.
Many researchers believe the execution had ritualistic overtones.
From Yurovsky’s Report (commander of the execution squad):
“Alexei was sitting in the same position, not showing signs of life, but when we approached him, he was still alive… we had to finish him off separately.”
“The girls screamed. We had to finish them with rifle butts and bayonets.”

How Russia Was Winning the War, but Lost to Revolution: Understanding This Is Key to Today’s Geopolitics

🧵👇

When it comes to World War I, most people barely remember anything and what they do remember is usually straight out of old Soviet propaganda: that it was just some “imperialist bloodbath” and Russia got “senselessly dragged into it.” In reality, the war has been almost wiped from public memory. But the truth is Russia actually held its own. It showed serious military strength, strategic toughness, and massive sacrifice only matched later by World War II.

And no, Russia wasn’t defeated on the battlefield. It was taken down from the inside by revolution and chaos. A War Russia Didn’t Want

World War I didn’t really begin because of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, that was just an excuse. The real cause was a power struggle between global systems. Britain and the U.S. were building a world order based on finance, colonies, and control of trade routes. Germany, rising fast, had its own model: industrial, centralized, and ready to challenge British dominance.

Caught between them was Russia: massive, independent, and rich in resources. Its government wasn’t controlled by banks, and it followed its own imperial logic. That made it a problem for both sides.

But Russia didn’t want war. Tsar Nicholas II had proposed an international peace forum years earlier (a prototype of the League of Nations), and in July 1914 he tried to stop Austria’s aggression against Serbia through diplomacy. But Germany didn’t want diplomacy, it needed a quick war, before Russia became too strong to defeat.

When Serbia was threatened, Russia stepped in to defend a fellow Slavic, Orthodox nation. At the time, Russia stood as the defender of the Orthodox faith, and this was widely recognized and understood.

In the end, Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around.

The situation with the family of the new head of British intelligence (MI6) Blaise Metreweli turned out to be even more interesting: she didn’t have just one, but two grandfathers who were Nazis or collaborators.

🧵👇

From historian Dyukov’s telegram:

Konstantin Dobrovolsky Sr., born in 1906 in the Chernihiv region, came from a landowning family with German-Polish roots. In 1926, he was sentenced to 10 years of exile for anti-Soviet agitation and antisemitism. In 1941, while on the front lines, Dobrovolsky deserted from the Red Army and joined the Nazis. Archival documents paint a grim picture of his service. Dobrovolsky, known by the nickname ‘The Butcher,’ joined an SS unit. In letters to the German command, signed ‘Heil Hitler,’ he boasted about participating in the extermination of Jews and in punitive operations against partisans. According to some reports, he personally killed hundreds of people and looted the property of his victims.

After the war, the trail of Dobrovolsky Sr. disappears. However, his son, Konstantin Dobrovolsky Jr. (Blaze’s father), born in January 1943, was taken by his mother, Varvara, to Germany, from where she moved to the United Kingdom shortly after the war.

The Vatican and the Nazi Escape Networks: The Ratlines

🧵👇

The Vatican was the single most significant institution involved in the postwar smuggling of Nazi war criminals.

According to declassified U.S. intelligence files and investigative research, between 30,000 and 40,000 Nazi and fascist collaborators were assisted in escaping Europe through Vatican-supported ratlines.

This is clearly stated in a 1947 report by Vincent La Vista, officer of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), who investigated Vatican ties to Axis networks:

“The Vatican has been directly involved in the illegal evacuation of German and Croatian war criminals… operating through religious institutions, it has become a central hub of what can only be described as a ratline.”

(National Archives, La Vista Report, 1947) Operation “Vatican Corridor” (or “Monastery”)

This covert smuggling operation involved Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, then Vatican Undersecretary of State and later Pope Paul VI. He oversaw the use of Catholic infrastructure: monasteries, seminaries, and dioceses - to shelter and move war criminals south toward Genoa, where they were shipped to Latin America under false identities.

Montini personally communicated with U.S. officials and coordinated logistics via trusted Church agents. According to declassified OSS and CIC documents, his office functioned as an “unofficial channel for protected transit” not only for Germans and Italians, but especially for Croatian Ustaša officials, whose Catholic affiliation and ideological alignment with the Church made them a priority for Vatican-sponsored escape routes.

The broader network of ratlines also facilitated the evacuation of Axis collaborators from Austria, Hungary, Romania, France, and even Francoist Spain all under the larger umbrella of anti-communist realignment. The Vatican’s goal was to preserve a transnational conservative Catholic elite that could oppose Soviet influence worldwide.

Main Destinations of Nazi Fugitives via Vatican Ratlines

🔸 Argentina
(the main destination thousands of Nazis and Ustaše officials resettled here)
🔸 Brazil
🔸 Paraguay
🔸 Chile
🔸 Bolivia
🔸 Uruguay
🔸 Venezuela
🔸 Spain
(under Franco both a destination and a key transit hub)
🔸 Portugal
(a neutral country, often used as a temporary safe haven)
🔸 Syria
(sheltered some individuals via French Mandate connections)
🔸 Canada
🔸 United States
(mainly through Operation Paperclip or the Displaced Persons Act, used to import “anti-communist specialists”)

The Vatican and the Nazi Escape Networks

🧵👇

The Vatican was the single most significant institution involved in the postwar smuggling of Nazi war criminals.

The Vatican was the single most significant institution involved in the postwar smuggling of Nazi war criminals.
According to declassified U.S. intelligence files and investigative research, between 30,000 and 40,000 Nazi and fascist collaborators were assisted in escaping Europe through Vatican-supported ratlines.

This is clearly stated in a 1947 report by Vincent La Vista, officer of the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), who investigated Vatican ties to Axis networks:

“The Vatican has been directly involved in the illegal evacuation of German and Croatian war criminals… operating through religious institutions, it has become a central hub of what can only be described as a ratline.”
(National Archives, La Vista Report, 1947) Operation “Vatican Corridor” (or “Monastery”)

This covert smuggling operation involved Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, then Vatican Undersecretary of State and later Pope Paul VI. He oversaw the use of Catholic infrastructure: monasteries, seminaries, and dioceses - to shelter and move war criminals south toward Genoa, where they were shipped to Latin America under false identities.

Montini personally communicated with U.S. officials and coordinated logistics via trusted Church agents. According to declassified OSS and CIC documents, his office functioned as an “unofficial channel for protected transit” not only for Germans and Italians, but especially for Croatian Ustaša officials, whose Catholic affiliation and ideological alignment with the Church made them a priority for Vatican-sponsored escape routes.

The broader network of ratlines also facilitated the evacuation of Axis collaborators from Austria, Hungary, Romania, France, and even Francoist Spain all under the larger umbrella of anti-communist realignment. The Vatican’s goal was to preserve a transnational conservative Catholic elite that could oppose Soviet influence worldwide.

Main Destinations of Nazi Fugitives via Vatican Ratlines

🔸 Argentina
(the main destination thousands of Nazis and Ustaše officials resettled here)
🔸 Brazil
🔸 Paraguay
🔸 Chile
🔸 Bolivia
🔸 Uruguay
🔸 Venezuela
🔸 Spain
(under Franco both a destination and a key transit hub)
🔸 Portugal
(a neutral country, often used as a temporary safe haven)
🔸 Syria
(sheltered some individuals via French Mandate connections)
🔸 Canada
🔸 United States
(mainly through Operation Paperclip or the Displaced Persons Act, used to import “anti-communist specialists”)

Three Strikes Against Rus’: Poland, Rome, and the Jewish Middlemen

In Poland, they love to say they are the “civilized Slavs,” while Rus’, so they claim, were the barbarians. Well then, let’s take a closer look.

🧵👇

Poland and Russia are both Slavic, but they took very different paths. Back in 966, Poland chose to take Christianity from Rome, meaning it immediately tied itself to the Pope and the Western Catholic system. Rus’, on the other hand, adopted Christianity from Byzantium in 988 - voluntarily, not under pressure.

Why does that matter? Because even before the East–West church split in 1054, Constantinople was already the real center of Christian power: rich, influential, and the source of theology, law, and art. The Byzantine emperor wasn’t just a ruler: he was seen as the Christian “Tsar.”

In the West, Christianity was a mess of popes, bishops, and feudal lords all fighting for power. In the East, the Church and State worked together in harmony. No foreign popes telling you what to do. That’s the model Rus’ followed—strong, centralized, and rooted in its own sacred tradition. The West? More like a tangle of spiritual bureaucracy and foreign dependence. The Polish Model of Governance: Element One

So why did Mieszko I get baptized through Rome? Easy - self-preservation. Germany was pushing east under the banner of “Christianization,” but really it meant swords and fire. Mieszko figured it was better to convert on his own terms than be forced. So he got baptized via Bohemia, dodged invasion and put Poland under the Pope’s authority.

Poles like to say they were “first” to become Christian. Sure🤪 but by 988, Rus’ was already a strong, organized state. When Russian Vladimir chose Byzantium, Rus’ kept its sovereignty, ran its own church, and didn’t need Rome’s permission for anything. Unlike Polish or Hungarian rulers, Yaroslav’s daughters married into European royalty without papal blessing. That’s real independence.

Rome hated that. An Orthodox Rus’ outside papal control? Unacceptable. That’s why the West kept trying to break it: with crusades, Polish wars, Church unions, Jesuits…you name it.

Poland wasn’t just non-Orthodox. It stood against Orthodoxy, aligning with Rome, Vienna, Paris - whoever was in charge. It built a habit of needing outside validation. Meanwhile, Rus’ built from within. How very barbaric of them.

Why did Hitler invade the USSR specifically on June 22, 1941?

Several theories exist.

🧵👇

1. One of the most practical explanations is that Hitler chose June 22 because it is the day of the summer solstice, with the shortest night of the year. Since the plan was to conquer the USSR quickly, longer daylight hours were seen as an advantage for conducting rapid military operations. 2. Hitler was fascinated by occult ideas, and for him, this date had special meaning. The summer solstice is an ancient Aryan holiday. Its main symbol, the Sunwheel (swastika) stands for the power of the sun.

In occult traditions, the summer solstice is seen as the time of strongest energy: the longest day and the shortest night of the year. It was believed to be the best moment to start something big, to show strength, and to take control of fate.

The Crimean War: The First Western Plan to Break Russia and How Persia Was Used in Britain’s Geopolitical Game

The Crimean War (1853–1856) is often portrayed in Western textbooks as a limited conflict over Christian holy sites or a simple case of Russian imperial overreach. In reality, it was the first major hybrid war waged by the collective West against Russia aimed not at Crimea alone, but at surrounding, weakening, and fragmenting the Russian Empire through both military and ideological means.

🧵👇 Part 1: Why the West Wanted to Cripple and Break Russia in the 1850s

After the defeat of Napoleon in 1812–1814, Russia emerged as a dominant power in Europe:

🔸 Russia controlled Poland, Finland, and the Caucasus
🔸 It was pushing into the Balkans and gaining influence over the weakening Ottoman Empire
🔸 It was seen as the protector of Orthodox Christians across Eastern Europe and the Middle East
🔸 It possessed a massive land army, strategic fleets, and vast manpower resources

This alarmed both Britain and France, especially due to:

🔸 Britain’s fear for its colonial route to India
🔸 France’s ambition to regain prestige after the Napoleonic wars
🔸 Shared concerns about Russia’s growing access to the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and possibly the Bosporus and Dardanelles

Zhirinovsky’s quotes:

In 2024, there will be no elections. There will be no country called Ukraine. You’re not taking into account what’s happening in the Middle East. Events are unfolding there so rapidly that everyone will forget Ukraine even existed.

(2019) It’s heading toward World War III. And Iran is not Vietnam, not North Korea, and not Kosovo. The worst events will happen right there. We will be forced to let refugees through to you. Europe will let them in, the Turks will open the borders at our request, and they’ll all end up with you. That will be the end of your country. We are forced to do this, because you ignore international law, you’ve forgotten what Russia is, and frankly, you’ve violated everything you possibly could.

(2019)

Why “Russian” Is an Adjective:

On the Civilizational Identity of Rus’ and the Late Birth of Nations in Europe

🧵👇

In Russian, the word “russkiy” (as in “I am Russian”) is grammatically an adjective, unlike Italian, Englishman, and similar national identifiers in other languages, which are nouns. At first glance, this may seem like a grammatical coincidence. But upon closer inspection, it reveals something deeper: a reflection of Russia’s unique historical trajectory. While medieval Europe remained fragmented, tribal, and regionally divided for centuries, Rus’ had already developed a centralized cultural and political core strong enough to generate a unified identity. Adjective = Belonging, Not Blood

In most European languages, names for national or ethnic groups are nouns:

🔸Frenchman, Spaniard, German, Italian, Pole.

These nouns reflect tribal or ethnic origins. One “is” a member of a people, a bloodline, and the modern nation eventually arises from that ethnos.

In contrast, in Russian:

🔸“russkiy chelovek” - Russian person
🔸“russkaya vera” - Russian faith
🔸“russkiy yazyk” - Russian language

Here, “russkiy” is an adjective. It describes not one’s lineage, but one’s belonging to Rus’, to a state, to a religious and cultural tradition.

This marks a fundamental difference: In Europe, the nation grew out of the tribe. In Rus’, identity grew out of the state.

Why Proposals for Peace Talks at the Vatican Are the Height of Arrogance - and What Lies Behind the Ban on the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine
🧵👇

Why is the idea of holding peace talks in the Vatican not just naive but downright hostile? Because the Vatican has never been a neutral player, especially when it comes to the East. And to really understand why, you need to know who’s pulling the strings.

The Jesuit Order, officially the Society of Jesus, isn’t just another religious group. It’s the Vatican’s ideological hit squad, founded in the 1500s to crush anything that didn’t bow to the Pope. In other words: spiritual special forces.

Their motto is universalism, and their weapon of choice is infiltration. They don’t kick down the front door, they walk in through the school system, elite networks, and slick language games. One of their favorite sayings? “Give me the child for the first seven years, and I’ll give you the man.” That’s why they built hundreds of universities around the world, including Georgetown University, now basically a training ground for globalists, diplomats, and intelligence agents.

Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service has churned out everyone from Bill Clinton and King Abdullah of Jordan to CIA directors, EU policymakers, and IMF officials. The Jesuits’ mix of education, missionary work, and ideological grooming is the blueprint for today’s soft power game: think tanks, foreign-backed NGOs, and glossy training programs that slowly reshape people’s beliefs from the inside. The Jesuits’ First Target: Rus’

Historically, the Jesuits were the Vatican’s shock troops but Rome’s crusading ambitions started way before them. Back in the 11th century, the Vatican wasn’t just fighting Muslims in the Holy Land; it was also launching attacks on fellow Christians in the East. The Fourth Crusade ended with the brutal sack of Constantinople in 1204, and in the 13th century, Catholic military orders like the Teutonic and Livonian knights were waging so-called “holy wars” against Orthodox Rus’. The famous Battle on the Ice in 1242 where Alexander Nevsky crushed the Catholic knights on a frozen lake was one of those moments where Rome tried (and failed) to bring the East to heel.

Fast forward to the 16th century, and the Jesuits enter the scene. They were the next phase in the Vatican’s campaign, less about swords, more about strategy. But just as ruthless. In 1572, they were involved in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre – a coordinated bloodbath that wiped out tens of thousands of Protestants in France. Once the Vatican had brought Western Europe to its knees, it turned its sights back East. Rus’ wasn’t seen as a different tradition, it was labeled a 'schism.' A threat. The war was no longer just fought on battlefields. It moved into classrooms, churches, and diplomatic backrooms.

Why “Peace Talks” at the Vatican Are a Joke and Dangerous

Some people think the Vatican is the right place to talk about peace in Ukraine. But this idea isn’t just naive - it’s dangerous. Why? Because the Vatican is not a neutral side. It never was. Especially when it comes to Russia.

To understand this, you need to know who’s really behind these “peace” offers. Who Are the Jesuits?

The Jesuits, also called the Society of Jesus, are not just regular priests. They were created in the 1500s by the Catholic Church to destroy other types of Christianity that didn’t follow the Pope. You can think of them as the Vatican’s special forces: smart, strategic, and loyal only to Rome.

In Russia, they tried many times to break the Orthodox Church. One of their main tools was the idea of “Eastern Catholicism”, churches that look Orthodox on the outside, but follow the Pope on the inside.

Lenin’s Letter to Ganetsky: Proof of a Revolution for Germany’s Benefit

In the summer of 1917, as the Russian Empire bled on the Eastern Front and the Provisional Government teetered in Petrograd, Lenin wrote a letter to his trusted comrade and financial handler Ganetsky (also known as Fürstenberg).

Among the many things Lenin outlined was this demand:

“Withdraw troops from Armenia and Galicia immediately.”
- Lenin to Ganetsky, 1917

It’s a critical phrase and a loaded one. Because both Armenia and Galicia were key military zones in Russia’s war effort against the Central Powers. Demanding a withdrawal was not a tactical maneuver, it was a strategic surrender, one that aligned perfectly with Germany’s wartime objectives. Who Was Ganetsky?

Ganetsky real name Henrik Fürstenberg was:

🔸A Polish socialist, Bolshevik, and Lenin’s close associate
🔸A money handler who operated businesses in Switzerland and Sweden
🔸The conduit through which German money flowed to Lenin and the Bolsheviks

Using shell companies like “Franz Summa”, Ganetsky moved large sums of money from German banks, disguised as trade funds, into Russia. These funds supported Bolshevik newspapers, strikes, sabotage, and propaganda.

Even the Russian Provisional Government confirmed in 1917:

Over 2 million German marks were funneled into Bolshevik hands.

How Ukraine Tries to Rewrite History

Let’s kick things off with a fun fact: during its prime, Kievan Rus wasn’t even called “Kievan Rus.” Nope, that’s a modern invention by historians who needed a catchy name to describe the medieval state that existed from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. Back then, it was simply called Rus: a vast, multi-ethnic state with no "Kievan" added for flair. The "Kievan" part got tacked on centuries later to distinguish this early period of Rus history from later phases when cities like Vladimir and Moscow became the big players. So, while it sounds grand and historic, the term itself is basically a retroactive rebrand. Meet Rurik, the Viking CEO of Rus, Inc.

Now, let’s talk about the guy who started it all - Rurik. He was a Varangian (basically a Viking with a Slavic twist) who, according to the Primary Chronicle, was invited in 862 by local Slavic tribes to come run the show because apparently, self-governance wasn’t going too well. Rurik set up shop in Novgorod, which, spoiler alert, is in modern Russia. His descendants, the Rurikid dynasty, would go on to rule all of Rus, including Kiev. So here’s the kicker: Rurik was about as Ukrainian as a Norwegian fjord. He came from the north, built his power base in Novgorod, and from there, his dynasty expanded southward.

The West Believes Two Myths About Russia’s Revolution, And Both Are False

When it comes to 1917 and the Russian Civil War, most Westerners fall into one of two neat, comforting narratives.
But both collapse the moment you start looking at actual facts.

🧵👇 Myth 1: “The People Hated the Tsar”

This cliché is often used to justify the revolution: Nicholas II was overthrown by a united, angry population.
The truth?

🔸 Nicholas abdicated under pressure from his own generals (and elites) Alekseyev, Ruzsky, Brusilov, not because of a mass uprising.
🔸 The army was still intact. There was no large-scale mutiny, no battlefield collapse.
🔸 In rural areas, people didn’t even hear about the abdication for weeks, and when they did, many responded with confusion or grief.
🔸 Millions later fought and died under the banner of “Faith, Tsar, and Fatherland.” These weren’t nobles but they were peasants, Cossacks, front-line soldiers.
🔸 And after the brutal execution of the Tsar’s entire family, including children, even moderates turned against the Bolsheviks.
Panikhidas (memorial services) were held in villages across Russia.

📖: Nicholas II’s diaries, Alekseyev’s memoirs, White Army archives, peasant testimonies.

Prescott Bush, Auschwitz, and Silesia: The History You Don’t See in Schoolbooks

Whenever people talk about “financial ties to the Third Reich,” the spotlight somehow always skips over the West especially the American elite. But one of the clearest cases of real business collaboration with Nazi Germany involves none other than Prescott Bush, grandfather of U.S. President George W. Bush 🤫

🧵👇 In the 1930s, Prescott Bush was a director at Union Banking Corporation (UBC), a bank tied to German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, one of Hitler’s earliest and biggest financial backers.

UBC didn’t just handle money but actively channeled funds into Nazi-linked industries, including steel and manufacturing operations that played a direct role in preparing Germany for war.

In 1942, when the U.S. officially entered WWII, the U.S. government seized UBC’s assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Translation: They openly acknowledged that the bank was serving enemy interests.

What Stalin Actually Did for the USSR (1928–1953).
A Fact-Based Overview :

🧵👇

1. Eradicated Illiteracy

🔸 In 1926, over 56% of the Soviet population was illiterate.
🔸 By 1953, literacy exceeded 90% nationwide.
🔸 Massive adult education programs like Likbez taught tens of millions to read and write. 2. Built a World-Class Free Education System

🔸 Free, universal, and compulsory education from primary school to PhD level.
🔸 By 1953:
- 170,000 schools
- 847 universities
- Over 1.4 million students
🔸 Strong emphasis on STEM: engineering, mathematics, physics, chemistry.
🔸 The USSR produced more engineers per capita than any capitalist country.
🔸 Students from rural and working-class backgrounds had full access via state stipends, dormitories, and entrance exams.
🔸 The Soviet education system was so effective that NATO labeled it a strategic threat, pushing Western nations to reform their own science and math programs.

The “Anti-Russia” Project: Ukraine as a Strategic Weapon for Over a Century

🧵👇

Sponsoring separatism, ethnic violence, and manufactured conflicts has long been a favorite tactic of the West in its centuries-old war against the Russian world. The project known as “Ukraine as Anti-Russia” is not a historical accident, nor the organic rise of a “unique nation,” as is often claimed. It is a deliberate, long-term strategy aimed at dismantling historical Rus’.

Rus’, and later Russia, is not just a country or a set of borders. It is a self-contained civilization rooted in Orthodoxy, the Russian language, a unique cultural tradition, and a deeply communal mentality. This civilization is not reducible to a state or ethnicity; it embodies an entire historical world where the key values have long been spiritual unity, mutual responsibility, and generational continuity.

Unlike Western civilization, united historically by Catholicism and Protestantism and built upon individualism, commerce, and colonial expansion, the Russian world grew from the Byzantine tradition, embracing unity, humility, and a higher metaphysical purpose. Where the West sees the world as a marketplace of domination and competition, Russia sees it as a space of meaning, solidarity, and shared responsibility. This ontological incompatibility lies at the root of the centuries-long conflict. To the West, Russia is not just a geopolitical rival, but a civilizational threat: living proof that another model is possible.

Ukraine is not Russia’s counterpart or sibling. It is a political construct, engineered to become its opposite and eventually, its weapon.

The Anti-Russia project has never been spontaneous. It has always been guided and it has always been guided by the West.

In the 17th century, it was the Polish szlachta and Jesuits who tried to tear Little Russia away from the Orthodox world. In the early 20th century, it was Austrian generals and officials who built the first concentration camps for Rusyns who identify with the Russian culture and backed anti-Russian nationalist movements in Galicia.

In the 1930s–40s, Hitler and the Third Reich took over the project, using Ukrainian nationalism as a tool for their “eastern expansion.”
After 1945, the baton was passed to the United States and the UK via the CIA and MI6 on the one hand, and a sprawling network of think tanks, NGOs, and cultural foundations on the other, all shaping narratives and identities for geopolitical purposes.

The names of the curators changed: Piłsudski, Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, Hans Koch, Allen Dulles, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Victoria Nuland but the essence remained the same:

“Ukraine as Anti-Russia” is a Western tool designed to divide Russian civilization from within turning one part of the Russian people against the other.